Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-14-2002 Council Packet
r L ^ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend kierriNQ OCT 1 4 2002 CITY UF OnuivO APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Joint City Council, Planning Commission, and Park Commission Work Session of September 12, 2002 * 3. Regular Council Meeting of September 23,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe. Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • Jan Berg, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS > (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #02*2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development - Ordinance 5. #02-2813 Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution * 6. #02-2822 Danielle Henely, 3422 Livingston Avenue - Variances - Resolution * 7. #02-2827 Sven Gustafson, 4515 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution * 8. #02-2828 Tony Lund, 4515 North Shore Drive-Variances-Resolution * 9. #02-2845 JeffMartineau, 2920 Fox Street-Final Plat-Resolution 10. Appeal of Administrative Decision - Fox Street Driveway MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 11. Request for Final Payment - TH12 Safety Improvements Project 12. Livingston Avenue Drainage Project 13. Crystal Bay Road Drainage Project 14 City Hall Drainage and Landscaping Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. Pay Requests - Long Lake Fire Sution 16. Long Lake Fire Station Furniture Proposal 17. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 6 - Long Lake Fire Station 18. Hi^way 12 Right-of-Way Reconveyance and Pond Cost Allocation 19. Selling of Forfeited Vehicles and Equipment AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 20. Appointment of Additional Election Judges for the November 5, 2002 General Election ResoHition 21. Establish Absentee Ballot Board - Resolution 22. Establish Date and Time for Canvassing Board Meeting 23. Teens Alone Request for Funding Continuation 24. ResignationofMary Ann Johnson 25. Appointment of Part-Time Customer Service Assistant 26. Scheduling of Wodc Sessions 27. Options for Managing Traffic During the Highway 12 Project 28. Replacement ofPolice Department Copier 29. Options Regarding Making Units in the Dahlstrom Housing Development More Affordable CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 30. LICENSES * 31. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2m 10/14 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 10/21 Plaiming Commission, 6:30 p.m. 10/28 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 11/04 11/05 11/11 11/12 11/18 11/25 11/28 11/29 Park Commission, 7:15 p.m. GENERAL ELECTION, 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day Council Meeting, Tuesday, 7:00p.m. Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day 1 [B'^UNCIL Public A ttendance Meeting Date j Q- lU ~ 2C>' I f'ltr □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please FILL OUTTHE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORD^. PRESENT FOR (flrom agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 2. '—AJk ~]>tkC-t •_______________ 3. \/Jf^LCH << 1/_________________________ 5.. 6.. 7.. 8. 9.. 10.. 11.. 12. 13.. 14.. 15.. fnppnr4fanM • Oli>\fORMfVPUBLIC.ATT MINUTES OF THE ORONO JOINT CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Thursday, September 12,2002 5:30 o ’clock p.m. *' ‘^^O/V q ’ ‘'amg ROLL The City Council, Planning Commission, and Park Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: City Council - Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Bob Sansevere for the first portion of the meeting; Planning Commission - Commissioners David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, Jeanne Mabusth, and alternate Jule Hannaford: Park Commission - Chair Andrew McDermott, Commissioners Pauline Bouchard, Sherokee Use, Irene Silber, J, Patrick Wolfe, and Rick Meyers. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike GatTron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Clerk Lin Vee, Public Worits Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Others in attendance were Former Mayors Gabriel Jabbour and Ed Callahan. Absent were Council Member Jay Mygard, Planning Commission Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioner Janice Berg, and Park Commissioner Debora Halvorson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:38 P.M. Mayor Peterson explained that the purpose of the joint meeting was to promote a dialogue between the various Commissions, Council, and staff in order to ensure that eveiyone understands the main goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and are on the right track to accomplishing them. Murphy shared that over the past few' months there has been much talk about the Comprehensive Plan with regard to proposed development. It was his desire to make certain that he understood the City’s focus and felt others would benefit from this dialogue as well. After meeting with Mike Gaffron, who provided Murphy with an extensive history of Orono and its philosophies, Murphy believed recreating this process for the core keepers of Orono’s history and philosophy would be invaluable, especially in light of the changes coming within the next 10*15 years. HISTORY OF THE ORONO PHILOSOPHY Former Mayor Jabbour explained that his first contact v^ith City Hall began in 1971 when faced with sewer questions. Since that time he had become a strong believer in the Orono cause, and continued to attend City meetings. He subsequently Joined the Planning Commission and worked with former Mayor Van Nest who had a vision for our community, and the foresight to preserve 100% of our natural resources, with the lake as the # I priority. Jabbour continued that, at the time, the Met Council thought they were extreme in their beliefs, on the right track for the Community, but not as part of the grand Met Council long range plan. This prescr\ ation effort L MINUTES OF THE ORONO JOINT CITY COUNCIL. PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Thursday, September 12,2002 S:30 o ’clock p.m. became a way of life, a culture, which has become synonymous with Orono, now, a recognized progressiva City. Jabbour indicated that thanks to those early efforts to create this purposeful living document, the Comprehensive Plan is now linked to the financial well being of Orono. By not allowing the development of Big Boxes in Orono, this same Comprehensive Plan has limited the impact that might have occurred on traffic, roads, the overall preservation effort, etc. In answer to the question, why do she and others work so hard at maintaining this philosophy. Mayor Peterson indicated that her resporua would be that it must start somewhere, and that somewhere is the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the lake is what Orono has to offer and it must be preserved, if she can contribute even just a little to that end it would be worth it. Mayor Peterson added that each representative has their own reason for being a member of his/her committee, the common link is that we all love our community and want to educate everyone and keep the message of preservation alive. She indicated that her goal was to continue with the plan laid out so well for Orono by those original visionaries. Jabbour concurred stating that as visionary a document as it was; the City Council of its day voted 100% to make the Comprehensive Plan a permanent document. Murphy pointed out that the quintessential historian, Mike Gaffron, boiled the Comprehensive Plan down to one main purpose, saving the lake; however, there is more, and other areas back out from that point. Gaffron presented Orono ’s Community Philosophy: To preserve the Ltdce, the water quality, and its recreational assets Protect and preserve our many natural resources and open spaces Preserve our district urban and rural land use patterns and lifestyles Preserve our local character and identity Gaffron reported that, during the early years, many people moved to the lake area between 1940- 50, which created the need for sewer plants, 7 of which were built by 1960 to service the lake area. Due to the high levels of phosphorous being put into the lake it became polluted; therefore, by 1980 all of the sewer plants were eliminated in favor of connecting to the metro sewer system. Gaffron continued that the key to cleaning up the lake was eliminating the phosphorous and urban runoff problems. Since Orono had sufficient wetlands to take care of 90% of the phosphorous from runoff under a low density scenario, that explains why Orono has required two acre zoning for 70% of the City on up to 5 acre zoning, in order to limit runoff. Gaffron noted that Orono is getting close to full development, which will affect how the City continues to develop. Mayor Peterson questioned whether Gaffron felt the Met Council would allow Lake Elmo to continue its move towards low density' and inquired how Mooney Lake affects Lake Minnetonka. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO JOINT CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Thursday, September 12,2002 S:30 o’clock p.m. Gaffiron stated that high water level problems are showing up on Mooney Lake, in Plymouth, which borders Orono and, in fact, one property on Mooney Lake falls within Orono. Because Plymouth has developed at such a high density, the MCWD is currently working with them on the high water level problem, proposing a pumping system to lower the water level. Gaffron point rd out that all the water and overflow from Mooney Lake will eventually make its way into Lake Minnetonka. Gaffron pointed out that, Stubbs Bay is one of Orono’s highest priorities in terms of water quality, and it really in itself functions as a sump or stormwater pond. He noted that the low quality in Stubbs Bay in turn is affecting Maxwell Bay. He emphasized the need to adopt a plan to investigate Stubbs Bay and Forest Lake for potenti^ stormwater projects in the future. Murphy encouraged the Commissioners and Council Members to think into the future. He questioned what Orono was at the greatest risk of losing by 2020. In his view, Gaffron indicated that Orono is at risk due to more and more people moving into the area with higher demands and little understanding of where we’ve been or what we plan. People need to understand these fundamental elements within the Orono philosophy. Rahn questioned how other Cities impact Orono. He cited Painters Creek as an example where developers have been allowed to densely develop what they want, even against public outcry. He questioned how Orono could possibly pass on their philosophy to other communities. Gaffron noted that the LMCD and MCWD have worked to make an impact, however, people are willing to pay to get lakeshore at any cost. Jabbour pointed out that Orono is looked at as a leader in the community ensuring the preservation of its natural resources. While 40% of the lakeshore falls within Orono, we are one of 14 Cities on the lake, and over the past 15-20 years if a Mayor’s meeting was to be held it was called by Deephaven or Orono. He maintained that nothing can happen on the lake without affecting Orono. Rahn asked how Orono could reach out and talk with other Communities and Mayors to get on the same page and ensure some form of unity with regard to the lake. He wondered how to spread the word about the importance of preservation. Jabbour stated that it is difficult to find the courage to speak out against other City’s Comprehensive Plans, but it is necessary. Former Mayor Callahan indicated that the key to getting others to cooperate with us is negotiation, meeting, talking to each other, and recognizing that each representative takes great pride in their own say so. Callahan maintained that cooperation comes from making contacts with other Cities, including various organizations of Mayon and inviting these people to set up meetings to discuss ideas. He continued that persuasion and friendship will help to bring others PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO JOINT CITY COUNCIl., PLANNING COMMISSION. AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Thursday, September 12,2002 5:30 o’clock p.m. to your line of thinking. While it would be beneficial if the communities were more cohesive, Orono hasihe greatest responsibility thrust upon them. Callahan maintained that both Elob Searles and Brad Van Nest were not just good Mayors, they were recognized beyond Orono borders and throughout multi-communities. This philosophy will require each of us to take personal responsibility for making the contacts and furthering the effort. White handed out a Project Assessment Worksheet, used as a Community Decision Making Tool, which he has referred to often over his thirty years of experience in the development arena. He encouraged the Council and Commissions to think globally, and spend their meeting time on the most important issues affecting the Community. He refer^ to the worksheet as “things your mother never taught you about development”, and encouraged members to always ask who would benefit most ftom a development. White noted that land controls are failing miserably throughout the U.S. and more emphasis will need to be focused on looking at how our own growth will be changing over the next 10-15 years. He pointed out that the trap that many cities have found themselves in is that they have spent their budgets and are waiting for the next big project to bail them out. Cities need to keep their money in the bank so that they are not forced to compromise their people or their principles. Jabbour explained that Cities do not get any money from big commercial development, there are zero dollars in it in the long run after you t^e into consideration the affect on roads, services, etc. Foroinatcly, Orono sets a budget, where 60% comes from users. He reiterated the disastrous effects diverting from the Comprehensive Plan has on a City budget. Meyers asked if Orono was at risk currently of compromising its Comp Plan. Gaffron pointed out that the risk comes from not following the Comprehensive Plan. Meyers asked if the main goal was to save the lake, its water quality, versus residential or commercial development. Jabbour repeated that commercial development is a negative cash flow. Moorse pointed out that commercial office is a good investment versus retail commercial that requires more serv ices. He maintained that the traffic generated by high volume or intense retail would have a huge impact on our roads and intersections. Meyers asked if there was the need to set a more defined set of standards. White reiterated that developers will always ti> to push you to the edge of what you find acceptable. He referred to potential development pressure for the Highway 12 and County Road 6 intersection as one example facing Orono in the near future. White noted that by talking officials into changing zoning standards, Donald Trump once wrote, “1 made my money off the incompetence of City Officials”. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO JOINT CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Thursday, Sqstember 12.2002 5:30 o ’clock p.m. Murphy stated that everyone present this evening n^’eds to recognize that they are going to be under tremendous pressure from development, there forr, need to keep focused on and buy into the foundation which Orono was built, the philosoph'es within the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that this is the only City in which a Highway would run through a trench, not a four lane highway, which in the long run will help to preserve the Orono philosophy Jabbour challenged those present to consider how they can affect other citizens and persuade them to buy into the philost^hy. There was a rhyme or reason to the development of this purposeful Comprehensive Plan and that needs to be communicated. FUTURE MEETINGS Mabusth asked if these meetings should be held quarterly. Jabbour noted that Sansevere and Nygard should have been present. McDermott asked if Orono opposed Big Box development in Long Lake as well. Murphy felt that Orono was in an awkward position. While Orono would do everything in their power to keep Long Lake from doing any more than they have to. Long Lake may be forced to do some redevelopment and virtually succumb to some developer pressure. Callahan noted that this has not happened yet. Jabbour reiterated that pressure will mount for development at the Highway 12 and County Road 6 interchange as well. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:08 P.M. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor PAGES (T) MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. OCr 1 4 2002 chvofuho ^o ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Bob Sansevere; Council Members Jim Murphy; Jim White, and Jay Nygard; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike GaBron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Barbara Peterson was absent. Acting Mayor Sansevere called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items #13-17 were added to the Consent Agenda. White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of September 9,2002 White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of September 9,2002 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pauline Bouchard, Representative Bouchard reported that the bids for the Hackberry Park playground equipment were in excess of $100,000, of which only $60,000 will be needed from the legacy fund endowment. She reminded the Council that the cost of updating Hackberry will be less than was paid for the upgrades at Navarre Park and hoped that the City Council would approve the remodeling project. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued) Bouchard reminded the Council that the Park Commission would like to get the 10% pull-tab license fee, which will be up for renewal in 2003. The Park Commission felt it was time to collect the standard 10% fee the City is entitled to and keep it in Orono to support Orono kids, as opposed to groups that operate out of Mound. As a follow-up to discussion last year, the Paric Commission would like the City Council to consider this recommendation. Sansevere stated that he had issue with taking funds away from kids groups, whether they are Orono or not. Many groups are very dependent on those funds and he could not support taking those dollars away from groups who counted on it for their budgets. White indicated that, last year when this issue was raised, the groups hadn’t had any warnings and were paying off capital expenses they had committed to that year. To White ’s recollection, those expenses should have been retired by now, and beginning this year we could notify them that the assessment would be coming. He noted that, in any case, 90% goes to Mound kids and it is only the last 10% that goes to Orono kids. While White did not want to see the groups be short money they needed to pay off capital expenditures, he understood that those expenses would be paid off and the 10% would merely be gravy, at that point the City of Orono should be able to collect its standard 10%, like virtually every other City does. He would support the 10% fee being returned to Orono. Bouchard stated that, from her understanding, the facilities had been put on notice last year that the Council would be considering shifting those monies. She indicated that they could get more information to support this. Sansevere pointed out that while he could not support taking necessary money away from kids groups, if it is as White stated, the money is purely gravy to them, that is a completely different issue. If they no longer need these dollars for survival, Sansevere agreed that Council could reconsider. Murphy asked if anyone knew approximately how much money this meant to Orono. Gappa stated that there is approximately $10,000 outstanding in pull-tab revenue. White pointed out that the total made off pull-tabs was $10,000, whereas, 10% or $1,( would be the assessed fee. Due to Orono’s current relationship with Mound, Murphy cautioned Council that demanding the 10% at this time would need to be handled delicately. Page 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued) Nygard disagreed, stating that last year the groups were given 2002 as a grace period and were put on notice that this shift might be coming for 2003. White reiterated that what Orono would be requesting is a standard 10% cut, no different than most any other community. He suggested bringing the groups in to address their needs and look at the reporting figures for 2002. Sansevere agreed stating that the city needs to contact the Mound organizations about the total assessed amount. Murphy inquired as to what specifically was entailed at Hackberry and if the ball fields would be improved as well. Bouchard indicated that the improvements would replace old equipment with two new sets of playground equipment, one designed for younger children and the other for older kids. The upgrades would include landscaping as well, but no ball field improvements at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabusth, Representative While Mabusth had nothing new to report, she complimented the City Council for hosting the joint Park, Plaiming, and City Council meeting last week and looked forward to future meetings. She added that the Council would be reviewing the Home Occupation Ordinance this evening, an Ordinance the Planning Commission and staff had been working on for approximately the last five years to complete. LMCD REPORT - Lili McMillan McMillan reported that the LMCD has received many calls from concerned citizens with regard to the high water policy on the lake. As of September 7,2002, the lake set a new record high of 930.52. To make a bad situation even worse, boaters have been causing a great deal of boat chop on both Maxwell and Crystal Bays, Bays requiring minimum wake up to 600’ out, which has only added to the shoreline problems. McMillan reported that the LMCD Board has been giving thought to proposing that the whole l^e be minimum wake under extreme circumstances like those this summer and would like to get the City Council's reaction to this alternative. She felt this was worth considering, since most Orono citizens she spoke to felt this was a good idea based on conditions. Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT, Continued) Sansevere stated that he was surprised that Maxwell Bay wasn’t a minimum wake Bay and asked if the LMCD would consider leaving markers in the water which designate where 600 ’ out is. McMillan pointed out that this would be an exorbitant task to leave markers throughout the lake. She reminded everyone that this has been an extraordinary summer, which has left the entire watershed full and overflowing. There is concern that next spring could bring additional flooding to the area if the water level doesn ’t recede this fall. Citizens are concerned and rightly so. Although a big call, the LMCD could designate the whole lake minimum wake next year if conditions warrant. As mentioned in the Joint Park, Planning, and City Council meeting of September 12, since 40% of the lakeshore falls within Orono, the basic goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to save the lake. With this philosophy in mind, Murphy believed it would behoove Orono to take a leadership role in managing the high water issues in cooperation with the LMCD. White agreed, stating that due to the excessive percentages of hardcover in our surrounding communities, including Plymouth, and the runoff directed to the watershed district we live in, Orono needs to be aggressive in its stormwater management plans. Although costly, the stormwater management plan needs to be adhered to and hardcover numbers limited. The lake is the first to reflect the runoff problems. McMillan stated that it will be interesting to see the water quality testing results after the rain, runoff, and high water of this summer. Since the LMCD began testing 14 bays across the lake every year, they have been able to acquire fairly accurate trend analysis of the water and bow rain and runoff affect it. McMillan reported that the LMCD had also spent a great deal of time this past year working on Tributary Ordinances, and dealing with lawyers who want to remove them. A subcommittee of the LMCD took on the task of studying marginal lake access from Long Lake Creek, Painters Creek, and Six*Mile Creek after a developer wanted to place 14 boat slips on the ttibutary. She found it interesting how far people will go to acquire lake access, and while she voted against it, the board voted to allow small boats with electric motors on the tributaries. McMillan felt this ruling did not go far enough by merely regulating surface water only, however, there are issues with jurisdiction and the environment that need further investigation. At this time, there are four owners at the end of Six-Mile Creek who are fighting the ordinance so that they can gain access to the lake with larger boats. The original ordinance failed 7-5, however it passed 8-5 after one member changed their vote, the LMCD continues to revisit the 'ordinance and spend a great deal of time on the matter. McMillan noted that much can be done on the landside Page 4 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT, ConHnued) to restrict marginal lake access, and avoid these problems in the future, but for now, these issues consume the LMCD. M^hy asked how far people would go to gain lake access and wondered if people were going to start dredging the tributaries to get to the lake next. McMillan maintained that it is a question of what is proper lakeshore access and what is too much when pushing the access limit. While the DNR is hesitant to get involved. Cities need to take a stand when these marginal lake accesses are proposed. Cities need to set firm limits on what is and isn’t allowed so that people or developers won't try to obtain marginal access. McMillan mentioned that John Larson, who spoke during the last public comment section of the Oreno City Council meeting about his lakeshore rights, contacted her at the LMCD. Unfortunately, the LMCD does.n’t get involved with association battles and can’t do much for this resident. She felt he had a valid complaint but it wasn’t under LMCD jurisdiction. White thanked McMillan for her time and commitment to the LMCD and the City of Orono. People are nervous about the affect of high water on their docks and shoreline and it is nice to know we have a strong voice at the LMCD to relay our citizens concerns. Murphy questioned whether lakeshore etc. is something the City Council should schedule a work session to discuss further. Sansevere reiterated that McMillan’s representation on the LMCD for the City of Orono is vital to the community. McMillan stated that she was proud to represent Orono, a City who is a steward of the lake. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. Page 3 j MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *3. MI2-2812 MARVIN AND MARY SMITH, 1940 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4865 White moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4865, a Resolution granting a front yard setback variance to construct a two story addition over the existing garage on the property located at 1940 Country Club Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 4. 002-2813 MARK WELCH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES Weinberger explained that the applicant had received variances to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant had not yet built the residence and wished to make two changes to the approved plan. Weinberger reported that the changes to the plan included shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line, straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65 s.f to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. On August 19, 2002, the Planning Commission tabled tliis application and advised the applicant to revise the site plan to push the house and eaves back on the property to meet a 50’ setback to the lakeshore. Furthermore, Weinberger noted, the applicant could not exceed 660 s.f, which was the existing hardcover in the 0-75’ setback. Weinberger reported that the new site plan does meet the parameters as established by the Planning Commission. The revised application, however, requires review of the following variances; Side Yard Setback to permit addition to be 5 ’ and 7.5 ’ from the west property line. The 5 ’ side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking space on the property. Structure within the 75 ’ lakeshore Setback and Hardcover are other variances for review. In order to redevelop this property, Weinberger noted that lot Area/lot width, Side Yard Setback encroachment, and Required parkitig in a Residential Zoning District were required variances for this parcel as well. Weinberger advised that the Planning Commission was recommending denial of the application as revised due to the fact that relocating the house to meet a 50’ lakeshore setback pushes the house further back on the property and into the shared driveway. The new house on this property would encroach 5 ’ to 6’ into the driveway. The addition of the 4.5 ’ “V-shaped ” prow and overhang causes the driveway encroachment. The previously approved plan had the house meeting a 53 ’ setback to the shoreline for the house, with the overhang being 48.5 ’ from the shoreline, but no part of the house at that time encroached into the driveway. Paged 1• i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*ciock p.m. (m-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) While the Planning Commission could support the i’ shift for the house, Weinberger stated that the primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house was that the house would be located 6’ into the shared driveway, which two other properties must cross for their only access. Weinberger maintained that reducing the width of the driveway from the existing 22’ to 16’ would make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than it is now. While this driveway is a private roadway, Weinberger pointed out that even private roadways serving 7 or fewer units in the City require a roadway width of 24 ’. This roadway is 22’ wide or less for its entire length. The decreased width of the driveway would also contribute to potential snow storage problems for the driveway. Weinberger indicated that there is little space to store snow along this street because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north and the location of the row of houses does not allow any storage to the south of the road. Weinberger continued that the reduction in driveway width would make backing of vehicles out of the garage stall difficult. Oftentimes, 16’ is not adequate to properly maneuver in and out of a garage. Weinberger contended that the concept of shifting the driveway to the north or adding a backout area beyond the driveway is not possible due to the exueme slope of the hill leading to North Shore Drive. Nor would the removal of part of the hillside that supports the County Road and the construction of a retaining wall system offer a feasible alternative either. After visiting the property, Weinberger noted that staff determined that the two adjacent homes were located at approximately the same setback as the existing house. He cautioned that, if this house location were approved, it would set a new standard to where houses along this driveway would be built. While this property does require a lot area and lot width variance, Weinberger stated that due to the decreased width of the driveway and its ‘inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses’ staff could not recommend approval of the application. He added that staff would support any plan that would result in the house not encroaching further into the driveway than the existing house and not within 50 ’ of the lakeshore. Both conditions which could be met by removing the roof overhang from the lakeside of the house and reducing the prow’ to 4 ’ rather than 4.5'. Since the Planning Commission meeting of September 16, 2002, the Fire Marshal stated that the Uniform Fire Code (1997) requires access roads, including this driveway, must Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNaL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (002-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) meet a minimum accessible width of 20 ’. Generally, the standards can be adjusted when each building is provided with sprinkling systems and/or adequate hydrant locations are available. Weinberger noted that the properties are not served with municipal water, nor have sprinkler systems, therefore there are no hydrants available. There were no public comments. Sansevere questioned if the prow was part of the original proposal. Weinberger pointed out that the original plan did not contain the prow but simply the overhang from the eaves. Murphy questioned what would happen if the home were slid back off the street side towards the lake. Sansevere inquired what the average lakeshore setback of the existing homes were. Weinberger noted that the average lakeshore setback for this street was 42 ’. On behalf of Mr. Welch, Jeaiuie Welch maintained that they had been given inconsistent direction from the Planning Commission with regard to the position of the house. She felt they had complied with the August direction to shift the home back on the lot, they met the 30 ’ back yard setback, and, since the road is a private driveway had obtained road easements fiom the neighbors for the property. She pointed out that the two neighbors to the west had not been granted cross easements on Mr. Welsh’s property. Sansevere questioned how much towards the road had the home been shifted. Jeanne Welch indicated they had moved the home approximately 4.5 ’. Sansevere asked why the Welch’s felt not giving easements to the two end nei^bors was a good thing. Jeanne Welch maintained that, at minimum, the neighbors would be granted prescriptive easements if they were to take it to court. Sansevere questioned if any neighbors were present. Mr. Welch maintained that the neighbors he spoke to were all in support of his proposal. Murphy inquired if the applicant owned both sides of the driveway. Pages "H MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (W2-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Jeanne Welch stated that he did own both sides and up into the hill, however, they had no desire to build a retaining wall into the hill. She presented hardcover figures to support their redevelopment. Weinberger noted that it is the site plan that gets approved and the eave overhang does not count into the hardcover equation. Mr. Welch explained that the roofline cantilevers back into the home and the base footings. The living space is considered hardcover, but not the eave overhang. Jeanne Welch continued by pointing out that the current width of the street varies, and even if the home were to be shifted toward the road it would still not go past where the first garage is. She added that the Lyndale Cedar Home was ordered for delivery this Thursday based on discussion that took place at the August Planning Commission meeting in which they were told the proposal would be acceptable if the home were shifted back toward the road. Murphy questioned what forced them to change the face of the home. Jeanne Welch indicated that they changed the flat front to a prow in order to capture better views and 65 s.f of additional living space. While he had no problem with the proposed windows and prow, Nygard questioned why they would propose to move the home back toward the street when the natural character of the neighborhood would be to keep it in line with the current average lakeshore setback. Since the backside has such tight limitations, he believed the City should establish an average lakeshore setback line to which this neighborhood should adhere. Sansevere asked staff why this proposal would not be a good idea. Gaffron indicated that since the DNR standard setback is 50’, the Planning Commission was trying to obtain the 50’ setback, but there is nothing that says the City Council cannot change that setback number. He stated that if the home were shifted toward the lake, there would be more hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. Nygard suggested they move in that direction, if staff had no objection. Gaffron reminded the Council that whatever is approved for this application will set the standard for the entire block, in fact, he pointed out that the adjacent neighbor is waiting to submit his plans based on what is decided here. Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (002-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Murphy asked the applicant why they went ahead and ordered the kit for delivery without final approval and asked if the Platuiing Conunission knew they had done so. Mabusth stated that the Planning Conunission did not know that the applicant had ordered their materials. She indicated that, perhaps, the Plarming Conunission had chosen the wrong wording when they told the applicant to shift the home back, they should have spelled it out, but assumed the applicant would redesign the home to fit within the parameters of the setbacks. Jearme Welch stated that after shifting the home back as they were told in August, it was not until September that the parameters were truly spelled out. By that time, they had ordered the kit to meet the deadlines they needed to meet with the manufacturer in order to beat the snow. Weinberger indicated that he had had a conversation with Mr. Welch on the phone and advised Mr. Welch to not order the house without Council approval even though staff was aware of their time constraints. Murphy stated that they should have waited since nothing is a done deal until the City Council makes its ruling. White asked what the City Council would consider as the most important setback in this situation. It seemed obvious to him that they could not meet both the front and rear setbacks, and construct a home of any size. He urged the Council to be reasonable, the home was merely 1,300 s.f, under the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage maximum. White maintained that if it is the front lakeside line that is most important, the Council needs to be willing to give on the backside, or vice versa. Nygard stated that the precedent that he liked being set here was the 1,300 s.f. home, a reasonable sized home for the lot. It fits within the City ordinance. Mr. Welch indicated that the cedar home would be a beautiful post and beam cottage style home. It would be very cute for the lot and hopefully set a precedent for the cluuracter of the neighborhood. Weinberger agreed that the home was not a big house for the site. Sansevere asked for Gappa to give his opinion. Gappa stated that he felt the most important line to hold would be the back street side setb^k. Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (002-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Kellogg concurred that the street side would be the most important setback to obtain, as opposed to the lakeside. Murphy questioned how much the pro'.v or roof would extend beyond the average lakeshore setback if the home were nioved toward the lake once again. Gafiron noted that if the home were pulled forward to make the rear line acceptable, the roofline would be at the average lakeshore setback. Mu^hy pointed out that if the home were pulled forward, there would be virtually straight lines on both the front and rear of the home. Mr. Welch indicated that, according to his calculations, he only needs to shift the home ^proximately 4.5 ’ and could still modify the eaves to meet the setback. Nygard questioned if the home could legitimately meet the average lakeshore setback and average street side setback. Weinberger suggested that the home be shifted two feet back from where the existing home is, by eliminating the small green path along the roadside. Which would cut down on the distance towards the lake. Murphy pointed out that there is approximately 6’ from the average lakeshore setback of 42 ’ to the suggested DNR standard of 50 ’. Since there was not a straight line on the property, Murphy maintained that the only line that should matter is the average setback lines on the front and the back. Nygard suggested that the home be pulled forward toward the lake in order to line up with all of the rest of the homes on the road. Sansevere asked staff how many exceptions to the 50 ’ DNR standard the City had made in the past with regard to rebuilds and new construction. Gafiron indicated that the exception would not be precedent setting, and that there had been a number of situations in the past where exceptions have been made. Nygard proposed the City establish a line that they will use to set as the redevelopment standard for the area. Mr. Welch pointed out that only the overhangs will touch the average Itdceshore setback, the home itself will be set back 5 ’ from that point. Ps^e 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. («02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) White moved, Murphy seconded, to draft a resolution allowing new construction of a home with a V-Prow addition, for the property located at 3625 North Shore Drive, to be built in line with, and not to exce^, the average lakeshore setback, nor encroach into the established roadway. Moorse suggested that the Council consider adding to the resolution their rationale that the lots are so short and the slope behind them steep they have illowed the home to be placed within the DNR 50 ’ standard lakeshore setback. Murphy questioned if ftulher language could be added to the resolution that establishes the average lakeshore setback line for the bUxrk. Barrett agreed that it would be wise to adopt a standard average lakeshore setback for the block that could be referred to as each of the homes is redeveloped. While the language for this application establishing the average lakeshore setback line may bind this applicant, Gaffron noted that these findings would not carry legal weight in other applications for the block. He did feel it would be useful language to add to the resolution to be used as direction for future Councils when redevelopment is proposed for this nei^borhood. He indicated that he and staff would rewrite a resolution which summarizes the discussion and findings which led the Council to making this motion and bring it back for approval on October 14,2002. White moved, Murphy seconded, to amend his motion to include language that expresses the intent and summarizes the discussion which led to the establishment of the average lakeshore setback line for the block. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. 802-2820 MICHAEL LASHER, 1360 RAILROAD AVF.NUE, VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4866 White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUl ION NO. 4866, a Resolution granting a front yard setback variance to construct a covered deck on the street side of the residence located at 1360 Railroad Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, nays 0. Page 12 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. *6. 002-2821 TEMPLE ISRAEL (CAMP TEKO), 645 TONKAWA ROAD, COiNDlTlONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4867 White Moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4867, a Resolution granting a conditional use permit to permit the building and all trail projects cacept 05, based on the conditions noted in the Planning Commission Recommendation, for Temple Israel, Camp Teko, located at 645 Tonkawa Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *7. 002-2824 BETZ BUILDERS, 1045 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4868 White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4868, a Resolution granting a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the property located at 1045 Brown Road South. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *8. M02-2825 WAYNE AND KAREN SOOJIAN, 4406 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4869 White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4869, a Resolution granting lot area and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a new residence on the property located at 4496 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *9. #02-2826 MICHAEL AND DEBORAH BENEDICT, 25 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4870 White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4870, a Resolution granting a variance to permit a storage building to be located nearer the street than the principal structure located at 25 Orono Orchard Road North. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 10. PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 221,2nd SERIES Gaffron explained that in 1998, the then City Planner/Zoning Administrator Liz Van Zomeren worked with the Planning Commission to draft an amended Home Occupation ordinance. That draft ordinance would have completely eliminated licensing and would have permitted home occupations as an accessory use subject to the enforcement of performance standards. That draft also included a list of “Prohibited” home occupations, which were deemed to be likely to have negative neighborhood impacts. Gaffron noted that the draft reflected good work by the Planning Commission, but got bogged down in discussions as to home occupations in accessory buildings. No action was taken at that time. Page 13 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS (Continued) Recent Council interest in revisiting the home occupation issue was generated in 2001 because staff had been recommending license approval for a small number of long standing home occupations that had one or more employees, in violation of the current code but not causing any problems. Council suggested changing the code simply to allow home occupations to have one non-resident employee under certain conditions. As a result, GaHron pointed out that in 2001 the Planning Commission held discussions on the topic of home occupation licensing, and has spent significant time over the past 12 months considering the merits of various methods of home occupation regulation as well as the standards that should apply. He stated that the resulting Home Occupation regulation is based on the premise that such activity should only require a license when it has potential impacts on a neighborhood. After unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission on September 16, 2002, the ordinance will incorporate a 2-tier system whereby non-impact home occupations (Level 1) would not need a license, and potential-impact home occupations as well as non-compliant home occupations (Level 2) would be licensed. Attorney Barrett pointed out that under the list of Prohibited Home Oc ipations, letter L, could be viewed as a warning to someone who might want to sell arms. He cautioned that Letters C and I could impact First Amendment Rights and should have further findings incorporated into the language of the ordinance. With regard to Adult Uses, he suggested that more specific findings be added. As far as Churches and religious Institutions were concerned, Barrett believed there to be a number of religious expressions that would create no impact on a neighborhood. He reminded the Council that in cases where there would be large residential impact, those are the home occupations that should require licensing. Gaffton pointed out that there is a fine line that determines at what point a home occupation rises to the level of requiring licensure. Nyg^ asked if Barrett felt that the Church and religious institution home occupation specification should be removed from the prohibited use section of the ordinance. Barrett believed Letter I should be removed. Moorse stated that if the church were to rise to a level whereby more than 20 care were parked there regularly, either a special event permit could be attained or new consideration given. White cautioned that disability home occupations do require exceptions to these rules, since the ADA supersedes zoning standards. Page 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS (Continued) Sansevere moved. White seconded, that the City adopt the Ordinance No. 221, 2nd Series, a Zoning Code Amendment for Home Occupation Standards, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and inclusive of City Attorney Barrett ’s recommendation that Letter I of Subd. 4 Prohibited Home Occupations be removed from the ordinance and language be incorporated that explicitly adopts the findings to prohibit Adult Businesses within the City. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. White complimented staff and the Planning Commission on a job well done. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Muiphy stated that he had included a copy of the letter from Janet Shaefer, of the City of Long Lake, with regard to Fire Service RFP. While it may be a few years before they could respond to our need, Murphy felt that the City needs to continue to work with Long Lake. He stated that he ’d rather hear they couldn’t provide service at this time, than never at all. Nygard expressed his disappointment that they were not interested in providing service, after the City of Orono worked hard and long with them to construct the Long Lake Fire Station. Murphy felt that what was conveyed was not bad news and encouraged the Council to continue to strive for stronger relations with Long Lake. Secondly, Murphy stated that many Long Lake citizens are already complaining about the road construction along Watertown Road. He pointed out that it will get much worse before it gets better, and indicated that Orono and Long Lake are just at the beginning of the big road construction projects that will follow over the next several years. He suggested that the City create a regular report or road construction bulletin that could be sent out to our citizens in order for them to know what to expect next. White stated this was a good idea. Muiphy pointed out that the City has been given a detailed projection of construction over the next four years, and this should be forwarded with updates to the public. Beyond inserting this into the papers. Sansevere suggested staff provide a link to the website which people can visit to learn about road closures etc. Murphy stated that Orono needs to inundate its citizens with information of what ’s going to be happening. Page 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) White questioned whether there was a single source that could provide these updates, a place people could always turn to for their updates. Other than the newspaper, Moorse proposed they use the newsletter and website. Since this will be newsworthy, Nygard suggested that the newspapers consider inserting a monthly map which directs people away from road closures. White reported that he had picked up documents regarding affordable housing foi otaffto add to its library. He felt these materials could provide as a primer or reference guide for staff and public officials as the topic comes to the forefront. White cautioned the Council on the use of land trust, as well as, city subsidy for affordable housing, and referred to the documents for further information. Nygard inquired about the house located across the street from the Maxwell Bay boat launch. In his observations, there are always six or more vehicles parked in the driveway, and he questioned what was allowed by the zoning code. Gaffron indicated that he was unclear if there were limits on the number of cars that can be there, and pointed out the number of boats is another issue. He believed that the home was still under construction inside. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 11. NORTH ARM LANE PAVING PROJECT - Removed from the Agenda Due to the time of year, Gappa mentioned that the bids were coming in 35% higher than estimated, and staff has decided to begin the bidding process over in the spring. 12. AWARD CONTRACT FOR HACKBERRY PARK IMPROVEMENTS Sansevere moved. White seconded, to Award the contract for the Hackberry Park Improvements Project to Odessa Construction, Gilman Minnesota in the base-bid amount of $102,146.01 with approval of a budget adjustment for the Park Dedication fund to reflect this expenditure, and furthermore, approve a loan of $65,000 from the Community Investment Fund to the Park Dedication Fund at an annual interest rate of 5% for the Hackberry Park Improvements project, to be repaid as soon as possible as Park Dedication fees become available. VOTE: Aves 4. Nays 0. Page 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o ’clock p.m. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *13. LONG LAKE FIRE STATION VOICE AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND CABLING White moved, Murphy seconded, to accept the proposal from Connectivity Solutions in the amount of S21,60334, plus $1,404.22 ms for the phone system, voice and data wiring, audio/vbual system and paging system, for the new Fire Station. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT NO. 5 - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 5 from Rochon Corporation in the amount of $326,664.00, to be funded as follows: $259399 from the Joint Fire Fund, and $67,065 from the Sewer Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *15. LONG LAKE FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection with the City of Long Lake, and to authorize the Mayor/Acting Mayor and City Administrator to sign the Agreement. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. * 16. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR BIG ISLAND CLEANUP White moved, Murphy seconded, to authorize the expenditure of $2,000 toward the cost of dumpsters for Big Island cleanup for Fall 2002. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *17. RELOCATION OF SEWER LINES ON ORONO WOODS SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the payment of the invoice from Frana and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $5,015.00, to be funded from the P.l.R. Fund, of which $2308.00 will be reimbursed by the developer, and the remainder will he reimbursed from future TIF proceeds; and to amend the PIR Fund budget to reflect the expenditure. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Moorse reported that he had recently received a proposal for Mound Fire Services and would be distributing that soon. Murphy asked if there were any new developments with regard to the mediation serv ices provided for Otten Brothers and the neighbor, Mr. Walvatne. Page 17 [arirtiitTi mi MMUNICATIONS Connectivity Solutioni system, voice and data V Fire Station. VOTE: [ENT NO. 5 - LONG D and Certificate for of $326,664.00, to be 67,065 from the Sewer MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. RELOCATION OF SEWER LINES (Continued) Moorse stated that there had been a development with the mediation being sought for the two parties. He indicated that Mr. Walvatne had sought to bring into mediation additional neighbors. Mr. Otten had agreed originally to mediation with Mr. Walvatne to try to clear up their issues, however, he did not agree to mediation with the whole neighborhood. White indicated that he felt Mr. Walvatne had violated the agreement and it struck him that Mr. Walvatne had not entered into mediation in good faith. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett had nothing new to report *18. LICENSES Residential Kennel License ! and Contract for Fire t Mayor/Acting Mayor 4, Nays 0. kNUP re of $2,000 toward the E: Ayes 4, Nays 0. O WOODS SENIOR 1. Tony and Maiy Becker 259 Hollander Road White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve all licenses. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *19. BILLS White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT the invoice from Frana sm the P.I.R. Fund, of the remainder win be k Fund budget to reflect found Fire Services and :o the mediation services Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of September 23,2002 at 8:55 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor ■y'-:Page 18 of Orono, Minnesota Numbering Index Map •uris€ A AUX, Jk^ north .•il • mm. m,m— ^ ir.itif ii#f. f. If to M t. itti MU 0. Iff 1 If.lffS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•) Asterisk items arc considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by Uic City Council under the Cons’ent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items arc available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approvc/Amend ocr Cirr '^!00P OF(j APPROVAL OF MINUTES ♦ 2. Joint City Council, Planning Commission, and Park Commission Work Session of September 12 :002 * 3. Regular Council Meeting of September 23,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jan Berg. Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR S REPORT 4. ^02-2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development - Ordinance 5. ^02-2813 Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 6. ^02*2822 Danielle Henely, 3422 Livingston Avenue - Vaiiances - Resolution 7. #02-2827 Sven Gustafson, 4515 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 8. #02-2828 Tony Lund, 4515 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 9. #02-2845 Jeff Martineau, 2920 Fox Street - Final Plat - Resolution 10. Appeal of Administrative Decision - Fox Street Driveway I MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11. Request for Final Payment - TH12 Safety ImprovemenU Project 12. Livingston Avenue Drainage Project 13. Crystal Bay Road Drainage Project 14. City Hall Drainage and Landscaping Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. Pay Requests - Long Lake Fire Station 16. Long Lake Fire Station Furniture Proposal 17. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 6 - Long Lake Fire Station 18. Highway 12 Right-of-Way Reconveyance and Pond Cost Allocation 19. Selling of Forfeited Vehicles and Equipment AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARK>VAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 20. Appointment of Additional Election Judges for the November 5, 2002 General Election - Resolution 21. Establish Absentee Ballot Board - Resolution 22. Establish Date and Time for Canvassing Board Meeting 23. Teens Alone Request for Funding Continuation 24. Resignation of Mary Arm Johnson 25. Appointment of Part-Time Customer Service Assistant 26. SchedulingofWorIc Sessions 27. Options for Managing Traffic During the Highway 12 Project 28. Replacement of Police Depanment Copier 29. City Subsidy for Affordable Units CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 30. LICENSES • 31. DILLS Mliwurj" ocr OllYu^ ^ 4 2002REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 3VS(M50/V0 ITEM NO.: tf Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Admiabtratur Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2764 Proposed Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) District List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Ordinance Discussion and Summary Proposed Ordinance Map of Highway 12 Commercial Area Map of Navarre Commercial Area Map Indicating Location of Proposed Development Developers Office Concept Plan The City considered a CPUD district following a request for a proposed office development on a vacant property in Navarre. The proposal was for a multi-unit office complex that would create individual office buildings each being held in private ownership. Under the existing zoning standards for the B-4 district such a development is not possible based on the minimum lot size and width standards. The intent of developing a CPUD was not to only create a district for the proposed development, but would create a district that would allow other development options in the commercial areas of City where strict compliance to the underlying zoning ordinance is not practical. The Commercial PUD standards follow similar guidelines and process established for the recently adopted Residential PUD standards. A developer is ready to move forward with an office building plan for developing the properties located at 2S2S, 2S3S, and 2S4S Shadywood Road. All three properties would be combined into one parcel and developed as one site. The Planning Commission voted recommending a conceptual approval of the ordinance, however they felt additional study or a visioning process for Navarre should be completed prior to adoption of this ordinance. The advantage to completing a Navarre visioning process is the ordinance could be revised to address the concepts of mixed uses that could provide additional housing options and services in the Navarre area. The Planning Commission did vote to proceed with the ordinance to allow the Council an opportunity to review the concept of the Commercial PUD. As currently worded, the draR CPUD ordinance does not allow the flexibility to, for instance, have apartments or condominiums above a storefront, which might be an attractive mi.xed use redevelopment option for Navarre. Mixed use of buildings in Navarre would require an amendment to the Comp Plan, which suggests that a study probably should be considered. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the CPUD concept and provide stafT with direction as to whether it should be revised to incorporate additional mixed use options. Exhibit A, attached, provides some background on what thcbenefits are to the City and what the CPUD process would be. Council can either direct staff to: Proceed with a visioBiBg process for the Navarre Commercial area and place discassioB of the CPUD district on-hold aatii the visioninf process is complete. If the Council does choose the option of completing a visioning process for Navarre the ordinance may not be adopted for some time. The Council could choose to move forward with the visioning process and choose to proceed with the CPUD district only for use in the B-4 district. Adopting the district would allow the current developer to move forward and make an official application for the Navarre Site. t Ane B-4 district is the Office and Professional Business District. The Zoning Ordinance states the purpose of the district is to provide a district which is related to and adjoins residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general puMic. The Permitted uses in the district are municipal buildings, offices, clinics, and banks and insurance offices. The only properties in Orono zoned B-4 are in Navarre and include the Fox Run Office Development, the Gray Freshwater Center, the Baywinds Chuch site (formally Remax Real Estate Building, and the east two properties proposed for development. The only vacant sites currently zoned B-4 are the properties owned by the developer and the I acre property south of the dental office. If the Council chooses to allow the CPUD for use in the B-4 district this would not commit the City to any proposed development, but rather would allow the developer to make a formal application to the City. B. Direct Staff to draft a final ordinance for adoptioB without the visioninf process. C.Do nothing and allow devdopment that b consbtent wHb the current zoning dbtrir'4 standards. liMhinii » • Council Exhibit h CPUD SUMMARY Advantages of Planned Unit Developments PUmned* Unit Developments approve an individual site plan with individual performance standards written into the final development document. The advantage of rezoning a property to PUD is the approval is subject to the final development site plan. If the project is not completed The property would revert to the pre-existing zoning district or be changed to match the guided use of the property as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Alternatively, if a property was merely rezoned to another “B” zoning district and the development proposed for that site was never completed, the City of Orono would have little control over a new site plan on the property that met the requirements of the district. PI 'Ds are widely used in other communities. The one item they have in common is the ability to provide greater flexibility in neighborhood development or non-residential areas than what can be done under a conventional zoning district. While Orono’s Highway 12 PUD (Section I0.S3) provides for this flexibility of development, it only applies to the Highway 12 development area. The CPUD could replace the Highway 12 PUD pit.cess. Most recently, the Highway PUD process has been used for the Dunbar office building (not yet constructed) and the Dahlstrom Development at Willow Drive and Highway 12 (currently under review). Some cities define each type of PUD district (residential, commercial, industrial) separately and some group all under one ordinance. Orono would have separate ordinances for each use. Orono’s Municipal Code does not have sections that stand alone that define sta* dards for items such as landscaping and screening. The RPUD district has listed standards within the district for these items. The proposed CPUD ordinance has also used the standards that are listed and defined within the district and generally follows those as established for larger scale commercial developments. A PUD strengthens the City ’s ability to make development decisions. A PUD is a rezonlng which gives the City options regarding development decisions and approvals. Summary of Proposed CPUD Standards (A full copy of the proposed ordinance is attached as Exhibit B) The proposed ordinance lists the following as general standards for all developments that would request a rezoning to CPUD; I.A CPUD can only be considered for properties guided for commercial use by the Comprehensive Plan. CPUD could not be used for properties within the B-2 district. The B-2 district is established for marinas. 3.Properties are subject to the hardcover requirements as regulated in the Shoreland Ordiance. \ \ Tfi TiiiaiMai 4. Individual setlMcks would vary depending on the type of development proposed on an individual property, current development patterns of surrounding properties, and the general use associated with the CPUD. The setbacks can be establish^ by the City. This celates to the general “flexibilit3r” the CPUD can allow. However, the ordinance is written where in no case can a building within a CPUD be located closer than 3S feet to a residentially zoned property. 5. The building height limit of the underlying zoning district shall apply. 6. Outside storage shall not be permitted within a CPUD district. 7. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a CPUD site. 8. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted as part of a general sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated within the CPUD approval. Any changes to signs not permitted with the CPUD shall require an amendment to the CPUD approval. 9. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. 10. All CPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting per the Zoning Chapter. 11. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer’s expense. Where public rights-of-way are available, at the City’s discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trail and sidewalk widths shall be determined by the City to accommodate existing trait/sidewalk systems and/or by anticipated useage. 12. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. 13. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering standards are the identical standards as adopted within the B-6 district. Please review the requirements within Subd. 6 (N) of the draft ordinance. Process The process is a four-step process. I. 2. Concept Plan Review - General review of the proposal with the Planning Commission and City' Council. (Typical Sketch Plan Review) Master Development Plan and Rezoning - Approval of the master development plan includes all building and site plans. (Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat review would run simultaneously if platting is required. Generally platting is done with a PUD.) At the Master Development Development stage is where the City makes a formal commitment to the applicant. 3.Development Agreement/Financial Guarantee - Following the approval of the Master J)evelopment Plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the terms of the CPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. 1 Council Exhibit B REVISED DRAFT (pudpc2.doc) CPUD - COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Subd. 1. - Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) district is to offer an alternative zone to development or redevelopment of properties located in commercial zoning districts in the City of Orono. The CPUD is to allow alternatives to the restrictions made mandatory in the commercial districts in such a manner that more efficient means of providing off-street parking, thoroughfare access, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, stabilization of contiguous property values, buffering of adjacent non commercial areas, and other general and pertinent platming considerations may be developed and utilized. Deviation fix>m the definitive and precise requirements of individual commercial zoning districts within the community can be considered, and conditionally allowed as a CPUD if the Council finds the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The CPUD district will encourage the following: A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings; preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands 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. B. C. D. E. F. Subd. 2. Flexibility: The uniqueness of each CPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses: Any permitted use as regulated in the underlying zoning district and those specific uses approved by the City Council shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a CPUD district. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses: Any conditional use as regulated in the underlying zoning district shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a CPUD district. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses: Any accessory use as regulated in the underlying zoning district shall be treated as a potentially allowable accessory use. Page 1 of 9 \ Subd. 6. Development Standards: Within the CPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: A. Comprehensive Plan. Proposed uses and development of property shall be only for uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. B. Rezoning: Rezoning to CPUD shall only be considered for properties within the B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B*6 zoning districts. C. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages shall be is conformance with the requirements of Shoreland Ordinance. D. Setbacks and Separation of Uses. Within the CPUD district the setback for all buildings shall be 35 feet to any residentially zoned property, building setbacks to property lines not zoned for residential use shall be determined as appropriate by the City Council based on the use of the property, use of adjacent properties, and development patterns of adjacent properties. The setback for parking structures shall be 20 feet to street property lines. E. Height Limitations. For properties guided for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of the underlying zoning district shall apply. F. Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage shall not be permitted within a CPUD district. G. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a CPUD site. H. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted as part of a general sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated within the CPUD approval. Any changes to signs not permitted with the CPUD shall require an amendment to the CPUD approval. I. Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. J. Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved CPUD development nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved CPUD development. K. Lighting Standards. All CPUD developments shall be subject to the general perfomiance standards for lighting per the Zoning Chapter. L. Trails/Sidewalk. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail consUiicted at the developer’s expense. \^ere public rights-of-way are available, at the City’s discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous construction, or such other material as may be approved by the City. The width of the trails shall be determined by the type of trail and necessary width to accommodate the existing connections and anticipated use of the trail. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and use of curb and gutter shall be incorporated when deemed necessary by the City. M. Architectural Standards. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be Page 2 of 9 prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the following for all structures: A. elevations of all sides of the building; B. type and color of exterior building materials; C. a typical floor plan; D. dimensions of all structures; E. the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. F. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. G. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. H. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to be not visible. I. All trash and recycling facilities shall be fully enclosed within a structure. No exterior trash and recycling facilities shall be permitted. J. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation wal’ie of the structure). N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a. boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions b. locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads, trails and other improvements; c. proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals d. location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; e. a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions f. planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; g. locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; h. details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; i. location and details of irrigation systems; and j. details and cross sections of all required screening. I. Minimum Landscaping Requirements. Ail open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives, trails or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other simitar site design features or materials in a quantity' having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Page 3 of 9 Proitct Value (Including jpuilding construction, site preparation, and site improvements) Below $1,000,000 $1,000,000-$2,000,000 $2,000,001 -$3,000,000 $3,000,001 -$4,000,000 Over $4,000,( Minimum Landscape Value 2.0 % of Project Value $20;000 + 1% of Project Value in excess of $1,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of Project Value in excess of$2,(I I IKK I $37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 1.0 % of Project Value a) In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of die standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of lYi inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 Yi inches. d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, trails, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. A sprinkler system shall be installed in new landscaping areas. f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. g) When it is determined by the City that the amount of screening provided by the requirements noted above does not adequately address screening and/or is not compatible with surrounding properties, the City Council may require additional landscaping and screening to ensure that surrounding properties have an adequate buffer to the use(s) and structure(s) proposed with the CPUD. Page 4 of9 2. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. All parking lots containing over 30 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the City. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the City. 3. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be Jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 4. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. 5. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one ai'd one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to two full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. 6. Screening and Buffering. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance w ith the requirements of this subdivision: a. All buildings shall be adequately buffered from residential lots. OfT-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. b. Loading docks shall be screened from aU lot lines and public roads. Page 5 of9 c. Trash storage facilities shall be fully enclosed within a permanent structure that is architecturally harmonious with the buildings on the property. d. Access toads shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. e. Rei|uired screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. f All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall located on any public right-of-way or within ten feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway, g. Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. Subd. 8. Review of Application; Procedures. A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a CPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant shall submit a concept plan for review and comment by the Planning Conunission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is required for CPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following: A. approximate building, road and trail locations; B. height, bulk and square footage of buildings; C. type and square footage of specific land uses and uses of each tenent; D. generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and preserved; and E. staging and timing of the development. The comments of the Planning Commission and City Council shall address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the Planning Commission and City Council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the Planning Commission or City Council regarding approval of the formal CPUD application when submitted. B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to CPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning code amendment. The master development plan shall contain the following: A. building location, height, bulk and square footage; type and square footage of specific land uses; detailed street and utility locations and sizes parking layout; drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot contours; generalized landscape plan; generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting; plan for timing and phasing of the development; covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; B. C. D. E. F. 0. H. I. J. Page 6 of9 I permanent structure that is e impact of vehicle headlights es, walls, earth berms, hedges, ecturally harmonious with the he screen shall be designed to II seasons. the lot occupied by the use, fering shall be located on any street or highway. I height needed to accomplish iction shall be measured at the ic design of a CPUD prior to concept plan for review and nission of a concept plan is the applicant, the concept plan i. Generally, this information ;h tenent; preserved; and address the consistency of the 'ommission and City Council kJ binding upon the Planning lal CPUD application when f a rezoning to CPUD and edures outlined in the Zoning shall contain the following: r storage areas; f the dev elopment; K. renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development; L. trail plan; and M. lighting plan. Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning cf the property to CPUD. After rezoning of the property to CPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the CPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment. C. Development Agreement/Financial Guarantee. Following the approval of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan afproval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the terms of the CPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. Such agreement may take the form of: 1) a development contract; and/or 2) a Site Improvement Performance Agreement; and/or 3) another form of binding instrument as may be required by the City. D. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire CPUD or for specific parts of the CPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the City, including the following: 1 ) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans; 2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; 3) detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans; and detailed trail plan. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: buildings, parking areas roads and trails are in substantially the same location as previously approved; Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their recommendations and actions regarding approval of a CPUD on a consideration of the following: A. compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan; B. preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general character and appearance of neighboring properties, C. creation of compatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development, giving special attention to: D. an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; E. the amount and location of open space and landscaping; F. materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in Page 7 of9 terms of location and number access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. G. promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures,nhe use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; H. protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, pieservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.; and I. such other factors as the planning commission or city council deem relevant. The Planning Commission and City Council may attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section. Subd. 9. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the probity within a CPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the CPUD zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the CPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the CPUD. If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was approved or if building construction in a phase of a CPUD approved to be built in phases has not started within this period or if within that period no extension of the time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the CPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the CPUD. Subd. 10. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original CPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: A. substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; B. increases or decreases the number of units; C. increases the gross floor area of any individual building; D. increases the number of stories of any building; E. decreases the amount of open space or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or F. creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. Page 8 of9 I Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the Council. Subd. 11. Platting Procedure. The platting procedure shall follow the platting procedures«s specified in the Subdivision Ordinance. 1 Highway 12 Commercial Area Zoning Map I City of Orono Commerdal Zoning Districts ?s O b: M &N A y s O Council Eihibit O Navarre Commercial District TMs map indicates all commercially zoned properties in the Navarre area. All properties not identified as commercial are zoned Residential. OctotMT 10,2002 B-1 District B-3 District B-4 District B-5 District Council Exhibit B Navarre Commercial District N 8 TNs map indicates all commercially zoned properties In the Navane area. All properties not identified as commercial are zoned Residential. October 10.2 im B‘1 District B-3 District B-4 District B>5 District R«o«lv«<l: 0/10/02 1:30PMS 0524731340 • > 0«V«rn.ZX. Inc.; Page 2 .SEI^:-19’02 (THU) 11:41 NOHAGEN ARCHITECTS. LTD TEL ^ —- ■— ___________________________ CouncU Exhibit PI rKri aMMftOthiPg COMI A - 1 raa C5MI OOMM Uk* Mtawo*! Tomi one* M 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '•crriNQ ^ 4 2002 DATE: September 19,2002 ITEM NO.: Dcpartmeat Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Adniabtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item DescriptioD:#02-2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances Lbt of Exhibib: A B Resc’ Jun September 19,2002 Staff Report and Exhibits Application Background and Summary: The property owner requested two changes to an earlier variance. The changes include shiAing the house I’ closer to the west side property line (7.S’ setback). The second change is to add 65 square feet to the lakeside of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The 4.5’ extension will be from the center of the front of the house and angle back to each side. The following variances are required; 1. To permit 680 s.f. (18.1%) hardcover and structure in the 0-75* lakeshore setback where 660 s.f (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed. [Section 10.22, Subdivisions I and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8] 2. To permit 884 s.f (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f (25%) hardcover is allowed. [Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) I and 2] 3. To permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f where 21,780 s.f is required and a defined lot width of 50' where 100' is required. [Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B)] 4. To permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 10* setback is required [Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)J 5. To permit one off-street parking space to be located 3' from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in "R" districts is required to be set back 10'. [Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A)j The Council reviewed this request on September 23, 2002 and directed Staff to draft a resolution approving variances to permit a house to be constructed on the property. The attached resolution was drafted based on the findings and conclusions made by the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution approving the variances listed above. ; i’ ) - n A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 02-2813 WHEREAS, Mark Welch, (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 9, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 273, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 680 s.f. (18.1%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists, not including the shared driveway, and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of5,462 s.f. where 21,780 s.f. is required and a lot width of 50' where 100' is required and to permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 1 O' setback is required; and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one off-street parking space to be located 3' from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in "R” districts where a 10' setback is required; 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 August 19,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, Page 1 of8 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File //02-2813. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where 1/2 acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. The property is 5,462 s.f. (absent the traveled portion of the shared driveway) and has a lot width of SO'. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval of a revised plan by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A.On February 25, 2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4763 approving variances to permit new construction on the property. B.The applicant had submitted a new variance application on July 16, 2002 requesting two changes to the site plan approved per Resolution No. 4763; a)To permit the southwest comer of the house to be shifted 1 * towards the west side propertv' line. To permit a 4.5’ prow and 5’ eave addition to the lakeside of the residence. C.The City of Orono has routinely granted variances to lot area and lot width for redevelopment on non-conforming lots in the City. The property does meet the criteria that is normally considered when reviewing such proposals. The property is connected to sanitary sewer and the house would be located in an area above the regulatory flood plain. Overall hardcover on the property would decrease. E.The land elevation is about 4' higher than the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The lot cannot accommodate a basement. F.The new house is proposed to be located 53' from the lakeshore where a 75' setback is required. Both adjacent houses are within 50' of the lakeshore. Page 2 of8 ( G. The proposed house cannot meet a 75' setback due to the location of the shared driveway access on the property. The house is located to within 2' of the edge of the drive. H. The S' side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking space on the property. The Zoning Code requires residential properties to have 2 off-street parking spaces. To accommodate a second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance is required because the house is shifted towards the west side property line. The parking stall must be located between the house and side property line due to the shared driveway located behind the house. The driveway is narrow and permanent parking within the driveway area would block through Uafftc. I. No parking is available on the opposite side of the shared driveway as the land immediately begins to rise to the elevation of North Shore Drive. J. A typical parking space in a commercial area is 9' X 20' in size. The proposed parking area would be approximately 10' X 20'. K. The Planning Commission advised the applicant the house should be designed to meet the minimum 50' lakeshore setback as generally advised by the DNR and not encroach any ftuther into the shared driveway than the existing house is located. Locating the house any closer to the lakeshore or 'nto the driveway would set a negative precedent for redevelopment of the properties located on the shared driveway. Any building in this neighborhood within 50' of the lakeshore would not be consistent with the policies established by the City for lakeshore development. 4. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: A. The City Council finds the driveway width shall not be encroached upon to allow adequate area for emergency vehicle access to all properties served by the driveway. Any encroachment would eliminate parking spaces and reduce the traveled width. It is the position of the City of Orono that the entire driveway shall be encouraged have an improved width of 24'. 24' is the standard minimum paved width for a private road. Page 3 of8 5. B. C. D. E. The lakeshore setback has been established by the location of the existing houses on the adjacent lots. The proposed location of the applicant ’s house, although not SO’ from the lakeshore, is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. The fact that the private driveway crosses this lot and adjacent lots requires the concentration of development to be within 75’ of the lake. The proposed size of the house is less than 1,500 s.f. 1,500 s.f. is the allowed size for structures on this property. The Council determined a 1,500 s.f. building is too large for this property based on the magnitude of hardcover and setback variances that would be needed, but the 1,241 s.f. proposed building is consistent with the development patterns of this neighborhood. The fact that a shared driveway is located on this property is unique to this neighborhood. The driveway divides this property and adjacent properties, and thus reduces the buildable portion of the lot. The driveway cannot be relocated to allow any buildings further from the lakeshore due to a steep grade that exists to accommodate the approach for the channel bridge. Any relocation of the private driveway further to the north would require removal of large amounts of the hillside and installation of retaining walls and additional hardcover on the property. It is concluded the best option to protect the County Road and the lake (by not allowing additional hardcover) is to allow the house to be located clos;:r to the lakeshore. The variances are justified as the private road shall be left in its current location while encouraging an improved width for the entire driveway of 24*. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and w ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 4 of 8 i 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 Municip^ Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16(L) 1 and 2 to permit 680 s.f.( 18.1%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f (25%) hardcover is allowed (hardcover does not include the shared driveway); Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f where 2 1 ,780 s.f is required and a lot w idth of 50' where 100' is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 10' setback is required; Section 10.61, and Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one off-street parking space to be located 3' h ’om the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R" districts is required to be set back 10',; subject to the following conditions: 1.The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal shall be removed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence. 2.Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3' setback to the property line. 3.Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. 4.The property shall be developed in conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit A. 5.The existing arborv itae between the applicant’s lot and the property to the west shall be maintained to ensure adequate screening between the properties. 6.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 (October 14,2003). Page 5 of8 r i 7.ViolatwA 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. 8. The undersigned owner has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ne on this 14th day of October, 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 6 of 8 il J 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/shc/they executed the same as bis/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .,20 _ personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/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 7 of8 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 19,2002 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Proposed New Site Plan February, 2002 Approved Site Plan Resolution No. 4763 - Previous Variance Approval Memo and Exhibits of 9-3-02 Fire Code Excerpts Floor Plans/Elevation Views Application Background and Summary: The Council approved variances to allow a new house to be built on this property in February, 2002. A copy of the approved site plan is attached exhibit B. The property owner has requested two changes to the approved site plan. The changes include shifting the house 1 ’ closer to the west side property line (7.S ’ setback). The second ch.mge is to add 65 square feet to the lakeside of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prew, “v-shape” glass point on the IsJteside of the residence. The 4.5’ extension will be from the center of the front of the house and 8n*»le back to each side. To construct the proposed house with the changes will require the following variances: , 1 . To permit 420 s.f. (12.9%) hardcover and structure in the 0-75 ’ lakcshore setback where 660 s f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed [Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8] 2. To permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed (Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 1 and 2] 3. To permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f. where 21,780 s.f. is required and has lot width of 50' where 100 ’ is required. [Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)] 4. To permit a side yard setback of 5’ for the house where a 10* setback is required [Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)] *211} Marie Welcli 362} North She.'* Driw raaeloT* 1 5. To permit one off-street parking space to be located 3* from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R" districts is required to be set back 10'. [Section 10.61, Subdivision S (A)j Plaoolng Commission Review and Recommendation of August 19,2002 and September 16, The Planning Commission, on September 16*, established development parameters that would allow redevelopment of the property while maintaining adequate setbacks to the lakeshore The Planning Commission also included review of the driveway access to this property and adjacent properties, and concluded the proposed encroachment of the .shared driveway was not appropriate. Summary of the Planning Commission recommendation 1. The adjustment to allow a I’ shift for the house to allow a 7.5 ’ side setback, with a 1.5 ’ overhang be approved. 2. The house and overhang are permitted to be located with a 50 ’ setback to the lakeshore. 3. The house shall not be located closer to the north property line than the average distance of the two adjacent residences, which is equal to meeting the same setback as the existing house. The prow addition to the plans docs oa| allow the house to expand beyond the size that was approved with the variances in February. The Planning Commission recommendation would not permit the 4.5 ’ prow, as requested with the new application. The Planning Commission based their recommendation ou the following findings: A. This property does require lot area and lot width variances. Part of the review of lot area and lot width variances is to review if the property is capable of accommodating the proposed development. In this case, due to the decreased width of the driveway and its inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses the Planning Commission cannot '. ommend approval of the application. B. The primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house would be located approximately 6 ’ into a shared driveway. There are two properties west of this property that require crossing this property for their only access. Reducing the width of the driveway from the existing 22 ’ to 16 ’ will make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than the current situation. C. The two adjacent houses are located at approximately the same rear/street setback as the existing house. If this house location is approved, it would set a standard for where new houses along this driveway are built, and future requests from licigi.boring properties to narrow the driveway could be expected. D. The decreased width of the drivew •' will contribute to potential snow storage problems. There is little space to store snow along thi. treet because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north. Snow storage to the soutl. s restricted by the location of the houses. E. The Zoning Code requires two parking sulls on a residential property. One proposed stall is an interior parking space and the second would be located east of the house. The reduction in driveway width also makes backing of a vehicle from the garage stall difficult. 18 ’ Mark Welch 362 r.Ofth Shore Drive Page 2 3f4 4 I i in many cases is not adequate to properly maneuver in and out of a garage. The concept of shifting the driveway to the north or adding a backout area beyond the existing driveway is not possible due to the extreme slope of the hill leading up to North Shore Drive. Also any changes to the driveway and/or addition of a backout area for vehicles would require removal of part of the hillside that supports the County Road and construction of a retaining wail system. The City would liave further concerns with the land alteration and retaining wails since it would require additional hardcover on the property. F. The passable portion of the driveway is further reduced by any parking that would be located on the north side of the house. Assuming a standard 9 ’ parking width the total available passing distance remaining would be 10 ’ if the house is located further to the north. G. The Planning Commission was supportive of any plan that would result in the house not encroaching further into the driveway than the existing house and not within SO’ of the lakeshore. Both conditions could be met by removing the roof overhang from the lakeside of the house and reducing the prow to 4’ rather than 4.S*. Public Comments The adjacent property owner to the west (3635 North Shore Drive) appeared at the August 19, 2002 hearing and stated he would be supportive of the variances as presented that evening if the existing arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the two residences remained. Additional Staff Findings Since the Planning Commission meeting the City Fire Marshal was requested to provide standards for driveways for emergency vehicle access. The Fire Marshal stated the Uniform Fire Code (1997) requires access roads, including this driveway, meet a minimum accessible width of 20 ’. The current width of parts of this shared driveway is less than 20 ’. The driveway does get wider when it reaches the applicant’s property and the properties further west. The Fire Marshal stated the local Fire Chief can be requested to reduce the standards under certain conditions. Generally, the standards can be adjust^ when each building is provided with sprinkling systems and/or adequate hydrant locations are nvailable. [The houses on the private driveway are mostly old cabins that have been converted to year round homes. None have sprinkler systems. The properties are QQt served with municipal water, therefore there are no hydrants available. The water to fight a fire must be transported to the property by individual tankers.) The property is located in the Long Lake service area. The Long Lake Fire Dept, has been contacted to comment on the proposed building plan. No comments have been made available to the City as of the date of this memo. Those comments may be a ailable by the Council meeting of September 23"*. The driveway serves as a private roadway. Private roadways serving 7 or fewer units in the City require a roadway width of 24 ’. This roadway is 22 ’ wide or less for the entire length. A 22 ’ roadway can serve adequately for this neighborhood but 16’ is Qst wide enough for a private road with parking. •2113 Mark Welch 3623 North Shore Drive Pagc3or4 COUNCIL OPTIONS FOR ACTION A.To approve the variances as requested per the revised site plan, allowing the house to be constructed into the driveway area. B. w~ To approve the plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. This option approves essentially the same site plan as the February, 2002 variarive with the only change being the I ’ shifting of the southwest comer of the house. Approval shall be subject to the following conditions, which are restated from the required conditions in Resolution No. 4763: «) b) c) d) e) Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 10* along the north property line and S' along the interior property lines. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3' setback to the property line. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. Property owners shall retain the arborvitae hedge along the west lot line. C.To deny the variances and allow the variances approved in February to be the standard for the new construction. D.Other Action Staff Rccommcodation Staff recommends option B. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval per option B. A new resolution will be presented for approval at your October 14* meeting. •2113 Marie Welch 3«2S North Shun Ofh« Pa§e4or4 ! . f -y-::m /(s Exhibit A •--r msiz d) ••»• . •j‘>zc^:. 0.,V o\ li GITYof ORONO RESOLU.iON OF THE CITY COUNCIL 47 6aNO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) FILE NO. 01-2751 WHEREAS, Mark Welch, (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property by a Contract for Deed, and Robert Eberle and Colleen Eberle, are owners (hereinafter “the owners”) of the property located at 3625 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: L ot 9, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 273, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 615 s.f. (16.4%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250’ setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of 5,462 s.f. where 21,780 s.f. is required and a lot width of 50’ where 100’ is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 10’ setback is required; and Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one off-street parking space to be located 3’ from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R” districts is required to be set back 10’; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes an 1 the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Metro Legal Services Inc. Box 491 Page 1 of? I fitful CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4763NO. 3. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-275 1. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where '/a acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. The property is 5,462 s.f. (absent the traveled portion of the shared driveway) and has a lot width of 50 ’. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A.The City of Orono has routinely granted variances to lot area and lot width for redevelopment on non-conforming lots in the City. The property does meet the criteria that is normally considered when reviewing such proposals. The property is connected to sanitary sewer and the house would be located in an area above the regulatory flood plain. B. Overall hardcover on the property w’ould decrease. C.The land elevation ir about 4' higher than the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The lot cannot accommodate a basement. D.The new house is proposed to be located 53' from the lakeshore where a 75' wtback is required. Both adjacent houses are within 50' of the lakeshore. The new house is located to meet the minimum 50 ’ lakeshore setback as required by the DNR. DNR staff has reviewed the plans and stated they do not have any requirements on the development based on the building being located outside the 50' setback. E. The house proposed cannot meet a 75' setback due to the location of the shared driveway access on the property. The house is located to within 2* of the edge of the drive. Page 2 of 7 1 CITY of ORONO l«esBO& RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- a 7 Q y F.The S' side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking space on the property. The Zoning Code requires residential properties to have 2 ofT-street parking spaces. To accommodate a second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance is required because the house is shifted towards the west side property line. The parking stall must be located between the house and side property line due to the shared driveway located behind the house. The driveway is narrow and permanent parking within the driveway area would block through traffic. G. No parking is available on the opposite side of the shaded driveway as the land immediately begins to rise to the elevation of North Shore Drive. H. A typical parking space in a commercial area is 9’ X 20’ in size. The proposed parking area would be approximately 10' X 20*. 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 variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serv-e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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 CONDll lO.NS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.3S. Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit 615 s.f (16.4%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed, and to permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit new construction on the lot with a deHned lot area of 5,462 s.f where 21,780 s.f. is required and a lot w idth of 50' where 100' is required, and to permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a lO' Page 3 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 6 3 sctb&ck is rcquiredi snd Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit one off-street parking space to be located 3’ from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R” districts is required to be set back 10* subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 10* along the north property line and 5' along the interior property lines. 2. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3’ setback to the property line. 4. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. The property shall be developed in conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit 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 (February 25,2003). 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. The undersigned owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 7 % . 4^ GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO -----4-7 6 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 2Sth day of February, 2002. ATTEST: l6u. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Fee Owners Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of February, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota mumcipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behulf of the City. Notary Ppbljfi. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AUSSA A WINTERNHEiMER NOTARY Pueuc • MMCSOTA Mr CanmWon Eipim Jw. )1, am W The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this • day of f^iCKrC A______, 200 P 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 PageSof 7 :>IMiSEM.LESKINEN notary naue. iMcaoTA 1 fll CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 6 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this JJt'day of _rVv\trh . 20 ri'. IY rl' U V. ...... personally appeared before me, * ------- ' who is personally known to me ^ whose identity I proved on the basis of J M N JQ — whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation______~ witnesi credible and who executes *e foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/thj^y;.^g^jikgadalaabBaa«««^^^''^ . ^ RACHaOOOGc g 0> ’ NOrARV«*B.I«NE.-OTA ^^ ^<0 — STATE OF M- COUNTY OF HEiCh^i^urmr ioei^Aw •/Ccrviii»ionegHiJM.9t.200s Ijgotary Public .zrzizszzrsattm&titutt* On this day of Afi^H personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me 20(Q^''. T^on c‘>er e/L^ whose identity I proved on the basis ofj^g.a^ whose identity I proved on the oath/aflirmation________________ a credibje »''*heAhcy executed thetlfe^h I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public On this it a day of APA*C. personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me .• 20 6)%, . dOi-^BS/) Whose identity I proved on the basis of ^ioc,r,A i^as£- whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation_____________a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged tliat he/*he/thev ev^^^i^d th^ same as his/her/iheir free act and deed. nc/.ne/iney c .w.uicd the MJtEN E LOKXER ^ M'f‘^'''MISlK)N#OCI»W7 T lt ' OiriftCS lal !• mm$$ fvTT tlXPiaia i«l If. 3009 /Wv7 )tary Public Page 6 of? • • • • • t Exhibit* A Page 7 of 7 4 768 Planning Commission Review and Recommendation of August 19,2002: The Planning Commission tabled this appIicaUon and advised the applicant to revise the site plan to push the house and eaves back on the property to meet a 50’ setback to the lakeshore. Furthermore the applicant could not exceed 660 s.f. which is the existing hardcover in the 0-75’ setback. The adjacent property owner to the west (3635 North Shore Drive) appeared at the hearing and stated he would be supportive of the variances as presented that evening if the existing arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the two residences remained. The new site plw docs meet the parameters as established by the Planning Commissison. The revised application requires review of the following variances: I. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-IC zonmg district is 10’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 5 ’ and 7.5 ’ from west side property line. Side Yard: The rear of the residence is approved to be located 5 ’ from the west property line where 10’ is^uired. The lake side comer of the residence was approved to be 8.5 feet from the property line. The applicant is proposing to locate this comer of the residence at 7.5 ’ from the property line. The 5 ’ side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking space on the property To accommodate the second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance was required because the house was shifted towards the west side property line. The rear comer of the residence will still be located 5 from the property line. The city prefers residences to be a minimum of 10’ apart, the lakeside comer will be 8.5 ’ from the adjacent residence rather than 9.5 feet per the prior variances approval. The 10’ separation between buildings that City strives to maintain is for ernergency Mccss as well as for aesthetics, to limit the visual density within neighborhoods. Access will be available from the east side of the property. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8: Structure within the 75 ’ lakeshore Setback. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1 and 2)- Hardcover. Total Area 0-75’-3,750 s.f. Allowed - 0 s.f. Approved = 615 s.f (16.4%) Proposed - 420 s.f (12.9%) Total Area 75-250 — 1,712 s.f. (Does not include 1,153 s.f. of shared drivewav) Allowed - 428 s.f (25%) Approved - 884 s.f (51.6%) Proposed - 884 s.f (51.6%) •o:OII) Marie Welch H25 North Short Drive Piir2 It would be appropriate to restate the other variances that were required to redevelop this property. 4. Section 10.25, Section 6 (B): Lot Area/lot width. (LR*1C Zoning District) 5. Se^on 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Side Yard Setback encroachment 6. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A): Required parking in a Residential Zoning District. To petmit one off-street parking stall to be located 3 ’ from an interior side property line, where off- street parking for residential lots requires a 10* setback. Staff Recommendation (Revised Site Plan) Staff is recommending denial of the application as revised due to the following difficulties: Relocating the house to meet a 50* lakeshore setback pushes the house further back on the property and into the shared driveway. The new house on this property would encroach 5* to 6* into the driveway. The addition of the 4.5* “V-shaped** prow and overhang causes the driveway encroachment. The previously approved plan had the house meeting a 53* setback to the shoreline for the house, with the overhang being 48.5* from the shoreline, but no part of the house encroached into the driveway. Both site plans are attached as Exhibits A and B. Staff has visited the propeny and determined the two adjacent houses are located at approximately the same setback as the existing house. If this house locatic .i is approved, it would set a standard to where new houses along this driveway are built. The primary concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house would be located 6* into a shared driveway. There are two properties that require crossing this property for their only access. Reducing the width of the driveway from the existing 22* to 16* will make parking and passing of vehicles more difficult than what is there now. The decreased width of the driveway will contribute to potential snow storage problems for the driveway. There is little space to store snow along this street because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north. Snow storage to the south is restricted by the location of the houses. Staff is not aware of how snow storage is handled on this driveway, but does see narrowing as a concern. The reduction in driveway width also makes backing of vehicles out of the garage stall difhcult. 16* in many cases is not adequate to properly maneuver in and out of a garage. The concept of shifting the driveway to the north or adding a backout area beyond the existing driveway is not possible due to the extreme slope of the hill leading up to North Shore Drive. Also any changes to ^e driveway and/or addition of a backout area for vehicles would require removal of part of the hillside that supports the County Road and construction of a retaining wall system. This option would have to be reviewed by Hennepin County. The City would have further concerns with the land alteration and retaining walls since it would require additional hardcover on the property. This property does require lot area and lot width variances. Part of the review of lot area and lot width variances is to review if the property is capable of accommodating the proposed development »02.2II) Mwk Welch 3625 Nonh Short Drive In this case, due to the decreased width of the driveway and its’ inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses Staff cannot recommend approval of the application. Staff is supportive of any plan that would result in the house not encroaching further into the drivewaytllan the existing house and not within 50’ of the lakeshore. Both conditions could be met by removing the roof overhang from the lakeside of the house and reducing the prow to 4’ rather than 4.5’. Planning Commission Options for Action A. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation of approval for the application as revised, the following variances are required and should be noted in the motion: 1 . To permit 420 s.f. (12.9%) hardcover and structure in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. ( 1 7.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed. (Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8] 2. To permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f. (25%) hardcover is allowed. [Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 1 and 2] 3. To permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of5,462 s.f. where 21 780 s f. is required and has lot width of 50’ where 100’ is required. (Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B)J 4. To permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 10’ setback is required (Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)J ^ ^ 5. To permit one off-street parking space to be located 3’ from the adjacent property line where olf-street parking in -R" districts is required to be set back 10’. (SecUon 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A)J Any recommendation of approval shall be subject to the following conditions, whi:h are restated from the required conditions in Resolution No. 4763: a) b) c) d) Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 1 O' along the north property line and 5' along the interior property lines. » y cana:» Tlie existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3’ setback to the property line. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. B. A recommendation of denial, stating reasons. C. Table, providing direction to the application. Other Action. •02-311J MaiWtMi 362S Noftfi Shore DrHc Pi«l4 • { t A'tMN (JUUNIY, MINNESOTA y \: ( •CEWTCRLtC OF TRAV^-' ^>s6uTH EOCE OF wtomnous roadway ____________________roo7 RD. NO. 51 iNORTH SHORE DRIVE 1 ^=02*53'21" < <7-^-0 2. /\ ______^Aveu % EXISTWr. li! HOUSE (TO BE RlJEMO;|/E01.J, ^ /« «owva TO cn*! \]k PROPpSEli^'U Sir=-=M^^\ TING HOUSE • • *•'. *oor HOUSE (MM) (MM) \ALS (MM) SURVEY LINE! yj \••••••••,■/ 49)§P —^ >AL DESCRIPTION OF PREMiSErT~ LAKE "CONTOUR UNE 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 263 MINNETONKA denotes iron marker CRYSTAL BAY N denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datim 4 A / !, i Exhibit A / ^ssv GRAVtt loRWE'N^'^l emstmg HOUSE (TO 8E REMJj^O) »^» V\ A II ^••••« \m\i\ \ \ \ 6\ /| 6 house \ ,•••••••••*•••• H 1^ I ...•••TO REUOVEOl T%{. V • >13A (WMI (9324) ( I 1 (9316) ' SURVEY a LINE \ iJ» 't V.Page 7 of 7 \ • • • • July 16.2002 Dttcrlption of RoquMt: 1 )* shift the west side line from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet 2) Add 65 square feet to the front of the house by adding a 4.9 foot V shape ” glass Prow. Hardship / Description of Unusual Property Conditions: The four main problem areas are the access road, lot size, welt position and limned paridng. The access roMi has a steep embankment which runs parallel with county road 51 and provides access to this lot and five other neighboring properties. The access road is narrow and congested due to resident and quest parking. • The lot size is extremely narrow and the current home does not fall within the new cHy allowanoes. The new design is designed to accommodate the lot size and is positioned behind the two existing neighbor's homes. The well position is currently out side of the city variances. Limited space for safe parking due to the narrowness of the lot and access road there is limited parking available for the residents and or quests. #2813 © i#.““ • ■ ¥ WssdUiM " jxrr / irr\ ^•*ia •‘ 4: ^m i tall I »Tiio*r ' I ' » I I Oawi 'j ' jp*.-** • »■«&< ^ • I • I : I i I 0m"I> I I ••'- i I ;f0 T C) ; t^« A •\'r ’»Aa% $a I EiipES r^an *a ig'IMKI Bisiri-a-:• a*.' • V a* \ <.*>• I I • 1 h " •• • ;r •.| * :;:ia4- •• - vi. .- •■: w» .»* I • ‘-t •••■ ’ • ' • ■ ■■ i’-?{ ^ Z2. T First n««f « Jir, ' 4J .11 ^j;|inca2?| 7------ rrz::^- * C ^ - JJ.(TS)': " '! : 59 f^<J V ■------II ^nNCJTESOFTHE ORONO FLANNING CX>2tfMISSION MEETING Mondajr, August 19,2002 0:30e'dockp.in. © Fritzler concurred with Rahn. Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve Application #02-2812, Marvin and Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 1/2 story additiou over the cxbtlng garage of the resideuce. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #02-2813 MARK WELCH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE 8:06 p.m. 8:40 p.m. Linda Welch, Sister representing the Applicant Marie Welch, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant has not yet built the residence and wishes to make two changes to the approved plan. Bottenberg reported that the changes to the plan include shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line, straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65 s.f. to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shi^e ” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The approved variances had not expired and the additional variances would include a side yard setback to permit the addition to be 5 ’ and 7.9’ from the west side property line. Additional variances for hardcover and structure within 75 ’ of the lakeshore were also necessary. The proposed residence was originally approved to be 53 ’ from the lakeshore, the addition of the “prow” extends the house 4.5 ’ towards the lake which now locates the residence 48.5’ from the lakeshore. Bottenberg reminded the Commission that the DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50 ’ for a General Development Lake property. Although the residence would still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, the average lakeshore setback is not an issue. PAGE 16 4 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Angosl 19,2003 0:30 o’clock pjn. Smith isked what the rationale for the “prow** was. "" ------------------ Ms. Welch suted that the “prow” is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake. Mabusth reminded the Conunission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the qjplicant of back in Febniaiy. Gaf&on noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5 ’ from the i^ce, however, this measurement did not reflect the eaves, which would extend even fur'jier into the setback, as would any steps. Rahn asked if the glass “prow” was all windows and no doors. Ms. Welch stated there were no doors. Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area. Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very strongly to the lakeshore setback. Smith questioned whether the “prow” could be set back further into the house to meet the approved setback area. Mabusth asked how die Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f. r • * MINUTES OF1HE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Almost 19,2002 (:30e*cl^|Mii. hardcover that existed before removals. Rahn stated that he had no issue with the ^plicant moving further towards the street about 1 1/2’ which would still keep them within the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron reiterated that the glass structure only could extend the additional 1 1/2’, the eaves on top of ttiat would mean that much more encroachment. Rahn stated that the design could be revised so as not to encroach within the 50’ setback and asked what would happen if the City goes beyond the DNR 50’ setback. • • Gaffron stated that City’s are allowed to go beyond the DNR recommendation, and have done so in some instances. Smith asked how vigilant the City has been to adhere to the 50’ DNR setback and uphold this recommendation. Gaffron noted that in certain situations they have granted the encroachment. Rahn stated that he was okay with the 65’ s.f. “prow” addition and a 1 foot gable overhang, which would keep the property well under the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowed. Gaffron pointed out that the 1,500 s.f. is a limit not an allowance to be met. Bremer stoted that she had difficulty supporting this application since earlier that evening the Melin application had been sent back to the drawing board when they had proposed into the 75 ’ setback with a deck. She indicated that 50’ is much too close and she could not support the application. Mabusth stated that she had no problem with the west lot line realignment but had difficulty with PAGE II r minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Aafost 19,2002 0:30 e*clock pjn. going beyond the 53’ setback. She felt they needed to be consistent with the earlier ^tplicati^ Rahn agreed stating that the City needs to maintain some consistency in new home versus existing home construction. Mabusth indicated that she had a problem with more encroachment and extending caves. Rahn maintained that the code did not read die way he felt it was being interpreted. Gaffion reiterated that property owners may be aUowed 1,500 s.f. coverage and hardcover, however, litUe lots may never reach that and maintain hardcover restrictions. Smith stated that she c ould support shifting the residence, but could not accept the additional 64 s.f. Bob Liberman, 3635 North Shore Drive, stated that he believed the addition would look very nice but voiced his concern over what moving the residence closer to the lot line would mean to his property. Mr. Liberman asked how this might impact him if he ever chose to rebuild, would he be limited by what his neighbor was allowed to do coming so close to the property line. He went on to question the possibUity of losing the arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the two residences. He was concerned that they remain li order to maintain privacy. Ms Welch sUted that she assumed that the wall of arborviue would remain to maintain pnvacy. Smith indicated that Ms. Welch was speaking on Mr. Welch’s behalf and could speak to the need to keep the arborvitae. Gaffion ilated that if the Commisiion W|>poits the teali(nment it would not he an ---------- condition that the arborvitae remain to maintain the privacy and screening. PAGE 19 lanirni ii iini i J MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mvaday, Aagnt If, 2002 6:30 o'clock pjn. Smitti asked Mr. Libennan if he could support the shift if the artMrvitae remained. Mr. Liberman stated that he could supp<Ht the shift if the aiborvitae did remain. Ms. Welch indicated that she believed the applicant could leave the shrubbery or the equivalent Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difiiculty supporting the eaves and “prow”. Fritzler stated that, as proposed, he could not support the extending peak or *t>row”, he felt the fiont either had to be strai^t across or moved back further into the house. Mabusth and Bremer felt the ^plicant needed to maintain a 53’ setback. Rahn stated that he liked the new design. Smith stated that she liked the “prow” but wanted to see it at S3’. She questioned whether the Commission could support giving them back the original 660 s.f of hardcover. She indicated that she could see that three of the Conunissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted. Ms. Welch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin existing home application due to the investment being made and the fact that this home would not ever be allowed any decking. Bremer argued that this application could support a deck if the home being proposed were smaller. The similarity to Melin is merely that they both fall under the 1,500 s.f. hardcover. Smith suggested the q;q>licants table the ^)plication in order to redesign the plan, pulling back the “prow” a bit to maintain the 53’and coming back again. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Angart 2002 <:30o*dodipjn. Smith once ogain asked if the Commission were wUling to give a Utde bit on the square fooUge. Mabusth stated that the original home had 660 s.f of hardcover and felt it justified to hold the new residence to that figure, yet she stressed how important it was to maintain the 53’ setback. Smith asked if this meant up to the 50’ DNR recommendation. Fiitelcr and Bremer sUted that they would adhere to the approved 53 ’ and no less. Mabusth stated that she would like to know how deep the proposed overhang would be. Rahn stated that he could support the 50’ setback. Ms. Welch asked the Commission to set the parameters for her and she would take them back U Mr. Welch to redesign and meet those. Mabusth reiterated that the applicant not exceed the 660 s.f and maintain a 50’ setback, and asked her to have the surveyor mark the eave depth and distance from the lake on the survey the next time around. Ms. Welch felt she had enough to go on. Rahn still questioned the overhang status. Mabusth pointed out that if a structure meets setback, it is a legal nonencroachment if the eaves overhang 1 1/2’; however, since this structure does not fidl within the legal setback of 75’, the overhartgs are counted into the equatioit SnMk moved, fHtikr Kcomicd, to tebk AppUcodoa dW-MIJ, Merit Wckk, 305 Norik Skoro Drive, to allow ttooppUcoat time for redc$l|o|miposct. VOTE: Ayco 5, Noyt 0. PAGE 21 I © TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 15,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 5,462 s.f. Exhibits: A Application Description of Request Survey/Site Plan Staff Report fix>m #02-2751 Resolution #4763 Planning Commission Minutes - February 19,2002 City Council Minutes - February 25,2002 Plat Map B C D E F G H Application Summary: The applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant has not built the approved residence and wishes to make two changes to the approved plan. The applicant is still proposing to construct a two bedroom/two bath home with a one stall *'tuck underi ’ garage space. The changes the applicant is proposing to the approved plan are: 1 . Shift the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line - Straightening out the residence to run parallel with the property line versus having it run parallel with the lake shore angle. 2. Add 65 square feet to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape ” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The 4.5’ extension will be from the center of the front of the house and angle back to each side. #020113 Mark Welch 362S North Shore Drive 8/15/2002 Page I of3 Discussion: The previous application approved the following variances: Sec8on 10.25, Sfratfo n 6 (B): Lot Area/lot width. Section 10.55, Subd. 8, Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, and%iid. 10.56, Subd. 16 (LXl): Hardcover and structure vdthin 75’ of the lakeshorc, and greater than 25% hardcover in the 75-2 : 0’ setback zone. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Side/rear yard setbacks. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A): To permit one off-street parking stall to be located 3’ from an interior side property line. The approved variances have not expired. However, because the site plan has changed two variances need to be revisited regarding the changes reflected in the new plan. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1C zoning district is 10’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 5’ and 7.9 ’ from west side property line. Side Yard: The rear of the residence is approved to be located 5’ from the west property line where 10’ is required. The lake side comer of the residence was approved to be 8.5 feet from the property line. The applicant is proposing to locate this comer of the residence at 7.5’ from the property line. (See Exhibit C). The 5’ side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking space on the property. To accommodate the second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance was requir^ because the house was shifted towards the west side property line. The rear comer of the residence will still be located 5 from the property line. The city prefers residences to be a minimum of 10’ apart, tlie lakeside comer will be 8.5’ from the adjacent residence rather than 9.5 feet per the prior variances approval. The 10’ separation between buildings that City strives to maintain is for emergency access as well as for aesthetics, to limit the visual density within neighborhoods. Access will be available from the east side of the property. 2. Section 10.55, Subd. 8, Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LXl): Variances for hardcover and structure within 7S ’ of the lakeshorc. Total Area 0-75’« 3,750 s.f. Allowed ■ 0 s.f Approved - 615 s.f (16.4%) Proposed ■ 680 s.f (18.1%) #02-2813 Mark Welch 3623 North Shore Drive 1/15/2002 Page 2 of 3 MB# Total Area 7S*2S0*« 1,712 s.f. (Does not include 1,153 s.f. of shared driveway) AUowed-428 s.f (25%) Approved * 884 s.f (51.6%) Proposed « 884 s.f (51.6%) Lot coverage by structures will increase from 1,176 s.f to 1,241 s.f Still below the allowed 1,500 s.f for the pioperty. The proposed residence was approved to be 53’ from the lakeshore. Adding the ’‘prow ” extends the house 4.5’ towards the lake which will now be located 48.5’ from the lakeshore where a 75’ setback is required. Both adjacent residences are within 50’ of the lakeshore. The DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50’ for a General Development Lake such as Lake Minnetonka. The proposed residence will still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, sc average lakeshore setback is not an issue. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. To sununarize the hardships, the four main problem areas are the access toad, lot size, well position, and limited paricing. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 0 4. Other action. S02>2II3 Mvfc Welch 3625 North Shore Drive 1/13/2002 Page 3 of 3 Biiiiiti a f I iim 1 ^ j 1M7 uraroRM pme CODE 901 902^1 PART III r GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SAFETY ARTICLE 9 — FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND WATER SUPPLY SECTION 901 — GENERAL W1.1 Scope. Fire department access and water supply shall be in accordance with Article 9. ‘•“rin* construction, alteration or demolition of a bttildug. see Article 87. 901.2 Permits Md Plana. Ml.2.1 PcmUts. A permit it required to use or operate fire hy drants or valves intended for fire-suppression purposes which are installed on water systems and accessible to public highways, alleys or private ways open to or generally used by the public. See Section 105, Permit f.l. A pcniiit it dm required for persons employed and authorized by the water company which supplict the system to use or operate Ore hydrants or vaKcs. 901JJ Plans. 901JJ.1 Fire apparatus access. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shill be submitted to the fire departmeot for review and ap proval prior to construction. Wln2.2w2 Fire hydrant systems. Plans and specifications for fire^ hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. 901 J Timing of Installation. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. EXCEPTION: When nlicrau* meUMdi of prMcction, u approved, am provided, the tequiremena of Section 901 J may be modified or wiiv^ 901.4 Required Marking of Fire Apparatus Accen Roads, Addresses and Fire-protection Equipment 901.4.1 General. Marking of fire apparatus access roads, addresses and fire-protection equipment shall be in accordance with Section 901.4. 90I.4J Fire apparatus access roads. When required by the chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both. 901.4J FIrc-protcction equipmeat and (Ire hydrants. Fire- protection equipment and fire hydrants shall be clearly identified m an approved manner to prevent obsirucUoo by parking and other obstructions. Wien required by the chief, hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of refieciive markers. Sec also Section 1001.7. I Ml.4.4 Rnaliu Identification. Approved oumben or ad- dressM shall be provided for aO new and existing buildings in such apoMiioa as to be plainly visible and legible fioni the street or roadfraoniig the property. 901.4J Street or road signs. When required by the chief, streets and roads shall be identified with approved signs. 901.5 Obstruction and Control of Fire Apparatus Access j FI«*Protectlon Equipment See Sections 902.2.4 and 1001.7. 901.6 Fire Protcctioa in Recreational Vehicle, Mobile Home and ManufatTured Housing Parks, Sales Lots and Storage Recreationil vehicle, mobile home and manufactured housing parks, sales lots and storage lots shall provide and main tain fire hydrants and access roads in accordance with Sections 902 and 903. EXCEPTION: Recreational vehicle parks located in rtmoie areas with protection and access roadways as required by SECTION 902 — RRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS 902.1 ^oeral. Fire department access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 901 and 902. ^2.2 Fire Apparatus Access Roads. *•**“*"** ■ccess. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Sections 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wa”. of the first story of the building IS located more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. See also Section 902J for per sonnel access to buildings. EXCEPTlO.NS: 1. When buOdinfs ire completely protected with fire sprinkier system, the provtsloia of Sections 9012.1 and 902.2.2 msy be axxlified by the chief. ^^^hen access roads cannot be installed due to kyttion on propeity. topography, waterways, noonegoiiable grades or ocher simile condi tions. the chief is authorized to require additional fire protectioa as soe- cified in Section 1001.9. ^ If there are 001 more than two Group R, Dtvtsioo 3. or Croup U Occupancies, the requiremena of Sections 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified by the chief. More than one fire apparatus road shaU be provided when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road might be Im paired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic condi- Uons or other factors that could limit Tctss For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 8102.6.1. For required access during construction. alteraUon or demoU- aon of a building, see Section 8704.2. 902 J.2 SpccificatkHU. • 90U^1 INarasioM Fire apparatus access roads shall have an iu»bstructed«^ofooile»ihan20feet(6096iBffl)andaaiiii- oMfructed vertical dearance of nor lav than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). --.^fP™^^.WijaldeMiac»mnybew4nc»d.pwvl4»dmck 1-^ •034.1^1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE Verticil clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. 902222 SurCicc. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support ^e imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided With a surface so as to provide all-weather driv ing capabilities. 902^ l\iiniDg radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall ^ as approved. 90222A Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feel (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. 902222 Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as part of a fire apparatus access road, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with nationally recognized standards. &e Anicle 90, Sundard a.1.1. The bridge shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the chief. 902J J.d Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved. 902Marking. See Section 901.4. 902.2.4 Obstniction and control of fire apparatus access. 902J.4.1 General. The required width of a fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under Section 902.2.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Entrances to roads, trails or other accessways which have been closed wi;h gates and barriers in accordance with Section 902.2.4.2 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. 902J.4 J Oosure of accessways. The chief is authorized to re quire the installation and maintenance of gates or other approved barri^des across roads, trails or other accessways, not including public streets, alleys or highways. When required, gates and barricades shall be secured in an approved manner. Roads, trails and other accessways which have been closed and obstructed in the manner prescribed by Section 902.2.4.2 shall not be trespassed upon or used unless authorized by the owner and the chief. E.\CCPT10.N: Public oCTjcers Kting wtihio their scope of duly. Locks, gates, doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, Ugs or seals which have been installed by the fire department or by its order or under its control shall not be removed, unlocked, destroyed, umpered with or otherwise molested in any manner. EXCEPTION: When luthorized by the chief or perfomed by public oCGcers acting wiihio their scope of duty. 902J Access to BuOding Openings. 902J.l Required access. Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus ac^ss roads to exterior openings required by this code or the Building Code shall be provided when required by the chief. M2JJ Maintenance of exterior doors and openings. Exte rior doors or their function shall not be eliminated without prior approval by the chief. Exterior doon which have been rendered nooAuictional and which retain a frinctiooal door exterior 1-« ypearance shall have a sign affixed to the exterior side of such door staling THIS DOOR BLOCKED. The sign shall consist of letters hsving principal stroke of not less than V4 inch (19.1 mm) wide and at least 6 inches (152.4 mm) high on a contrasting background. Required fire department access doors shall not be obstructed or eliminated. See Section 1207 for exit and exit-access doors. For access doors for high-piled combustible storaxe see Section 8102.6.2. 902JJ Shaflway marklog. Exterior windows in buildings used for manufacturing or for storage purposes which open directly on shaftways or other vertical means of communication between two or more floors shall be plainly marked with the word SHAFTWAY in red letters at least 6 inches (152.4 mm) high on a white background. Warning signs shall be easily discernible from the outside of the building. Door and window openings on such shaftways from the interior of the building shall be similarly marked with the word SHAFTWAY in a manner which is easily visile to anyone approaching the shaftway from the interior of the buildmg, unless the construction of the partition surrounding the shaftway is of such distinctive nature as to make its purpose evident at a glance. 902.4 Key Boxes, ^^'hcn access to or within a structure or an area IS unduly difficult because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or firefighting purposes, the chief is authorized to require a key box to be Installed in an accessible location. The key box shall be of an ap proved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the chief. ~ WATER SUPPUES AND FIRE HYDRANTS 903.1 General. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903. 903.2 Required Water Supply for Fir* ProtecUon. An ap- prov ed water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which fa cilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter con- siru^ed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. When any ponion of the facility or building protected is in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-siic fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided w hen required by the chief. See Sec tion 903.4. 903J Type of Water Supply. Water supply is allowed to constet or reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanl^ water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. In set ting the requirements for fire flow, the chief may be guided b ^ Appendix Ill-A. 903.4 Fire Hydrant Systems. 903.4.1 General 903.4.1.1 AppUcabiUty. Fire hydrant systems and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with Section 903.4. M3.4.1J Testing and maintenance. Fire hydrant systems shall M subject to such periodic tests as required by the chief. Fire hydrant systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at aU limes and shall be repaired where defective. Additions, reoairs. * *^dar^ *«fv>cing shall be in accordance with approved F i j j ^ I *=5^'. i J ^ : ' ff: :! ’ ■'■ r • . • V < L' v'^ «» * •if# ^ • " f k • a KA. yjfi ff r jj; i,':)iii.;- -I'«. •• ■' '-«- •; I The pitched roof of thi$ prow seems to reoch the stars lai«'m i \ ' -'VN % n iigi m c.i3# V 'It's ii jewel nestled in the pines.Terry F<yd. AZ With 0 fire »n the •tone firepkKt this custom prow in Afirono h o ipecial ploce to bo. - ^ i: - rT The k>ft otx3ve monies fhis d ntf^g room corv Qnd tnvirmg P'-J «!BWilly-.,W\ B r ‘ Upstoirs there's o millton-doflor eiew from the loft Ik %' m- VU'^l ii a ; . <»•: ‘ 'Hvl rj^- A r^m- ^r -r'~u.kM*Iis-. »-■ .^:rv ;• - ■:• r- -'^vV- -' • •f»- . c *. -. »• X.* t f « :.. ‘-i ••.*■■ ^.i ;•• ^"• ■•. * |L«. ' • • • *i •#•■ ••» • •*** . ** *' r' ^ A • •;.:-v;v.i .r \ •:. > * >, •t'ft’ •. .* •/•4.. •r ‘ ';v::>'^-- ‘•3*• • • •v \»'.iT«. » >• • ^'5':;'C! liN ti K, • - r: ’*< ' 4’ ' l5V- T\ I. Ml mooupZL A % JS^tUSSa^ <^-‘- - U4 •U*»t V4 • . r-4* 4 r-4»r-4* TOP.O fFRdTM r-4*. f*-4* u*^ p• 14*^ l_- - --ir-#-OVlft4^ FIRST FLOOR PLAN W4*.r-#» •& I. IXM immr •. ► * • \ ^__■ — ■ « • BciUdt verify tftUlf r«vlf» 4fQwlr to pe for rc fU€tt> oddItM pr«po •f«o const motor OfioOl or po tho s oonts portk to lb Codor rospo eorrs felow Oopth grodt to ee end r numb* found by ec Ploos« of cor thooo tho d □ p □ ? Homo Oistra u A S f* 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact! 5. A. The accessory building meets required setbacks fiom both Livingston Av mue and Shadywood Road. B The proposed conditional use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare and will not be out of character with the neighborhood. C. D. The property currently does not have a garage on it. The accessory building does not exceed the height of the principal building. The subject property is a ‘'through" lot located in a “R” District therefore a conditional use permit is required for an accessory building. F.The existing residence was built in the early 1960’s, prior to current zoning standards. G. There is not room on the rear or side of the property to place a garage. The rear of the property drops significantly. Access from Shadywood Road is not feasible. I.Applicant has agreed to make changes to an existing illegal deck to meet a 15* setback from Shadywood Road and agrees to alter the deck so no portion of the deck is 6\ or greater, in height from existing grade. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will nc: be detrimental 2 of6 .ik.aaMki I. 0/> Application Deadline: 9/3/02 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/02 OCf REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottenberg Title: Zoning Administrator C/ry ^ ^ 2002 DATE: ITEM NO. d- Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: i^02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue Variances Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and e.xhibits of 9/16/02 Application Summary: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D): Accessory Building location: No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 10: Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Building: All accessory' buildings on through lots located in "R” Districts shall require a conditional use permit. Application Summary’: The applicant has requested a variance to permit a detached garage to be located between the principal structure and the street. The 400 s.f detached garage will be located at the front of the property approximately 31 ’ from the street and 10’ from the side property line. A conditional use permit is required because this lot is considered a "through" lot. by Zoning Code definition a "through" lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front Hues for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts streets at the front and rear: Livingston Avenue and Shady’wood Road A deck was illegally constructed by the prior owner on the north and east sides of the house. Planning Commission recommends revisions to that deck to meet an acceptable setback to Shadywood Road and reduce its height so that a structural coverage variance will not be necessary’. If a deck railing is still needed and is greater than 42 inches, a variance to street setback should be granted. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve application with the following conditions: • Detached garage to be limited to 440 s.f. Deck to be IS’ (at a diagonal line) from County Road 19. Deck to be lowered, being less tluui 6’ in height. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To a{>prove the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D); AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 10, FILE NO. 02-2822 WHEREAS, Danielle Henely (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3422 Livingston Avenue wi^in the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 21, Block 2, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subidivision 10 to allow an accessory building to be constructed on the subject property closer to the street than the principal structure and on a through lot; and for a variance to retain part of a first floor deck which has a railing greater than 42'* above grade. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^02-2822. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where .5 acres is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .19 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 16,2002 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 subject to conditions. 1 of6 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: 5. A.The accessory building meets required setbacks from both Livingston Avenue and Shadywood Road. B.The proposed conditional use would not be detrimental to public heath, safety or welfare and will not be out of character with the neighborhood. C. The property currently does not have a garage on it. D. E. The accessory building does not exceed the height of the principal building. The subject property is a “through ” lot located in a “R” Disuict therefore a conditional use permit is required for an accessory building. F.The existing residence was built in the early 1960*s, prior to current zoning standards. G. There is not room on the rear or side of the property to place a garage. The rear of the property drops significantly. Access from Shadywood Road is not feasible. I. applicant has agreed to make changes to an existing illegal deck to meet a 15” setback from Shadywood road but which may still constitute an encroachment if the deck railing extends more than 42 ” above grade. The City Council Hnds 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessaiy to preserve a substantial (voperty right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code ana Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental 2 of6 ifeii 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 tne property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, coniments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03 Subdivision 10 to allow an accessory building to to be constructed on the subject property closer to the street than the principal structure and on a through lot; and for a variance to retain part of a first floor deck which has a railing greater than 24" above grade. Approval is subject to the A llowing conditions: 1 . Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this resolution as Exhibit A with staff notations. 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 applicant, 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 (October 14,2003). 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 has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on ^half of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. 3 of6 Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the I4th day of Octob^, 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 14th day of October, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of October, 2002 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public 4 of 6 i liltfurtu naimUMrtit «i ■ ■k On this before me, day of ^002,jiersonally appeared is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of.a credible witness and 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 before me. On this __day of 2002,personally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of..,8 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 S of6 jMhhU A CERTIFICATE OP SURVEY FOR DANIELLE HENELY OF LOT 21, BLOCK 2, NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA zz^t:J(q ee removed / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : ' ' Lot 21. Block 2, NAVARRE HEIGHTS denotes iron marker Beorings shown art based upon on ossimd datifn This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property the location of on existing house and shed, and the location of oil visible 'hardcover** thereon, ond the proposed location of a proposed gorage and driveway. It does not purport to show ony other mprovements or encroachments N 89*42' 11" W 50.00"^ LIVINGSTON AVENUE 1m T ctowbb t AsarnTPi^ ie IM of ttf Stale H liNWMle mm "Bar taiiaiiini mmmim mnr 17195 JP«*«_6_o£j6l « 06 O O 5* TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: ^ DATE: SUBJECT: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 10,2002 #02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue Variance - Public Hearing Staff has discussed this implication with the applicant numerous times. As of Monday, September 9, 2002, the applicant wisl^ to make the following changes to her application: 1. Move the detached garage to be located 10* from the side property line. (Variances for side yard setback and crowding principal structure are NO longer ne^ed.) 2. Downsize the detached garage to 20* X 24*. (Variance for hardcover in SOO-IOOO* setback zone is NO longer needed.) fitppiZao * aa.' = 4 Lot Coverage: 8,297 s.f Allowed: 1,500 s.f.House: 1,056 s.f. Existing: 1,667 s.f.Deck: 532 s.f. Proposed: 2,068 s.f.ProDOsed Garaae: ^80 s.f. Total: 2.068 s.f. Hardcover: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 500-1000*8,297 s.f 2,903.95 s.f (35%) 2,928 s.f. (35.3%) 2,874 s.f. (34.6%) Variances still required: 1. Accessory Building Location 2. Lot Coverage And Conditional Use Permit for thru street TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Admuustrator/Planner DATE:September 5,2002 SUBJECT: ;r02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue Variance — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.S acre) Lot Area: 8,297 s.f. (.19 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application Survey Hardship Statement Elevations Map of neighborhood Letter from Building Official Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Property Owners List Photos of Property B C D E F G H I J Pertinent Code Sections: I. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D): Accessory Building Location: No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the ^nt or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. 2. Section 10.03, Subdiviilon 10: Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Building: All accessory buildings on through lots located in **R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 12: Crowding Principal Buiiding: No accessory building or structure shall be erected, altered, or moved wirhin 10' of the principal building, or within ten feet of another accessory structure. 4. Section 10.03,Subd. 15(F): Side yards only; no structure shall be closer than 10* fromanyside lot line. 5. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage: Regardless oflot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 s.f. oflot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. «02-2S22 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9/S/2002 Page I of4 6. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 500>1000* Setback Zone: There shall be no greater than 35% hardcover in the 500-1000’ setback zone. AppUcatiop Summary: The applicant has requested a variance to permit a detached garage to be located between the principal structure and the street. The building is 24’ X 24’. The detached garage will be located at the front of the property approximately 31 ’ from the street, but is proposed at 5’ from the side lot line udiere 10’ setback is required. all ti»thafkfc in thi* f P-iR Tnninp The pmpmrd mtflrncr irf rit3 ‘-rmtinnnfftt A conditional use permit is required because this lot is considered a “through” lot. By Zoning Code definition a "through” lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts streets on two sides: Livingston Avenue and Shadywood Road. Discussion: The existing residence was built in the early 1960 ’s. The property is located in a half acre zoning district and is unusually small at 0.19 acre but similar to surrounding properties. Because the property is less than 10,000 s.f. it is allowed 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures. The property does not cunently have a garage or storage building on it. The applicant wishes to construct the accessory structure to park a car and keep other items from the elements in the wintertime. Lot Coverage by Structures: The property currently has a house and deck which are included in the calculation. Because part of the deck is more than 6 ’ the entire deck is counted as structure. The deck was recently replaced by the previous owner without a permit. The deck is located too close to the rear property line, not meeting a 30 setback. The property was sold before a permit or variance was applied for. With the addition of the proposed detached garage the lot coverage by structures increases to 2,164 s.f. The deck does provide access from the side of the house and wraps around the back. Only a small portion of the deck is necessary to provide access. Hardcover: The subject property is located in the 500-1000’ setback zone. Currently the property has 2,928 s.f. (35.3%) of hardcover. With the addition of the detached garage and removal of several items (see survey) the hardcover decreases to 2,989 s.f. (36%). This property would be allowed 2 903 95 s f. (35%). IH02-2S22 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9/5/2002 Page 2 ot'4 Side Setback: The garageju proposed is S’ from the side lot line and 8’ from the neighboring residence structure. A 10’ lot Ifoe setback is required. Applicant wishes to have a S’ setback to avoid relocating the gravel driveway. Neighborhood: The neighborhood has a mixture of attached and detached garages. The properties that have detached garages, the garage is located either on the side or in the rear of the property. This property is unusual for the neighborhood because the house is located so far back on the property. Driving the neighborhood, most homes are located much closer to the road. A garage could not 1^ constructed on the rear of the property due to the topography and lack of space. 3436 Livingston Avenue - Granted a variance in 2000 for a garage. Approved 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) hardcover in SOO-1000’ setback. Existed - 1,816 s.f. (40.3%) Allowed - 1,575 s.f. (35%) Setback - 5’ side yard instead of 10* Adjacent property garage located 3 ’ from property line. Met lot coverage by structures. 3477 Livingston Avenue - Granted a variance in 2001 for garage Approved Setback - 5’ side yard instead of 10’ Met hardcover and lot coverage by structures. Structures met 10* setback. Exhibit E shows the size of other properties in the Livingston Avenue neighborhood. The subject property is simMar to other lots in the neighborhood. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in the early 1960’s, prior to current zoning standards. 2. The property does not currently have a gaiage on it. #02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9/5/2002 Page 3 of 4 r 3. The garage does meet the 30* setback fiom the street. 4. There is not room on the rear of the property to place a garage. 5. The rear of the property drops significantly. Access from Shadywood Road is not doable. 6. The deck is not visible or accessible from Shadywood Road. Is it a concern? 7. Neighboring residence is 3’ from lot line. 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on the property with the following recommendations: * The garage be located 10’ from the side property line The adjacent residence is 3’ from the property line. * To meet the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage by structures: House -1056 s.f. Deck 140 s.f. Garage - 300 s.f. Total 1496 s.f. i.e. Reduce the garage to 20’ X 15’ (a stall and a halO and the deck reduced to 14’ X10’ to meet yard setbacks. (This will also meet the allowed hardcover on the property). Planning Commission should determine whether there are sufficient hardships to allow the detached garage to be 5' from the side property line, lot coverage by structures to be over the allowed 1,500 s.f. and hardcover in the 500-1000’ setback zone to be over the allowed 35%. M2-2922 Duiielle Hendy 3422 Livingston Avenue 9/5/2002 Page 4 of 4 rtiiairfka i 1 ANALYSIS Lot Coverage 8,297 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f.House: 1056 s.f Existing: 1,667 s.f.Deck: 532 s.f Proposed: 2,164 s.f.Proposed Garaae: 576 s.f Total: 2,164s.f Hardcover Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 500-1000’8,297 s.f 2,903.95 s.f (35%) 2,928 s.f (35.3%) 2,989 s.f (36%) 3 r^.i^rnvhi ^--- Att|-ia>2002 03:Iln FrorCITY OF OKMO ♦9522494816 T-964 F.002/009 F^85 ft CITY OEjORONO • VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SS0.00 per each additional vatiance) Renewal Variance Fee S1S0.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non<confonning atnictures S2S0.00 ARer*the>Faet Fees (Double application fee) —Lte Received Amount Paid ■ (Si'ono.rviK) PBTtrty M^tfifictinn Mumher <PJjy /7//7.a Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date P^pertv^cquiied JIlIl/ ~____________________^(month/year) I (do)ftdo noO^also own the adjaefent parcels of land. Present use of property: V readential other (specify). Zoning District: APPUCANT ,, Name AddreM77^^?^^ LAUltad|-.5>f;DFt OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______ /_u- Phone fhomel .Phone (work) Zip: ^^9/ X^fxO Phone (homel Phone (work! Address:City:.Zip:. Estimted Construction Cost ^ JS'j/OO ^ COCIAJLMJL (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y Setback:Front XSide Rear Average Lakesbore Other (specify) HARDSmP/DESCRlPnON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hatdritlp or practical difiiculty m unust^ yqpetfy conditions preventing cfflnpM««» with Zoning Code requirements: A/^ /2i:6ilLA/l ^/t/ y___________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) V ac - i 9? % <9 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DANIELLE HENELY OF LOT 21, BLOCK 2, NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA J<OK) did ro ^BC R£MOVEO KjSff legal description of premises ' /t»€ / Lot 21. Block 2, NAVARRE HEIGHTS denotas iron m^^ker \iNiCflMa Bearings shown ore bosed upon on assumed dotim This survey intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property the location of on existing house ond shed, end the location of oil visible "hordcover** thereon, ond the proposed location of o proposed garage and driveway. It does not purport to show ony other irrprovements or encroochments I lK«r «**> M M irv w Ir ■• * ^ ■* *«■ **•'m W M I CM •a IM •>». SWt «l 4B1IUIWI UKUXK »DHMI SCalC r-20* OAft a/22/02 iro^'3iZ^^ 02-W 3422 Uvingston Ave Orono^MN 55391 I hive just purchased a property without a garase. Because of the harsh winters 1 very much iwuld like to build a 2 car detached garage. My lot is very long and narrow. The houM sits very far back leaving a large finont yard. Because I have virtually no side yard on either side of the home a garage attached to the side of the house would not be possible. I have the only house on my street that sits this for back off the street and the only one widwut a garage. RMulte Cl ii i ; f • i t I( CFRONT EL EVAT I ON V^JI^SCALE: i/*i--r-o- ^ • -i : i irniii ■'■■ttiiWaJiHiiiifiiiii liriiii r m • • • • ©o^REAR ELEVATir>M ^ ySCALE; l/4*»|*-o» 1i jmit ■A^---------- f e . ........................., »->,^r . ■' ■ » > : * r»i ' / ^S‘ r: •. ■>r,- h:dmy{^ ‘ *V ^ -V • ' 'r ’ vr.*vr **J •; h i •4:Vf?i|‘m .... . f??-;?. ,v •; •' •,>'i'-' *. 'T’.v V A '■ * -.■•f-w:'./ '^■m •V.*' Mr' OW ..« >'T» ■ •i*' 0J51. i \ 3460 3452 i'^ 3438 s^ir -4Vwjtf^, op LIVINGSTON AVE k ■ *^ ^ ■ ' * • . .i';‘.* 0.465 ■‘■■HSJ .. • •'ft-..- : ' W? •:>- $»*•> - f •. 5 'W33 -»*i <iV . - ; '•» ' >►.1 > . • ri -#-r; ■v. ';^:v..,:;,t;:,i; ■. j: f .i- V. •• •. , i*,V -M -.1 . .* v-^s •a*'t i^r>* • f. " ’*■ -‘*- -•• • ‘ f. ~ \. f’' 0.204 3436 3422 ^0.216i;. 3414, ^W^il ;■- K j .♦ V- **^,^i*‘ tl »• «• ^ _ ..^i p?%S»i- .. J'c®:.H- i.. ' N ‘ A*.i .* . y,tC4C V; -!f j .4 1 .■:' i***/ vV N AW|^ s Zoning Application #02-2822 4 HJi:GlTYor ORONO Municipal Offices StnitlMnu; 27SC. Sty Ftfkw^ OroRo, im 5S356 MaDiog Iddn tt: P.O. Ba 66 CiysUI Bay, MN SS323-0066 March 1,2002 Mr. Damon Serna :2t/^t^^^2M.ivingston Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 COPY R£: 3422 Livingston deck construction Dear Mr. Serna; On October 11,2001 this office notified you of zoning violations regarding a deck constni^ m your property without a building permit . As of this dete the violations still exist This letter is to require you to remove the deck or submit a variance application with the requ^ submittals. A deadline of March 15,2002 has been established. If this deadline is not met Tbe City will initiate legal action. If you have any quesHons please feel ftee to connet me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official Enclosure CC: Paul Weinberger, Planning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Planning Administrator Marc Davis, Building Inspector W«pbooe(»SB)24MiB0 • FaiCii2)24M6M In i % •^ ‘-’V HHCl6frT6 HARDCOVER CALCULAllUiN WUKKSlUblil StTBACrC ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75’75-250'250-500'fgoo^iooj^ Qr EVI5TINR HARDCO\^R IN 70.VE A. H0UI« . ______________ « •sneo • • B. Carafe * C/ Dri\'eway Lcnfth WWth X X X D. Sidewalk (co^c/i^rt^ X X X X S.F. 7^/ /<T/' S.F. M S.F. S.F. A . ? • * J -rc S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^___________________________________-/-f Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department /: iV-V if/'' / / /"V-T---------S/ Sf / s ~ ?/ 3/ /*> f n j / (121i(i20r^^^' \ (129/S' ’(128) / , /f (1271 V \/9 (122)9l / ^/ w CM1' s (118.(116)n k: li—^ 74^ 20 \, 1*5- /.’7-as-3y-^ar>-« 972s 5^ 30 I sat ("KWI (fO,» 5 >2 J5, to J?/ 23 r26;^24 f?/25 A X2S) » /'«2/. 30 50 50 50 50 50 i 80 50 50 50 5 ) 50 412 / I 13 '»25 m fi5 to 10 5 in .5 a .?J m 45 3 •n 2 S 4 f7o;V) «« (69)f6s; /-- (141 )(6^f63,i (62) 0• • •■ *' * > 50 50 so 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1 0 50 S iq S " 16 «a 9i *• ir *n s ~ f8 A a *•1^ in 20^21^ m 22 - in 23^ m 24 ~ m 25 -2 m 8 m 27?N.t;(72)(73)rz4;f75»(76)^77;f7s;^79;(80) ##• •4#• • ^• V 47 46 I rr 730 so 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 i(0 50 • 1 r K# fO'-'-'J , . V IS. \ ^ (73, ■' *&y '" X <6 \ \.,r/^(76)/'^/ ^ .: \ 20. <9^ '39/ (15) (81) (7)S> (77) /7-//7-^3- C\4^ Parcel Information Parcel ID 1711723430022 Housa Numbar 3422 Straat Nama LIVIN08T0N AVE 7Mb it nor •/epo^r lecoflM map. tt fsprasMtt a cooieitotfon 0/Mbmwtfon entfdMiAomOiy. Couniy. end SMS fOMfeuthwWtsentfotfwr sources. ~ M *».u»«*f** p-*^ W' ••■'> 'k, ■ -i: ■ H HIM MTE ta/2t/l2 lATCN S04 MMfffIN COUNTY mfCRTY INFOnUTlON SYSTEH mOfCIITY ONNCIIS LIST RCrORT HO. ri^SMtl fAOC U TAXPAYER NANC/AOM ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/Am PROP AOINI ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AROR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NMIE/ARRR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TAXPAYER SO I7-1I7-2S S« 0152 •fOSO AOORESS PENOINO NCLEOO CNTY REG RR AUTHORITY OAKOTAjRAIL INC 20t NOkTN NILL ST FERGUS FALLS NN 5ASS7 SO 17-117-2S AS •••! •2195 OAYV2EU PL R P NEYERS 0 J E NEYERS RZCHARO P I JANICE E NEYERS 2195 OAYVIEN PL NAY2ATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-23 AS •2290 SNAOYNOO DAVID T FZaC DAVID T FXCK 2290 SHADYNOOO RO NAYZATA NN 55391 •••2 RO SO 17-117-2S AS OROA •229S SHADYNOOO RO R N 0 S A ROOENALD KEVIN N 0 SHIRLEY A ROOENALD 229S SHADYNOOO RD NAYZATA NN 55S91 SO I7-117-2S AS •••5 •SAAS CRYSTAL PL D H ROOENALD 0 K J NADER DANIEL N ROOENALD KATHLEEN J NAKR SAAS CRYSTAL PL NAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S AS •••• •SAA9 CRYSTAL PL NICHAEL NOHS ET AL NICHAEL • KATHRYN NOHS 511A AIST AVE S NPLS NN 55A17 SO 17«117-2S AS •••7 •SA57 CRYSTAL PL STEVEN J LENXS STEVEN J LENIS SA57 CRYSTAL PL NAYZATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S AS ••10 •SA52 LIVINGSTON AVE CORRIN NARTIN CORBIN NARTIN SA52 LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA NN 55391 SO 17-117-23 AS ROIA OSAAA LIVINGSTON AVI PATRICIA J GOAR PATRICIA J GOAR 3AAA LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S AS ••20 •SASO LIVINGSTON AVE SUZANNE CAOU SUZANNE CAOU SASS LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA HN 55391 SO 17-117-2S AS ••21 •SASO LIVINGSTON AVE ROXANN N BEISCH ROXANN N BEISCH SASO LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA NN 55391 SO 17-117-2S AS BOZZ •3A22 LIVINGSTON AVE D A SERNA 0 D L SHELDON D A SERNA i D L SHELDON SA7C LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S AS OSZS •SAIA LIVZNBSTON AVE CARL E BORG lU 0 C G BORO CARL E BORO III 0 CAREN BORG 8A1A LIVINBSTON AVE NAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 17*>117-2S AS ••02 •SASS LIVINGSTON AVE JEFFREY A KLENAN JEFFREY A KLENAN SASS LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA HN 55S91 SO 17-117-23 AS EROS •SASS LIVINGSTON AVE D V 0 E N BRUCE DENNIS V t EVELYN N BRUCE SASS LIVINGSTON AVE NAYZATA HN SSS91 SB 17-117-U A3 BSOA •SAAS \ LIVINGSTGN AVE L NEGER. L NEGER SAAS LZVINBBTON AVE NAYZATA NN 5SS91 30 17-117-23 AS •••• •SAAS LIVZNBSTON AVE CAROLYN N TILLOTSON CAROLYN N TIUOTSON SAAB UVXNGSTQN AVE NAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 17-117-2S AS OlAO •••SO ADDRESS UNASSZGNED NC LEOO CO REG RAILROAD AIITN DAKOTA RAIL INC 20S NORTH NILL ST FERGUS FALLS HN 50SS7 /*r ■ ISi® ■Vr-:.-W . 'ir - •■ -•^■--V% * mmm j1'• irUN 0ATC •ATCN Sf4 2«/A2 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY 2NFORI. .ON SYSTEN PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PACE PX^SMtl mOP ASM CMMI NANI TAXPAVia NAM/ABM M 17>117*2S AS AXSA •SABS LIVINBSTBN AVE S A PATTEN A C SCHOTT SHERYL A PATTEN CYHTMA SCHOTT SABS LIUSNOSTON AVE MAYZATA HN SSSAl SO 17-117o2S AA •••• •2SBB OLIVE AVE NAR6ARET A NOW HAROARET A HOW »•• OLIVE AVE NAVZATA NN 5SSY1 B 3« I7-117-2S AA •••• •••SB AOORESS UNASSIONEB TONN OP ORONO CITY OP ORONO PO lOR &4 CRYSTAL BAY HN SS32S • 1 raop ASM S« 17-U7*2S AA B1B7 •tSBA ■ SNABYBOOB RB • • TAWmR . M .M-/ MIL SOSfRtUNO kIL SCaUUMB- tm SMMVNOOi RD MAVZATA IM fUn »» • 1 TOTAL BATCH SBA •••22 • • I!!*.2£2 “^«»»TiO A«I an accurate and TRUE bate ^^/'^^ry s, #28 UMAl 'X } i w J?- t f • /!}*« Slkij-' t-V'*^. • •* ' • '• ^ ■'-.’■"ti; »• i i- F.'»■I i *^4 ^Jl .s# >% ^h. '.M M >V‘ • •V. r ^ •7 ?•- IZ\K '«- .* !s - ■*'<.J. -f^. J* iv'V- rv*-w^v; vy*:;-, \ M i.J •1 m ‘ i.^ -Ai.. ' [W] "i \‘ ♦•-a' ‘ .-^ C . * '.*'? .* Imm^ iMI® r •*'^T ^4 <Cl t i 'tiltW .k •V • ' * ? -* /«* •V <■ iii«libisvlfi I'Hl'tli 0^3 rr: I i (i:!i||^ ;■ ^•k:v.,<N^«l' r ;-.»>’ !>• / «.V Application Deadline: 9/5/02 60 Day Deadline: 11 /4/02 ocr f •t > >* f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dcpartncnt Approval: Name: Wendy ^nenberg Title: Zoning Administrator V • DATE: ITEM NO. 7 Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2827 Sven Gustafson 4515 North Shore Drive Variances Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and exhibits of 9/16/02 Application Summary: I. Section 10.24, Subd. S(B): Lot Area: The lot is 23,360 s.f where 43,560 s.f is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 55’ wide where 140' is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to tear down and construct a new residence on a lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a house and detached garage on it. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 55’ wide at the shoreline where 140’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 23,360 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is required in the LR- 1B zoning district. The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets structural coverage and hardcover requirements of city ordinances. Discussion: When land use applications requiring lot area and/or lot width variances arc submitted and reviewed a condition (hardship) looked at is whether there is land available to combine to make the property (onforming. In most applications, the property being redeveloped does not have land available in which to make it conforming. However, in this triplication the subject property is non-conforming in lot area and lot width and there is a vacant parcel of similar size to the west. The same person has owrned both properties since the early 1980’s. The two properties were never combined and within the last several months were sold to different parties. Therefore, the land is not available to combine to make it conforming. City ordinances do NOT prohibit separate sale of adjacent substandard commonly owned lots in sewered areas. I i PLANNING COlifMlSSION: Planning CoiUmission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve i^lication as presented with following conditions: • Drainage plans be submitted and reviewed by City staff prior to City Council review. Drainage plans were submitted and reviewed by Tom Kellogg. His comments are attached as exhibit A. The conunents were forwarded to the applicant; he does not have issues with them and can comply with the noted requirements. • Average Lakeshore Setback - Planning Commission discussed in regards to this application and application #02-2828. Both applicants agreed in order to establish average lakeshore setback for these two lots, the existing residence on Lot 8 would be demolished first (this application), then a building permit would be issued for proposed residence on Lot 9 (iq)plication #02-2828). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. ‘fo r-j dnitidM Oot oe 2002 ios28nn Exhibit A 6516361311 P^ I HI Bonestroo Rosene Hf»«. nMCIM, AMM«k M iiwM»i»jr—Own— Anderlik& ^ \ Associates Engineers ITArchltects Octoba 8, 2002 i«nrA.io<rtwiLrf ••iKw CwiMtfww* w fcitfl*.c. Angtrtifc . «ci»»d tiuii,*,. la., ^ ^ UM PrIwtMlf;«« A. OaMan. RX • aoMrt •. MrfTwl*. M. • tlcAcN W. tartar. M. • Omm A tartiM a* hnM Mankia*. ne • ntomai a lylka.m. • IMManAJadntan* OaiaA.Cra«a^RC.*aoe€ff j. Owff|L fst orrictsr sc. Paa Sc. Ctaue. eocsitsier and WMiw. MN • MImsM; WI • Odcagn. a %ir«iM«Lb Wendy Boltenberg Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 4515 North Shore Drive FUe No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2827/2828 Dear Wendy: We have reviewed the survey and proposed grading plan for the two pioperttes locaiied at 4515 North Shore Drive. The proposed work Includes grading and construction of two homes. We have the following commenu with regards to engineering matters: • Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5-feet wide along east and west lot lines and 10-feet wide along the North Shore Drive frontage. • There is an existing sanitary sewer located lakeside from the proposed homes. The sewer should be shown on the plans and a 20-foot wide utility easement centered over the existing sewer should be provided. • 1 he proposed swales along the lot lines should be carefully graded so all water is contained on Lots 8 and 9. • Heavy duty silt fence with wire fence backing and steel t-posts should be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any construction or site grading. If you have any questions please call r.t at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLTK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ________J /<^ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Cappa. City of Orono Atiiiii t____ % A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO.02-2827 WHEREAS, Sven Gustafson, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the ouner of the property located at 4515 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and leg^ly described as follows: Lot 8, Bergquist’s Addition to Saga Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit new residential construction on a .54 acre lot where 1 acre is required and on a lot that is 55’ wide where 140’ is required in the LR-1B district. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Plaiming Codes, the Orono Plaruiing Commission held a public hearing on September 16,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Miimesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2827. 2.The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .54 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on ^ ;ptember 16,2002 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following finding.s: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since the early 1950's. B. The site plan indicates the proposed setback 10* to the side property li.ies, 30' Page 1 of 6 to the rear property line which meet the minimum requirements of the LR-1B zoning district. The proposed development conforms to setback requirements as well as lot coverage and hardcover requirements. C. D. E. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. There is no additional land to combine with the property. The properties on either side of subject property are undersized and a majority of developed lots in the neighborht^ do not meet the required are or width in the zoning district. The lot size is consistent with other developed lots in the neighborhood. F.Drainage concerns expressed by the neighboring property owner can be addressed through suitable drainage and grading plan. G.Because the adjacent lot to the west is vacant but will be built on in the future, average lakeshore setback line for this property shall be defined by the homes at 4495 and 4545 North Shore Drive. Proper sequencing of permits is necessary to preserve this average lakeshore setback. 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 ■ ---------------------------------------------- , CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above flndings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit new residential construction on a .54 acre lot where 1 acre is required and on a lot that is 55’ wide where 140’ is required in the LR-IB district. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.To establish average lakeshore setback, a demolition permit for the existing residence at 4515 North Shore Drive shall be issued prior to issuance of a building permit for subject property and building permit for 4525 North Shore Drive. 3.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 (October 14,2003). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority grunted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the propert>'. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 3 of 6 I r Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of October, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Ci*''. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of October, 2002 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and saiJ instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,2002, personally appeared before me, ____who is persoiudly known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/aflirmation of. credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as Page 4 of 6 . 1* his/her/their free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public 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/affinnation of__________________________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoiii)^ instrument, and acknowledged that he/she.'dtey executed the same as his/her/their free act and jeed. Exhibit A SCALE - EX6TMG ELEVATION. X(998.0) - PROPOSED ELE^C<^ ^ ■ - OBECDON^SWRrta ELEV 929.4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION; LOTS 8 A 9, AND 1/2 ADJ VACATED ALLEY . BERCQUSTS ADDITION TO SAGA HILL HENNEPN COUNTY. MN. LAKE Lot «.f. 40MB. . SITB pLA k A (SUSTPA ok I H oMB fWWBO crw R2004 ****110^ IS. 2000 NMDCOVtP C«LCS 1-14-01 J J. -!mu . 11 MX lM.mj ^ ^JB mm B ■B m CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY •i« I.STONEW< DEVELOPMENT AvIB. ^-nxx/L rrmak tt CmrdarSilm six^yor 6440 FLYM6 aOlO DRIVE EDEN PRANE. P.1 '•-■•'N, r- '*• .*r f'Page 6 of 6 ' 9 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, 2U>ning Administrator/Planner DATE: SUBJECT: September 5,2002 #02*2827 SvenCustafMn 4515 North Shore Drive Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area: 23,360 s.f. (.54 acre) Exhibits A Application B Letter from Applicant C Site Plan/ Survey D Elevations E Floor Plans F Hardcover Calculations G Map of properties in area H Plat Map I Property Ou-ner’s List Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 23,360 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 55' wide where 140’ is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to tear down and construct a new residence on a lot tha^.'^oes not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a .i.'use and detached garage on it. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 55' wide at the shoreline where 140’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 23,360 s.f where 43,560 s.f is required in the LR- IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. M2-2827 Sven Quste^on 4515 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Page ! of 2 Discttuion: lot area and lot width and there is a vacant narcel nfcimUar »• ! Propeityisnon-confonning in owned both properties since the early 1980 ’s The twn n nJr* ^ person has 10 nudce it conforming. City ordinm^^?™^? commonly owned lots in sewered areas. separa sale of adjacent substandard Statement of Hardship: Issues for Consideration: 1. 2. The lot has an existing residence on the property. 3. 4. The applicant's proposal will be developed consistent with the locality. The proposed development would conform to setback coverage and hardcover requirements.requirements as well as all lot 5.The lot is provided with sanitary sewer. 7.Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Recommendation: S^ffrec^cnds approval of tim lo. area and lo. »idti. variances ti, constiuc. a new residence m. W2'2827 Svtn Gustefion 4515 North Short Drivf Varkmett 9/5/2002 Faftlktl _______1 V tiT • • # ANALYSIS m LR'IB Required Existing Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)23,360 s.f. f.54 acre) Ut Width 140’55’ Stnictural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 23,360 s.f.AUowed: 3,504 s.f.15.0% Proposed: 3,066 s.f.13.1% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shore Total Area in setback Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’4,632 s.f.0s.f.0 s.f. (0%) 75-250’13,650 s.f.3,412.5 s.f.3,372 s.f. (25%)(24.7%) 250-500’5,078 s.f.1,523.4 s.f.1,502 s.f. (30%)(29.58%) Application # CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION InitiaI-/^plication Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non*conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the*Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.ID.) O’? I n Hi I Attach legjd description to application if not included on required survey. Date P^rty Acquired 1/oy utA 9i»<<Ka<c rmonth/yMr> I (do) /do noD also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; >C residential ___other (specify) Zoning District; ______ ' APPLICANT Name ^UCiO Phone (home) ________________Phone^ork ) 4IX - V Address: City : WntU4, Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ Phone (homeX Address:15 SHoetC t)ft^t»t.City: Phone (work) Zip: ^St£¥ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ MO Describe request in detaU: Oig,iiaAL.TtAi^ o P ^rklcTlA W An^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED _X_ Lot Area _ Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot (Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical dif&culty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: i/T 1$ I iMfr fr af ----- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 4 6 fua-2i-2m 14iS7 SHRRRRTT t imCOGNnLD S62 470 8407 P.OZ/QS II i.l*i*A*oamont - Lott TD« vMiiO preptity (Ut 8) it wbatifHlinl In am bMtd on Ofond't Zoning ofdiranet. Tht ORflnanoeraquInn 43,560 aquartfitlM a minimuin. Tha preparty to 23.350 aquaia feat Thaaxtoano preparty to eubelandafd with latpacUo length of riiorallna. Thaontoianearaqulrae 140toatofihoMlinaiangih. Tha prepare length to 68 feet Both asdsUng lot area eiza and axiating ihorelina length are pra«cls8ng eondtOoftt. Haidoovar lasulramenti and hifltdng eatbacks are met with tha prepesad homa design. The requaet for a varianee to based on the feet that both oondWone currently exist on a bulldabfe lot and that hardcover and set back raqidremente are met with tha proposed home da^gn. Therefore tha applicant requests a vaitanee to construct ttie proposed home design. f ;. •N.s •. A ; ^e mm •m m % • • t ft#- I a a. • ----- B I '• t SCALE IN FTEET ^ . EXBTMG ifOT CLEVATIOH X(OM.O) « PROPOSED ELC^PWfT^ OREcnoN^suRrXa ORAiMce 7/'7/02 ^ - 929.4 LAKE MINNETONKAzr\A -.inromu LOTS*'8*^*»!'*>5Ic^ 1/2 ADJ VACATED ALLEY . “ PLM BERCtOUSTS AOOmON TO SAGA MLL a ^ term COUNTY, mn. __________. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY STONEWOOO DEVELOPMENT Frmak JE Ctr^mrSlt Strvayor 0440 ELYMQ OOUO OMWC COEN PRAKC. it P.«7 I ^^rcs) 02 00 i.r «l « .1 fe^AFSOM HOCAC....... ...fe^^ice. ECEg^vsM &pc\u..... Apfe,/24"aco2. • «• «« f\7)^ .r..' -''w r-;')'. 'i • r • . / •i k' t'-> r‘ ^~~“_*ri| ^i ^AJtSCM wo^e ' iSDe ELev^ATTOJ; ‘ S»U- Vfc- * 1'-q!ZI_ i^oc •* ••« «•»- « l^« ■ • • «» - *200^ • III liAtim-iiiii Iifmiiinniiiitft^ii ■■■..»•> irn n I : aw- ..... " -. ^ . ■ t 1_. ' -1r I 'r.l>i4.i-\‘-',en*' ■'.• , ' ^ .; y:,rv‘ ;«J -'-/- : ’-S; v:;r---' .—.<>»«-« J ' ifc .^'-^ *• i- • • «• m^4 ran jiq, lEQ|iira ***3r- « ■ d&^SNffiCW iffirtB. • • • « *• »• • •• «. I » ' • •• « A»4», <.1 - ^floi. idifejak i> C^3 tJ CQ U1 f 'V ' . r f ‘■%lt ' 4;^ >• ^tJU V "e\»<,'« Mco FW.^F..•e*- fUF- larr^ku 9\60 m fiF (i‘ ^ t ( / . :;^ **i • t i » - . .'.'r / V'. i. S\ - « Wt =ft. I I irTiiiBii tiiriFir . % •• •»mm m n ?V 'V-* 'V- vf 4% -»V , M»AE.FloofL. .....•‘^. Aowwft m\ iAjnsisHeo • ^ m O' • L*^-i# r.‘) r.;l•* ..«* ■ Cl ■ * <l *?.J, ••-^, ymmAm I UL4. '64M-IDCKU 0 fl4. &P. ^osmoM MoRAe LbwMBl^ UB^BL Sbir V ' • l'-o« - U4FlM>6HeD (• ubin ./f, l TION worksheetA* nASDCaWE RCALCULATION --------------- SfilBACK Z<K4Et (CIRCLE ONE} 75450* 250400* SOO-lOQO* A. KottM LB6Xffi£• • S.E. 7«* ~ * • * * .. B. *Otn*«* • * • •• •• C, Dilvewiy ' X- X X ’X f./ -SB -S.F -S? • • m X- • * • S.F _____ •• i * •________• S.T _______ . - •__ _______5.F O. sidtwdk X X S.f S.T £. T«do/Dcdc X X S.I S.I F. Ludsope Uodcriiix ByPlude OrFdbtle O. 06«r X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTT AREA IN ZONE A • _____ •■ ♦. B .: ,X100 • > — SJ ■ • S.1 s; __s. ’^a s. % ^PQPOSED HARDCOVro IN ZONE * A. House * Li«|A X X X s s s B. Oaref« C. Dilvewiy D. .S{dewdk • • E. PiUo/Dcde T. Ludscape Vodcdiln ByPlude OrFdbcle • • • X X X X X X X X X • •• t • O. Odicr TOTAL KABDOOVER m ZON TOTALPROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A _____________' ♦ »xlOOi ■■ HARDCOVER CALCULA' SETBACK Z<K*lEt {CIRCLE ONE) A75* A. Hoom ORSSHBET >0* J 250400* • • ItMi^ 500-1000’ » X* X X # • • • • . • .. B. ‘OiEue . ••V. • * *• C. Dtlvewi^y S.F. S.F. S.F. ••• % •>. > X vv • .• • • •• • •• •• • •• ,k • • • • X- X — •• • • •• •»• • *. /. - S F- • • • . • •• .• , • • •• - * • '• # . ' ^ 5IC> '■ S.F. ____________S.F. D. Sidcwdk X X £. -Fado/Dcdc X X Q6 F* Liadic^ Vadedala By Flude OrFAcic X X X O. Other 5.F. S.F. 5.F. «.F. _SF. — S.F. llSJ. S.F. j HABDCOVER CALCULATION WORKS •« # • S£tBACKZCK4Ei (CRCLEONI9 0-7r 7»S0* KSgEEX (^(h50^500-1000' __ haudcqverwzone A. Hoom - . X • • 1«I|X .S.I'. Witt X- X X S.F. S.F. ,S.?. .. B. 0«n««- • -• ' •• • V** y % V• •• •S.F. C. Dtlvcwiy •> . 7*** •• •'. ,.;4 ny • . X- • • *• i ' _____S^. p. sUtwdk X X S.F. S.F. £. Fido/D«de X X S.F. S.F. F. Lindscap« Uodedaln By Flude _ OrFAde X X X SF. S.F. •SF. 6. <y SF. TOTAL KABDOOVER IN ZONE TOTAL FROPERTT AREA IN ZONE .A •• • • •• • . •• +.. B .* •X100 • > /5M*__SF. K SF. TOOlPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE * A. Ho«« ____________ *SF Lt:|X ynuk X X X SF SF SF B. Ov«se C. Driveway SF X X SF SF D. SidewaOc • ^ • X X • •• SF s.: t • E. Fedo/D^X X • s: s. ’ P. Ludseepe Uodediia By Flude OrFibrfe X X X s. s s o. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN 20K TOTAL FROPERTir AREA DC ZONE ’ A _____________ ♦ B £ C 100 ______ HAWX»VER CAimATlON W0RKSHE8T - OUSTAFSWI RESIDENCE r|c2oaa IjJMti SiteAitr 136S0 A. House • 191S ff B. Oanige*S72s£ C. Drivewqr*S10tf D. Sidewulc» 40 s£ E. Front Porch* 95 sf F. Deck*240sf __ •• Totil hardcover in Zone: 3372 af Setback Zone Site Area: 5078 af A. Qiuage*2448f B. Drived * 1258 af Total hardcover in Zone: 1502 af Total HankffYpr on She- 4974 ,f #200 27 West Arm 0.2 Acres L Forest Lake 0.2 > • '/ • . K “ .* . t . . 0 - 0.249 0.25 - 0.499 0.5 • 0.749 0.75 - 0.99 1-100 N JL w IT s 0.4 Mil s "it tMiTffcjM' ■!< tffiirTTifth^i Ml Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Ol-lll'Bib- Parcel Information Pmrcei ID 0711723310006 louM Numb«r 4815 NaiiM NORTH 8HORE DR H mm BATE §r/s§/92 iATCN Sii HEHHEtlH COUHTY PROrUtTY ZIIFO«MTXON SY3UH PROfCIITY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4SMil PAGE 22 ONNU NANi TAXPAYER NMK/AM TAXPAYER NiNE/AOM I.. PROP AOtlR OIMR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOi TAXPAYER L PROP AOOi TAXPAYER HANE/AOOR YMPAYRR • V. Si 07-117-23 31 Mil OAAAi NORTN SNORE 01 OAYU ERNUT NXmO OAYLE;E VXTTIO A04S IMTN SNORE OR IIOUNO HN US04 Si 07-117-23 31 0002 OMiS NORTN SHORE OR OREOO 0 RLOHN GREOO RLONN MIS NORTH SHORE DR HOIRHI m 55S0A Si 07-117-23 31 0003 OAAOS NORTN SNORE OR J t TNEXSEN JR ET AL TRSTEES OAROARA A/JOHN L TNEXSEN JR 0005 NORTN SNORE DR NOUND NN 55300 30 07-117-23 31 0000 OOOS5 NORTN SHORE OR ' JOHN 0 i OEORA N XNOOEL JONN 0 i DEMA N XNOOEL 0005 NORTH SNORE Df( HOUND NN 55300 30 07-117-23 31 0005 OOOfS NORTH SNORE OR NICHAEL P RYAN NXCHAEL P RYAN * 0005 NORTN SNORE OR HOUND HN 55300 30 07-117-23 31 OOOO 00515 NORTN SHORE 01 N J RiGELNOr ETAL HENRY J RXGELNOP 0515 NORTH SNORE DR NOUND HN 55300 Si 07-117-23 31 0007 ‘ •0515 NORTN SNORE OR N J RXGELNOP ETAL N J RXOELNOP 0515 NORTH SNORE OR HOUND NN 55300 3i 07-117-23 31 OOOi OOOH NORTN SNORE DR N J SOOJXAN i X 0 SOOJXAN NAYNE J i KAREN 0 SOOJXAN 10202 NARHONY CIRCLE EOEN ^RAXRXE NN 55307 Si 07-117-23 31 0000 OOOiO NORTN SNORE OR JONN J GROTANS JONN J GROTANS 3200 20TH AGE N E HPLS NN 5501i 30 07-117-23 31 0010 00070 NORTN SNORE DR JONN J 0R0TAN5 ET AL JQNNi XL2E I PETSRU OKITANS 0070 NMmi SNORE OR 07-117-23 31 0013 NORTN SNORE 01 NURXEL 0 SENN NURUL 0 SENN OOOi NORTH SNORE OR HOUND NN 55300 Si 07-117-23 31 0010 01307 REST POINT aR N E PINCGAR ERA PXNEGAR HXLLXAH i RESECCA PXNEGAR 1307 REST POINT CXR HOUND HN 55300 M ■7>U7>2S U m7 •1U7 RfST remr cu ROMIIT N ZMM ROMUnr-N 2MM ISS7 n»T 701NT CU IIOUNO m SSIM M •7*117>2S SI ..IS •ISM RKST TOUT CU SWUM NUKUS SWUM NUKUS lS2t RfST TOUT CIR NOIMO NN SBSM S9 •7-U7*2S SI ••17 •7MS NORTN SNORE OR C A S N L ALRRKCNT TRUSTKfS WUMiO L S CAROL A ALBRECHT ASAS NORU SHORE M NOUND NN SBSAA r / 30 V*oissd ^-117-23 31 0020 RUT POINT CXR JANUS X OS NATYM JINIICS X OK NATTU 1330 RUT POINT CXiCLS M 07-117-U 31 0021 ;il800 RUT PRINT CXR JACK ElNARRl XUTE JACK EillARU XUT2 iSOO RUT POINT CXR HOUND HN 55300 Si 07-117-U II OOU 01302 RUT PRINT CXR N J ALTCNNOrn ET AL NARX J ALTENNOPEN 1302 RUT PRINT CU HOUND HN 55300 V iii mm Ml. t7/3t/02 MTCN fU HtHNEPlN COUNTY fOlil'ERTY INPOiiflATZOtl SYSTEM fROPERTV OMNERS LIST PROP ADMemu mm TANPAVIR NAHC/ABM SO R7-117-2S SI RR2S OISM REST POINT CZR ACS PROPSRnsS uc ACE fSOPERHES UC ISOS' REST POINT CIR nMMO MN SS3M i..PROP AMR ONNSR NAME TARPATER NME/AMR SO OT-llT-SS SI RRET •IRM NZUNURST TR R L tlRREUND ET AL SUU/LE ROKRT L S MARXT SIRRELANO 12W NZUNRMST TR *RRMR MN 5BSM PROP AMR ONNER NAME TARPATER NANE/AOM SO OT-UT-aS SI ORSt 04S00 NORTN SNORE M KTN E SESSSSEN RETN E SESSESEN OSOO NORTN SNORE OR hound hn sssm . so 07-117-2S SX OtST NANE/AM 00*0 NoRTN SNORE OR hound NN SSSOO SO 07-X17-2S sa ooao - - - - tO*lS TONRAVXEN LAOHHU NAME KATNUEN 0 ASM TARPATER RATNUEN 0 ASM HANE/AOM 0*1S TONKAVIEN U * HOUND NN SSSOO L PROP ASM ONNSR NANS TARPATER NANE/AOM Mjr-u7-as sa fooa REST POINT CXR ■ » NAISN SAL NUEN iSNNU NALtN/AHANM NEXEN XSSO REST POINT CXR (. • SO 07-xi7-as SI tiao OISSO REST POINT CXR RXCNARO L ANPXNSON RXCHARO L ANPXNSON ISSt REST POINT CIR hound hn sssm SO OT-xiT'as SI SRao 00030 ADDRESS UNASSX6NE0 •RUCE R SIRRELANO SUSJ/LE RMERT 0 NARXT SIRRELANO 12M MXLOHURST TR hound HN SSSOO SO OTollT-aS SI ORSI 01200 NXLONURST TR PATTI HAE SCNXNHEL PATTI NAE SCNXNNEL laOO MXLOHURST TR HOUNp HN SSSOO SO 07-117-aS SI OMO 01207 NXLONURST TR DEAN T LUNDOLAD ET AL • dean T LUNDRLAO 0 SHERRI J STELON-LUNOOLAO 1207 NXLONURST TR hound HN SSSOO SO t7>117*as S2 oost OISIO REST POINT U K D 0 C L RRXNNAmr ERIC 0 REINHART ISIO REST POINT LA HOUM MN SSSAO SO 07-U7-2S SO oooa MMEM UNASSXOHEO HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RXONT OP MAY IMO PRAXRXR DRIVE HEilNA NN MSOO REPORT NO. PXOSSOOl PACE as SO OT-IIT'CS SI oia* ootso AOORESS UNASSIGNEO TOM C SIRRELANO SUOJAE R00ER7 0 NARXT SIRRELANO 1200 NXLONURST TR hound NN SSSAO SO •/•II7*2S SI osao MSI* NORTN SHORE OR P SAMXCRX ARM SANXCRZ P SANICRZ I R N SANXCRZ 0510 NORTN SNORE OR HOUNO HN 553*0 30 *7>I17-as 31 0IS55 VINE PL DANIEL 0 VENTRES JR DANIEL 0 VENTRES JR 1355 VINE PUCE hound NN 553*0 00S5 30 *7-lI7>2S SI OMl •OSS* AOORESS PENOINO NENNEPIN PORPEZTEO LANS HENNEPIN COUNTY RXONT OP NAT 1*00 PRAIRIE DRIVE HEOZNA NN 5S0* SO 07-ii7-as sa oosi OISAO REST POINT CIR D 0 J MIES JR MVIO 0 0 JENNZPER MIES JR 13*0 REST POINT CIRCLE hound NN 553*0 SO 07-II7*2S 30 OMS MOOS NORTN SNORE M NORM J DXCRET NORHA j OZCREY 002S NORTH SNORE OR hound NN MSOO E. Kiftiiinrtfrf L C C L f Vw V., ^ S» ■ .. . '* "'.V r;--'. •^;-:-.j' mm Bku i//jf/f2 iATOf its HENNEPIM COUlirV mOPEIITY INFORHATlOII SVSTi:H fiOfCRTY ONNCRS LIST REPORT NO. Pl^SMfl PAOC 2% PROr MM SO 07-117-20 SO OOH 004S0 NORTN SMORf M OORlOli N LUNOfMN riXPAYtR MOWN If LUNBNAN. NMli/ARM MSS MRTH SHORi Mmm m losoo so 07-117-2S 02 0000 01S05 VXNC PL . NAROARiT N BAVIS TRUSTER IIAROARiT N OAVXO ISOS VIM PL tIOUNP tM S5S00 TOTAL PATCH SOS oooso • •1 CRRTIPY THAT TNC PACVS RiPRiSMTCO ARE AN AIXURATl AND TRUS RiPRiSOlTAnON OP ZNPORNATXQN AS ST APPEARS TNIS RATI ON TNE RECORDS 5 in uSSmm DATE I . \ Ai v 5 nil miftKnmTii liHWlUfitaiih irti II in '||R Liiiii >t n ^ Application Deadline: 8^1/02 60 Day Deadline: 10/18/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy ^ttenberg Title: Zoning Administrator ^ ^pt/nq : DATE: ITEM NO. ? Agenda Section; Zoning Item Description: #02-2828 Tony Lund 4515 North Shore Drive (vacant lot) Variances Exhibits: A Resolution B Stall Report and exhibits of 9/16/02 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 26,920 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 65* wide where 140' is the minimum lot width for the LR-IB zoning district. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on a vacant lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 65* wide at the shoreline where 140* is required in the LR-IB zoning district, measured at the shoreline and at the 75* setback. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 26,920 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is required in the LR- 1B zoning district. Neither lot area nor width meet the 80?^o standard for sewered lots in 1 acre zone. The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district, llie proposed residence meets structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. Discussion: When land use applications requiring lot area and/or lot width variances are submitted and reviewed a condition (hardship) looked at is whether there is land available to combine to make the property conforming. This property does not have land available to combine in order for it to meet conformity. This property has been vacant and was owned by the adjacent property owner since the early 1980*s. The lot was part of the Bergquists*s Addition to Saga Hill subdivision. The Bergquists*s Addition to Sage Hill took place in the 1950 ’s. The Bcrgquists*s Addition to Saga Hill included land along North Shore Drive which was subdivided into 9 lots of similar size. The subject lot was never built on. The properties in the Bcfgquist’s Addition met the zoning standards of the time. Undercurrent zoning standards the area is zoned LR-IB (Single Family Lakeshore) -1 acre lots. All of the other lots in this subdivision have remained approximately half acre in size. This lot continues to be in character with the surrounding properties. The city does NOT have an ordinance requiring that 2 lots have to be combined if they are owned by the same person. The ordinances do not prohibit the sale of vacant substandard commonly owned lots except in unsewered areas. However, in order to build on the property it must meet all other zoning standards, (i.e. yard setbacks, hardcover and lot coverage by structures). Note that except for a sliver of existing driveway and a portion of a small shed, the property has not been encroached upon nor used to support development on the adjacent previously commonly-ouued lot. Sewer. The property w*as separately assessed for sewer footage and provided with a sewer stub in 1970. Because it was vacant at that time, it was not assessed the sewer unit charge. The unit charge to be collected as a connection charge at the time a building permit is issued is $6,703 for 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: To approve application as presented with the following conditions: • Sewer unit charge be paid prior to issuance of building permit. • No other variances be granted to the subject property. • Access location be approved by Hennepin County prior to City Council review. - Dave Zetterstrom from Hennepin County did review the plans, visited the site and has issued a permit approving access location. • Drainage plans be submitted and reviewed by City stafl prior to City Council review. - Drainage plans were submitted and reviewed by Tom Kellogg. His comments are attached as Exhibit A. The comments were forwarded to the applicant and he indicates he will comply with all requirements. • Average Lakeshore Setback - Planning Commission discussed in regards to this application and #02-2827. Both applicants agreed in order to establish average lakeshore setback for these two lots, the existing residence on Lot 8 (Application #02-2827) will be demolished first, then a building permit will be issued for this proposed residence on Lot 9 (application #02-2828). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. (Staff has assigned an address to the subject property - 4525 North Shore Drive.) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. ■ ‘^1 Oei 08 2008 10:26Rn Exhibit A 6516361311 P* 1 i/ J Bonestroo ^ygRosene Anderlik& ^ vjf Associates SngliHtcrs 4 Architects •mfffee. ^tKt#W» M A^seclsitt, Inc It nn AfflniMiU«n ttction/Mml 9 pw§mmnf Impinytr MiB Ani^lnj^ff Own## October 8.2002 ftinci^aii: Otto a •ormtree. ex • Mirvifi L Snrvnfx n. • filtffwi X Cpak. fX • Robert a Jciiynkm. ni. • itrnr Roureon. PR. tonlof ConMiluntt: toben W. RsfCfix PX • Joftfh C AndfrtlX PC • RfcUvO C lUmtr. ML • lui«n M fborlK CPX AMOCIMO PrIfielRoN: Rotcfi X OMoiv RC • RoOort i. PfOfrtrlo. PC • ttelMiO W.Poitor. ML • Doeitf O LmftMa t« . atari x Nantox PC • Mchaol t RaMonanx PX • 1M C ftoic PC • Karvittn P. XMtnoa PC • Man c lwf4 is. • OioMXMonttt/OO.MCA* SOwp P. \RiaUiroox PC. iX • Agntf 1C RbiC MRA • Xiao l)ci SCfMM. PC # TboxttMtPetarsoaPX* Jaff CiaMMMLPCs MUtt C xntax PC • i. PMcp otmi is. PC • r rimnimi rr timari MartMai. PC • Tbomai X Sy fix PC • ShoMon i. JoPnton • Oaio X Grove. PC • TheeiM X ieuMi^ ex* ieetrt J. DevtriL PC OfPicta: Sc Paui Sc OouC Recfitsiar antf WWniar. MN • aJUvveuMo. Wi • Oeeage. c ilic metadbenesveeLCore Wendy Boltenberg Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SS323 Re: 4S1S North Shore Drive FUe No. 139-Q2-000 Plat No. 02-2827/2828 Dear Wendy: We have reviewed the survey and proposed grading plan for the two properties located at45 15 North Shore Drive. The proposed work includes grading and constmetion of two homes. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: Drainage and utility easements should be provided S-feet wide along east and west lot lines and lO-feet wide along the North Shore Drive frontage. There is an existing sanitary sewer located lakeside from the proposed homes. The sewer should be shown on the plans and a 20-foot wide utility easement centered over the existing sewer should be provided. The proposed swales along the lot lines should be carefully graded so all water is contained on Lots 8 and 9. Heavy duty silt fence with wire fence backing and steel t-posts should be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any construction or site grading. If you have any questions please call roe at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kel!o|^ Cc; Greg Gappa. City of Orono i- j A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); FILE NO.02-2828 WHEREAS, Tony Lund, (hereinafter "the applicant ”) is the owner of the property located at “4525” North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 9 and Vi adjacent vacated alley, Bergquist's Addition to Saga Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B> to permit new residential construction on a .62 acre lot where 1 acre is required and on a lot that h 65 ’ wide where 140' is required in the LR-IB district. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 16,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2828. 2. The property is located in the LR* 1B Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .62 acres. 3 . The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 16,2002 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following futdings: A. The lot size is consistent with the sizes of many other developed lot in the neighborhood. Properties on either side of the applicant ’s lot are Page 1 of 6 i 4. 5. B E. F. G. undersized and a majority of developed properties in the neighborhoods do not meet the required area in the zoning district. The City of Orono does not have a requirement that 2 substandard lots owned by the same person have to be combined. C. The site plan indicates the proposed setback I O' to the side property lines, 30' to the rear property line which meet the minimum requirements of the LR-1B zoning district. The plan meets lot coverage by structures, height and hardcover requirements. D. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The lot has sewer available to it. Drainage concerns expressed by the neighboring property owner can be addressed through suitable drainage and grading plan. Because the adjacent lot to the west is vacant but will be built on in the future, average lakeshore setback line for this property shall be defined by the homes at 4495 and 4545 North Shore Drive. Proper sequencing of permits is necessary to preserve this average lakeshore setback. The City Council flnds 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 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 applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 A CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit new residential construction on a .62 acre lot where 1 acre is required and on a lot that is 65’ wide where 140’ is required in the LR-1B district. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. No further variances will be granted for this property. 3.The sewer unit charge of $6,703 shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit, (subject to annual amount increase if not paid in 2002). 4.To establish average lakeshore setback, a building permit for the proposed residence shall be issued only after a demolition permit is issued for 4515 North Shore Drive. 5.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 (October 14.2003). 6.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. 7.The undersigned applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of October, 2002. Page 3 of 6 1^ -------- 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 14th day of October, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of October, 2002 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 Page 4 of 6 1 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/afflrmation of, credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ., 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/aflirmation of, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 ‘ Exhibit A NORTH SHORE S u-mx-* SCALE INI ?;EET - EXISTWC ELEVATION. X(99B.O) - PROPOSED ELE^AnOfT' - OflECTION aJVfa ORAtlACE U'^^299 .....LAKE MINNETONKA n-o* - d - in- *»- _zcrr^ ------ LEGAL OESCRPTION; ~”ki2B2.22^ 2r?%LaLOTS 8 A 9, AND 1/2 ADJ VACATED ALLEY . »T» FUAH BERGQUISTS ADDITION TO SAGA MLL - ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY. MN. ~ R2004 **"NOV. IS. 20001 calcs mipiiAT I m A matm mum mm tan nar _ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT A_ Lond Frmnk R Cmrdmrmllm Surveyor ^440 FLYMG aOUD DRIVE EDEN PRARE. Page 6 of 6 N .•i I • TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: ^ Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:September 9,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2828 Tony Lund 4515 North Shore Drive (vacant lot shares address with adjacent lot) Variances - Public Heading Zoning District: LR-1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 26,920 s.f. (.62 acre) Exhibitt A Application Letter from Applicant Site Plan/ Survey Elevations Floor Plans Hardcover Calculations Sewer Analysis and As-Built Map Map of properties in area Plat Map Property Owner’s List B C D E F 0 H 1 J Pertinent Code Sections: 1 . Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 26,920 s.f. where 43,560 s.f is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 65’ wide where 140' is the minimum lot width for the LR-1B zoning district. Application Summaiy: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on a vacant lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. Alot width variance is required due to the lot being 65* wide at the shoreline where 140’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district, measured at the shoreline and at the 75* setback. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 26,920 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is required in the LR- IB zoning district. Neither lot area nor width meet the 80% standard for sewered lots in 1 acre zone. W2-2828 TotyLund 4515 Sorth Short Drivt (vocmt lotf Variances 9/9/2002 Patti 1^3 d.. The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. Discussion: lequiring lot area md/or lot width varia«.s are subnutted and renewed TOs prope^ h^ bmn vacMt wd ovwied by the adjacent property owner since the early 1 980 ’s The lot WM part of the Bergquists’s Addition to Saga Hill subdivision. The Bergquists’s Addition to ShoJe n P .Bergquists’s Addition to Saga Hill included land along North Shore Dnve which was subdivided mto 9 lots of similar size. The subject lot was never built on. The properties m the Bergquist’s Addition met the zoning standards of the time. Under current zomng st^di^ the area is zoned LR-IB (Single Family Lakeshore). 1 acre .ots. All of Se lots in this subdivision have remamed approximately half acre in size. This lot continues to be in character with the surrounding properties. nunues to oe m Too city doesNOThavc m ordinance requiring that 2 lots have to be combined if they are owned bv fte same person. The oidinancesrio not prohibit the sale of vacant substandard coiLonly owned lots exc^t in mwewered However, in order to build on the property it must meet ^^r zotung standards. (i.e. yard setbacks, hardcover and lot coverage by stiuctures) Note that ««P> for a sliver of existing driveway and a portion of a small shed, the property has not been encroached upon nor used to support development on the adjacent previously commonly-oivnedlot. fSir o ”“ «>wr footage and provided with a sewer smb in I970.^ause it was VKmt at that time, it was not charged the unit fee. The unit fee due if the property is developed is $6,703 for 2002. “ Access from North Shore Drive: Currently thm is not access to the property fiom North Shore Drive. Because North Shore Drive is a county ro^, Hennepin County decides whet, access should be located. A copy S^feSarion was sent to Dave Zetterstrom at Hennepin County regarding the access. At the S^f Ws „ wrt conuronts had not been twivrf horn Hennepin County. The applicant will need to get apptOT^ ImmHennepm County beforebringing«x»sst«theproperty.(a,rfWbuildingpSS^^issued). W2~2d28 Twiy Lund 4515 North Shore Variances 9/9/2002 Pc^e2oti ----- Statcmeiit of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The q>plicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. 2. The property does not have a structure on it. The City of Orono does not have a requirement that 2 substandard lots owned by the same person have to be combined. 3.The properties on either side of the applicant's lot ate undersized and a majority of developed properties in the neighborhoods do not meet the required area in the zoning district. The lot is in character with many other lakeshore lots in the area. 4. 5. The applicant's proposal will be developed consistently with the locality. The proposed single family house would conform to setback requirements as well all lot coverage and hardcover requirements. 6.The lot has sewer available to it. The applicant is required to pay the unit fee and connection fee. 7. Does Planning Conunission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Rccomnteiidation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property, subject to: • No other variances shall be granted, • Payment of the sewer connection charge of $6,703, • Access location to be approved by Hennepin County prior to City Council Action. W2-2»2i Tony Lund 45l5NorthSiuiroDrho(ua60nilo^ Variances 9/W2002 Pateion • f [I • • • ANALYSIS LR-IB Required Existing Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)26,920 s.f. (.62 acre) Lot Width 140’65’ Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage ^ Percentage 26,920 s.f.Allowed: 4,038 s.f. Proposed: 3,809 s.f 15.0% 14.1% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shore Total Area in setback Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’5,895 s.f 0s.f 0s.f (0%) 75-250’15,355 s.f 3,838 s.f 3.739 s.f (25%)(24.4%) 250-500’5,670 s.f 1,701 s.f 1,692 s.f (30%)(29.8%) AppUcatfon # Date Received CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Amount Paid _ InitiaI*Application Fee S2SO.OO ............... (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $ 150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confon.iing structures S250.00 Afrer«the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address VACAut Property Identification Number (PJD.) f\niriZJ’UtiaAl 55?/ Attach legd description to wplication if not included on required survey, lif ^ Date Propel Acquired 7/dZ otA F«itc;kau. __________(an I (do) irio nop also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of property: y residential other (specify) Zoning District: _______* • .(month/year) APPLICANT Name Td>)^ Address: 3SO La»i€- City : CHaiaV,^<*e»» Phone (home) Phone (home ) Phone (woric) A fL^lSI - Phone (work) ^ OWNER'(if different than applicant) Name H tU ____^ Addre^ *l5tjr Citv: Ofco»>o Zip: DKCRBPTION OF REQUES'T Estimated Coostniction Cost $ ddo Describe request in detail: Ccojo5nat>cTi^>* ■T»iuul ^ HamC. (attach additional sheets if necessary) V ariances required Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage .. Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undw. hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing igjfgjfnr. (attach addiaonal sheets if necessary) flU0^21-2ee2 14tS7 sh^irrrtt & n wasmsKC'.« ^ : Ml I ^nj)9S2 47B 8407 P.03>^ 6 zjsai ThtwiMingprapwtifMQItWbitwdaRilnarMtaMdonOrono'kZtaningOrtinanoe. Tht oftfnmotiiquIfM 43^560 aquanfiNtMamMmum. Tha property it 26,920 aquara teat " aicMIno ahoraKna ItfipOi are pra<#)detlD9 oondBiona. Hardeovar raqUbamanta and buNding aet badn aia mat MOh the piopoMd home design. Tha laquail for a varianea ia based on lha tad that both oondWons cunantfy exist on a butkiable lot and that hardcover and setback rsquirenionta are met with the proposed home d^gn. Tliaiarora 6m appHcanl requests a varlanoa to oonstnjct the proposed home deeigi rn .^s ;c V • • % • • ,1 • T • • •• “/ • rir i' i; J iiiiiriiiiiiTii ■liitiii I • iit'rittiif rirrtt III! - i north shore s 14‘50’M- W DRIVE SSiSS&S&MM . SCALE IN ^ « EXSTMC OEVATION. ; X(t9&0) - PROPOSCO ^ ^— - ORCcnoN^suRr^ onamacc M/C2T r**"* ittbST"^ ^■hov . 1$, toooh" LOTS 8 ft 9. AM) 1/2 AOJ VACATED ALLEY . - SST®^®® BERCOmSTS AOOmON TO SACA HLL - t*** HEItCPM COUNTY. Mi ~ CMA CERTFICATE OF SURVEY m STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT Land .8440 aYMO CLOUD OMVE COEN nURE, ••••• •♦•••••• I 1 » ^\- ♦-«•■• r- *-^.1 y' s '\ ■X -•» lillir;^ piiii|w»5! J2 ^nr ^iJ- t=U^O ^'.S« ***B»*gg=SSg£~g p=g» I ;l!!li!l k:9l Ilf nt iwhiiBS fe. ----W-V^ \ ■» .'m ^ • ••' yib#v’ ¥•pfc. -j^gtjraiMingi------------------------------------------ FJJSJfTOht!^_____UkiD. Hofi&. .IbC__fel‘ll/o%5__________ -.M "( «* ^ .. ’- ; ) .■'v r-1^’ i •• • - ' V:rs^ N >• ifciilrrBh e; . c ■ • /fcV<AH- U. _.^e./^-Srtr.._.JfeU&v!<>4rrri^4-4.L— c/ • * "# / • • • * • « * * •; •! U L' * ** ^ f,-.- m AH-tsA RP^ rUaoB. asio sctf. FLooP- nos VJ/O VBJ^ '550 TbTAL 4^55 €!• ^ir~' AJ6. |5>--2ooz 22.2)20 fta, s.c..> MdUM »•. <; • .*. *• ‘ tfUttut __iiiiMlikililllii^ m iAfiitm itAtlBifili m. . eeooao rtiiop^- 0?i OJ .?Dc;iu;:;.:zi: 3uU «•■ ai'./s*------- % 9_ :50P4..:.ino5 F'^rs.F. adWa Bt^ , 5ckU.V4 ’*>t*P» ■ft ■ f •'■} • (’’■y'S{ n’ f • O'^ % aJwc> Hfitte___:____ _ ^/^^j^-bcrrxEsle^‘‘' “ ••■^ ^ - ua&v w-oest ” ®»35U,:SJF,—“i"_r: I • • . • • habpcover calculation worksheet SETBiLCKZ<»<Et fCIRClXCXCE) 75490* 250400*500-1000* _____ HABPOOVmiWZQWE A. Hoost • •• X • • S.F. . mi* X* X X S.F. : S.T. s.?. B. 'Oinie • • • • i»' •t.• • • •• • • • <5. Ddvewqr . *•• .4 .* • • . ••• •••■ ' X- X s.r. S.F. D. Std«wdle X X S.F. S.F. E. FaOo/DccSc X X S.F. S.F.’ F. Vndcitiln By Blasdc OcFAde X X X SJ. S.F. •SF. O. -Other S.F. TOTAL KABBCOVER Dl ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •A • • •• •______. B .: .X100 • > S.F. S.F. % ypoyoSTO HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House _____________ X S.F. List*WM* X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Oarsie C. Drlvemgr S.F. X X S.F S.F D. SidewHh X X • •,m S.F S.F % • E. Petlo/Dede X X S.I S.I * F; Lmdsetpc tiodcdela EyFlasde OrFibile X X X S.I S^ s: s. O. Odur TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZON total property area in ZONE ‘ A _____________' ♦ » . •• xlOO ••• ^ ■. V •A*- • * BABDCO'VER CALCULATI SEIBACKZONEt (CIRCLE ONZ) 0-7r >AT^Nj^iRKSHEET 250-500*500-1000* EXTSTPTG A. Hoose iSlXfiSiE • • IVitt 3 3 3.4 S t X- X X S.T. s.¥. B. ‘Cuifc % • • • W • • 5 X V-; % *• • 0 C. Drlvewiy • ••••.»• •• • • • , * • •• • .• X __ X • / •• • • .5.?. m • •• — S.F. ___________S.P. D. Stdewdk X X SiU’i^ 5.F. S.F. X X .-Laa 5.F, S.F. F. Ixndscipc VadctUa By Flutle OrFlibde X X X SJ. S.F. ^•S.F. O. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER Of ZONE TOTAL FROPERtV AREA IN ZONE •• •+. B : . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7.<»fE ’ A. House ____________ X xlOO : S.F. S.F. r* Lis|X S.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Otfi^e C. Ddve^ S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk • *. X X S.F. S.F. 1 * E. Fetlo/Dcek X X S.F. S.F. F. Leadseape Undediln By Flastle OrFibde X X X S.F. SF. S.F. O. OAer TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZOK TOTAL FROFER1Y AREA IN ZONE * A ____________' ♦ B 5.F* S.F. XlOO » r *• * •V % BAXO)COVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75450*500-1000' • • A. Boom ..X *• • •»S.F. . •taaiX' WA . X- • «S.F. •X , m ”_S.F. X vt _s.p. • • .. B. ‘Oartie-’ ..• V‘X . • V •’ • * • • • • • 1:.^f>^S.P. • : : . • •• • 0. Driveway , • •/. ■ 7‘;- * • • X • * • •• . • • • •. . • • • ••» • . _S.F. X ’ ._S.F. • D. SMewdle X • . •_5.F. • X m *"•_S.F. • E. Pado/Decik .. • X . • _S.F. X m 2 _ S.F. F. Landscipe UndcAaln •• • • ■ . X • SP. X ■i *S.F. ByPltsde OrFiibilc X m,llSP. •• • * • • m • O. Other X ._S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •iMA-S.F. • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ■ .A • . • •+. B X100 • m rngnrsm S.F. f. . . ’ • . * * • • * PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE * • • 9 • •• A. House X S.F. Lisin • WMA X S.F. •X 4 __S.F. X 4 __S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway • X • • • __S.F • • • • X • S.F • X wmmmmrn D. SidewaUe •• • •• X •• • . • < •■ S.F • • . • . . X • • . •••_sx E. Patlo/DKV •• • . X • mm ' • ./ • • . S.T — ~ ^ •» X m s*» •• ’ p. Landscape Uoderl^ ByPlasde Or Fabric X S.1 X M • S*a X ■B ——^ s«« ■" • • • • •• • s.o. TOTALKARDOOVER IN ZON TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A ____________ ♦ B , •• XUO w S. s. f 'a HARDCOVER CALCULATKm WCXHCWEET - LUND RESIDENCE Site Am: I535S Total Ibidoover allowed in Zi 15355 SJ'. X 25% - 3838 af 25% A. House"2324af B. Oarage-505sf C. Drivew^"225af D. Sidewalk-65af E. Front Porch " 220 af F. Deck"400sf Total handover in Zone: 3739 af Setback Zone Site Am* 5670 S.F. Total Hardcover Allowed in Zone: 30% 5670 S.F. X 30% • 1701 S A. Garage"360af B. Drivi^y" 1332af Total hardcover in Zone: 1692 sf Total Proposed Hardcover on 5431 S.F. 1 ♦ • • • MEMO CITY OF ORONO TO:Street File 4515 North Shore Drive FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:June 4,2002 SUBJECT: Analysis of paid sewer assessments The property is two tax parcels, Lots 8 and 9, Bergquisfs Addn. to Saga Hill. The properties were part of Ae 1970LS*1 (Forest Ldce/Saga Hill) sewer project. The project was assessed $1,270 per unit plus S7.80 per foot and each unit was assessed a $225 connection fee*. Lot 8 has paid the full assessment and the house was connected to sewer in the early 1970s. Lot 9 paid the $7.80 footage fee, but has not paid the unit fee and the connection fee. Based on the 2002 fee schedule Lot 9 would owe for the portion of unpaid assessment if the properQr were allowed to connect to sewer. Staff is suggesting the following is the total unpaid assessment. Total Assessment due at the time of the 1970 project. IfiLi $1,250 Unit Charge (unpaid) $ 585 Footage Charge (paid) $ 225 Cormection Charge (expired*) $1,835 Total Assessment tor the property (1970). The total paid portion is 31.88% of the remaining assessment that would have been due in 1970. $585/51,835 *■ 0.3188 The 2002 Fee Schedule lists the total connection fee for the Forest Lake/Saga Hill project is $9,840 per unit. If the property is approved to have connection to sewer the assessment due would be 68.12% of $9,840, to reflect the unpaid portion at the time of the original project $9,840 xmi2 $ 6,703.00 is the unpaid balance of the full connection charge based on the 2002 Fee Schedule. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances Required: Hennepin County Tax records estimate the lot area of Lot 9 to be 30,400 s.f. This does not meet the minimum requirement of 1.0 acre for the yftning district The lot is also less than the minimum reqtured 140’ of width at the lakeshore and structure setback. To build on the property variances must be approved by the Council for lot area and width, and Council must approve connection to sewer. * The $225 plant charge was never inflated and die plant is paid for. No additional plant charge would be due. C 2«48 I2'L »«• »•% % ^o. / '’‘W's'-. ELEC '24" ELM 1*70 , n'2 ‘L/ 0 D / <24*euyi e Lr c* M.Hi3fe3 ai.oi,'"'. ^•••••» •' ELM ELM .••■ ~ V‘* V., iS4 *242- i* / ‘‘ ' UIQ IS4> I2^LI o ''/|2'1^ 48A • v#.^• ..l N MK 382 .57.0 ■, > .'r “ *1 .. West Arm 0.2 0.2 Acres 0 • 0.249 0.25 - 0.499 0.5 - 0.749 0.75 - 0.99 1-100 N 4 w VkN Y s 0.4 Mil • inftii irti II oh % • X Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department oi~m-ds>- Parcel Information iPare«l ID 071172331 louM Nimib«r4618 StTMt Nam# NORTH 8HOIIC DR 7Mi to sore ligetyiseordlitf AfipreMflCi • oofivaNtan orMbrmaiton b RUN OATf i7/5R/t2 RATCN its IffIMEfIN COUNTY PROftRTY INFOIUIATXON SYSTEN PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX^SMii PACE 22 mP ADM ONNM HANi TAXPAYRR NANi/ADM SR •7-117-2S SI •••! RMAi NORTH SHORi Dl MYLi iRNiST Nimo DAYLSi E NXmo \ IRNtTN SHORE M IM SSSA4 MAS SR R7-117-2S SI RttS •A45S NORTH SHME DR 0RE6G D RLOHN 0RE06 RLOHN AA55 NORTH SHME M IfOUND Iff 55SRA SR R7-U7-2S SI tORS RAARS NORTH SNORE DR J L THEXSEN JR ET AL TRSTEES DARDARA A/JOHN L THEISEN JR AAR5 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55SRA PROP ADM ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADM SR R7-II7-2S SI RRIA •AARi NORTH SHORE M JOHN D R DEDRA N XNOOEL JOHN D R DEDRA H RNOOEL AAR5 NMTH SHORE OI( HOUND NN 55SRA SR R7-II7-2S SI tits •AAY5 NORTH SHORE DR NXCHAEL P RYAN NXCHAEL P RYAN * AA95 NORTH SHME DR HOUND HN 55SRA SR §7-117-23 31 ROSA RA5I5 NORTH SHORE OR H J RX6ELH0P ETAL HENRY J RI6ELH0F A5I5 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55SAA s. I I. PROP ADM OUNCE NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AOM SR RT-IIT-SS 31 §i§7 * •ASIi NMTH SHORE M H J RXOELHOP ETAL H J RXDELHOP ASI5 NORTH SHME DR HOUND NN SSSAA SR §7-117-23 SI §§§R §AAfR NORTH SHME M H J SOOJXAN R R 0 SOOJXAN UAYNC J R KAREN 0 SOOJXAN I§2§2 HARNQNY CXRCLE EDEN f RAXRXE NN 55SA7 SR §7-117-23 31 §§§§ §AAR§ NMTH SHORE M JOHN J OROTANS JOHN J MOTAHS S2§§ 2§TH ACE N E HPLS HN S5A1R V.* .i OUNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOM SR §7-117-23 SI §§I§ §AA7§ NMTH SHME M JOHN J OROTANS ET AL JOHN# XLZE R PETCRIS OROTANS AA7§ NORTH SHORi DR IfOUND HN SSSRA §7-117-23 31 §§1S NORTH SHME DR NMXEL 0 SENN HMXEL 0 SENN AAAR NMTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 553AA SR §7-117-23 31 §§1R §ISA7 REST POINT CXR U E PXNEOAR R R A PXHCGAR UXLLXAH R REDCCCA PXNEOAR I3A7 REST POINT CIR HN 553AA L OHNU NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADM SR §7-117-23 SI §§17 •IS37 REST POINT CXR RODERT N ZAUN ROOERTN ZAUN ISS7 REST POINT CIR HOUND NN SSSRA SR §7-117-23 31 §§1R §1S2§ REST POINT CIR SHAUN HEARINS SHAUN HEAKINS I32§ REST POINT CXR HOUND HN SSSRA SR §7-117-23 SI §§I§ §ASAS NORTH SHME M C A R H L ALDRECHT TRUSTEES HAROU L R CAROL A ALDRECHT A5AS NORTH SHME M NN SSSRA •J TAXPAYER • NANE/ADM SR SI §§2§ MIMU REST POINT CXR JANXCt K N NATTEO JANXCE K M NATTEO I3SR RUT POINT CXRaC 3R R7-U7-23 SI §§2I pISAi RUT POINT CXR JACK EDNARU RUTZ JACK EDNARU RUTZ lSA§ RUT POINT CXR HOUND HN SSSRA SR §7-117-23 31 §§22 RISA2 REST POINT CIR n J ALTENNOPEN ET AL NARK J ALTENNOPEN ISA2 REST POINT CXR HOUND HN SSSRA ... «v V,: t • MM MTE »7/St/U MTCN SM HENNEPIN JJJTXON SVSTEN TMPAVIR NAHK/AOM » •7-117«2S 31 ••23 •1S4« REST POINT CXR ACt MOffRTXIS UC ACC PROPCRTICS UC I3M REST POINT CIR hound NN SS3M I I TAKPAVCR nme/abm so •>-1X7-23 31 ••27 •UW NXUNURST TR R L RIRKCUND CT M. SUOJ/lE JORiRT L S NARXT RIRREUNO 1200 NILDNURST TR hound HN SS3M PROP ABOR TAKPAVCR NAHE/ADDR SO 07-117-23 31 OOSO 0«M0 NORTH SNORE DR ORTH E DCSSCSCN DCTN E RCSSCSEN ASOO NORTH SNORE OR NOUNO NN MSM TAXPATER NAHC/AOOR •7-117-23 31 OOSy NORTH SNORE DR D J HARD A S RVAN-MARO MIAN JNAR0/S4MHZ RVAN-NARO MM N orth snore dr hound HN SS3M PROP ADOR TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SA •7-117-23 32 OSaM OAAIS TONKAVXCN U KATHLEEN 0 ASN KATNUEN 0 ASN 4015 TONKAVXEH U hound NN SS3M L PROP ADDR ONNCR mm TAKPAVCR NAHC/AOOR SO Or-117-23 32 •AAR •1SS4 RCST POINT CXR D S MALSN A A I NUCN DENNIS NALSN/AHANDA NCIEN 1SS4 RCST POINT CIR hound NN SSSM • « • /*'L ini REPORT NO. PX4S54S1 PACE 23 SO 97-U7-2S 31 0024 •ISBO REST POINT CXR RICHARD L ANFINSON RICHARD L ANFINSON ISSO RCST POINT CIR hound NN SSSM SO •7-117>23 31 ••24 •••SO ADDRESS UHASSICNEO TOOO C DIRKCLANO SUOJ/LE ROOERT A NARir DIRKCLANO 1240 HILOHURST TR hound HN SSSM SO AT-llT-SS SI 0020 •••SO ADDRESS UHASSICNEO douce R DIRKCLANO SUOJ/LE ROOERT A NARXT DIRKCLANO 1240 HILOHURST TR hound HN SSSM SO 97-H7-2S 31 ••24 MSlA NORTH SHORE OR P SAHICKX A K N SAHXCKX P SAHICKX A X N SAHXCKX 4514 NORTH SHORE OR hound HN SSSM SO •7-117-23 31 OOSl •1244 HILOHURST TR PATTI HAC SCHIHNCL PATTI HAE SCHINHEL 1244 HILOHURST TR hound HN SSSM SO 47-117-23 31 •ISSS VINE PL DANIEL 0 VENTRES JR DANIEL B VENTRES JR 135S VINE PLACE hound HN SSSM ••ss so 47-U7-2S 31 •••• •1247 HILOHURST TR DEAN T LUNDOLAO ET AL • DCAN T LUNDOLAO A SHERRI J STELOH-LUNORLAO 1247 HILOHURST TR HOUND HN SSSM SO 47-117-23 31 SSAl •••SO ADDRESS PCNDINO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN COUNTY RICNT OF HAY 14V4 PRAIRIE DRIVE HEOXNA HN SS40 SO 47-117-23 32 SSSS •ISIS REST POINT LA E 0 A C L RCXNNART CRXC D REINHART ISIS REST POINT LA hound NN SSSM SO 47-117-23 32 ••31 •IS4S rest point CXR 0 A J DOXES JR DAVID D A JENNIFER BOXES J2 1344 REST POINT CIRUE hound HN SSSM SO 47-117-23 34 •••2 •••SO ADORCSD UNASSXCNEB HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RXONT OF NAY 144« PRAIRIE DRXVC HCDXNANf SSS44 SO •7-117-2S 34 •••3 •M2S NORTH SNORE DR norna j dickey norna j dickey M2S NORTH SNORE OR hound NN SSSM • . ! • %•• • t ,4, »%7 l : ■■■■■ - Jr.... ■ f'- ■' i t- L c L. I • • mil BAH fj/it/ti iATCN its IttfBftfXII COUNTY roofEBTY INFOUMTION SYSTEM PBOPEiTY ONNERS LIST REPONT NO. PX^SMOl PACE » M •7*U7*2S SA NM TAXPAYER NANE/ABBR If LUWBfWi M B BAiR^MAAAOQBBBM If LUNBtlAN* 44U IMTN SNORE OR NOUNS IRi SISM SO f7-U7-2S 42 OlfA flS4S VIIRE PL . flAROARET N SAVZS TRUSTEE NAROARET N SAVZS 1S4S VZNR PL ROUND HN SSS04 TOTAL SATCN SIB iliss I . Z CERTZPY TNAT TNE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATZON OP ZNPORHATZON AS ZT APPEARS TNZS DATE ON TNE RECORDS OP TNE HENNEPZN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OP PROPERTY^TAXATZON# TO TNE SEST OP NY ENOMLEDDE AND OELZEP DATE ■ OAR ■ ’A .A. p AppI ication Date: 10/9/02 Application Deadline: 12/8/02 Ocr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: 10/9/02 ITEM NO.: 9 Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2845 JefTMartineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Final Plat Application: Two lot final plat of Stubbs Farm Zoning Dbtrict:RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Resolution No. 4853 Approving Preliminary Plat C Staff Report and Exhibits of 8/26/02 Background Summary: The applicants have completed all requirements of Resolution No. 4853, approving preliminary plat, and have requested final plat approval. A requirement of the final plat is Outlot A will be combined with Lot 1 and serve as the driveway access to the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution approving the final plat of Stubbs Farm and to forward to the City Attorney's Office for recording. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. titefiiiiifr i iiffrt ...» H A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF STUBBS FARM FILE NO. 02-2845 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Miimesota; 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 Jeff Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs (hereinafter “the subdivider'’) for property legally described as: Lot 24, Auditor ’s Subdivision No. 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all the standards of the RR-1 B zoning district and meets alt 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 subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the Cit:^ including; I. Completion of requirements of Resolution No. 4853, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the 2 lot subdivision. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 3.Dedication to the City of a Fiowage and Conservation Easement over those portions of wetlands as depicted on the plat. 4. 5. Establishment of a private driveway outlot shown on the plat as Outlot A. Each lot has demonstrated one primary and one alternate drainfield site. Page 1 of 5 m •i 6. Payment of Final Plat fee of $225. 7. Payment of legal review and filing fees of $200. 8. Payment of Park Dedication fees in the amount of $5,550 for one new residential lot ba^ on 8% of the value of the lot as determined by the City Assessor. 9. Payment of Storm Water and Drainage Trunk fees in the amount of $20,547.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Stubbs Farm, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Copy of Plat is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A), subject to the following conditions: 1.The City will grant the necessary variances to allow the existing house and non- conforming accessory building to remain on Lot 2 until it is redeveloped at which time they shall be removed. (As shown on Exhibit B). 2.No building permits for Lots 1 and 2 shall be issued prior to installation of fencing around each primary and alternate drainfield site acceptable to the On-Site Systems Manager of the City of Orono. 3.All easements, restrictions, covenants as referred to in Orono Resolution No. 4853 and this resolution shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording cl the Plat. 4.Documentation of title to the property shall be submitted and accepted bv the City Attorney prior to recording of the Plat. 5.All requirements of Resolution No. 4853 and this resolution shall be completed prior to recording the plat. 6.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 April 14,20i03 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of easements. Page 2 of 5 i • covenants, dedications, and agreements noted above. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 14th day of October, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of October, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Miiuiesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 2002 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 P«ge 3 of S •'■'ft-— .c & "Ih: i; v; '-• -- ^ 'wmms STUBBS FARM »^a>. SM*■•J*“ r;"~ /\ * ®' o I ^ a a “I <:/ 2.| I I •ifk * . * M«ai^ X k -US I I Ia ’ V1'^ O k I rdoc .no . vau I UlM.1 iltoMi i%«fl m.1 mi mtmtt litfl ImMOmC I# tfl ) Ml Iw h«ii M» _ tfaf •*, CMUHTCtTUlH. •lATtOf M COlWTt 0» , IMLt >y CMi^i C. •f( iMMifMMtl ■MitoiAsBBkiai tIAft OP aJMCtOf A couMfT OP Mmm riM ■HMttOt* •ffttlMA *AAIi «M »-« C«*» • t- ;.,. «.• l‘*»' *♦ MM M* _ _________ 9* * ________________m,_ * MTt *f OM C«iMiiiiM»<m 90 Imnmmimm «M «M C« orr •p- •p- OPTMCffVOP MmaoiM. •p_______ •TAP. A U D SUB NO \, 2 3 0 •wu m mt eomni • Ml •>__ * ♦ •••! L«»*» , mwmmi BTitias—mmm. ^5n?3S£?5SSHi GROMBgRC A ASSOTjATfS, INC Mo 01 00 CO 04 ^ ^ - ________Exhibit B PREUHINARY PUT FOR CHERRY STUBBS OF LOT 24. AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION HO. 230 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 1 Q____M <90 290rHu«r-n--J SCALE FEET • I %a;arti GRONBEltG k ASSOCIATfeSTTNC Page 5 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 »S R A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 FOX STREET PID 04-117-23-31-0008 FILE NO. 02-2803 WHEREAS, Jeff Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs, (hereinafter "the subdivider") on June 19,2002, filed an application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") requesting subdivision of property located at 2920 Fox Street within the Clt>' of Omno and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Auditor's Subdivision No. 230, 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 21oning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunit>' to speak thereon. WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on August 26, 2002 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: FLXDINGS 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land witlJn each newly created lot. 2. 3. The property contains a total of 7.75 acres of land. Lots 1 and 2 each meet the minimum size requirements for lots in the RR-1 B zoning district. Lot 1 meets the 3-acre minimum area requirement for a back lot per zoning code Section 11.31 Subd. S. Page 1 of 6 ; r • . GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 5s 4.Both lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils and approved sites for on-site septic treatment facilities. 5.Driveway access for Lot 1 is via Outlot A with an opening from Fox Street. Lot 2 has a separate opening from Fox Street. 6.A single family residence can be constructed on Lot 1 without the need for further variances. 7.The existing residence on Lot 2 requires a setback variance to Outlot A. The residence is located 30' where SO’ is required. 8.Four accessory structures on Lot 2 will be removed prior to final plat approval. The buildings to be removed are indicated on Exhibit A. 9.A garage, shed and three other accessory buildings are non-conforming requiring setback and oversized accessory building variances. The accessory structures will be removed when the Lot 2 is redeveloped. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the fmdings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminaiy plat for JeffMartineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs per preliminary plat drawings by Mark Gronberg, Land Surveyor, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., Land Surveyors dated 6/28/02, revised 8-8-2002, subject to the following conditions: 1.Subdivider shall pay the standard Park Dedication Fee and Stormwater Trunk Fees per City ordinance for one additional building lot. 2.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 5' along interior lines and 10* along the perimeter boundaries. 3.Prior to residential construction on Lot 1, all preliminary and alternate septic sites must be fenced off prior to any construction activities. 4.The City will grant the necessary variances to allow the existing house and non- conforming accessory buildings to remain on Lot 2 until it is redeveloped at which Page 2 of 6 • • • • • i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 5 S__ time they shall be removed. 5.The accessory buildings on Lot 2 shown in Exhibit A as “to be removed" shall be removed prior to final plat approval. 6.Outlot A is intended merely as a corridor for driveway serving Lot 1 and shall contain no primary or accessory structures. 7. 8. Subdivider shall execute a private driveway maintenance agreement for Lots 1 and 2. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will 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. 9. The lots are subject to the following standards, per the requirements of the zoning subdivision ordinance relating to front/back lot subdivisions: Lot 2 2 acres Front/Rear Setback - 50’ Side Setback (East) - 30 ’ Side Adj. to Outlot A - 50’ Lot 1 3 acre minimum Front/Rear Setback - 75’ Side Setbacks - 45 ’ 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 arc as follows: I.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 August 8,2002, on file with the City of Orono. Page 3 of 6 _ ,..r,—......... • . '.m CITYofORONO lyo RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 S S B Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and S' along the internal lot lines, per the attached drawing. C. Flowage and Conservation easements shall be granted over the wetlands on Lot 1 and Lot 2 and shall be shown as “drainage easements” on the final plat drawing. Naming of plat. 2. 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 cunently affecting the property. c.Subdivider shall execute a Conservation and Flowage Easement over all areas shown as “drainage easement” on the plat. 3. Fees to be paid. a. Final plat fee $200.00 b.Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and pcsoriated documents - $200.00 c.*Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a lair mr«rket value on the undeveloped land at the time of , 'climinary plat apprc'val. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as A. lessor's leport has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of the land not <^o e.xceed $5,550 per lot. d.Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: amount is determined by number of acres being developed (7.75) X $2,700 per acre - $20.925. Page 4 of 6 . • GlTYofORONO RESOl.UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 g 5 g Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this^h day of August, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. J. ^ Noti^ Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN LINDAS. VEE NOr/MVMUC -MNNESOTA If^CannlMiMbwirnJin 31,200$ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of August, 2002 by Linda S. Vee. City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.\ecuted on behalf of the City. /) ^ ^' -/eg <. Notary Public RACHEL DODGE 1 ) NOTARY Pl*UC»l«NfCrOTA S ■ , J MvCaimWME«i«Jan.3i.2?» Page 5 of 6 rliititfiidUA . V V , 9 Exhibit A PBBLUnMARr PUT POB CHERRY STUBBS OF LOT 24. AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 230 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA *9sa — • • _ ___ i MLJp-uJ SCALC FCET O ^5 hJp—* X MB B» fSl I iMtM to to CROKbEhtilT ASsdtlATES. iWc. k5!A?>j\!S? Page 6 of 6 . •• Complete Date: Deadline: 7/12/02 11/08/02 Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottenberg Title: Zoning Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ITEM NO.: 7 Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02*2803 JefT Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Preliminary Subdivision Exhibits: A Resolution B Site Plan C City Engineer Comments (August 2,2002) D Planning Report (July 10,2002) Application: The applicants have applied for a Preliminary Plat for a two-lot subdivision of an 7.75 acre site located on Fox Street. The property is located in the 2 acre zone and will create one new building site. The 2-iot subdivision is a front/back split, hence the back lot meets the 150% (3*acre) area requirement. Both lots meet or exceed the standards of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes for such a division. The existing residence on Lot 2 will remain on the lot and septic testing has been completed and approved for both lots. The back lot is provided access off Fox Street via Ou*!ot A. Variances Required: Residence: The existing residence on Lot 2 requires a variance to meet required setbacks from Outlot A. The residence is located 30 ’ from Outlot A where 50’ is required. The residence, garage and four sheds will remain on the lot until at some point it is redeveloped. Garage: The existing garage is proposed to be kept on Lot 2 with the residence. It is located approximately 16 ’ from Outlot A. An accessory structure of this size (1,152 s.f.) is required to be 50’ from Outlot A. Accessory structures: The total square footage of the garage and four other accessory structures is 3,765 s.f Property of 2.54 acres is allowed a maximum 2,400 s.f for accessory structures and only one of the structures can be oversized. Two of the outbuildings are oversized at 1,152 s.f (garage) and 1,680 (shed). When Lot 2 is redeveloped the accessory buildings shall be removed. Four additional out buildings on Lot 1, Lot 2 and Outlot A will be removed prior to final plat ^proval. Exhibit A mdicates which out buildings will remain and >^ch will be removed. T1 ~1 planning commission RECOMMENDATION:7 I/; I On July 15. 2002 IM PlmUng Conmuirion voted 7 to 0 o, . --------------------- preliminaiy approval for the two-lot subdivision. mmena STAFF RECOMMENDATION: St^ iecommends a^val of the preliminary plat and variances for residence and out buildings on Lot 2 subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. HttU A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2920 FOX STREET PlD04-l’7-23-31-0008 FILE NO. 02-2803 WHEREAS, Jeff Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs, (hereinafter "the subdivider") on June 19,2002, filed an application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") requesting subdivision of property located at 2920 Fox Street within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 24, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 230, 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 July IS, 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 August 26, 2002 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision q>plication of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: FINDINGS 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Res atial Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buUdable land within each newly created lot. 2. 3. The property contains a total of 7.75 acres of land. Lots 1 and 2 each meet the minimum size requirements for lots in the RR-IB zoning district. Lot 1 meets the 3-acre minimum area requirement for a back lot per zoning code Section 11.31 Subd. S. Page l of 7 . II I ifcr 1 I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Driveway access for Ut I is via Outtot A with an opening ftom Fox Street. Lot 2 has a separate opening ftom Fox Street. variancM^*™'*^ residence can be constructed on Lot 1 without the need for further Four accessory structures on Lot 2 will be removed prior to tinal plat approval The buildmgs to be removed are indicated on Exhibit A. Jeff Martineau^on b^alf of Cherry Stubbs per preluninaiy plat drawings by Mark Gronberg Land foltoS condU ifos? ^ ^ subject’to the 1. 2. 3.mu:;;:r 4. Page 2 of 7 I MOtj 5. time they shall be removed. The accessory buildings on Lot 2 shown in Exhibit A as **to be removed" shall be removed prior to final plat approval. 6.Outlot A is intended merely as a corridor for driveway serving Lot 1 and shall contain no primary or accessory structures. 7. 8. Subdivider shall execute a private driveway maintenance agreement for Lots 1 and 2. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will 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. 9. The lots are subject to the following standards, per the requirements of the zomng subdivision ordinance relating to front/back lot subdivisions: Lot 2 2 acres Front/Rear Setback - 50* Side Setback (East) - 30 ’ Side Adj. to Outlot A - 50’ Loti 3 acre minimum Front/Rear Setback - 75’ Side Setbacks - 45 ’ 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 teduced to 1" » 200’. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated August 8,2002, on iile with the City of Orono. D. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior Page 3 of 7 toundanes of property and 5' along the internal lot lines, per the attached drawing. C. Flowage and Conservation easements shall be granted over the wetlands on U)t 1 and Lot 2 and shall be shown as “drainage easements ” on the final plat drawing. D. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a.TWe opinion nddtess«l lotheCity. Allowners, mortgage holders or oihers wlh property interest ndicand therein shall sign the pki and ail other documents affected by such interest. b.The a^lir^t must provide ceitiried copies of all recorded --------- currently affecting the property. c.Subdivider shall execute a Conservation and Flowage Easement over all areas shown as drainage easement ” on the plat. 3. Fees to be paid. Final plat fee = $200.00 “’xi'vision and associated documentsS200.00 c.♦Park Dedication Fee: amount shaU be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as ^ dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of the land not to exceed $5,550 per lot. Stormwter md Drainage Trunk Fee: amount is determined by number of acres bemg developed (7.75) X $2,700 per acre - $20.925 . Page 4 of 7 .•> Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th 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 26th 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. Notaiy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of A ugust, 2002 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 S| STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this before me, day of .,2002,.personally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the bash of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of jO 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 before me. On this__day of ., 2002,.personally appeared who is personally knot^n to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation of a credible uit'jcssand 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 7 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects AfidtrUk ane AfIwe,Itar rmailva Attlai^t^af tfuflayaf rnitclaaft: Oito G lonattroo. FX • Marvin L SorvalA M. • Glenn X Cook. «. • lloOtrt a S<#iunkht ft • Jorrjf A. tourOon. ft August 2,2002 fonlor Conjyftanu: teOart w. iottn#. ft • JOMph C Andtrtik. ft • Miartf t lUnor. ff • Susan M CfA. AtSMiait frmcieats; Ka«m A GorOoa ft • tobtrt». ffOfftno. ft • Rkfiartf W fotttr. ft • OavM O. loskota. ft • kiark A. Hanson, ft • Mkfiaof t ffautmann. ft • M C field, ft • Ktrvietfi f Andtrson. ft • Mark ff. ffolfi, ft • David A ffonestroo. MtA • Sidney f WNKamsoa ft. LI • Afnes M. ting, kUA • Alan ffick ScMddl. ft • Thomai df.fettfsoaft • iamtiff.Maiand.ft • MUeiff Jensen, ft* LfrvwpGnvefiff.ft • OMkef J.Cdgtrton.ft • Ismael Martinet, ft • Thomas A Syfto. ft • Sheldon i. Johnson • Dale A Gro««. ft • Thomas A ffoushar. ft • ffoota X Otvtfy. ft orsices: St faiH. St Cloud, ffocheirtr and Winmar. MN • Miiwauket. Wl • Chicago. II Mkibsltt: wwwhonescroo.com Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 li .) C. i t V. . . i‘.‘. Re: Cherry Stubbs Subdivision File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2803 Dear Paul We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the Cherry Stubbs lot subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road along the nonh side of Fox Street (C R. 8^1) in the sotithwest quarter of Section 4. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed subdivision vvil! create f.vo lots and one outlet. Access to the nonherly lot will be across Outlet A. It appears the driveway to scr/e the northerly parcel can be constructed a: a grade of less than 3% and is acceptable. The existing sheds will need to l»e removed prior to driveway construction. • It is unclear where the south lot line of the southerly parcel is. The plat should provide for a minimum of 50 feel of right-of-way for Fox Street. • Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review and approval. • 1 0-foot drainage and utility easement shoidd be provided along Fox Sticci. Fi vc-f.xrt wiJe drainage and utility easements should be provided along ail interior lot lines. Drainage and utility easements should be provided across all wetlands and drainage ways. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO.' ROSENE. ANDERLIK A A.SSOCIA ftS. INC ^/cn>i Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City cf Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651*636*1311 i I V TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator DATE:July 10.2002 SUBJECT: #02-2803 JefTMartineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Preliminary Plat Review Lot Area: 7.7S acres (S.8S Dry Buildable) List of Exhibits: A B C D £ Application Property Owners Notification List Plat Map Lot Layout Septic Review and Comments Application: Cherry Stubbs is the owner of the property proposed for subdivision. Jeff Martineau on behalf of Ms. Stubbs has applied for a preliminary plat of property located at 2920 Fox Street. The property is a 7.7S acre property to be divided to create one new building site (Lot 1), and driveway for back lot (Outlot A). The existing driveway off Fox Street will still be used by the house on the front lot. The lots are proposed as follows: Lot 1 * 4.82 acres (3.10 acres dry contiguous) Lot 2 = 2.54 acres (2.31 acres dry contiguous) Outlot A « 0.25 acre (Driveway Outlot) Subdivision Standards: The general site plan meets all requirements for e front lot/back lot subdivision. Back lots are defined as "a lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a back lot when the corridor is platted as an outlot.” The special requirements for a front lot/back lot division are the back lot (Lot 1), because the property does not have direct access to a road, must meet aminimum of 150% of the minimum lot standard in the zoning district, in this case Lot 1 must have a minimum lot size of 3 acres, and a principal building shall meet a minimum setbacks 150% of the district standard. The lot is in the RR-IB district, which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Setbacks in the district are 50' front and rear yard, and 30' for the side yard. #02-2803 Maitinetu/Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Class II Subd-Prelim Plat July 11,2002 Page I t5 requirement Wetlands: ptolecled but is subject to WCA leguhdoiis. No wetlsnd impacts an pmpo^T^'^ “ SepHc Review: r* ■“ '»‘h compi«adbyS.PT.sUn*.Inc.Tl».“:C^!ic;S;rWoX1^ needs to be replaced by 2010. IfLot 2 is redeveloped thenewsentir«if«i? *>**«"»“<* to 1^ Jetennined that both the prinuuy and alte’mate drainfleld sites mM al1^*!jSSS,i! Yard Requirements: Required setbacks for Lots 1 and 2: IM2 (Front Lot)Front 50' Side 30' Rear SO* Side adjacent to Outlot A 50' LsLL Front 75' Side 45' Rear 75' (Back Lot) Both lots meet aU requirements for subdivision without the need for area, width or setback van Residence on Lot 2: anances. The existing residence on Lot 2 does not meet the side yard setback from Oiitw A Tu .u Outlot A is 50*. The residence is located approximately 30 ’viduchreomm. at/ it has not been determined if the structure will remain or be temo^ Tk At this point building site which meets all setbacks. « 402*2103 Mirtincsu/Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Clau II Subd.*Prelun Plat July 11,2002 Page 2 Outlot A: Outlet A is created as an access outlot for a private driveway to serve Lot 1. Access outiots as: required to be a minimum of 30* wide to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screeninn without encroaching on neighboring p«3perties. Outlot A is 30’ wide meeting the 30’ requiremem. Trails: The subdivision proposal wiU go to the Park Commission on July 29,2002. Greg Gappa, Public Works Director, reviewed this proposed subdivision and concluded a trail is not planned along Fo« Street, even though the Comprehensive Plan does show a trail along Fox Street as part of the traii systenfplan. City Engineer Comments: Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, has been sent this proposed subdivision. The plans for the subdivision were not received in our office imtil July 2,2002, so at the time this report was written commentr had not yet been received from him. If there are issues or concerns by the engineer they will have to- be worked out prior to going forward to the City Council. Easements and Covenants: 1. Standard drainage and utility casements shall be dedicated on the final plat 10’ along tb«! westerly exterior property line. Ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the south and west boundaries. A drainage and utility easement 5’ either side of the boundary between Outlot A and Lot 2 shall be granted. 2. The delineated wetlands in the north quadrant and southeast quadrant of Lot 1 and northeas:: quadrant of Lot 2 shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to property owner and future owners that said wetland is subject to WCA regulation -nd/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. 3. Covenants shall be filed on the chain of title for each lot as an advisory to future property owners that a primary and secondary drainfield site exist on the property and are protected. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following; 1 . Creation of drainage and utility easements as noted above. 2. Conservation and Flowage Easements to reflect delineated w'etland boundaries of the Orono-protected wetlands. #02-2803 Martineau/Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Class II Subd.-Preliin Plat July 11,2002 Pages Such iccommeiidatioii is based on the following conditions: 1. 2.'***“" A by Hennepin County is ~T"t^pnor to CiQf Council approval of the preliminary p|nf 3. SttndnnI dnim^ miHiy easemenu shell be defeated on the final plat over III a»as. y along all interior proper^, lines and Ity along all * “fP**"**®" «** required application fees, including payment of paric dediration fees of 8 ^ of the land value prior to subdivision, not to exceed $5 300 per lot and stormwater fee of $21,540 based on $2700 per acre Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Toapprove. A reconmendationofapproval shall be subject to the conditions noted abo 2. vc. 3. 4. To table. Other Action. #02*2103 Maitineau/Siubbs 2920 Fox Sttcct Claai II Subd'Prdim Fiat July 11,2002 P«f«4 Application# 3 Date Received A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Amount Paid 4!^cT^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 29?^ Srjlrrr________________ Property IdentiHcalionNumber(PID) ^v.y/-7.g^ iF Please check one - Property ^ abstract or Attach legal description to application. toirens? n^7 “Address 2^/ £ • City e>TC,_____________Phone (home) Zip .Sn^hone (work) ?<T2. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name C ^TiyAa, Address VrsL <TgeeT City / -/0»vv/| } to __________ (attach list if mo/e than one) Phone (home) — Zip ^SlSS^one (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL -S'.fS t Acres Dry Land /,*>± Acres Wet Land y» “7S ± Acres Total, all parcels X Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_____ jCA/a _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Li*'* Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) '>C Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units ^ New Units y Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^ Um’ts per 7.75 Acres ^7,/2.a Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ^ Residential ______Other (specify)________ RUN MTi M/17/fR RATCN Sit ONNIR NANI TAXRAYIR NANR/AMM 3i M-U7-2S M iil7 MS9S Sussex LA J R CANPtCU t S N CAiriCLL JON R I SUSAN N CAHRtXLL RfAA CRERX U niNNRTONKA NN SSStS JKEIINERIN COUNTY PROfERTY XNFORHATXQN SYSTEH PROPERTY OMIERS LIST SO M-llY-RS SI Mil •OARS OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD S NIP UNTON OR NXLLIAN 0 LANTON ARS SO OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD LONO LAKE NN SSS50 REPORT NO. PXASSAOi PAOC 15 SR 0A-117-RS Si OfOR ' ••AS5 OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD X J i 0 C KREUTER KURT J t DONNA* C KREUTER ASS OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD S LOm LAKE NN S5S5A ONNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/ARDR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR .ATOP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SR fA-117-2S SI IMS MRRR OLD CRYSTAK RAY RD S D V in NARNANN DAVID 1 NONA NARNANN IIS OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD S LONO LAKE NN 5SSSO SR M-I17-2S SI mi •MRS OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD S J D PARNU I P J FARNER JONRTNAN D PORNER 545 OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD S LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SR M*117-RS SI ms RMRI SUSSEX U N 0 KERRISON I D J RERRXSON NXCNACL I DANN KERRISON MR SUSSEX U LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SR M-117-RS S4 MM RRRII POX ST DANIEL J tUMtH DANIEL J KLUTN EMI POX ST ORONO NN 55S54 SR M-117-2S SI MM M5S5 OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD S RORERT S RRANSON ETAL RORERT S RRANSON 5S5 S OLD CRYSTAL RAY RD LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SR M-117-2S SI MU •2MR POX ST LESTER E THONPSON ET AL LESTER E THONPSON 2MI POX ST RT 1 ROXS25T LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SR M-U7-2S SI M14 •2MR SUSSEX RD VENDY LEIGH PETERSON TRUSTEE DONALD C I VENDY PETERSON 2MI SUSSEX RD LONO LAKE NN 55SS4 SR M-117-2S S4 RM7 i2M5 POX ST NARK P ENGERRETSON ET AL NARK I CAROL ENGERRETSON 2M5 POX ST LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SR M-117-23 SI MM I2T2I POX ST cherry C STURRS CHERRY C STURRS 2T2I POX ST LONO LAKE NN 55S54 SR. M-1I7-23 Si M12 IM40 SUSSEX LA D D NEYER I K V NEYER OARQN D I KERRY V NEYER 441 SUSSEX LA LONG LAKE NN 55S54 SR M-117-2S SI 1115 •2TRI SUSSEX RD VENDY LEIGH PETERSON TRUSTEE DONALD C I VENDY PETERSON 2MI SUSSEX RD LONG LAKE NN 55354 SR M-117-2S 34 MU iSITI PARVIEV LA R K I S P SCHNXDT RORERT K I SARAH P SORIIDT SIM PARVIEV U LONO LAKE NN 55354 PROP AOOR TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SR M-117-2S 34 MX2 iSMR PARVIEV U J V PARKER IRC PARKER JOm V R RONNH C PARKER SRM PARVIEV U S LONG LARS NN 55SS4 TOTAL RATCH SIR IMU f ' • ^County Tajqiiayer Seivices^bf #28 CH-tn- • • .» i ... !; • • • J Parcel Information . • I •• • • • • areal ID 0411723310008 House Number 2920 Street Name FOX 8T m Thbknot»l»g^ncerMmtfi.nnfi09$$nta§complt$thnofMormktk tndit^tnmOfy. Counfy, antf StiMiOitf MAorttMMtf ollMrMurW^ r » rf- MmJj CITY of ORONO MuBldptI CWHm AttlMratt: 27S0 Mkf Pwkway Orono, MN SS3S6 IMtaiMims: P.O. Bn 66 Cnfstal Bay, Ml 55323^6 TO: .Wen<^ Bottenbecg FROM: Matt Bolteiman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:July 12,2002 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 2920 Fox Street, 2-lot split Both lots are designed for new mound septic systems by Steve Schrimers. The existing house that will be abandoned has two new mound locations designed. Both lots are designed for 5 bedrooms and have an alternate and primary location that meet all Orono and State Septic Code. I recommend die application be approved in regards to septic concerns the 2 lot subdivision. 1UcpbOM(9S2)MM6B0 • Iin(MDa«»4<M ---- fCMiONO r.0.9m S6 (J CiysW Bay. Ml SS32340M chrimers. The existing house that i lots are designed for 5 bedrooms dStateSep^Code. Irecommend it subdivision. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 9, 2002 ITEM NO.: /O Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: List of Exhibits: James E. McNeal, Formation Architects Driveway Access Request Appeal of Administrative Decision A Letter of Request (James E. McNeal) B Letter io Troy Prosa, Formation Architects C Survey of Beau Marais D Resolution No. 3739 - Approving Plat of Beau Marais 2"^ Addition E Resolution No. 3577 - Approving Preliminary Plat of Beau Marais 2"^ Addition F Copy of Driveway Easement Agreement G Plan Option I - Driveway Access to Fox Street H Plan Option 2 - Driveway Access to Private Driveway I Comprehensive Plan - Roadway Functional Classification J Comprehensive Plan - Access Management Policy The City has been asked to reconsider a denied request for driveway access permit for property located at 2530 Fox Street. The lot was created in 1996 as part of the Plat of Beau Marais 2"^ Addition. At that time it was implied that the access for this lot would be to the private drive that also serves two additional lots to the north. The 2530 lot also was required to enter into a driveway maintenance agreement with the two lots that also share access. 1 he request is to allow direct access to Fox Street rather than have access to a shared driveway. The staffs rationale behind requiring the access to the private drive was related to limiting the number direct driveway access p' ints to Fox Street. The Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue stating that the number of curb c s and access points be limited. The Comp Plan only discusses limiting access for individual residences for streets designated as arterials. This section of Fox Street is n^ defined as an arterial but is one of only a few through streets that do receive additional east-west traffic. Fox Street west of Old Crystal Bay Road is defined as “B" minor arterial, and east of Old Crystal Bay is expected to have all additional traffic in the future, especially if/when improvements to the County Road 15/Orono Orchard Road intersection are made. Staff has concluded (from information that is available from the time the lot was created) the city's intent was that access for 2530 would be from the existing private access drive. The developer also went so far as to attribute a portion of the maintenance costs for the private drive to the subject lot. Additionally, the private driveway was required to be upgraded to accommodate additional traffic for a third lot. Allowing direct access to Fox Street would not be consistent with the past policies and approvals, and would conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. »4iii J I \J 'X' V. jft James E. McNeal, Formation Architects Driveway Access Request Paye2of2_______|_____________ In the Jetter requesting an appeal of staffs administrative decision, the property owners representative has f^tated the driveway would have a steep incline for access. When reviewing the elevations provided on the survey the direct access Fox Street actually has an average elevation change of 10% to the turnaround site, where the access from the shared driveway has an average elevation change of 5% to the turnaround. According to the- elevation information the shared driveway provides less elevation change than the direct street access. Building Permit Status The original request for access to Fox Street was denied. Since the plans were amended to show a driveway access from the private drive that has been accepted and a building permit is ready to be issued under that scenario. The property owners would amend their grading plan if Council approves a separate driveway access to the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to either accept the staffs position to require access to the shared driveway or to allow the property owners direct driveway access to Fox Street. F Council Eihibit A CityofOrono 275 Kelley Parkway POB0X66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Ron Morse City Administrator Property: Plat of Beau Marais 2^ Addition Lot 2, Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear. Mr. Morse The following is a letter of appeal to an administrative decision to allow direct access from Fox Street to Lot 2 of Beau Marais for review on October 14 Orono city council meeting. Referencing city of Orono : resolution of the city council number 3577 line item number 7 stating: (lot 2 of the original Beau Marais plat would contiime to gain access via the existing easement drive) and under city of Orono transportation plan: access management; (direct individual property access to arterials is regulated in the Orono municipal code by limiting the number of curb cuts per residence; by prohibiting direct access to principal arterials, and by a number of the other regulations involving the location type and number of access points to the arterials roadway system. Allowing access to Lot 2 only from the existing easement drive forces an approach to the property that would be to steep of an incline based on grade conditions. Furthermore, access of the property to avoid the steep incline would promote the loss of approximately 7-10 mature trees, lliis in essence goes against resolution of the city council number 3577 item 6 trying to salvage existing trees. Moreover, it is the city ’s policy under access management to (minimize the number of new direct access to principal and minor arterials). However per city of Orono, Fox Street in rtot a principal or minor arterial. Because of the mature planting and the steep grade change of the property at point of access, an unusual hardship to the property would result and have a negative impact upon the aesthetics and sensitive environment. We believe the intent of resolution of city 3577 i.e. tree conservation and overall aesthetics would be better suited by allowing access from Fox Street than the easement driveway. Sincerely, lames E McN( Formation Architects Council Exhibit B GITYoT OROXO MnnkiiMj Offices SbMtMdftU: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 MaHiRf M*tss: P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 September 30,2002 Mr. Troy Prosa Formation Architects, Inc. 275 Market Street Minneapolis, MN SS40S RE: DRIVEWAY PERMIT FOR 2530 FOX STREET Dear Mr. Prosa: The City of Orono has reviewed ^e driveway access for the property at 2530 Fox Street and has concluded the best access for the'driveway is to the existing shared driveway rather than a direct access to Fox Street. The property was part of the Beau Marais 2“* Addition in 1995. At that time it was implied that the access for this lot would be to the private drive that also serves two additional lots to the north. The 2530 lot also was required to enter into a driveway maintenance agreement with the two lots that also share access. Part of the City’s rational behind requiring the access to the private drive was related to the limiting of direct access to Fox Street. The Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue stating that the number of curb cuts and access points be limited. The Comp Plan only discusses limiting access for individual residences for street designated as an arterial. This section of Fox Street is not defined as an a.-terial but is one of only a few through streets that do receive additional east- west traffic. The City of Orono has concluded from the information that is available from the time the lot was created the “intent" was made that access for 2530 would be from the existing private access drive. The developer also went so far to assume a portion of the maintenance costs for the private drive include the subject lot. Additionally, the private driveway was required to be upgraded to accommodate additional traffic. Allowing direct access to Fox Street would not be consistent with the past policies and approvals, and would conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. I can be reached at 952-249- 4600. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator lUcplMiM (952) 24M6M • Fn(9S2)2«-6(l« J.ftSi 0*^ §t*»t *• *r#« f #i(|r..^ I.. i SS!Rf4f ^ j^jayjjifij^jl ;•» < I I v» •i <V:I / I ' I JS^ I Council Exhibit C SKitrtcJ JriV€W^%| Access • • Council Exhibit D Vi GITYof xo RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. «789 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF BEAU MARAIS 2ND ADDITION FILE NO. 2029 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 ^opted '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 Class II subdivision of a plat by William F. Smith (hereinafter "the subdivider"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District finding that Lots 1 and 2 arc of a size and configuration that would allow either its new or continued use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. 2. 3. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3577. * Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. The subdivider has created non-exclusive ingress, egress, easements over a private easement driveway in favor of all abutting and/or benefitting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants known as First Amendment to Easement Agreement wherein each of the abutting and/or benefitting lot owners covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and pay the cost of maintenance for said private driveway. Page 1 of 3 _I’liffiiiriitiiiiiaririili'm ' -‘I cmroTORONo «8»0^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _3T^ 9 The sulxfivider has completed the installation of certain driveway improvements as a condition of subdivision approval The City Engineer, Shawn D. Gustafson, in his report of June 3, 1996 has confirmed the driveway meets the requirements of City and has been finind the improvement to be acceptable fi'om an engineering standpoint Applicant has completed brush clearing adjacent to access at Fox Street as also recommended by the City Engineer in that same report. 5, 6. 7. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee in the amount of $6,400.00. Payment to the City of a final plat application fee in the amount of S17S.00. Payment to the City for the l^gal review and filing of the plaL easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Beau Marais 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the City issuing a building permit for a new residence for. Lot 1, Block 1, Beau M^s 2nd Addition, subdivider shall have installed appropriate identificatton/address rignage identifying location of three residences served by driveway at i ntersection of private drive and Fox Street. Residences shall continue to be addressed at Fox Street. 2. The aforewd plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennep' n County Rebord^s Office or R^strar of Titles Office on or before January 8, 19S7 together nvith a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of easements and covenants as noted above. Page 2 of 3 MHfaiMUiilUlidjiiiaiAiMfCtt oT O' Km ► CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 7 8 9 The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for ,*:«ibdivision review. Dated this 8th day of July, 1996. ATTEST: . l/jt. Linda S. Vee, Deputy Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of July, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and Deputy Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public S CAROLE A HASEMAN gggaaagae mmrMJtmmm M8MEPW COUNTY Mjr Connittlai Jm. 31.2^00 Page 3 of 3 . lll^^1lmlifrll >i1t1i “Ri iinr bii ill ■ miiu i • •• * : . Council Exhibit £ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _^R7 7 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2580 FOX STREET aOT 1. BEAU MARAIS) - APPLICATION NO. 2029 WHEREAS, William F. Smith, on May 25, 1995, filed a fomud subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot residential plat of property legdly described Lot 1, Beau Marais, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono ’s Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Pianning Commission held a public hearing on June 19. 1995, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on July 10. 1995, the Orono City Council considered this subdivision application and variance to Section 11.31, Subdivision 5 noting the following facts and findings: 1. The property is located within the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a miiumum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 10.23 acres with 3.07 acres of wetland. The proposed plat contains two lots each exceeding the 2 acres dry contiguous minimum lot area requirement as follows: Lot 1 » 6.07 total acres. 3.5 acres dry, 2.57 acres wet. Lot 2 a 4.16 total acres. 3.66 acres dry. .5 acres wet. 3. Each lot has been tested by a licensed on-site evaluator and found to have smtable soils for both a principal and alternate on-site sewage disposal system. Page 1 of 5 ■ 9 • CITYof RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 57 7 4. The existing easement driveway that intersects proposed l^t 2 will not violate Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B) as there is 2. IS dry contiguous acres to the west of the easement driveway. 5. 6. 7. 8. In the granting of approval of the Beau Marais plat in 1986 the City also granted variances that allowi^ the filling of designated wetlands for the installation of the driveway to serve the most northern lot or Lot 1 of the Beau Marais plat. If a private road with cul-de-sac was installed alopg the east side of property to serve all three lots, a half acre of designated wetlands would be filled. This improvement would also result in the loss of several mature evergreen trees along the east side of the property. All three access drives leading from road would also encroach upon the designated wetland areas. The current subdivision is defined as back lot ont lot subdivision requiring shared access via a 30* driveway outlot. The «. iveway outlot along the east would be limited to only two users. Lot 2 of the original Beau Marais plat would continue to gain access via the e.xisting easement drive. Constniction of a drive would result in the loss of some of the mature evergreen trees planted along the east property line. There v'ould be an encroachment of the required 26' setback from the wetland. There would be additional encroachments of the designated wetland for the future drive to serve both Lots 1 and 2 of the current subdivision. The Planning Commission found the creation of two driveways within this property would have a negative impact upon the aesthetics and sensitive environment of this unique property. 9. The current owner of Lot 2, Beau Marais, has agreed to maintain the current looped driveway within their property to serve as a turnaround for emergency vehicles. 10. There is no record of problems reported by the former owners of Lots 1 and 2, Beau Marais or the current owners of Lot 2 in the use of the current driveway nor has the City any record of an accident resulting at the intersection of the private driveway and Fox Street. Page 2 of 5 : * • • • • • GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 577 ^ 11. The granting of the variance to the subdivision regulations will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property. 12.The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based ate unique to the property for which this variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property in the City. 13.Because of the location of extensive designated wetlands that suttouik I the dry buildable areas of this property and mature plantings on the property, an unusual hardship to the land would result, if the letter of the code were to be followed as distinguished from an iiKonvenience or hardship to the subdivider. 14.It has been found that the strict enforcement of this chapter would result in an environmentally unsound development of land. 15.The variance will not in any manner vary from the provisions of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan which would approve three residential units being served by a driveway. 16.No variances are sought to the minimum lot requirements of the RR-IB Zoning District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the above findings, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for William F. Smith at 2580 Fox Street per the survey dated 2-10-95, most revised date 5.25.95, by Mark S. 'Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1.The existing driveway shall be upgraded from a 10’ gravel road to a 12’ gravel road. The entrance portion of the drive shall be upgraded to an 18 ’ widdi gravel road to a point just beyond new curb cut to serve residence on proposed Lot 2. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing appropriate identification signage identifying location of three residences served by driveway at intersection of drive with Fox Street. Residence shall continue to be addressed at Fox Street. Page 3 of 5 oT o 1 ;!,4*,A1 CITY of ORONO ^fi\!’9SH02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. StR7 7 /—^2. Subdivkler shall create(M outloQwithin Lot 2 defining the driveway at a 14' and 18' width as described m Condition 1 above 3.Subdivider shall be responsible for developing covenants for the maintenance and upkeep of driveway. 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: 1. Record plat drawings in the foim of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1” » 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark Gronberg of Coffm and Gronberg, Inc. dated 2-10-9S, most revised date 5-25-95. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 5' each side of new internal property lines. 2. C. Naming of plat. Legal documents required: A.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest mdicated 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. C.Execution of a Developer's Agreement and posting of a letter of credit to be wriaen to an amount equal to 150% of the costs of required improvements. This includes the required upgrading of the gravel driveway as set forth in Condition 1 above. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: S375* Page 4 of 5 GITYoT ORONO «8B^ A. B. C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 577 ■ Final plat fee = $175.00 /<^ / 7 Legal review and filing fee = $200.00 C> (/-C6 ’ ♦Park Dedication Fee ^75" Upon approval of preliminary plat, the subdivision shall be referred to the City Assessor to determine the fair mailcet value of the property in its undeveloped state. You will be advised as soon as a fee has been j 06 . to determined. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 10th day of July, 1995. Dorothy M. Hillin, City Clerk Iward J. CaH^an^.7 Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of July, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mirmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cit)'. M LiNOASVEE noiMivnnuc4MNaon HOMMOOUinY MyCwiwlMloiitiptwiJWiW.MIW Notary Public Page 5 of 5 Council Exhibit F FIRST AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMEOT is made effective thislf^ day of June, 1996, by and between William F. Smith and Jenmfer E. Vervoort-Smith, husband and wife, whose address is 2580 Fox Street, Otono, Minnesota (collectively, "Smith*), and Steven L. Casotti and Elizabeth J. Casotti, husband and wife, whose address is 2550 Fox Street, Orono, Minnesota (coUectively, "Casotti"). WHEREAS, Smith is the fee owner of certain real prqierty located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legaUy described as Lot 1, Block 1, Beau Marais ("Smith Parcel"). Casotti is the fee owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Beau Marais ("Casotti Parcel"), and located adjacent to the Smith Parcel; and WHEREAS, the Smith Parcel and the Casotti Parcel are subject to an Easement Agreement dated June 24,1987, and filed for record June 29,1987, as Document No. 5290219 (the "Easement Agreement"), providing for driveway access to both Parcels; and WHEREAS, Smith has submitted an application to the City Council of the City of Orono for approval of a plat of the Smith Parcel into two separate residential lots, one of which will be identified as Lot 1 of the new plat ("North Smith Parcel"), and the other of which will be identified as Lot 2 of the new plat ("South Smith Parcel"). The owners of the North Smith Parcel, the South Smith Parcel, and the Casotti Parcel shall be coUectively known as "Lot Owners"; and WHEREAS, Smith and Casotti desire to amend the Easement Agreement to provide for the allocation of maintenance payments and other expenses upon the platting of the Smith Parcel; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as foUows: 1. Smith shall be solely responsible for aU costs, expenses, and fees payable as a result of the platting of the Smith Parcel and any driveway upgrading, curb work, or signage required by the City of Orono in connection therewith. 2. Each Lot Owner shaU have one vote, and aU decisions regarding the driveway shaU be made by a majority vote of the Lot Owners. If, however, one person, fiunily, or entity shaU own more than one lot or if any two lots are owned by persons rdated to one another, persons engaged in business with one another, or if there is any other arrangement which would give or appear to give one lot owner control over the decisions of another lot owner, then such Lot Owners shall collectively have only one vote, irrespective of the number of lots owned by them. Council Exhibit une, 1996, by and between , whose address is 2380 Fox otti and Elizabeth J. Casotti, Ota (collectively, "Casotti"). ocated in Hennq>in County, dth Parcel"). Casotti is the inesota, legally described as (nt to the Smith Parcel; and o subject to an Easement as Document No. 3290219 h Parcels; and Council of the City of Orono itial lots, one of which will the other of which will be owners of the North Smith roUectively known as "Lot It Agreement to provide for platting of the Smith Parcel; >llar ($1.(X)) and other good [edged, the parties agree as ises, and fees payable as a ing, curb work, or signage ms regarding the driveway ne person, ftmily, or entity ms related to one another, r arrangement which would TOthcr lot owner, then such e number of lots owned by Cl. New fmqxMed Lot 1 ^oitfi Smith Parcel): 55% Existing Lot 2, Block 1, Beau Marais (Casotti Pared): 30% New proposed Lot 2 (Soutt Smith Pared): 15% Upon of ^cciMiive^, the contnet fur the maintenanoe pniject shaU be to te conliaclor with the limeat bM. unleas otherwise decided by ananiiic vole rf dlL« rnodemnit«^-?h?r^l«°^ Ctodeinnitor") shall indemnity and hold the other Lot Owners ( mdemm^ ) harmless from and against any and aU claims, actions, liability, damages and ex^SM, mcludmg a^meys* fees and costs, in connection with the loss of life, bodily inir • ^or damw cumng on the driveway on an Indemnitee's pared oceadoned by InkciUr’ hia agents, bcMes or invite, unless caused by the actions or omissions of the bdenmitces.’ »d are tereby written above.IN WnNE^amEREOF, this Amendment is sime^ of the day and year first -M William F. Smith E. Very6ort-Smith - 2 - STAIE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP wife. inMMMMMMWWMMAMMMMMWMWi Notaiy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF rj' ^0 rT PuBUC * Mnnesota ^EPW COUNTY ,.*7°***“*» »»« Jr. it. »x Notaiy Public This instrument drafted by; TO East Seventh Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-4999 UHxnnMi - 3 - j «« «» w ^ JcJD .J2 J Council Exhibit 0p+»6»' 1 2. 1 1 1 m1W > Roadway Functional Classification City of Orono Minnesota Principal Arterial “A" Minor Arterial ’B* Minor Arterial Collector ^ ^ ^ Scenic Parkway Designation Local Public Streets 4 Private Roads Future Highway 12 Re-Route ^O.-. O’ MAP4A-4 ii~i laKiniii II i . m X”' Council Exhibit T Where identified right«of>way needs are ' The City will establish and maintain an ofiBcial map and records of all existing right-of-wqrs and easements for permanent reference. Access Management Management of access to principal and minor arterials is necessary to ensure a safe and efficient arterial system. Direct individual property acccM to arterials is re|^u^♦ad in the Qiono Municipal Code by requiring development of loca* : reets or private roads to serve new residential developments of 3 or inore units; by limiting the number of curb cuts per residence; by prohibiting direct access to principal arteriab; and by a number of other regulations involving the location, type and number of access points to the arterial roadway system. It is Ae City’s policy that new direct access to arterials is to be tninimiyip/f to the greatest extent possible. However, many of southern Orono’s ^enals near the Lake Minnetonka shoreline have historically served *^^^1 fimetion as both arterials and as local/collector streets, due to geographic and topographic limitations. Minimization or consolidation of existing driveway and local street access points along these unique roadways is a complex matter vriiich will often require the cooperation of multiple property o^ers. The City will encourage the use of shared driveways along existing developed arterials wherever feasible. Further, the City will continue to investigate the feasibUity of closing existing direct local street access points to principal and minor arterials iiriiere suitable altenutive access points may be established. City of Oraae Commuaity MaaagMiMl Ptaa Page4A-^t «*rrc^|NO request for council action ocr 1 4 2002 CliYUHOHONO DATE: October 14,2002 ITEM NO.: || Department Approval: Naac Gregoiy A. Oappi TUk Director of Pidrfic Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Request for Final Pa3mient TH12 Safety Improvements Project In 199S.MNDOT completed a safety improvements project on TH12 which included the installation of the traffic signal at the TH12/ Willow Drive intersection and median and turn lane improvements. This was a cooperative project between MNDOT and the City of Orono with the City using Municipal State Aid Funds for payment of the City ’s share of project costs. The amount of the final invoice from MNDOT is $32,451.38. The City will receive a Municipal State Aid Funds final payment of $32,835.22 for this project. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Request for Final Payment to MNDOT for the TH12 safety improvements project in the amount of $32,451.38 to be funded from the Municipal State Aid Fund with the appropriate budget adjustment also approved. illiflii Iliilknrfli INVOICE 09/20/02 MaUto: HUM MPT OP TiANSPOOTATION CetMmXONIR OP tiunsmiitatxim CASH ACCOUNTZNO SM JOOh IRELAND OLVD H.S. 21S 5T. PAUL tM SSIBS Payor Name ORONO CITY OF Invoice Number T79 21300020oan Customer Number 0000001275-1 Due Data Amount Due 10/20/02 32.S51.Sa Billing Coda 7927 Addrass changa? If yes, check box. Write correclaocUess on back —^ PlooM wrilo amount paid In bexos ahown balew: Bin.to: ORONO CXTV OF •OX 66CRYSTAL BAY HN -W.V. . .•.••■.•••.•.VA-. .VA-. ^.V V^.V.VV.'A*.*.V.*.* V. A A AV.VA 55323 T7<1 eiaOODSDDaO b 00QQQ3SH513A Pieaso detach the above stub and return with your check or money order payable to: cohhissxoner op transportation Write Invoice Number on front of check or money order. DO NOT MAIL CASH. " INTEREST MAY BE CHARGED ON PAST DUE AMOUNTS J The State of Minnesota INVOICE PAGE1 PMtralTun: 41-R007102 Ciiatoniir Niiiilbir 0000001275-1 7927 JtRONO CITY OF ________________ > \ >1::: Invoica Number M T79 21300020000 :1:Mlnvolea Data ..M...:r; 09/20/02 D im Data . 10/20/02 Ref Line DESCRIPTION Date of No. of Unit of No.Service Units Measure Unit Price AOREENEm’ 72971 PINAL CONSTR 99/20/92 AOREENENT 72971 PINAL E R I 99/29/02 PINAL COSTS PERTAUONO TO COOP. CONS.. . AOREENENT 72971 UlTN THE CXTV OP ORONO REt CITY COST STORN SEHER« UTILITY AND NALK CONSTRUCTION SY THE STATE ON T.H. 12 (UAVZATA SLVO.l PROH OLD CRYSTAL SAY ROAD TO LAKE STR.j S.P. 271S-A4 IT.M. 12>10); S.A.P. 1S2-010-91 P.P. NH 919-2t9S} ATTENirONi NR. CREOORY CAPPA- PUSLZC URVZCE DIRECTOR •-cP 2 5 PCOO CII Y Oroaoivo AHOUNT DUfs CHARGES/CREDIT io,ee7.fe 2p4fS.a2 S2p4Sl.S« 2F V2II iuvt ANY iUliYXOiii# FLiASf CAUt CONTACTt 411-297-1472 coNNXf tnuum Mn«OT 30172: KMlMd 11/00; Wwd Version STATE AID PAYMENT REQUEST Coun LetDat* OtLdiAO Report: InWai L /Award Date: .Partial ______/ V1(iVl.S<»fety I'hvj. “ Final Piolact*IS2 .Q\0 .^1 / / ms Bond Company _ Constr. Completed Local Project ID # (optional):___ Prelaet Pundino: Funtfng below it for this project number only. Costs for projecit or agreements tied to this project should not be Includedron this request A separate State Aid Payment Request must be submitted for each project number. Final reports must Include a final estimale detailing quantity, unit price and extension spits for each project number. mraetCoata Ithia SAP onM FUND Munidpai (MSAS^iver 5000 pop.) Regular (CSAH) Municipal (CSAH-under 5000 pop.) Town Bridge Turnback (County or Munic.) State Park Road Disaster State Aid Bortds Bridge Bonding Federal Local Total Costs to Date Previous Payments Pav at this Tima $. $. $. $. $. Local - Credit for Local Effort Sub-Total Other Coats FUND *0E8CRIPTK>NFUND •DESCRIPTION \ P D £ A S 111 0 |3><SiO 8 Hj sC S9C5H) TOTAL Remarks: » I ‘IB, 691 M »ll <r,g46.'?7 .32^03?. 22 1\6d ir) P. 2DI3 ^64 SU-Mvy ____ •Descrlptien: Righhel^vroy (ROW). Prajaet Oewe lopmsnt (PO)-2S% Max. Foiea Acoount (FA), ale. Fores Aeoeuni MudM woA not psifonnsd by eoflifselor such as xmifc ^ dty, county, or MnOOT forees, MR or uMy worti, or agency fijmislied materials. the mMmum twuriy raiss laqubad tor work on stale fimdod eeiwlntetien projects as dolsmilnsd by the MN Oapt or Labor and Indusby. maiarialt ^ WyCP/^ Dale Approved by: District Sfole AM En^teer ______________/ / Date iU^MroRdtomaaSitomnMs REQUEST FOR COUNaL ACTION ••'OPTING 1 4 2002 DATE: October 14,2002 ITEM NO.: /j Department Approval: Niinc Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Accept Quotation Livingston Avenue Drainage Project This property has a large drainage swale through the middle of the property that flows between the house and the garage. This swale drains 3 acres of land that is fully developed at an urban density. The drainage across this property has been a concern for many years with a substantial amount of storm water runoff through this property. In 1998 a feasibility study was completed for a possible assessment project to install an 18" storm sewer pipe from the low point in Livingston Avenue though several properties up to the south side of the old Dakota Rail tracks from where the water would then flow north. This project was never completed because there was opposition from the neighborhood residents concerning the assessments for this project, and the impacts of project construction across neighborhood yards. There is not a very good outlet for this water downstream, so installing a pipe could be problematic and result in drainage problems further downstream. Our recommendation is that, in many cases, installing storm sewer pipe to solve drainage problems is not the most ideal solution. Whenever possible, maintaining existing overland flow drainage patterns is the best solution in terms of environmental, financial, and property disturbance impacts. Once you start piping water there is no end to the process of building pipes. No matter where you end the pipe there is the possibility of complaints of too much water in the area. In existing developed areas, there are normally not any drainage easements inplace, and obtaining easements and constructing storm sewer projects can be expensive and difficult. We have worked with the property owners and developed a project to solve the drainage problems on this property while at the same time not changing the existing overland drainage pattern downstream. The property owners have spent substantial money to reduce the drainage problem between their house and garage with the construction of a rock lined swale to get the storm water runoff past the house and garage. Before improvement of the drainage swale the house and garage were subject to flooding. There is currently a catch basin sump structiue at the edge of the street that does not have an outlet. This catch basin overflows and the water then flows across the front yard and then into the rock swale. This area is relatively flat which results in a wet yard with ponded water in the yard and swale. The proposed solution is to install a 12" diameter perforated draintile outlet from the sump catch basin that will outlet into the rock swale behind the garage. This should result in minimal downstream drainage impacts as the water will continue to flow through the swale and then across Page 1 of 2 ^ • die back yard as it currently does. This should allow the water to get past the house and garage and reduce the ponded water in the front yard, and rock lined swale, for most storms. In large storms vdien the diaintile is flowing full, the excess water will still flow across the yard and swale. We have solicited quotations from contractors for this work and the lowest quotation was from Norling Landscaping of Spring Park in the amount $4,627.00. We have worked with this firm on several projects and they are very good to work with. This firm also has worked for the property owners on previous projects, and the property owners are comfortable with Norling Landscaping completing this project. We will obtain a dndnage easement from the property owner to complete this project. Our recommendation is that completion of this project with stormwater utility funds is appropriate because of the large drainage area, and the amount of public street runoff that flows through this property. This property is substantially impacted by the large amount of storm water drainage through the middle of the properly, and the property owners have already spent a considerable amount of their own money to solve this problem. The concept of an assessment project to solve this problm is not a realistic option because the upstream properties in the drainage area are not experietKing arqr adverse impacts and therefore have no incentive to support an assessment project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Accept quotation in the amount of $4,627.00 from Norling’s Lake Minnetonka Landscaping, Spring Park Minnesota, for completion of the drainage project at 3572 Livingston Avenue. Project to be funded from the Stormwater Utility Fund with the appropriate budget adjustment also approved. Page 2 of 2 '1‘i cMr rifr Wim GAATf nc • ‘IS timi I paf pmuiHjr I I |ff<JtF'CUi>UJL|F==:;----- Ift* ’ ^-----i 'l ^ ^ B-ocic pnc W j____1____1____1 1 1 1 1 100 nq qe Cc • STh-fET OWO 100 15G lUJIAO. 9si of a*' ^ PCAf DUIUTI4F ^AVLUUT EUV df1ia.llal« H ROCle DITCH »| s.mm.JfU MUf^B cfktafftiMmeuMt Ko» CIUkllHfl X A •* % vlV C IU»5ttll> ■ 4^sm ■;• ILOCiconcH # »•% .’'Mi'CTL*-' ■ r*. " M *v I *• E.'tVjm ^ •* • •a».t'J2L^ ./». CAMtttiMk N »»Mf " PMnif IIUC . l'-3'MI^ •4 MllH' ) TE f >;wooMM .1 fL - ‘ .* \% <TEE CTA -3S-'lUI SToiOO BUb»Uf^ur i2ili OiSfi fjtniMi fuMP *M» AAir HU • mi S1HE (MAtUi« C dFF Rffioruc^ Hbvi Atf ■ REUIS FD 1 4 2002REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CnruroHO/vo DATE- October 14,2002 ITEM NO.; y ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Titk Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Strvices Director ’s Report Item Description: Crystal P<ty Road Drainage Project Introduction This project area is located at the west end of Old Crystal Bay Road. There is an existing metal pipe culvert under the railroad tracks that drains about 13 acres of fully developed land in the Navarre neighborhood. A drainage area map is included for your review. The storm water flow from this pipe drains overland through three properties that are located north of the railroad tracks then flows through a culvert under Crystal Bay Road and into Crystal Bay. There is significant erosion at the pipe outlet. These downstream properties are very flat and the houses and garages located on them are older and were built at a low elevation with poor drainage around them. This results in damage to the house foundations, flooded cra vl spaces, and water in the garages during heavy rains. Our understanding from the property owners is that problems became worse after 1995 when changes to the Shadywood Road railroad crossing and culvert and ditch cleaning activities were completed. In 1996, a possible project was considered to install a storm sewer pipe from the railroad pipe outlet to Crystal Bay. This project was never completed because of funding issues. The property owners objected to paying for this project because of the large drainage area upstream of the properties. The possibility of an assessment project was also discussed. Drainage assessment projects are always difficult to accomplish because the upstream property owners have no incentive to be assessed for the project costs as they arc not experiencing any negative impacts from the storm water drainage. The property owners have contacted us several times over the last few years concerning this situation, but no progress was made in solving the problem because of funding issues. The City now has a Stormwater Utility funding mechanism inplace to provide money for completion of storm water management projects. Our recommendation is that completion of a project in this area with stormwater utility funds is appropriate because of the large drainage area, and the amount of public street runoff that flows through these properties. The properties are substantially impacted by the large amount of storm water drainage that flows through this area. The concept of an assessment project to solve this problem is not a realistic option because the upstream properties in tlie drainage area are not experiencing any adverse impacts and therefore have no incentive to support an assessment project. Page 1 of 4 ill' ••-•STING ocr 14 J002 C'"f^^rUHUvO DA’^E: October 14,2002 ITEM NO.; j ^ Agenda Section: Public Services Director ’s Report There is an existing metal pipe developed land in the Navarre storm water flow from this pipe the railroad tracks then flows lere is significant erosion at the es and garages located on them id them. This results in damage arages during heavy rains. ecame worse after 1995 when I ditch cleaning activities were •rm sewer pipe from the railroad lecause of funding issues. The large drainage area upstream of iiscussed. Drainage assessment iperty owners have no incentive legative impacts from the storm times over the last few years le problem because of funding n inplace to provide money for nth stormwater utility funds is ‘ public street runoff that flows d by the large amount of storm ssessment project to solve this s in the drainage area are not ) support an assessment project. Stormwater Project Options There is range of options available to solve this problem ranging from; doing nothing, the low-cost installation.pr a pipe and swale to direct the water past the buildings then utilizing an existing swale and existing pipe to direct the water into Crystal Bay, to options requiring expensive property acquisition and stormwater pond construction. The option to do nothing will result in continued erosion, flooding of yards, possible property damage to the structures located on this projects, and would not provide any stormwater treatment to improve the quality of the stormwater effluent discharge into Crystal Bay. Our staff recommendation is that doing nothing is not the most desirable option as this would result in continued property owner dissatisfaction and provide no water quality improvements. A plan has been prepared for the low-cost option of installing a pipe across the back yard of the 3447 Crystal Bay Road property and a drainage swale on the west edge of the property located at 3435 Crystal Bay Road. This new swale would connect to an existing swale at a point 120 feet from the edge of the lake. The existing swale then drains to an inplace culvert under Crystal Bay Road. We have requested quotations for this work from several area landscaping companies and will have quotations for the Council meeting. This option would reduce the erosion and flooding problems on these properties, and the property owners are in support of this project. However, this option does not provide any water quality improvements. Additional options for water quality improvement projects are described later in this report. The completion of a project to improve water quality could be a longer term project, and this project could be constructed as an interim solution to reduce the erosion and flooding problems on these properties. The construction of stormwater ponding for water quality improvements is another possibility. This would require the acquisition of property. An issue for consideration is that the four properties located at 3407,3415,3435, and 3445 Crystal Bay Road do not extend to the lakeshore as the City of Orono owns the lakeshore parcels in front of these houses, and this may affect the value of these properties. There is also a platted 66' wide road right of way along the lakeshore side of these properties. Below is a tabulation of the property sizes, valuation for 2002 tax purposes, 'ast sale price with year, and occupation status. Address• Status Size Stand SHouse STotal Year/SLast Sal 3407 Occupied 0.25 ac 239,000 28,000 267,000 NA 3415 Occupied 0.26 ac 239,000 97,000 336,000 1999/5390,000 3435 Occupied 0.18 ac 217,500 25,500 243,000 1996/5140,000 3445 Vacant 0.15 ac 205,000 10,500 215,500 2001/5270,000 3447 Occupied 0.15 ac 29,500 28,500 58,000 NA Page 2 of 4 Based on the locations of the existing pipes under the railroad tracks and Crystal Bay Road the most logical location for stormwater ponding is on the western side of this area in the vicinity of .3435, 3445, and 3447 Crystal Bay Road. A review of the property value information, and the occupancy status of thf properties shows that these three properties are the lower value properties in the area and one of the houses is vacant. This vacant house is in very poor condition, is probably not worth remodeling, and will most likely be demolished and a new house built on this property. The property adjacent to the pipe under the railroad tracks is the lowest valued property w ith a very small house on it. However, this house is currently occupied and is in good condition. I have talked to the property owner about his possible interest in selling his property to the City to use for stormwater ponding purposes. He is not interested in selling his property. The valuation for tax purposes is only $58,000, but he just turned down an offer of $150,000 for the sale of his property. He has evaluated the replacement housing that is available near Lake Minnetonka, and there is not anything with a comparable location that is affordable for the money he could get selling his property. He likes his location, close to the lake, with the railroad embankment adjacent *o his property as it is a rather wooded and secluded site. His long term plan is to expand the house and continue to live on the property. He would like to see a stormwater pond located on the property at 3445 Cry stal Bay Road which currently has a vacant house on it. We have also discussed the possibility of acquisition of the property, located at 3435 Crystal Bay Road with the property owner, and he is also not interested in selling his property, as he enjoys the location on the lake and wants to continue to live on the property. The house on this property is in reasonably good shape. He also suggested the possibility of a pond on the property with the vacant house. This vacant house is in a dilapidated condition and the neighbors would like to see this house removed as soon as possible. They understand that there are issues with the lakeshore ownership that has put the application process on hold for the possible redevelopment of this property, but they do not want to wait for these issues to be resolved before the existing vacant house is removed. We are currently evaluating the condition of the vacant house for hazardous building issues. The Police Depa.tment has also expressed concerns about the safety of this vacant house as these vacant buildings tend to be an attractive nuisance. The issue of stormwater ponding anywhere close to Lake Minnetonka is going to be a very expensive and diftlcult problem as very few property owners are going to be readily willing to give up lakeshore property for stormwater ponding purposes. The possible acquisition of the property, at 3445 Crystal Bay Road, with the vacant house may be worth investigating further. According to the I Icnnepin County tax records, this property w as purchased by Ace Properties, in September of 2001, for $270,000. However, the tax records indicate that this “Sale was Excluded from Assessment Analysis,” so the relationship between this sale price and the actual property value may not be entirely valid. The total market property valuation, as of January 2. 2002. which was used for the 2002 tax purposes was $215,500 (Land- $205,000. Building- $10,500). If there is any interest in investigating the possible acquisition of this property by the City, the next step would be to have an appraiser complete a valuation study for this property. Page 3 of 4 r I • staff RccoiaaieBdatioa Our .'ccommendation is that the Council discusses the concept of possible property acquisition for stormwateqwnding purposes in order to provide water quality treatment for the stormwater drairuige for the 13-acre area in Navarre that currently flows into Crystal Bay near the western end of Crystal Bay Road. We are recommending that the most logical property to consider acquisition of would be the property located at 3445 Crystal Bay Road with the vacant house. This is an opportune time to discuss this topic as the house is currently vacant and is in poor condition. If a new house is ever built on this property, it would become prohibitively expensive for the City to acquire this property plus it would be an extremely difficult political decision to force homeowners out of their new house. The adjoining property owners have both expressed a favorable opinion of a stormwater pond in this area. We are also recommending approval of the project to install a pipe and swale to reduce the erosion and flooding problems in this area. This project would not preclude any future ponding project on the property located at 3445 Crystal Bay Road. A project to complete stor.i'water ponding would be a longer term project, and for the property owners to have to wait until i ponding project is completed to have the current erosion and flooding problems corrected is not necessary or fair to the property owners. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss concept of possible property acquisition for stormwater ponding purposes. Accept quotation in the amount of $13,418.12 from Norling’s Lake Minnetonka Landscaping, for completion ofthc drainage project at 3435 Crystal Bay Road. Project to be funded from the Stormwater Utility Fund with the appropriate budget adjustment also approved. P!age4of 4 CRYSIM BAV i f SWALg DETAIL f •M «A«|#1 « UMM • M m SS *** r I fi ir ;i i 1 ““Dwur*"11w-tr Put• urn 1=^ h - i!1 r 1■ « 1 1 i i ^ *i >\ H HM Januaiy 3,2002 City ofOrono City Council Members .MM. J.Vi Cl 8 Gilt UPGrtO.VO Re: Drainage issues resulting in propeity damage to properties owned by Todd Martin, Gloria McDonald and Scott A. Brown. The Problem Spring ninofFand summer rain runofiffrom approximately 8 city blocks flinneling through a drainage pire located under the railroad tracks just north of the above mentioned properties and flooding said properties causing water damage to structures on said properties. The Story Prior to the spring thaw of 1996 there had not been any flooding problems for the homes in question. During the summer of 1995 county workers completed some road construction involving the railroad tracks that intersect County Road 19 just north of Crystal Bay Road. We believe that an old culvert was removed from this intersection and the blacktop was raised at the railroad tracks to provide smoother passage for traffic. The following spring of 1996 resulted in major flooding at the intersection of the said railroad and County Road 19. Large amounts of water were draining from said roadivay back through the railroad grade/dhch and then actually through the hill that supports the railroad tracks behind Todd Martin’s home. At the time the local police were called to the flooded intersection. This water flooded Todd Martin’s backyard and the crawl spaces of Gloria McDonald’s and Scott Brown’s home and also flooded Scott Brown’s garage. Since that time the city of Orono cleaned the railroad ditch of debris and also cleaned out an old clogged drain pipe that is under the railroad tracks and points out of the bed into Todd Martin’s back yard. Now instead of the water seeping through the hill it gushes out of the drainpipe into Martin’s back yard and into the other two properties mentioned flooding crawl spaces and the garage mentioned above. This flooding has caused considerable damage to my property (Scott A Brown) at 3435 Crystal Bay Road. The garage floor has buckled and cracked, the garage siding is now rotting from excess water, my crawl space has suffered damage from the water and I have now experienced sink holes in my driveway and back yard. I have been in conuct with Mr. Greg Gappa to have him look at the situation. He has indicated that this Is a problem with high priority for the City of Orono and one that should be corrected. He suggested I start with a letter to the council members. I should note that this is not the first contact with the Chy in regard to thb situation. Since i$96 Todd Martin has talked several City ofOrooo representatives on several occasions. To date nothing has been done. At thb time I would ask the Chy of Orono to allow Mr. Greg Oappa to work with me to coiTcct this runoff problem. Sinq^y, ^'^1/—X.. Scott A. Brown Home owner 3435 Crystal Bay Road k ‘ ---------------------*«kA«ja .m .• ocr '"^‘^T/Nq Cj| f ^ ^2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 14,2002 ITEM NO.: /y Department Approval: Nane Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Adminbtrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Accept Quotation City Hall Drainage and Landscape Project We have been experiencing drainage problems in the City Hall with wet carpet near the exterior wall. This problem has been recurring since the building was built because when the building was constructed there was not sufficient grade to drain the water away from the building. This problem has been temporarily corrected several times by adding topsoil fill against the building to obtain suflicient grade for positive drainage away from the building. Adding the top.sail is only a temporary fix as the soil eventually settles resulting in inadequate drainage away from the building again. A permanent solution is needed to correct this drainage problem. The recommended solution is to excavate the material adjacent to the building, waterproof the exterior wall with asphalt sealer and a plastic barrier, install a compactable material that will not settle, place a plastic barrier on top of this material to drain the water away from the building, and then install landscaping rock on top of the plastic barrier. In the areas of concentrated roof drainage, boulder and splash rock spillways will be installed. The existing splash areas which are constructed of limestone are not very durable as the limestone is too porous and the rocks are broken down by the freeze thaw cycles. The attached sketch details the proposed solution. The remainder of the area will be graded to drain toward the sidewalk and then sodded. A sodded lawn will provide for better drainage away from the building, versus intensive landscaping planting and wood chips. Repairs to the area between the City and Police Department will be completed this fall. The area between the City Hall and Council Chambers should be repaired next spring as the same drainage problems exist in that area. This area is not as critical and can wait until next year. This will also reduce the scope of the work to be completed this fall. There will be Andorra Juniper shrubs planted in the landscaping rock area adjacent to the building. These are smaller low level plants that will not block the windows and will be easier to maintain. The original landscaping was planted too densely, was very aggressive, and so tall that it blocked the windows. It was costing the City more than $2,000 a year to trim and maintain the original landscaping. We have talked to several landscaping companies about the proposed drainage problem solution and options for changes to the landscaping. All of the companies agreed that the original landscaping consisted of too many large and aggressive plants, and also the variety of plants that did not fit together very well. They thought the original landscaping was not aesthetically pleasing, very well balanced, or a practical landscaping scheme. The landscaping varies from very tall and Page 1 of 2 dense plants in some areas to lower level junipers in odier areas. There does not appear to be any consistent pattern in the type of plants installed. Generally, building area landscaping consists of a smaller number of lower teight shrubs and small trees courtyard trees with green grass areas. If the landscaping,area is sodded future additions of smaller flower beds could be installed. The main consideration being to install smaller areas that can be easily maintained as the amount of maintenance required can quickly become overwhelming. A good example of the unbalanced landsc^ing is the flagpole circle >^ch has two lower height Cockspur Hawthorne trees and one tall Linden tree. The Linden tree, in the flagpole circle, will be transplanted to replace a dying Linden tree in front of the building. A new Cockspur Hawthorn tree will be planted in the flagpole circle to match the two existing trees and provide balanced landscaping in this area. The plan from Norling Landscaping has landscape rock installed in the flagpole circle. This was recommended because of the smaller size of this area. However, the Council may wish to consider the possibility of sodding this area versus installing landscaping rock. Our recommendation is to accept the quotation from Norling Landscaping for completion of this drainage and landscaping project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Accept quotation in the amount of $9,396.00 from Norling’s Lake Minnetonka Landscaping, Spring Park Mimiesota, for completion of the City Hall drainage and landscape improvements project to be funded from the General Fund, Central Services, Repairs and Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds Budget Line Item. (Number 101-41900*404)with the appropriate budget adjustment also approved. Page 2 of 2 -I ■ ..»r , #^nii fr aigia i i .>an.r„ IXcf^Vt^Xi imiui RtPLfec.F U;t11A Cg’MPbCVtk? flUMkMluK Bcf hfck mihct -U/JS^ m/m sib ni/t-n: )^otLi^\uhL gti-LY) |IJ)£ 10H_1 0 _LM s'^ t^Ljrr w5.il ^n._. Co)y^m c 155?_ Q M // WKSJM}.LS^^ - mi.: cmmm f i u.._.. E rjuicmyuijmu KumtL :i •• *••• •^ttm »••• ••• • m- mt r —’.T ■ ■y . •:•■ f., •' .. -*v: ■:.. , fMC'f BUlLPUJt WOLU LbiJi^SCpV^ \LOC\i Ok^ r’Losilc pr»«>^iJ y//)ith. AW fK^/, ^yM\ft»L5 J • • • •• • • t \ l' i NirlfN/jDL i-\'tU^^ U;iTP ^‘^>^ftP^)Cl/DPLf ^ sjl^ \V 4 /i/; f\ i! f\. r\ 0i(l••.A«^J NORLING'S Lake Minnetonka Landscapes, Inc. 4113 Sun««t Prlv*. Sprint P«rk, MN S53S4 (932)4n'02S5 te(932)4714311 QtyofOrono P. 0.60x66 Oystal Bay, MN 55323 September 27,2002 ATTN: Mr. Gregory (Sappa, Director of Public Services RE: Landscaping/Drainage/Waterproofing (refer to schematic/rough sketch) Location: Qty Hall Building Dear Mr. Gappa: Based on site measurements, inspection and as per our conversation, we propose to furnish and install the following: 30-50^ of BUILDING FR ^ Design & Schematic On>Site Sketch No Charge ^ Asphalt and 6 mil poly seal foundation # Exchange excavated materials for compactable soils (excavation and compactable materials supplied by Orono) # Compact back fill in 6** horizontal lifts Labor & Material: $2,505. ^ (8) Andorra Junipers (alternates: Webber or Blue Chip) 760.i ^ Landscape rock and film (2 layers of 6 mil) ^ Steel Edging (1/8" X 4" painted) Labor 8i Material: 1,820.1 ^ Boulder and splash rock spillways 750.1 v: Pft)foiNdrK3liy larying cornrnofcksl Olid roNdofiftol oonvfturiiHes Nrico 1974 r . ! aty ofOrono Mr. Gregory Gappa Page 2 September 27,2002 30-50> BUILDING FRONT 8i CO URTYARD aRCLg # Grade for proper contours and correct drainage # Install A" topsoil # Sod complete Labor & Material: $1,355.< ^ Transplant (1) targe Linden tree # Remove from Site (1) damaged Unden tree ^ Plant (1) 3* caliper Cockspur Hawthorn tree 350.00 • • NoOiarge 550.00 ^ Edge and install wood mulch around (5) trees (on site)475.00 ^ Steel edging, landscape rock and film 546.00 # (3) Andorra Junipers TOTAL COSTS: $9,396.1 This proposal reflects workmanship performed at a high standard with quality materials. This proposal also reflects complete site clean up. Sincerely, George Norling, Presiddit COfi*(MCPTING ocr 1 4 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOF oroa /q DATE: October % 2002 ITEM NO; Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Rqwrt Item Description: Payment Requests^Long Lake Fire Station The City has received four invoices for payment for work related to the fire station. The vendors and equipment listed have been previously approved. The invoices reflect work completed and/or equipment provided, with the exception of the Diversified Security invoice which reflects a partial payment upon acceptance of the bid. BKV Group, for architectural services in the amount of $4,741.28 Office Products Company for design services related to the ofGce and training room spaces and fiimiturc: $1,003.75 Northern Tool and Equipment for air compressor in the amount of $585.74. Diversified Security for the initial payment for parts, materials, and installation of a security system for the fire station: $6,351.10. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the requests for payment as follows: BKV Group in the amount of $4,741.28, Office Products Company in the amount of $ 1,003.75, Northern Tool and Equipment in the amount of $585.74, and Diversified Security in the amount of $6,351.10; to be funded from the Joint Fire Account. BKV 4 < c !J * Afchil#our» kiftrlor Ottign tngiiiMrIiiQ Kroof Vm#I Croi^ Ific 222 Nonh S«cofid SlfMt MiMiMpeUf, MN 55401 512339^752 512339^212 www.bbvgroup.eom lOE BUUai Crottp 002 Teulis eoo/ioo*< Invoice Invoice NufflbCR 20175 invoice 0«K October 02.2002 Ctiv of Loot Lake P.O. Box 606 Lott Lake. MN 553S6 Attamioii: MicheOe Mone Prajecc 1515.01 City of Loag Lake Professional Services ttioush 10/31/02 BUUeg Creep: Contreet#: Fire Scetioa Fee: Ambulance Service Alterttte: TOTAL FEE: Contract Amount: Percent Complete: Pee Earned: Prior Pec Billinss: Current Fee Total: 002 S22L600 $ 2300 S22S.100 Billing Croup Total: BiUlag Creep: RE] Contract t: ^EOMJIVI S|| OCT -4 20G2 jy 1 S22S.100.IK) 96.0^ $216,096100 $211.594100 $4,502 $4.502.00 1101 BKOl iO lllO ZZ9t 9L9 Zii Lfiil 2002.10*130 / BlWig CnHp REIMB CQ9/C00‘J %tLL* Pk^M: ISIS.01 0en^02.2002 P^2of2 Relmbunables B«pmM Copy Piper 11/2x11 Deliviiy Stfvtee Express Mill Servieei Fix Long Dist Tilepbene Cbrgs Milngirntvel Photo Finiih Posiit^ Reiinburubles ToUls Oust 9615 2815 17 96 6 SO 111 S239 28 BUlIir Oraoplhtii; Project Totab: Invoice T PreftwiMill Serview lU.'inbumbk Expcfuet: Ounidi Skvicik OdMr SirvicM inO Fim; Finaiwe Ourget: Tixm : Tout: 64 97 1004 823968 Qmnt 84^02.00 8239.28 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 Frinc 820U56.97 814.179.90 810^237.03 80.00 80.00 80.00 84.741 J8 8225.773.90 SXV7 eifiyi io MX3 ).51SH 8896 9t> 8S6 /.fiSl 8008.10*830 m ' I I'f CITY OF LONG LAKE FACSIMILE TKAN8M1TTAL SHEET lO:PROMt Nfichelle £. Morse COMPANY:OAm FAXNUIUBA:TOTAL NO. Of Faces including covsa PMONKNUMlflt:FIIONANUMEUL 952^73-6961 AA FAXHUiaBl!! 952476^622 □ urgent □ for review □ FLFASF. COMMENT □ PLEASE REPLY □ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTM/COKMKHTS: C^r/'^«.Ar#c *n€/m/ • 7S~. "7^ y^w/7tfes/jn c.ff- ---■*- ^/'^a«.y- 7?i>^. .A.. 1944 9A«K AVENUf LOMO LAKE, MN 4ISI4 cdd/too*4 feu#Um 9H01 iO AlZd .1 i / ZZ96 9L9 ZS6 tZ^CI 2002.12*49$ OFFia PRODUCTS MinncipoilS^MN 55416-4UM Phoni (952) 925-7500 Aiv 925-7531 UJMirANT Iqual Oppoituniiy bnployB VM(VW.gppooxam Invoice •el F»U r.•;; 7Vr, Vv: 30SC0I |oi/a7/03 if7tas .- .v.n MW fCMUX 80L0T0: MXCHlUiB B HOKSB MHO UU8 CZTY OP ltC4 PAMt AVt P 0 BOX <0< um IMB.ta SS3S8 OaitpB BtAtP* PiPSa.473.CP4l SraPTO: MXCHBLUt B NORfB LOBO LAKI cm OP 1PC4 PARK AVB P 0 BOX COC UWO LAXB.MM S83SC UkiitaO BtAtiS PiPsa.474.P4aa Taniis: BBT IS PRON UIV DATE 13P7SS •r •*• 21.SO D3 CAD DATA ZHFU7 ID4 f mSR StLECTZOVSIdi raoDoct sncirzcAtzom *FZRB DBPT^ DUXOH HOUBD FOR TRS NOimi OF JUFB 2002 SS.OO Oub Total SALES TA3| 0% (IXIHFT) This Amount:PlMoe Pay 'ted of invoice' ;1,4(17.80 1.847.to 0.00 X.S — S^J.» ijOC3‘ ‘f3T i^HEi Elrit SEP : 4 2(B TmBOPOOOOBHOlIM OBBCHaf 0 OR RIPBIWBO TO • RBTAMiO B7 OCNillAL OmCI PROOUCTB OOMMNV UNTN. ■NTMB PURCHAit AMO BALIB1AX NA« BBIN 7.80 RNOMMIU. M UMr tmmtum Ad «f ISM. m umimt. MtMMANMt OP SPtCML MioN OROn CANNOT BBCANCOIBOOR RBTURNID. PiNM raiym liiMtai cppT wBipoursMn lMM.Lsli chariMPfl*^: %4SptN COO/POO*4 4l$ti IBVl 01107 10 AIZO Z2P4 m PS6 i2Ut ;ooz«»z*<as 1 1 4 ! 4 i • :• iii OFna PRODUCTS COMPANY MmflMpoItt, MN ^b41b^4(Wtl Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 equal Qpoonunliy Cinployv 'Mvw.gopco.com invoico aossoa mm f/if/aoo:I U0C9I /..If... .> »rf;w^ yL?%. \<2:k I ^ .< ’2 . . V .‘a •! .*. ' !• *■ tc.-?ry v:rAaoeart iu: ROM nRRXX is7ias •OLOTO: KXCMIXJit t MORSS bOVO UJfM CITY OF 19<4 FARM AVI t 0 BOX BOX bOMO bMCB.Mf SSaSfi Otaicad Rcacas Fi9S2.47).S961 Tanna: MIT IS FROM ZNV DAT! SHtPTO: KZCRfbbB B MORSE bWO bAKB CITY OF 19X4 FARX AVB 9 0 BOX XOX LOBO LAXB«MM SS35X Onlced Scacea F: 952.47X.9X22 1397IS •x.oo •FXM DBPT* Disxm noims for trs moiith of JUNB 2002 03 CAD DATA ZRPUT 04 FIVXSH 8EL1CTI01IS DS PRODUCT SPBClFZCATIORd DRRZOV iZUiZMfO ADJ FOR THf FIRt DIPT Invoice Meaiaaea Credit Memo OOP SALES TAX Pleeee Pay 'Bod of Xnvoici r ttliK PMfi* rr!?! li^iiadiiii iBuilii SX3.7S Sub Total 09 (BXIMFT) Thla Amount: -56 1.75 -56 1.75 ).00 -64 1.75 ml OF ooooa HOtat omcrmio or rifirrio to m ritmiio by orniral OFFICI FReOVen OOMMNV UNTIL INTWI FURCHARi ANO XMJa 1AX HRVI KIN MNO m FUU. ealar naMaMRi Xni mXIi laaa*''« Xm ptaXMaM af am aMMM aodw aw a wMwiwwaMXwaaMiaa wwwXayailaaiiw a . waaiRfaawpXuuRhtaaXiamOafaia M Ukw iMiaMat AM 4f liai, m aimaXaX. aMRCNANIMi OF SFfCtAl OUttNtafXa AM M liai M wmaXaX. OROiR CANNOT II fiANCFl I inORRBTURiltD, C00/f00*4 XIU9 turn I woiea com lamRpwa.Ult IjaiXAMM fMum aXXiyauri ehaiga M1JM an paM aXVT fiNOl iO A1X3 U9t 9L9 ZSX IZUT ZOOZ.IZ'XM iT^NOKE Tool k E4P it Co. MOO souncHoss onvc rX>.10KlM ■UNIMVIUf. MN 88»74t1« OATl 09/17/02 iRSSTCSSBF 69670TOF1 difIBiaiAiriagg 3201666 3 ti1tS <85.74 mi9i Ship To: _______ M POiOlOM CITY OP LONG LAKE 1964^ARKAVE ^SSSillSm^ CITY OF LONG LAKE 1A64PARKAVE Cot!^^ MN 55356 IIIVIIICB HEnmMTmpoRnoMwtTHPAyy&iTro: nmitn mrnmmtf,mamunt PURCHASEDSV: *louvronEiifAS? I 0 t ^ ’| I • < • 1 1 eU3roMCTPO.MUy HA; ~ ______MIKE Trap »!•« > if<i VERT COMP 60 GAL 3 HP OutOfllt KV17/02 TaxRMi: 549.99 ^ <J3v V Bcns iVE OCT t 600/200*4 L69tt UVl 9H07 10 AIXO 6690 9L» 6S< Il<e0 6006.CO‘100 I uummcnwiMt,« CktMMncrNo lob No.20OrM-(Xl Dtversyied Security IHC. (iDsr) 319 Lakeview Avenue Long Lake, MN SS3S6 (952) 404-0030 Typ«* C-^ I roM'^ne hrvii OifM Sftb C&Viifmrnm wiB •w To: CliyoTLoiiaUte IWHAAw LooflUke MN 55356 Mp«a ytysMi of SHtag Si fall) MitbelloMorie »iMMio yrcfotiy of OSL aemuf^t ms9cmi9^ with tkm emk awowl oaldoMoavvaiordfnm^egBpmemM fum0mm, umrnote rrmawn WfH eritruu^Pf aojr Bo mtfmS kmmder» Srry»cr> fo be ^'rovidt-H iMMMitf V^OtB i«ro » *9 Cmt^muf. oM m £• o^Io or io pmn. dnkm, rnetnrnmm. MfiAmtu, 'mUm eiakm m^eemmri, wrikemt tm eemtr or mgfcoioa mry p^etrm ^m§ C*nfmur% Off BtBdtf 10 CMiMMvo<voo'rr(/iBrd[r4ri^ Of/acoOrr/^ •tyro i^a<B Boa CoOitl Si«b«« t.|*al RacJvi^l *m0 Wifoo M I«r»iCo hn» Otooo fogoraiicrf t^|!w Alft« Dura I lUtJ OOi# - OWtet CMtookl ttfvict - To: _____ Olgiiil CeaouokwAi Mxioai UtfOi Lao KA4*o/C»T:uior iTriepkem CUaya Mei UeUdud im DU -- - lai»ocuott •• Baaoor pd Yar . SoptaM/IcBoOolc# Orooiof^iabti epoiujCioiiotf lUfOfa OrcottACiai*! U||ri| DSJ propoii > »c> »n%»on or ^rJo^c lO be rnxtolUd Hu- equipm<rnl orni iKc StrVKr". .rtdiCOted beriir> Quindty 1 Deioillion . Pdeifloidi Adccii Milfi Lotlo Conbol r\ Or\ • T^n r iLoabon (fie SpcdCc) l 1 Door CoQi/ol Moduk 1 4 Em& ICTP Iblnllod 2X6 MuUioa Klotiai KtYOddi ¥v he •f* 4 1 Powe/.Sfiffe 12 Volt 7 AM Ddclc*Up fiaaery ;/ fo^o LeeAc f-^rc /L)epT 1 RS 212 CablA for PC COdoccuoo 1 ’JZc^ fJe 1 U VaC SO V A TrodifoiSief L Ukt ss'yr^y All «rird for eoApidit lAflalliUon. Tlf fjMifn-f iitoiHflp-{•]Din^afka«O«iiini|a4r»M4stiii.aOMMaola*aoi«aaiaoCaiaai-.lk.t04iM9«wnM«a «4doai tea««kMioJB*|(*okiaa4rito Nf »i N»iBi«ailMO l^CM«Mr.Mi(dCoK^B■tfHa•tfbta•<nKU4Wrll»eoo^*p•Mt aotatai «4 iBoa «feM pastel hMea Juutwwot. fw ihoMA of I p»r^ 0p*>* oMipuooo of ifeio ptopotol aoJ ili«. boUoc p07*Mo c»f0f»4ouoo of iBo iOaoUgiioo *ad u • 10 aLvAuoo of Om itrirtO lad. fl i|V*cooU, mmcuoo m coiral riouoo ve 4nra eonataao i«rvict. la oJ^toa fee the omk«C«) m bo piaidod m !«4i<»iod iboa la Caiomw agtaos lopop S |or moaiJi. uunuS\y la advgocr. Ice » p«x«od ei n*c yc^te efireu^e fiom Oio doio MT«<ea a aaiaiba vM*T ihu ofmoMac AiUl Ua f«vi ytat. iKa garMcaoai ilidl lie oioaaaaany <«<io*agbU VM«)y luloa laaBaatird by oaJim pony oCOo ariOM a«ao m iaaM>0 Aofo Mtev 10 tM aa«ii>Mf uiy diM Dfl iboll ha«o (he ^|M w aoioao la oaoMl Mivjcr ebaryo vna I U um cv<a iintteau«oa phoi a iW oal of Ibo e^iumtt icfoi. da Cusioart O|roo« a pti>. m oUtboa to aay c^oryu far Mivtou rtaJMol pnor w anotaMaiv al da oenjoi cloTi‘' nnaaoiai w bo ao^ fat da uaeirWal larm of Ao afroomou as Lqoil^ laaagu (boi aM u • peaattyX Tbt Cuacmee aorooi (o pay ia u* tke Mmca caarta jbo«e. lay (da dorm ojauamoau. loooa. feet ae cheegm (fell ort uapoicl by aay to«c(oiMad Nvly. kUtloMt ot t^ad vaamimioa convoy (fot aMsboriag or oihor duagit) or rcju oi DSl fCloul m ripctieriinfmaf oUna coa»di oal odtee Irvtcea a tornply oab f«di loiwUfioi Ot Odar ebaagao ralajag to Ott aaUllaiiOA or aoivict pro^ilol uala ilao Afft%ntroi mJ a gey ary mcaaoao m dU/f<» a DSI (or (oedMiot togaaiol fee utetmtuioe of aaada aider Udi Aaforna.n. la da o«aal OSl‘4 ripraociiuaiva a aoa: io Uta Cvttomu e ceeuuu* la caepeaM a a xartco cdl emaol by da CoilOeAer >«piopoiW frdloaia| oporaaa| laamauoai ee. Is itoo 10 dooa « prcptrly leourc i »i^>a, door or «ka pra(««.ird pow(. dr •arrO(ad> aJjuuiag moauon « acoaaacy coiapaodau. dkcn aOiQ be a eftatt* •• Cuinoraof fiilao Id pay aiiwiaM aKea duo dull giro 061. ia aa.lM/ca a aay odar lacadioo. da a acAiaaa Jiij Agruaiedl aod a olaiaa taufan ai iBa Kigban Ugd fell 00 iba dobaaMoai aateuou Coiloaar agiaao lo pay ad casu. oapoaaM ami teu D5l a ttiutrrjeiu ef iba AgraoMoi. iarlodoad oourrtido capcaaso. ro«>n Odia. 15C* iiorutri' re«l Aay •tju»luc-i dimga gooed ia 6ld igrtoaas: a baaad ea Of’ ,ae(en*og aULdliUd ^Jth it f oora peetaoml^ Iflbr aay loafod duo lanadoAioo utuK >a poi(«r«od by auuido Cdairaeton. laid mulUuoa rbarga ebill bf .otjeci le reviroa Ciuioaur wacroiu dui lia Lwddttrr. (I) bar fbaaMed Uu MaiitaadiyifTinri ipoetfWd a Ida Agroooaoat fdi in Oo*d *di aaJ ara for iho baaoKt oi eaj ibud pvty. 0) d«ai Ida prcMIcJ ift (bo ogpipaidal ta baia lalfollMl or iBe titDcmm Ku la aailaviiy 10 eogd^ DSI lo cany out Ua iBialUboo id iBe preaUei iM D) ^ <*><nr)y vidi lU lavo. oedoo. aid fegufouotf peruiiJde » fM «•! of Id rnii fooedi^arviooo _____________________^ Cuilomt-r AiccplOfKL to eramai ou no Mi • oa 00* ili CLu aae aoa< ioi railiar ImU ■ auOai amr ao ao aaoi H .Momor Mf <«oc. aaraiiioidaf laaaapiooo^fcCiaaaaa dr « da oTfrnOWWlWMLTID TO Till aAaaawry. Liairrdf UablilTT AWOTIita Cdimryaood 6« tdV OfllSd. U tla IWidlioriMiido porfod a acaopiad. Cwdiene/. pUaagjlikjl Kora tf ICaa^uea* Stniuo a doefioad, Comonar. pirate »aibd K mc .^ IT dry M pmd m«r oar •oaodte a MM aaa oMdaoBi m ai Aaardrai QaJ a yoie dr |y da Ciian om — OMf aao or ihk: Jd^Mftoatoo a Ote a aa i«a d teMt d aoi aamai di oab laiajr a Oii mo a - mmo m ■> C. COO/ZOO'd 969i.r SXYl CKOl iC a-12 ZZ36 9t> Z36 EZ^Ot ZCOZ.SZ'ZSS I Tw. VXMl OutomerKe.»M> Ko. vxntM>\ I Divers^ted Security Im. ('DSI') ! 2l9Lalceview Avemie i LoogUke.MN SS3S6 (932)404^0 To: C^iy of Lob ( Like 196(PiikAve Loon Like MN SS336 McbcOeMcne Typo T«onvochL»" Dkma Uh (Ifiijpiwi wB pro^y el tilt CottOM pvyiaMi of tdkH fti«» te fiili) •f wfm ^irittem mttkr 101*« aimdm im wnotc pr AipU (dettiPt. liutmM. MfUmt Um aetteud pe utmy ke mtnte4 kpmtu Mer. ScrvKt', To Provided OMOMI SCMIOA tl«aM ft«cc.«IO| Mi HMiOcoUoa S««u« . Aiorm - - ^ f«ifr*Uo'y Plant Outnt BeM \h ijarM Oftmf Ihltfi DM OMtooiM • Tor _____ 04lal C«rwMMCMt/11 k—i LeM Hft'MtMMO -ItfpanrlMiAOoiiiUit OpMit#/Ctodi| 0f^*4i|dooloi Aop^o (Ttleytm* CooriM km ijdtd in Ml iiUmti - Hemm fw Vcv « OfMi«|^lao.«4 Lo|^H OPm PMlkoifMftfS 14.00 pu^ttlu ^ upOM «CCC0<MC« of tfus profBMl Mi IM tMUACC r«yaU* im 4 of ^ iOfUll^ 2t • 10 of *0 fMirfu oM u opplieible. <f^^eucp to otmn\ •aiio« tn di.*ci eaoMcuco «*.r*i<o. 10 oAlixio he Jm eance(») to bo Moviioi os ttote Uie Ouioioot a |m« 10 pay t oet taouM. Mooilly 10 adooce, t*w o pchod of fiat yun ttfoano *001 Ao do«c ic(«iCo fa PMiboifOioff 0*414.00 Mtcooiilioo 10 M(i«*tMO of i * - lltf * __ _ __ ____ __________ MMkt Ibif oittaoMol. a A m um Om t^e. isa aipttttM ihJI he oulOiiMiMlIy ftMvahfa Muriy uolCM letnuoutd by rwty Mfioo wdmum ooitcf ai liOM pyiOf loiU loiiWUiy iiM DJI ihoUUkoibonphi Uiii<i«Mi AojJMtMlma»co4iWf*»^ I yo« ^ ^ U \iP oMoi of IMWftOtioo pfU» to lU ood of ctoo caoirea tarn, lllo C mmocmt aport 10 pop. adinion 10 oay dtupCa tte l«v cm looiorai pricy 10 iMmiMi.oo. d»e eue’toe ctaiM taouiria la M |U.i foe iha ««M0/ad i«m uf the apaciOrH 44 b^wi^ daAa|e4 (M au u a paoaky). TM CuaioMMf aciaao 10 pay, 10 aOii«<r^ *0 ibo toniee d«trtaj abovt. My lafaa riaro* irtaaiaioaii. uiaa. fca* M <1^1^ ih^ua japeard ^ My govoroaootd hoiy. wltriiiTM ft ficMJ MaaiVAuioo com^y the OMObariat m oi)a« eMoiai:' at caau of mt aiaaao 10 raMcpeAeOvci aUmi aotTolc aad othude^emu to aooiply witO ouli •ylTafiai <bMfoa fdaiiog ic iM Mtialaiioa or lo.-aa proniiad a»d«« tk>* AfraaiaaM aad ao pay aoy iaaraaja eo Marpaa 10 DJI tct (»ed*um ra^aaai lac ita.*'’ oca of slioall uPhe tfw oaraamaal .• ,aa ckOOC DSI a lapaaaaoUUva fa aaacio iha CaalAMr'a preniaaa io fMpOiao to a aanoM ciU caaaci by (ha Cjaiomar taefcopaaly Wloo^a oparMO| iaaim«jOiia M. fiiiiac 10 (Uo; or rcoucriy taeuio a •taiOM. door oa oU»ei peietati pom, ec icapcopc/!y adywtisp noouon cr acecodory cnrnpcooacs. 6are afaa be a fcnrioa eharfa 10 iba rma^*/ Fh4MO o flay ifirMT oOm Jm itell gin DSt. io ajifooa 10 My oiIki remariaa. iba iidu lo U'AAiOat** tbu ApaanM Mi 10 aMrtt lOuoaO at Ibi tugfim UgPl rot rti It* JaVaO-f * oitoaiac Cadccaor afiacj m pay aH foo# atpasaa. aad faaa •/ O^I a ral^Mnaai of •lua ifrft«o*^ iflc)udia| rcfiOO tipofmt. M con aod aUQdaeif* fata Aay iarioUabOa ducfa AaMul li (ha affccRool ti bilci ao DJI pcrfecimaip Uri o«H u » eaa peitooiel If fnc My faaaoo iod lomAdb*,. aiaii bO (HHoemmt by OMiule CoouaaoM. laid loauIUuoo timgt fbon U wbjaot 10 ffciliOO. OuuMoar oamM ibof Iha ^»o«ar. (I) U m ra^aOdtei rlja acwMacM/btfVitii irriifiri ia Ibo AiiaoaaMt toe ite 00a leaa aad am for iha brarffa 0/ My ibard pasty. (3) o«*m P»o prarr MS la adbeft Dc e^otpaaoM tf haii| mmIM m OuCbumbM IM iS^y loi0«4p< OSI (««»»»>oM iLa iiaitlUooo io **>• proMiNaai(31 • iMb^V •**boD W>*i.coiu. oaictplaiMpciUtoiU toibaoiaof Aa cfa^Moa/aaviOM. ________________ _________________ Cu.lomcf Aut*ploncc ■«am aaa a b■L niyciil fa - - '—?. *****} fj. ariO Mboi aaaa Oai ory 0 3M imbom iai •ooo^ 01 > to Pifl aaaOAiMIV. UitfT or UibiUTV a»«OIIflOi MaomOM onifviMl m M ii.. iTMiint fa OffipTitf OuMC^ pluar uunal ban - If Uaiatfoiaor Semoa ti iaAoai. Cafirnec. pkoM ioidJ bwo^ AoCMoao MM me aafliiM ■ laMc m moMom aai ai Oi HW br a» Oa r 1—r aid Mb —pia MQ iHy kidJ bdco'iCii^ tMMt'doo b —oaioiiaaM 0 M4 « c u Mai aoaeat «< A0W4 if 0 aeopuci hm weta. leM«wa0b»^eraaa ^ aaiy SiMt Id Oft MMi or a « aa COC/COO’4 96SLi aXV: CKO" iC aOIO ZJ96 9L> JS6 E?:oi Z002,S2 ‘43S ocr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/f Y ^ *iot» Qvo DATE: October 9,2002 •ITEM NO: A Department Approval: Nam RonMoorse Tith City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: CHy Administiatoi*s Report Item Description: Long Lake Fire Stldon Furniture Proposal As pact of the file station budget, $55,000 was set aside for the design, selection, puichase, and insolation offiimiture for the fire station. General Office Products was hhed to assist in the process of designing the office layouts and selecting furniture. The Fire Department worked with General Office Products to select furniture off the State of Minnesota Contract The total cost of the fiimiture, including design and installation, is $51,513. The detailed furniture proposal is attached. To stay within budget, the number of new chairs for the training room was reduced from 60 to 40, and the number of tables fix>m 40 to 20. This change reduced costs by about SI 1,000. The Fire Department will use its existing tables and chairs when they have a meeting with more than 40 people. It is recommended the proposal from Geiieral Office Products in the amount of S5 1,513 be accepted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the proposal firom General Office Products for furniture for the fire station in the amount of $51,513. r tf GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952)925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledgme Pajt; 1S9434 9/17/02 m Bf 139785 |kOM PEWUI TO: HICHCIXE E MORSE UXIO LAKE CITY OP 1964 PARK AVE p O BOX 606 long LAKE.MN 55356 United States P: 952.473.6961 F: 952.476.9622 Terms net IS FROM INV DATE SHIP TO:MICHELLE E MORSE LONG LAKE CITY OF 1964 PARK AVE p O BOX 606 I«NG LAXE.MN 55356 United States P: 952.473.6961 F: 952.476.9622 Version: 1.0 Tag For 6.0014071 HON •Cha.'xged Set oC two stacking arm guest chairs, fan back design. Encore Grade 3 fabric; BB26 Honeysuckle Finish: T Black Bieakroofn Expected Delivery Date 9/10/02 2.00IC590R-S0 FLEXSTEE ‘Changed Recilner, E98-50 Faoric Tag For; |Breakroom Expected Delivery Date 10/15/01 2.00IC2060-30Z FLEXSTEE ‘Changed Sofa, 78 X 35 X 33. E94-41 fabric FINISH: MAPLE / HOMEY - 2 Tag For: [Breakroom Expected Delivery Date 11/6/01 2.001204-36 FALCON P ‘Changed Table base, 36 spread. Finish: Black Wrinkle RlOO Tag For: |Breakroom Expected Delivery Date 11/6/02 2.00I13O00 FALCON P ‘Changed 48‘ round table top. Formica 7693-58 laminate. Black edge Tag For: jBreakroom Expected Delivery Date 11/6/02 2S0.80 1,504.80 2.00133016.6 FALCON P Provenance Occ Tbl, Square 30H X30DX16K Iwood Finish Selection (WBFIOO) HOOOTOMES 'Changsd 530.00 1«060.0C 798.00 1,596.Ot 68.75 137.5* 150.70 301.4 409.20 818. EQUAL CPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER THANK YOU FOR the OPPORTUNITY TO BE OF SE h r-. [[ I QSENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledgment P«ga: 2 equal OPPOirrUNITY employer THANK YOU TOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO S6 OF SERV:CC f i CibISbKAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY ritj^uway deveti Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledgm'ci Page: i TO:MICHELLE E MORSE LONG LAKE CITY OF X964 PARK AVE P O BOX 606 LONG LAKE.MN SS3S6 United Stataa SHIP TO: MICHELLE E HORSE LONG LAKE CITY OF 1964 PARK AVE P O BOX 606 LONG LAKE.MN 553S6 United States P: 9S2.473.6961 F: 9S3.476.9622 Terms net is from inv date P: 9S2 473 6961 F: 952.476.9622 3.00 Tag For: 3.00 Tag For: 3.00 tfBB4515 REVEST •Changed Bin-Storage, Panel Supported, 1 Door, ?4 7/e X 45 X 16 5/8 Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 9SC REVEST ♦Changed Cantilever, Shared, Non Handed Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 Tag For: 4.00 Tag For: 3.00 Tag For: Version: 1.0 ';-T* 9611S REVEST panel -tackablb acoustical , 4SX53 HINGE :6000 BLACK SURF-1 :P120 ARCHITRAVE SURF-2 :P120 ARCHITRAVE trim :4600 damn Open Expected Delivery Date 'Changed 11/10/02 ^Changed9821S REVEST PANEL-TACKABLE ACOUSTICAL. 4SX6S HINGE :6000 BLACK SURF-1 :P120 ARCHITRAVE SURF-2 :P120 ARCHITRAVE TRIM :«600 DAMN Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 NSBBF2S REVEST ‘Changed Pedestal, 2 box/Cile drawer Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 129.20 iiST qun 387.6C 45.22 252.32 294.88 149.72 135.6e 756.9 1.179.5 44?.: EQUAL OPPORTUNmr EMPLOYER TH/.NKYOU FOR THE OPPOPTiUNITY TO BE OF SE i OtNtRAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY ... **521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952)925-7531 vvww.gopco.com Acknowledgme Pag#: 2 if;,. - 2 I % 3.00 For: 1.00 For I 9 NSFF25 REVEST Fedestal, 2 file drawer Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 WCR224S60 REVEST ‘Changed * «***^?4 comer extended, laminate, 2S X 2S x 4S X 60 Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 MWS23S revest ‘Changed Worksurface, straight, laminate, 2S x 3S Open Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 ‘Changed|Wo4.ksurface, straight, laminate, 25 x 45 For: lopen Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 1.00 98715P revest ‘Changed IsiH*^^**^* attachement, conventional. For: jopen Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 2.OO90716P revest ‘Changed jsSH*^****^* attacheraent, conventional. For: iopen Expected Delivery Date 11/10/02 2.0.9.7WP Iwall chai,nels, vertical, pair, 6Si Fort lopen Expected Delivery Data 11/10/02 l.OO|90184ST REVEST iTackboard, 4S x 18, Special For: lopen E)q>ected Delivery Dace H/lo/02 3 .00 |TS7CL iLeg-C Fort jopen REVEST equau opportunity employer ^tNtKAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledgme P«ge: i 157748 9/17/02 TO:MICHELLE E MORSE LONG LAKE CITY OF 1984 PARK AVE P O BOX fiO« long LAXE.MN S53S6 Oniced States SHIP TO:MICHELLE E MORSE LONG LAKE CITY OF 1964 PARK AVE P O BOX 608 LONG LAKE.MN SS358 United States P: 952.473.6961 F: 952.476.9622 Terms met is from inv date P: 952.473.6961 F: 952.476.9622 Version: 1.0 1.00 BW-16 CYLINDER BASE /2H [veneer base selection AC AUTUMN Tag For: [chief Expected Delivery Date •ChangedKATL WOOD 16W X 27-1 1.00 CM-422 NATL 42* ROUND TOP - VENEER HILANO PILLAR EDGE HILAND MOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Tag For: [chief [Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 Tag For: 1.00|35-3636BO NATL BOOKCASE 2 SHELVES 36 X 36 EOGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL HILAND MOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief [Expected Delivery Date NATL Tag For: 1.00|35-2448UW BRIDGE 24 X 48 BDGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED BDQE/BAR PULL HILAND MOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief Expected Delivery Dace 11/7/02 1.00pS-2138L2 NATL LATERAL FILE 2 HIGH 21 X 36 SOQB/PULL SELECTION EQUAL OPPOirruilITY EMPLOV6R IHANKYOUFOR THE OPPOirrjNITY TO BE OF SERVI general OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledgrn^ Page: 2 I 157748 -t »/17/02 | . • ''i. -'-'u: I 138765 |r0M PERHAI m 8 Tag Fori 1.00 Tag For: 1.00 Tag For: 1.00 Tag For: 1.00 Tag For: 1.00 Tag For: 1.00 3 REED EOGE/BAR PULL HILAND MOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 NATL WITHOUT SUPPORT LE 35-3072PUR P-TOP UNIT RIGHT EDGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EOGE/BAR PULL HILAND HOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 •Changed 3S-2472LCM NATL SINGLE PEDESTAL CREDENZA LEFT MULTIFILE 24X72 EOOE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD . ..NISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief •Changed Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 2421CD NATL WOOD CENTER DRAWER CENTER DRAWER FINISHES AC AUTUMN Chief •Changed Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 1672TB NATL TACKBOARD 16X69.2S TACKBOARD FABRIC SELECTION 1511 AQUIFIER Aaeietanc Chief 'Changed Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 35-3636BO NATL BOOKCASE 2 SHELVES 36 X 36 •Changed EOOE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDOE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMI Asaistant Chief Expected Delivery Data 11/7/02 3S-2448UW BRIDGE 24 X 48 NATL 'Changed 778.15 886.15 58.30 113.30 331.38 2C9.08 •i. 778.15 886.15 58.30 113.30 331.38 209.08 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER thank you FOR THE opportunity to BE OF SERV1 UtNhKAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4S21 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952)925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledgmei Pag*: 3 157748 9/17/02 n V/* 138785 K' RON PEWUI vVQiTihuiyt*tf rJ'/UstllL Tag For: ECGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EOQE/BAR POLL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Aaoistant Chiaf Expected Delivery Dace 11/7/02 1.00 Tag For* 35-15720S NATL HILAND HIOHBACK ORGANIZER 15 X 72 EDGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Asa1scant Chief ^Changed Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 1.00 3S-2136L2 LATERAL FILE 2 NATL HIGH 21 X 36 Changed Tag For: EDGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Assistant Chief Ejected Delivery Date 11/7/02 1.00 NATL WITHOUT SUPPORT Tag For: 35-3072PUR P-TOP UNIT G RIGHT EDGE/PULL SFLECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL «ILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Asaisitant Chief *Changed Expected Delivery Date 11/7/02 1.00 Tag For: 35-2472LCM NATL SINGLE PEDESTAL CREDCNZA LEFT MULTIFILE 24X72 EDGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Assistant Chief 11/7/02 •Changed Expected Delivery Date 1.00 Teg For: 2421CD NATL WOOD CENTER DRAWER CENTER DRAWER AC AUTUMN Assistant Chief •Changed FINISHES EQUAL OFFORTUNITY EMFLOYER 690.00 690.00 528.92 528.92 : 778.15 686.15 58.30 778.15 886.15 I 58.30 thank YOU FOR THE OFFORTUNITY TO BE OF SER\ OtINtKAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 1 Highway beven Minneapolis, MN 55416^098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Acknowledge Page; rf; .. 4iUL&: I xs774a I »/i7/oa I.I13t7iS laOM PgRKAZ pi-TfT" - 7.00 2.00 Bxpecced Delivery Date11/7/02 • • - Changed89X-aWXX NATL TRIUMPH OUSST CHAIR MOOD FRAME FABRIC GRADE - l.S YD MAH MAKARAM/MOMENTUM FABRIC C GROUP C SEATING FINISH 2 420 SANDSTONE Expected Delivery Dace 11/7/02 S212A-27 SITONIT *Changed Executive task chair, adjustable height am, size 2 with synchro control, grade 2 fabric. FABRICI 0904S424 GARRISON CHARCOAL Expected Delivery Date ll/C/02 290.77 Sub Total SALES tMC 6.S% (MN) Total 411.39 IQUAL OPFOirfUMTY SliPlOViR 2,035.39 822.78 10,064.20 654.17 10.718.37 THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNIIY TO aC OF S»VI •nt 0«n«r«l Offie* Products; 612 625 7531 • iiCMCMAL **9<t nqpiwraiowtii * OffKx MIhmi |»oIH,MN S54lfc40W Mfwi w*TC Plwfw (9S2) 92S*7500 FaM(9S2)925>7S31 COMPANY wwwjopockxom Oct-1 -02 4:35PM;Pag* 2/2 Acknowltdgmeni : 1 TO;NICmaXM B NOBSB UM iJMCB cm or 19C« PARK AVS P O ROK COC LOMO UUCB.MN SS.1Si Unitod Rtotoo mw •HP TO:MXCHCbLB £ M0R8B UMO LARB cm OP 1M« PARK AVB P O BOB <0« UWO LAXB.MN SS3SC Uhitod Ptotoo Pi 9SS.47S.4P4X Pi PSa.474.P4Sa Pi PSa.47S.4P41 Pi PSa.474.P4aa RBT 15 riKW SMV BATS Voroioo! a.e Teg roti ao.oo Tag Port ToralooOo anohait, uph back and aaat, frado aA Aacial fabric isrOBXTO 004 NARBU BIACK PRAMB Tralnlag/COnauncly Room Bapaetad Delivery Data 12/14/oa 6KADB-I. HONS ^Cbangad as X 40 roldiog baaa table with oeons wiMal. Laainaea adga and viayl adga. lAMXMATBi PORNXCA 7345-54 ■ABB: MACK Traiaing/Coaaiuntty Room ■Rpactad Otlivary Data la/ie/os SALBP 444.50 Bub Total AX 4.5% net) Total ll.SSO.OO 9,370.00 a0,730.00 1,SAC.80 aa,044.40 EQUAL OfPOIITUNnY aiPLiOirill ___thank YOU FOR THB OFpomuNnv 10 it OP lEfivK OfFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY Mlnntapolis, MN SS416-4098 N k)0* (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 www.gopco.com Quotation Pagolorz V f ■< QUOTE TO: nxcmelli s miisi tone UUGi CZTX or 1»«4 rAMC AVI 9 O BOX <0« UMO LAKI.MI SS3Sfi UillCid aCAClB SHIP TO;NlCHBLUt I MORSE MMO LAXB eXTT Or 19*4 PARK AVI » O BOX *0« LOltC LAKI.MM $S3$S Unices StBLes II ■f . Ft 9S2.473.*»C1 Pi PS2.47*.*C22 Twnma MET 15 RtOH XMV OMB Pi 952.473.0*1 Pt 952.47*.9*22 X.OO Hom Tibli CIMV Tnidt, bardMOod twae, buck •naiwl Pinlnh. Itolds S-8 cables on ediec SALES Sub ToCal TAX c.s% (Mf) orand vocal 'End ot Quotation' 492.<0 919.20 985.20 *4.04 1,049.24 a ■ IHMRMIMO ACOCPTOBV. AOOM888 Tins.QMS. ■ C„y ^ REQtlEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 9,2002 ITEM NO: 17 Dcfrartmcot Approval: Nuic Ron Moon* Tltk Ci^ Administntor Admiablnitor Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Adininistntof's Re^ Item Dcecription: ^^Ucation and Certificate for Payment No. 6-Long Lake Fire Static Rochon Coipoiation, the General Contractor, has submitted Application and Certificate for Payment No. 6 in the amount of $273,157.50. This application has bMn certified f<» payment by both the Architect and Project Manager, and a lien waiver relied to the amount of this payment has been provided. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 6 firom Rochon Coq)Orttion in the amount of $275,157.50, to be funded from the Joint Fire Fund. [|. WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN, PAYMENT BOND AND LIEN FUNDS October 1.2002 For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all (a) rights and clainu for a construction or other lien on land and buildings being constructed, altered, erected or repaired and to the appunenances thereunto, (b) rights and claims on any payment bond(s) furnished in conjunction with said construction, alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver is owned by City of Lone Lake (owner), is located at 340 Willow Drive. Long Lake. MN is described as Long Lake Fire Station and this waiver pertains to a portion of the work to be performed by Rochon Corooration (prime contractor). This v/aiver covers all labor, material and supplies for constmetion, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the undersigned under a contract with City of Long Lake through the date of this waiver in the amount of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUS.WD OXE HU?»rt)RED FH-TY SEVEN & 50 100 DOLLARS (S275.157.50l. This lien waiver is not valid until the amount listed above has been received. ! VWhAA/MhA^MtAAAAAAAAAA^AA^^AAAAA GP..’CE L. BURGHARDT ':1V ’*) :.cfv:uc - MwittSOTAI'Or V Cxp rgg J«n. 31,2005; Company Name Rochon Corporation Its trice President Contractor Waiver Form .i -f f AmJCATION AND CfflTIFlCATE FOR FAYMENT fSUUTITUTE AIA DOCUMENT 0702)^AGC ONC 0# I S TOtOWNtlllt CHy •! LMi Uka 1N4Nft U<ittJkt.MNlS38« TAOJfCTt iMf Ula flr« tuitoii 340 W«owOn«t Lon« LtM. Mil ssase AmiCATK>M NO: • MMOO TO: 30 S«9 02 mOM ICONTIUCTOIII: Nocf«o«i Corpo^tMA 3ti0 AMiapalt Una NaRti. trnca I0i Nyifiautfi. MN 81447 VIA lARCNITfCD: MV 0«auf 222 Nonn 2nd Scraat MmnaapoM. MN 88401 AACHITtCrS MOJf CT NO:tstsoi COMfflACT NM: Oaaant CanaNaaEaii • MataHal CONTNACT OAH: CONTRACTOR S AFFUCATION FOR FAYMENT CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY CKanpa OiOart aoprovad in fftwaiit ifionina 8y Ownar total A0ora«a« m« Manvi Numbar Oata Approvad totals AOOITIONS 82.220 00 000 ocoucnoNS 000 Nat ehanpa by Cnanpa Ofdara 82.220 00 Application tt mada for Paymtm« ta afKmn btiow. in eonnaction with tha Contract. Continuation Shtat. Subitituta AJA Oocumant 0703 ta attachad. Ttia undanipnad Convactor cartifiaa that to tha bati of tha Contr»ctor*t knowiadgi. miorniation and baHaf iha Work covarad by thtt ApoKation far Payment has baan compiatad m accordanca with iha Contract Oocumania. that ai amoonu hava baan paid by tna Contractor lor Work for wnicn prawioua Cartificaiaa for Paymant wara laauad and paymanu racanrad from Iha Oamar. and that currant oaymant aho««n haram it nanr dua Octobar 1. 2002 1. OPiClNAL CONTIUCT SUM.......................................• 2. Nat Chanpt by Chartga Ordars .................................. a 3 CONTRACT SUM TO OaTI fLina 1 ♦/•2l ............ t 4 total C0MPLIT60 & SrOAEO TO OATf............ • (Cotumn G on Q703i 8. fUTAINAQC: a^% of Compiatad Work iCoKimn 0^8 on G703I b of Storad Matanai (Column f on G703( Total Aati*naga ILm# Sa *9b or Total m Column I of 07031........................ • 8. total €AAN€0 LESS PETAINAOS .......................... a (Lina 4 lata Lir>a S Totaii 7 less PPfViOUS CfPTiiiCAfIS POP PAYMINT (Lina 6 from prior Cfitificaiai....... I 8 CUPP8NT PAYMENT CU5 . ..................................... I 8 SALANCS TO FINISH. PLUS PETAlNAGE................. I (Ltna 3 lati Lina 6l Stilt of: Mirinatoti County of. Harutapm Subtcribad and swrom to bafora ma thia 1st day of Oc*obar. 1.981.000 00 82 220 00 2.083.220 00 1.217.29: 59 63.96- 93 1 156.427 00 881.269 SO 275 157 50 906.793C0 2002 ^ aaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAI 1 ! . v :liC-MINNESOTA ; ; rtf Jan. 31.200S; • ..••••» *v# »wwwv>nAAnAAAAnAPN ^ Notary Public My Committion tapirta. January 31. 2005 AACNinCT'S Of PTlilCATl FOR PAYMfNT In accordanca with iha Conuact Oocumama, baaad on on tiia obtarvationa •nd tfia data compnaing tha abovt application, iha Archuact carpnat to tM Ownar plat to Iha bat I of Pw Archuact*! knoiMadsf. information and babaf tha Work hat prograatad at indicttad. tha quakty of iha Work ia in accordanca with Iha Contract Oocumantt. and tha ContiKtor it antitiad to ptymani af Iha AMOUNT CEPTlFlfO AA10UNT CEPTlFlfO.......................................• ^ CAnach a«pianacton if amount carUiad difftra from tha amount aookad for.i APCNinCT: [Data_____ Tha AMOUNT CEPTf>cata ITnot nagobab>a Contlactor namad narain. itiuanca. ptyma^t and aeeaptanct Ithoul prajuO^ to any ngnu Of ma Or«n«r or Contractor unoar trus Contract. MQE20F2 CONTINUATION SHEET WkttflifM AIA Oocumtni 0703 LONG LAKE m STATION AmjCAflMl «mcAnoM o*ri: PtJIMOPaOM. TO comaACTOo t mojcct moi 1<0«i0J flQf •CKOIAl* VAitli AMWCArMMk nm A#nK«noai •roaio ««naM »or*k to »«t«TO«W«M •CTAiMOOt 01000 1HM 0220C 02M0 ^ i aOMTt MONO lAllTMWtOMl siTc unuTitt g]%l] ASMir MVMO :2t<i siTi coNCarri sccma :u«o|uy«|CAffNG OIMOICONCIIITI 024 IQ MItCAtT CONCMfTf 04200 MAKMtv 2S4M AaCMMfCAfT Mioo snu TAiACAnoN oMooltrm tatcfiON MtoclCAivtMniv OQ200 CAJVtMniT MArif 0Q400 mxmoNN omo AOOTMQ OlltOlMA OTfOQ CAUUMC MtOO MiUMOIItAtOMA 0Q2A0 OilOQ CMtO OAMO UCT OVlAHtAO OOOA COlUiiQ ooom tvOOOWMOOwS OAtt.CiA|MC ot2fO oannAorfiTt 01100 OffOO CtlUM<.DUAMV riil ACOutncAi cnuf«o ri OfAM CAANT/VINVi TAI OMOO lAOat ^OOA ofioQ|AAiMr»<o«v»iti • OHOlnAO AOiU <OlAO|iOtift AAATiriONS lOiOOlrOMT accimom IC100 lOCAMS *0200 lOUVtAS •0120 Nm iar«iCuNMiAl OiUC CMAULTACt OCAAOS lOMC .Otwrirmo Otvicii MIOQ AttMNrUl lOUtA i2«M twwocaw iuNOi • Htol^ooii Muri • iioolvfiocuajorAjM ttIJQ MIOilCTiQN ICAfIN I4A0Q mMTIACAANIS •IIOoImva C •1400 11200 4<A| MOrtCTlOtt Itooo fllCTA^Ai loiroTAi 411 21 S2I It It M2 00 121 11200 101 112 00 •0 00.^00 tflMOO 42 100 00 •4 400 00 I21M100 nioMOO 1 12200 22 t4t00 2«1«'00 21 2M00 t. 240 00 12 000 00 tUNOOO •00 00 2.02100 2111400 40.000 00 1 Ml 00 21 111 00 14.200 00 41200 00 11.21100 1.22100 22 212 00 20 000 00 It.lMOO 111200 2.2MOO 1224 00 2112100 I.OMOO 41100 I.II200 2 11« 10 MO 00 1.100 00 1 111 ->0 401100 I 000 00 4 01100 IJI.MOOO 111 000 00 21.110 00 111441 II I 11141111 110 Ml II 40.M114 II M200 102.212 00 •1.21200 000 000 000 M.OOOOO I21M100 12000 00 1.122 00 22 Ml 00 21.100 00 1.M0 00 1.104 M 000 11.000 00 120 00 000 4.2M 24 000 000 000 000 ooo 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 020 000 000 000 10.242 00 M. 10100 I2.1MOO 21100 00 122 2M 21 41.MI 22 11ll M 000 000 000 000 000 000 1400 00 000 21.200 00 000 000 000 • 241 00 000 000 41.142 21 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 10 000 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ooo 000 ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo 21.41100 • 1.20100 II 12100 M.OOOOO 220 111 21 II in 21 ooo ooo 0 JO oco oco 0 JO ooo 000 ooo 000 oco 0 00 oco ooo ooo 4 000 00 oco 000 ooo 030 030 030 0:0 ooo 0 JO ooo oco 030 ox ooo ox oco ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 40XX ox 41 111 14 11 102 X 102 ni X •I 2I2M ox ox ox 22 4C0X I21111X • I 200X I IHM 22 14| X 31 ICO X 12 |4I 00 I M4M 40XX IM.I42 21 IXX ox 4 IM 24 ox ooo ooo ox 29XOX ox ox ooo ooo ooo ooo 0 00 ooo ozo ooo ooo 0 X ox ox ox ox ox ox ox 12 «•• X II2.4I0X 24 XI X 21 IXX Mil 1«2M II r« 10 11 IX 12 • 2 0 0 0 •4 IX 21 IX IX 11 •2 •I 12 12 •I 0 II 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 21 22 41 21 421 21 ox II 421 X 24 4MX 0000000 IIIMX 47 IXX li oxx ox 22 IlOX ox ox 44; X 10 121 X I nix 21 MOX 1112 21 20X 2.02IX 11 122 21 40 MOM 1 HIM 21 HI X 14 2S0X 21 200 00 II 2IIX • 221X 22 212 X JOOOOOO II 110 X 1 II2X 2 241 M 2 214M 2112IX I 01IM 411 X I »I2 X 14IIM MOM 1 MOM 2 211 M 4 0IIX 1 CXM 4M2M 40 IJtX II IfOM 2 12| M 104 141 12 MO 411 21 41 421 II 2 144 It 2T0 II I 111 1C I 411 11 ox ox ox I120M 1111 II 4 111 X 111 II 1 142 21 I MIX 112 X 211 21 2XX 1 112 II 21 M OX 2lf 14 ox OX ox OX I oxx OX ox OX OX ox OX OX OX OX ox ox ox 0 M 0 X ox ox ox ox ox 4 MIX 1 |20M 12n 21 1 MOM 12 111 M 1 111 24 rOTAi 2 X2 220 M 122112 10 211 Ilf 41 4 0CO X I 2I7 21* II •41 121 42 M 114 II k:WtdDMday. Saptombar 2S, 3003 ftS? AM Ml Efkanbmek SQ7-237-2900 p.03 fXXtaiMI •JOIliiiAwiLlM OqflM<MN.SI}M l•S0T4I9>94<n tail<M7-U74M0 5q>tc mbcr25,2002 Bill Hays Roehon CoqMntion MM AimapoUa Lana North nymouA. MN. 5S447 DaarBill To Follow it a list of aiatarlah in houaa fin Aa Long Laka Fira Station Projact: 39 • 4x1 sheets 3/4" partkle board 49 • 4xt Aeets 3/4" white two sided melainine 3-board foot 3/4" rod oak 16 • sheets 3/4" maple plywood 39 • sheets 1/4" white two sided melamine 23-1 sticks 1/2" w4iite two tided malamina drawer material 141 - BniAad aluminum handles 190-110 degree "Blum" hinges. Nteditahaafdfd; -stainless Steel -laminate - standards and brackets -glass Smooely. lefrErfceabrwk vice president WtdnMday Sapternbar 2S, 2003 J:57 AM Jaff Erkanbrack S07-237*2090 . . SEP-24-foi>2 TUE 02:09 Pd HEARTftAN INSURANCE 5076456539 P. 01 r^RTiRCATE OF l I^ITY IN8UF^NCg..av | BGSUfV, V. tr% aw^--------------------------------Tw*0liiT»1UTttt>4*u4gAtAiU1TWW >^iiMTW^ ’.^-yjrr HTtnr^stussa sf'i.J... tho«MiS0T>9il-<030 ra«t»070M “tl70 D Say C J ftXTVMCS* y^^Mi 5SS34 eoUPOMAtfOH » COVCNAOCt tmUAEIU ItfFOflOMO COMKRAOC ■nmoatTy iflmMa nHOftAHCt CQ MMUtt Mtunenc MSUfUlK !«»a>g.jyj!!a!g.sastty.B^ ------ ---------- mil-------nPtvmmM^ T" wuena^iw-------| ,0|SMI^ OeiiCAHUA*^ CLMWtMAOt 93n30iti CO#V AGCACJAff IMff Apuc^n!8ft I 1^* LMMlfT ANtM/O AiLOgwin tOCOAlO ALTTTJe MKCOAUTOi mom^mnOautos QAIAOC UAA!Un AMTAVtO •iSftAtUtiilTf OCOUA Q nercMm MMtM COMNAAnOPiA«« iiM^vaviAr uMAftf Otl^JI •31730191 Ol/lf/03 04/19/02 04/19/03 04/19/03 UffTI OO4CGCUM0CC A«l£0A%IACf (AAf«MM MgQtiAtAoy#—fwt KtSCKAi t AO« IMU«T Cfftf^AU AGOAC^^ MIC0UCT9 COtiBiomtCO cavtnfo MiLf WMT (Cl •OOlVMJtY (fs» MW| I SOO J»00 1 100.000 IS.OOO •SOO.000 11.000,000 '» 1.000.000 tsoo.ooe •ooLVMJuay m*4w4 •31730401 04/10/02 MQAnrVOAAOCC (At» ALrr3QM.V lAACCfiip/T CT0<^tH^ AurOQNLV. CA4CC fACHOCO^OlOl iOCASGAIf 04/10/03 Ik WCMtOeSM ti encMa-Mi ■ I. o w*M-paurru«ir IfOOOOO ISOOOOO ISOOOOO cwj** »:rCMOGNTO . inautad £oc aiataxiala atocad at Inavcada ahop and to bo baka, MM caNceuaTKM city of Laay liaba. City of Oxana, City a£ lOadlna and Aoahan Caxpaxatlon 3CS0 HMMAfOUi lAW M, OtOlOl rbflMUXN Ml 13447 bOCHOMC Aillimjt AMV flA fM AAOvf DOCAittO AQk'CItA M CAMCCUAA •CfOUlN4ClAl4AT)Qii Mninucoi.TiaaKMWMittwuidUvoaraiiia .la-omawitoi nroii wo ontyTiff****'*****"****”**^ “*"***“*' aeoNOMdimn BKV O K O U P ■n# 222Nw*MS«rw( niwM4l2.JI9.37S2 Pw4l2.|l942l2 0«C«: SapMfflbcr 30,2002 AtMncImK MichdlcMoTM Addrasc CiQrof Lot^laka 1964 Ptrk Avmu* P.O. Box 606 Loiy Lak*. MN 5S3S6 lU: Long Uk« Fira Sadon ProJoctNo.: 1515.01 RcCeiVcO OCT 2 pm CITY OF ORONO WE ARE SENDING YOU: O Shop dnwif^ QPrina □ Phns O Sunptas C] SpKiflcations O Copyorl«R•r 0 Changa ordar ^ Other TRANSMITTED VIA: □ PWI □ Mattangtr □ Fix nOthar ( < 1 r 1 { s f)A t F »nf STRIP r ION 2 Appiketlon and Certificate for Payment Na 6 • • . 1 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as chaekad balow: For approval Q Approvad as submictad □ For your usa Q Approvad as nocad As raquastad [U Returned for corrections I] For raviaw and conwnanc Q Other._______ □ for BIOS DUE_____________________ r~l Resubmit Submit_ Return cc copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Endosad are avo copies of Application and CartWcata for Payment Na 6 for work performed on the Lopg Laka Fira Station Pro|acc This appHcsdon has bean cartifiad in the antount of $275,15730. Please process for payment to Rochon CorporatkxL EOEDVElf^ Oa 1 2D02 COPY TO: Bin Wokara,Conttructiva Ideas. 901 Jaflarson Avenue, Suka 300, Sc ftuLMN 55102 Bn Haya, Rochon CorponKion3650 Annapolis Lane North. Plymouth, MN 55447 ROUTE COPY TO: CABK. 1515.01 Q:V»QFISII4i\lUiieMrd»2-e»eer ..g seidec niMid:«30«2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCf Oily DATE: October 9,2002 ITEM NO: / S' Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Highway i2 Right-of-Way Reconveyance and Pond Cost Allocation The Dahlstrom housing development proposal includes the reconveyance of a portion of Highway 12 right-of-way from Mn/DOT to the City to enable the construction of Kelley Parkway. Mn/DOT has placed a number of conditions on the reconveyance. All of these conditions arc acceptable to the City with the exception of the requirement that the City pay a S35.000 cost related to the stormwater ponds that are located adjacent to Highway 12. Mn/DOT has indicated that although the two ponds were required to handle stormwater from Highway 12, they are designed with a capacity sufficient to handle additional stormwater from several areas in Orono. in fact, Mn/DOT’s cost sharing analysis indicated that 80% of the stormwater entering the ponds would come from Orono while 20% would come from Highw ay 12, meaning Orono is responsible for paying 80% of the cost of the ponds. The City had not been aware of this cost sharing arrangement until it was brought up by Mn/DOT staff at the initial meeting regarding the right-of-way reconveyance. Subsequently, Mn/DOT has made this payment a condition of the reconveyance. Since staff learned of this condition, we have, with the assistance of the engineer for the Dahlstrom development, looked more closely at the design, drainage area, and functioning of the ponds. This analysis appears to show that the ponds were only designed to accommodate drainage at the level generated by undeveloped land. Based on this design, the ponds have not provided significant benefits to Orono or to the properties from which they receive stormwater drainage. Staffbelieves that Mn/DOT’s cost sharing information may be related to a much larger pond design that was originally intended to provide sufTicient capacity to serve all future development in the area bounded by Willow Drive, Old Crystal Bay Road, Highway 12 and County Road 6. This pond was substantially reduced in size late in the planning process for the Highway 12 Improvements Project because it was to be located in the middle of a prime commercial area at a time when it was not clear whether a large pond in that location would be compatible with the future development of the area. If the larger pond w'ould have been developed, it would have been reasonable for the City to pay a substantial portion of the cost and be reimbursed at the time of future development. How ever, the current ponds do not provide a benefit to the City or to current property owners or developers. In fact, as we have seen with the Dahlstrom proposal, the ponds are being redesigned and substantially expanded to serve the planned development. Staff is going to present this information to Mn/DOT in an effort to clarify the cost sharing issue. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL Ay^TION • ••• ocr Date: 10/09/02 '4288? Item No: C/TKo^nr. Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Good Chief of Police m Item Description: Selling of Forfeited Vehicles and Equipment Exhibits: Administrative Forfeiture Certificates for the 1993 Harley Davidson and the 1987 Plymouth DISCUSSION On June 23,2002 Orono Police seized a 1987 Plymouth VIN# :1P3BJ36K8HC321309 in reference to a DWl. On July 14,2002 Orono Police seized al993 Harley Davidson, Roadster, VIN" : 1HD4CFM18PY207163 in reference to a DWI. Neither owner contested the forfeiture of their respective vehicles. On 10/03/02 City Attorney, Ken Potts certified that the appeal time has expired and therefore the vehicles are now the property of the City of Orono. The Police Department has no need for these vehicles. The 2001 Ford Pickup that was forfeited to the City on August 18,2002 was equipped with a vinyl roll up access covei for the pickup bed. With the installation of a full topper on this truck for CSO use, the almost new roll up cover is not needed. The Police Department is preparing to ac' ertise for sal; the old CSO vehicle squad 184. Council has already authorized sale of this vehicle. All surplus items listed above will be sold by a sealed bid process after advertising the sale in the Star-Tribune. COIFNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Police Department would like permission to offer for sale the above described surplus items. STATE OF MINNESOTA ORONO CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE FORFEITURE CERTinCATE I hereby certify that a complaint has ofil been served on the Orono City Attorney’s Office sod filed with the District Court contesting the forfeiture of the 1993 Harley Davidson, VIN #: 1HD4CFM18PY207163 described in the attached Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit Vehicle which was served on Leslie Reuben Bergh on July 14. 2002 by the Orono Police Department. In addition, pursuant to Minn. Stat § 169A.63: o On July 19, 2002 the driver was convicted of the designated offense upon which the forfeiture is based. Therefore, the vehicle described in this Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit Vehicle is administratively forfeited because a civil complaint has not been served on the Orono City Attorney’s Office and filed with the District Court within 30 days following service of the Notice of Seizure and Forfeiture and the statutory prerequisites for forfeiture have been met Dated:ORONO CITY ATTORNEY Keiuieth N. Potts Orono City Attorney SIOl Thimsen Avenue Suite 200 Minnetonka, MN 55345 952-474-4240 f ■ .. STATE OF MINNESOTA ORONO CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE FORFEITURE CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that a complaint has not been served on the Orono City Attorney’s Office find filed with the District Court contesting the forfeiture of the 1987 Plymouth, VIN #: IP3BJ36K8HC32I309 described in the attached Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit Vehicle which was served on John Arthur Harmsen on June 23, 2002 by the Orono Police Department In addition, pursuant to Minn. Stat $ 169A.63: o On July 19, 2002 the driver was convicted of the desig^ted offense upon which the forfeiture is based. Therefore, the vehicle described in this Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit Vehicle is administratively forfeited because a civil complaint has not been served on the Orono City Attorney’s Office and filed with the District Court within 30 days foUowing service of the Notice of Seizure and Forfeinire and the statutory prerequisites for forfeiture have been met. Dated:ORONO CITY ATTORNFi' By Kenneth N. Potts Orono City Attorney 5101 Thirosen Avenue Suite 200 Minnetonka, MN SS34S 952-474-4240 1 ------------------- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION >=TINQ OCf I 4J8(e C'r>fwoflo^o DATE: October 10,2002 ITEM NO: Department Approval: N«bw LinVee \}^ Thk Chy Clerk ^ Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City AdministrstoT’s Report Item Description: Appointment of /Additional Election Judges for the November 5,2002 General Election - Resolution Council adopted Re^lutions #4849 appointing election judges for the September 10 Primary Election. Additional judges a'c needed for the General Election. Attached is a resolution listing the names of additional qualified persons who have indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the General Election to be held on November 5,2002. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution appointing additional election judges for the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5,2002. fi'^ "ir ia.r— ■ » Si A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 2002 BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws 204B.21, Subd. 2, in addition to the persons appointed as election judges for the Primary Election on September 10, 2002, the following persons are appointed as election judges for the General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, with the understanding that amendments may be necessary to the appointments in order to fill vacancies and meet party splits: John Brooks Laureen Darling Grant Garlinghouse Bruce Kelley Ann Hommeyer Charles Hommeyer Susan Jellison Nancy Krause Melvin McKee Daniel Fatten Dixie Rinehart Sally Valiton Janette Weaver Maige Wett Richard Wett Wes Wolverton Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held October 14,2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 1 of 1 w - ...•■=TiNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCf t 4 2002 Cl I Y UHORONO DATE; October 10,2002 ITEM NO: Jlf Approval: Name Lin Vee V Title Citv Cleric Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Establish Abscntce'^allot Board - Resolution Background Since the voter turnout in Orono for the General Election averages between 75% and 80%, the polling places are very busy with voters throughout the day. This leaves little time for election judges to process absentee ballots during the normal election hours. For example, during the 2000 General Election, there were a total of 4.752 ballots counted in Orono ’s four precincts, with 573 of the ballots being absentee. An absentee ballot board may perform a number of duties prior to election day, including “accepting” and “rejecting” absentee ballot envelopes. Accepting and Rejecting Absentee Ballot Envelopes During the process of “accepting” and “rejecting” absentee ballots, election judges or absentee ballot board members examine the absentee return envelope. The envelope would be marked “Accepted” if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that: 1. the voter ’s name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application; 2. the voter ’s signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the witness certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions; 3. the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a propterly completed registration card in the return envelope; and 4. the voter has not already voted at that election either in person or by absentee ballot. The election judges or absentee ballot board members would mark the envelope “Rejected” if the absentee voter has failed to meet any of the above requirements. Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board Election judges have indicated that it would be helpful to have at least a portion of the absentee ballot process completed prior election day. State Statutes have given municipalities the authority to establish an absentee ballot board by resolution for this purpose. Attached is a draft resolution ♦ w" • • ... i ». •' Request for Council Action cominu^d Page 2 of 2 October 10, 2002 Establish Absentee Ballot Board establishing an absentee ballot board to “accept” and “reject” absentee ballot envelopes during the 30 days prior to the General Election. By following this procedure, the ballot envelopes are not opened, and the polling place rosters are not marked indicating that the voter has voted by absentee, until election day when the absentee ballots in sealed envelopes are delivered to the polling place after the last nuul delivery. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending that Council establish an absentee ballot board composed of at least two election judges of different political parties appointed by the City Clerk. The absentee ballot board members would be compensated at the same rate as election judges, which is currently $6.50 or S7.0S for head judges. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing an absentee ballot board composed of at least two election judges of different political parties appointed by the City Clerk, with absentee ballot board members compensated at the same rate as election judges, which is currently $6.50 or $7.05 for head judges. r *4' . ■ .< « Tiffr c i ;■ Af', - X 1 ------^ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ABSENTEE BALLOT BOARD FOR THE 2002 GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 5,2002 Orono; and WHEREAS, the City Hall serves as an absentee ballot center for the residents of WHEREAS, State Statute Section 203B. 13, Subd 1 provides that an Absentee Ballot Board may be established by the City Council to facilitate the absentee voting process for an upcoming election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council hereby establishes an Absentee Ballot Board to do any of the following: A. A. Absentee Ballot Board members are authorized to receive, examine, and validate absentee ballots. This process of examining the return envelopes and marking them “accepted” or “rejected” may begin at any time during the 30 days before the election. If an envelope has been rejected at least 5 days before the election, the ballots in the envelope must be considered spoiled ballots and the official in charge of the Absentee Ballot Board shall provide the voter with a replacement absentee ballot and return envelope in place of the spoiled ballot. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED by the Orono City Council that: A Board of at least two election judges of different political parties shall be appointed by the City Clerk. B. Absentee Ballot Board members shall be compensated at the same rate as an election judge for their services. Adopted by the City Council of the City ot Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held October 14,2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Ma>'or Page 1 of 1 ........... REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ 4 2002 DATE: October 10,2002 ITEM NO: ^ X Approval: j Nanc LinVee ^ TMJc City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Establish Date and Time for Canvassing Board Meeting The City Council must select a date and time to convene as the Canvassing Board to certify the results of the municipal election being held in conjunction with the General Election on November 5,2002. This meeting must be held within seven days of the election according to State Statute. In the past, the Canvassing Board has met within a few days of the election, completed its work, and adjourned within 10 to IS minutes. • •»» REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCf ‘^tinq C«( f •i*DATE: October 9, lUP ITEM NO: J^3 Departneot Approval: Naac RooMoofw TMc CityAdmioisintor Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Teens Alone Request for Funding Continuation Teens Alone b a crisis and counseling service for youth and parents that works with School Districts and Cities. Attached is a letter outlining the services provided by Teens Alone, and requesting tiiiuationofthe annual funding in the amount of$800.00 provided by the City. ,» th COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve annual funding in the amount of $800.00 to Teens Alone. 'r f! I S.‘ I I ( N 6 t N S August 16,2002 F A M I I I E S T 0 6 E T N E I Ron MoorM CityofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RECEIVED il'O 1 9 TO CITY OF ORONO Dear Ron, Teens Alone just completed its third year serving youth (ages 10-18) and families living in the communities of the Orono School District, including Orono. Almost three years ago, representatives from your local Healthy Communities/Healthy Youth Collaborative committed to providing a crisis and counseling service for youth and parents and invited Teens Alone to fill that need. Collaborative and school district personnel had heard of our successful eleven- year history serving nu>re than 3000 youth and 1000 parents living in the Eden Prairie, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Wayzata school districts and ask^ to become part of our organization. As we request from all the conununities we serve, we are asking the municipalities served by the Orono School District to contribute to Teens Alone. Need for the Teens Alone Service In 2001, police departments in the Teens Alone service area reported 393 runaways, almost one-third fewer than 2000. Teens Alone is committed to helping youth who have run away and strives to help prevent a run from happening in the first place. One reason there may be a decrease in rtmaways is that Teens Alone is committed to be a more preventative service—addressing family problems before a young person leaves home. Although we know runaway numbers have decreased, we also know the actual number of runaways is really much higher because many parents don't report their child as a runaway to the police. A common occurrence and most often unreported to police, is a child either doesn't come home from school, or they have gone out in the evening and didn't come home. Although no one knows the exact number of unreported runaways, this is the content of frequent phone calls to Teens Alone from parents. 2001 Minnesota Student Survey runaway numbers reflect that more than 23% of ninth graders in our service area have nm away at least one time. Although police-reported nmaways have decreased, Student Survey respondents show an 8% increase from the 1998 Survey. The costs of running away are great for young people and their families. Runaways, particularly suburban youth who run into the urban areas, are at high risk of sexual exploitation, chemical abuse, hunger, and criminal victimization. The frmily, too, is at-risk for permanent breakdown because once a teen has left home—and the longer they are out on their own—the more difficult family reunification becomes. For some youth, running away has almost become a rite of passage. Seemingly mirior differences with parents can result in a youth running away. Some parents have adopted this mentality, thinking the only solution is to kick the teen out of the house. The most significant way in which Teens Alone has evolved in its eleven-year history is that our primary focus is no longer just working with runaway and homeless youth. Schools and other users of Teens Alone services refer families in crisis or conflict in order to prevent the dissolution of a fanuly. Teens Alone youth tell us: • 56% are experiencing failing grades • 42% have trouble communicating with their parents • 35% admit to using chemicals (and 15% are cotKemed about their parent's use) • 33% mention some kind of family violence, abuse, or neglect • 30% are truant III aiiaififir aoriias ■■ siiii saaia «st tii mu ceiatiiiac tsi «ii ma mi tsi tii nsi Hennepin County Data Teens Alone receives funding from Hennepin County as one of three County aeencies that p^t youth homlessne^." Teens Alone bills the County based on outcomes-the number of youth who are not in out-of-home placements after working with Teens Alone. Of 183 closed co!^ly-paI^ pSceme^^ ^ out-of-home. Evaluation Tew Alone evaluates its program by measuring results as they apply to our mission. An fo^ck te"^t!ve *heir family. The □ p% of young people and 69% of parents report their abUity to manage conflict increased. ® Q 85% of youth and 73% of parents saw an improved family relationship. O 96% of youth remained at home. □ 86% of parents report that their child was sHlI enrolled in school and that Teens Alone helped their child stay in school. a 93% of crisis calb were returned within 24 hours. □ 97% of Teens Alone clienb ranked the service good or excellent • • How the Community Benefits: □ Youth and family have free, easy, early access to coordinated services □ Increased number of at-risk youth wUl remain in their home community thus increase their likelihood to stay in school □ Improved chances of reconciliation resulting in stronger families □ Reduced number of young people living in unsupervbed situations □ Cwt-effective prevention and early intervenHon (e.g. abuse/chemical use, prosHtuKon, disease/ pregnancy/ criininal activity/ and hunger) □ A stronger, safer community. □ Reduced cosb associated with incarceration and other problems resulting from youth living in unsupervised living situations. O A local resource for youth and families in need and a resource for the Police Department. Target Population Teens Alone's target popi^tion b youth and their parenb who live in the Orono School Distnct and are experiencing faimly crbb or conflict and who may (or already are) at-risk of bwoming i^way, abandoned, or homeless. Most west suburban referrab are through the f'Sjr^tiferSi*'”' directly. No one needs City Funding Teens Alone is funded by a wide variety of sources —including Hennepin « 'unty, municipaliHes, corporations, foundations, and individuals (list atiached). ' < jnicipalities in our service area who fund Teens Alone: tiden Prairie $8(XX) Minnetonka $2(XX) Orono $800 Plymouth $2000 St. Loub Park $2000 Teens Alone appreciated Orono's donation of $800 in 2001. On behalf of the Teens AloneBoard of Directors, we are asking the City of Orono to contribute $800 thb fiscal year to support [ the Teens Alone program, already active in your coiPiiiunlty. (Teens Alone's fiscal year is July- June). Daily, we hear iram people who tell us the Teens Alone service maka a difieience in dreir community. We rely on the fiiumdal support of our cities and police departments in order to continu| to offer communities a fest, free, and effective cristo and counseling service. We are happy to serve youth and femilies who live in die Orono Sdiool District and would appreciate an $800 aimual contribudon. If you have questions, I can be reached at 952-988-4086. .ydial Executive Director Tmm Atom 03 Budget mcotm: Private Contributions Individual Contrtbutfons Fundraising Bantllts Hsnnspin County Local CoNaborativo Tims Study City Qovammsrrts School Districts: Community Ed In-Kind: HopMns District 270 In-Kind Othsr Interest Total Inoems D I • :NSE Salattes Taxes. Bsnsllts. Ratirsmsnt Program Intervlsvirer Professional Development Board Development Special Praie^ Dues & Memberships Meeting Expense Travel Audit and Accounting Advertising and Public Relations Postage Printing General Liability and Board Insurance Office & Computer Supplies Contracted Cwnseling Services Telephone FinarKiai/Shelter Assistance Equipmenl/Equipment Leasing Miscellaneous Phone Reimbursement HSD Surcharge YAB Bank charges Sub-Total Expense District 270 In-Kind Expense Program Ofllce Space Secretarial Support In-Kind Other Sub-Total In-Kind TOTAL Net $ $ s $ I FYE 2003 Budget 86,329 38.000 2.500 63.244 55,450 15.000 12.000 9,244 1,475 283,242 47,080 10.731 150 250 500 150 175 390 1,000 1,200 1,468 1.700 2,100 325 188,969 1,875 8,400 1,300 100 (65) 5.700 500 273,998 8,729 515 9,244 283,242 $ 0 $ FYE 2002 Actual 93,125 32,673 NA 63,244 55,450 15,800 12,000 8,975 1,411 282,678 45,709 10,418 30 210 311 184 125 585 934 640 1,252 1,548 2,072 296 183.246 1,873 8,173 1,199 8 (58) 6,006 NA 108 264,889 8.475 500 8,975 273.844 8.834 f - TmiwAIoim IneoiiM/ExMflM FYE 02 Balanco shoot oo of 0/30/02 A.Q.Ed«mds U8 Bank Checking Total Cash Oranis Raoaivabia Deposit Total Aaaato S $ $ s $ $ 117,275.87 1.054.45 118.330.32 4,500.00 150.00 122.880.32 UaMMaa Payabla to ISO #270 Deftfrad Contribution Total UoMlltes I $ 284.99 264.99 FundBaianoa Appropriated; Shaltar AaOatanoe Unappropriated FundBaianoa $ $ $ 45,398.00 77,317.33 122,715.33 Total LlabHNiea A Fund Balance 122,980.32 T9tn$ Alone 1$ nol nqulndt^ law to hMve an audU - T . ^ FYE 2002 FACTS The twkat Teens Alone youth client is: A16 or 17 year old (37%). Caucasian (75%), female (54%), referred by a concerned adult at school (72%). She is most likely to have been refeir^ b^use of family conflict (46%). More than one-third of )routh we meet (36 /o) have mentioned tt»ere is a real possibility of nmning away. She is currently living at home with both parents (40%). Thirty-seven percent of Teen Alone youtti live with only one parent. Teens Alone youth mention the following problems most often: Teens Alone youth mention the following problems most o/fen; 76% Experiencing poor communication and/or conflict with their parents. ^ 38% Failing grades. 25% Having difficulties with a teacher(s) ^ 19% Have problems expressing anger. 11% Encountering some kind of abuse or neglect 34% Using chemicals (and 10% are concerned with their parent's diemical use). > 35% Truant. ^ 21% In trouble with the law. •6- 33% Dealing with their parent's separation or divorce. Teens Alone counselors: Answered crisis calb Counseled TOTAL 418 286 » YOUTH 56 244 0 ADULTS 362 42 Teens Alone youth «mr ® 130 too •V Runiwajri/Thiowaway/AbindoBed PoteatUl Ruiuways/HoBieleM FaaUly Conflict An independent evaluator telephones Teens Alone’s clients. Here is what youth and famUies told us: 79% of parents report their ability to manage conflict increased. ♦ 78% of families saw an improved femily relationship. ^ 96% of youth remained at home. 78% of parents report ttut their child was sdU enrolled in sduwl and fiut Teens Alone helped their child to stay in s^ooL 0- 93% of crisis calls were returned within 24 hours. 97% of Teens Atone clients ranked the service good <vexcelfent. Teens Alone makes a difference. Please contrite! *. vi^ - ocr ujoK REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ORowo DATE: October 10.2002 m ITEM NO: Department Apprpval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Naae Lin Vee U*i>A>City Administrator’s Titk City Clerk Report Item Description: Resignation of Mary Aim Johnson Maiy Ann Johnson, the City ’s part-time Customer Service Assistant, has submitted her resignation to be effective October 10,2002. Mary Ann is retiring and will be moving to Mora, MN. Mary Ann has done an excellent job for the City and will be greatly missed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the resignation of Mary Ann Johnson from her position as the City ’s part-time Customer Service Assistant, effective October 10,2002. T A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO MARY ANN JOHNSON FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, Maiy Ann Johnson has served the City of Orono as Customer Service Assistant for four years; and WHEREAS, her years with the City have been marked by a commitment to service and a dedication to exceptional teamwork; and WHEREAS, Mary Ann has earned both the respect and the friendship of hei co*workers; and WHEREAS, Mary Ann is retiring from her position with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Mary Ann Johnson for her dedicated service to the City, and does highly commend her for the manner in which she has carried out her duties and responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council extends to Mary Ann its best wishes for a long, happy and healthy retirement. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Mirmesota at a regular meeting held this 14th day of October. 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OCF 1 4 2002 CITY OF OflONO DATE: October 10,2002 ITEM NO: Department Apprqval: Name Lin Vee TMe City Ckrk Adminbtrator Reviewed:m Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Rqwrt Item Description: Appointment of Part-Time Customer Service Assistant The process of hiring a replacement for ■? f<tft-time Customer Service Assistant position has been completed. The top candidate is Marilyn Zimmerman. Marilyn has many years of customer service and receptionist experience, most recently with the YMCA at Ridgcdale. Staff is recommending she be appointed to the part-time Customer Service Assistant position. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to appoint Marilyn Zimmerman to the position of part-time Customer Service Assistant at the pay rate of $12.54 per hour, which is Step 1 of Level 2 of the Administrative Support/Technical/Public Works Employee Pay Schedule, effective October 28,2002. ■* ntclM ” •••acting t 4 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ci i r uf 08o«,y DATE: October 11,2002 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse TUIc City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Scheduling of Council Woricsessions There are a number of work items to be addressed in a council work session. The major items are as follows: 1. 2003 budget A. Capital expenditures B. Enterprise Fund expenditures and fees C. Fund balatKe information 2. City Administrator Annual Performance Review 3. Telecommunications Towers Regulation Options 4. Issues related to the construction impacts of the Highway 12 project on Orono residents The Council may want to schedule two or three work sessions over the next month to address these items. The days and times that generally work best are Tuesday and Thursday evenings and Thursday and Friday mornings. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select dates and times for council woric sessions. anSia, r.n, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ” **CPTING I 4 2002 C»TyoFORo/Vo DATE: October 11,2002 ITEM NO: 2.^ DcpartL'icDt Approval: Name Roi. Moorsc Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Options for Managing Traffic During the Highway 12 Project During the Highway 12 project, the number of north/south roads linking central Orono to current Highway 12 will be reduced by half. This will cause increased traffic congestion on those roads left open, particularly at their intersections with current Highway 12. There are a number of actions that can be taken to facilitate the flow of traffic under these congested conditions. One action is to add left turn arrows to the traffic signals at both Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road at all legs of the intersections. As traffic gets heavier, those wanting to make left turns will have a more difficult time, and may tend to make less safe turns without a left turn signal. As congestion increases at the intt.'sections along current Highway 12, and as Orono Orchard Road is closed to through traffic at its north end for much of 2003, the residents in the area of Orono Orchard Road will have a difficult time using current Highway 12. It would be very helpful if County road 15 could be a viable alternative for them. Unfortunately, County Road 15 traffic level is so high that left turns from Orono Orchard Road onto County Road 15, particularly during peak traffic periods, are difficult or impossible. However, the traffic volumes at this intersection are not high enough to warrant a traffic signal. An option staff has begun to explore as a potential solution to the Orono Orchard Road access problem is the construction of a “round-about” at the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15. A round-about is a circular intersection that eliminates traffic crossing at right angles in favor of circular weavuig movements. Staff would like to further pursue the round-about concept with the City ’s consultant Engineer and Hennepin County. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize staff to pursue the left turn arrow additions to the traffic signals at theWillow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road intersections, and to pursue the round-about concept. ocr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/< f ^ ^2002 Of^ Date: 10/14/02 Item No: ^P' Dqiaitment Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Stephany Goodly Chief of Police Agenda Section: Name: Title: Item Description: Replacement of Police Department Copier Exhibits:None DISCUSSION The police department copy machine was installed in May 1996. It is still functional but the print quality is deteriorating despite service calls. The police department compared pricing on several similar machines from three different companies and recommends the purchase of a Savin machine from the IKON Office Solutions company at approximately $8,400, with a maintenance agreement cost of approximately $102.40 per month. This item was approved as part of the 2002 budget. None of the companies offered more than a $50 trade-in on the current machine. There are no city departments that are interested in taking it at this time. The Orono Community Education program known as the Fi Ay/FiRy Center (a non-profit organization that serves the communities in the Orono School District) indicated they would be grateful for such a donation. It is recommended that council consider donating the old copy machine to the Fi Ay/Fi Ay Center. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to purchase one Savin copy machine Aom Ikon Office Solutions at above price. Motion to dispose of the current police department copy machine through donation to the Orono Community Education program known as FiAy/FiAy. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I 4 son ‘■'"'"'•OHOIVO DATE: October 9,2002 ITEM NO: ^9 Department Approval: Nane RonMoorse Title City Administrator Adminfotrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Options Regarding Making Units in the Dahlstrom Housing Development More Affordable. Staffhave met with representatives of Dahlstrom Development to discuss the potential for reducing the cost of a number of condo and/'or townhouse units to a more affordable level, and ideally to a level that would make them eligible for additional funding assistance. The planned price points for the condos and townhouses are $225,000 and S315,000 respectively. Individual units will be priced higher or lower depending on location, size, etc.(i.e. an end unit townhouse has a higher price than a middle unit). The target price point that would make units eligible for additional funding assistance is $199,000. The developer has indicated he will target either two condo units and two townhouse units, or three townhouse units, for the $199,000 price point, but this requires participation by the City in the form of waiving development fees(i.e. sewer and water connection charges, park dedication fees, stormwater trunk fees, and building permit fees. The development fees, allocated on a oer-unit basis, are as follows: ■Sewer and water connection fees: ■Park dedication fee: ■Stormwater tnmk fee: ■Building permit/plan review fees: Total $3,500 $3,250 $1,400 $2.000 $10,150 per unit Before we move any further in this process, it is important that the Council determine whether it wants to work with the developer to provide a number of units at prices that are more affordable, whether the prices should be reduced enough to make the units eligible for additional financial assistance, and whether the City should reduce its fees to assist in providing lower cost units. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to provide direction regarding the provision of a number of units in the Dahlstrom housing development that are more affordable, and regarding the City ’s financial participation in this effort. «TINQ OCM 4 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF OR qno DATE: October 11.2002 ITEM NO: Department Approval: NaoM Lin Vee TMk City Cleric Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval There are no licenses. ------------.Aj I I ilflTii HI lib r CITYOFORONO *Check Detail Registei®Oct 1(V11/02 12:37 PM "5 P«9* 1 OCTOBER 2002 Check Amt Invoic* Comment cvvo 3( 10100 Primafy Cash * ^IdChMP 07^7 i6/0/2002 RICKS Si^ERVALUE E 101-41300^89 Other MtscaRaneous Charges Total RICKS SUPERVALUE $60.07 10/10/02 Meat/Cheesa-M Johnson $60.07 ChMP 07 i—T >WrVS 2 JUBILEE F •I*! E 101-41300-489 Other MisoeHanaous Charges Total JUBILEE POODS $25.99 10/10/02 Cake-M Johnson Retiremant $25.99 Paid Chk« 074409 10/9/2002 OFFICER'S PAMILY NETWORK E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $300.00 Conference Total OFFICER'S FAMILY NETWORK Oflloar Family Naferork Conf $300.00 Paid ChkS 074410 10/10/2002 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 601-49400-322 Postage $77.82 10/10A)2 E 602-49450-322 Postage $194.54 10/10A)2 E 651-49910-322 Postage $194.54 10/10/02 Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Postage - 3rd Qtr UB Postage - 3rd Qtr UB Postage - 3rd Qtr UB I $466.90 I. PaldChk* 074411 10/10/2002 PIZZA HUT E 101-42110-437 Training & Oevelupment Total PIZZA HUT $102.61 10/10/02 Lunch • 1st Respofxler Tmg $102.61 l^aid £hki 6Vm12 10/14/2002 ANOERSbk. KRISTI E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Serv'oes Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $160.00 10/7/02 $160.00 10/7/02 Council Minutes 9/23 Park Minutes 10/7 $320.00 PaidChk# 074413 10/14/2002 APACHE GROUP E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total APACHE GROUP $505.13 70779 Multifbid Toarel $505.13 PaidChk# 074414 1WT4/2002 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-41900-201 Omca supplies $163.50 6013-275875 E 101-42110-^139 Meeting Expenses E 101-41900-201 Office supplies Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $109.00 6013-275876 $111.80 6013-275877 Coffee. Cream Coffee. Cream Coffee. Cream $384.30 PaidChk# 074415 10/14/2002 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES E 101-41900-321 Telephone $23 62 3419397 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $9.26 3419397 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $9.25 3419397 Total AT S T WIRELESS SERVICES Can Phones Cell Phones Ceil Phor>es $42.13 Paid Chk# 074416 10/14/2002 AUOIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resaie-Txbl Total AUOIES MOBILE CHEF $50 62 2406 hot dogs Ahamb $50 62 PaidChk# 074417 10/14^2 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS E 602-49450-201 Office supplies E 651-49910-201 Office supplies E 601-49400-201 Office supplies _ Total BANYONDATASYSTEMS $117 82 9496 $157 09 9496 $39.27 ^96 UB Certification Module UB CeitHIcation Module UB Certificatton Module $314.18 Ik# 074418 10/14/2002 BATTERIES PLUS E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $74 83 123936 Batteries CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11/02 12:37 PM Page 2 OCTOBER 2002 Total BATTERIES PLUS Qieck^jt $74.83 Invoica Comment Paid Chki 074419 10/14/2002 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 aher Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200^15 Other Equipment Rentals E 613-4983C-4 15 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals Total BIFFS INC. $140.52 $14052 $140.5: $80.91 $338.26 W170417 W170418 W170419 W170420 W170421 Portable - Biderwood Portable • Summit Bch Portable - Hacfcberry Portable - GC Portable - Navarre Prfc $840.73 Paid Chki 074420 10/14/2002 BONESTROO ROSENE S ASSOC. E 406-48735-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering4:onsulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engine* ing-Consulting E 613-49830-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const In progress G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting Total BONESTROO ROSENE A ASSOC. $184.00 $184.00 $182.50 $100.00 $99 35 $510.00 $250.50 $222.00 $1,912.89 $529.50 $1.168 00 $1,692.18 $1,647 19 $590.15 90496 90496 90496 90496 90496 90496 90496 90496 90496 90497 90497 90499 90500 90501 North Arm Lane Paving Transportation Study Review OCB Rd Maps & Topo • TKOA Council Mtgs July 2002 July Other Expense Storm Pond SB-15 Wetland Deiin GC Prelim Layout A Survey SWMP Revisions Applications 7/2002 SCADA 7/2002 Sanitary Sewer Mapping Highwood Storm Swr Co Rd 19 Sidewalk Rest Point Rd Paving S9.272.26 Paid Chk» 074421 10/14/2002 BOYER FORD B TRUCK E 602-49450-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total BOYER FORD A TRUCK $29.13 410305 Cab Air Filter $2913 PaM dhki 074422 10/14/2002 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. G 602-16500 Fixed AsMt-Con»t in progrvM 6293 Total BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. $1.U7.99 3/4 Minus Limestone Paid Chki 074423 10/14/2002 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-41900-321 Telephone ToUl BUDGET PRINTING $8 33 9/26A)2 UPS Charges - Arch Wireless $833 Paid Chk# 074424 10/14/2002 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. E 101-43000-224 Street Main! Matanals/Supply $161.49 12330 Total BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Hand Patch $161 49 Paid Chki 074425 10/14/2002 CARLSON TRACTOR A EQUIP CO. E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories ^962 2007538 ToUl CARLSON TRACTOR A EQUIP CO. $69 82 Switch #430 Paid Chk# 074426 10/14T002 CHAMPION AUTO STORES E 101-43000-22 . lUipment Parts A Accessories $38 32 D165241 Misc Supplies ToUl CHAMPIONAUTOSTORES $38 32 PaklChk# 074427 10/14/2002 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Aulo Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Rapairs/Maint-Auto Equip Rapairs/Mamt-Auto Equip $56 80 $161 98 $84 00 $665 62 $137.08 22555 22558 22570 22594 22605 Dtfitfential #165 Battery. Diagnostics #187 Diagnostics #189 Exhaust Conv #189 Oa. Wig Wag #191 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 10/11/02 12:37 PM Page 3 OCTOBER 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 10142110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total CHUNKS LAKE8HORE AUTO $227.29 $29 64 $431.94 $37.00 $104.00 $70.00 $3500 $2.040 35 22606 22610 22628 22672 22673 22685 22689 Oil. Trans #188 Oil #18^ Oil. Ign Overide #192 Wig Wag i188 WigWaf.Hdlighti187 Window #191 Diagnostic #192 )>aid Chk« 074428 10/14/2002 CITYOFBLOOMIMOTON E 60149400489 Other Misoellaneous Charges Total CITY Or BLOOMINOTUN $30^ 9/30/02 $30.00 Coliform Testing 7/1-9/30/02 Paid Chk# 074429 10/14/2002 CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH E 60249450-387 Intergovernmental Services $96 00 Total CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH $9^' 976606 Sewer - 2090 Shoreline f>ald dhid 6744^ 10/14/2002 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH E 10141110439Meeting Expenses $4516 10/11/02 Budget WS E 10142400-441Licenses 6 Taxes $1450 10/11/02 Tabs • D&Z Truck E 10142400439Meeting Expenses $14.37 10/11/02 Cookies • PC Ws E 10141110439Meeting Expenses $1200 10/11/02 Council WS E 10141900-201Office supplies $1060 10/11/02 Binders - Budget E 10141900-322Postage $10.05 10/11/02 Postage • GFOA E 10141900-201Office supplies $070 10/11/02 Distilled Water E 10141900-322Postage $188 10/11/02 Postage Due E 10142400439Meeting Expenses $878 10/11/02 Cookies-PC Ws E 10142400439Meeting Expenses m8 10/11/02 Cookies - PC Ws ToUl CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH $127 02 Paid Chk# 074431 10/14/2002 CLASSIFIEDS E 10M1900-3S2Printing & Publishing $85 50 19559 Adv for Emp - CS E 101.42110-340General Advertising $85 50 19560 Adv for Emp - PT Officer Total CLASSIFIEDS $171 00 Paid Chk# 074432 10/14/2002 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION E 40248006-530 Other Improvements $32,451 38 T79 21300020 Hwy 12 Safety 152-010-01 Total COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION $32.451 38 PakTChki 074433 10/14/2002 CROWN MARKING INC. E 101-41900-201O^ice supplies ToUl CROWN MARKING INC. $1917 $1917 4005 Name Platts Paid Chk# 074434 10/14/2002 CYS UNIFORMS E 10142110-226Clothing & personal equipment $157 90 12103 Pants - Wittke E 10142110-226Clothing & personal equipment $122 30 12583 Pants - J Johnson E 10142110-226Clothing & personal equipment $7485 12747 Shirts - McNichols Totel CYS UNIFORMS $355 05 Paid Chk# 074435 10/14/2002 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO. E 602-494SO-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $1.11625 3133147 Line Tracer E 601-49400-240Small Tools and Minor Equip $1.11625 3133147 Line Tracer Total DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO.$2,236.50 PaidChk# 074436 TO/14/2002 OCA-WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts $911 25 ^0nU02 Flax Spending -10/2/02 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11/02 12:37 PM Page 4 OCTOBER 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment ToM DCA-WIRE ONLY $911.25 Paid Chk« 074437 10/14/2002 DELTA DENTAL 0101-21709 Dental Insurance Tout DELTA DENTAL $1,150.30 37220072 Dental Premiums 10/02 $1,150.30 AaMCMOl 074438 10/14/2002 OEpt Of AOM • INTERTECH GROUP E 101-42110-311 Data Processing Communication $37 00 DV0208114 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $4125 W02080612 E 101-41900-321 Telephone $96 25 W02080612 Total DEPT OF ADM • INTERTECH GROUP PVC - August 2002 Phone Service 6/2002 Phone Service 8/2002 $174.50 Paid Chk« 074439 10/14/2002 DEPT OF PUBUC SAFETY E 101-42110-414 EOP/Communicatk>ns Equ^ Rent Total DEPT OF PUBUC SAFETY $510 00 MN02715003C CJDN Connect 3rd Qtr 02 $510.00 RaidOhlur 074440 10/14/2002 DPMS E 101-42110-437 Training & Development Tout DPMS $64995 103328 Armorers School • Tomcheck $649.95 Paid Chief 074441 10/14/2002 EJ MAYERS INC E 602-49450-406 Repalrs/Maint-Swr lines/lifls Total EJ MAYERS INC $800.00 203 Repair Invert $800.00 Paid Chk# 074442 10/14/2002 EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC. E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Materlats/Suppty $1,019.05 49483 E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Suppty EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC. $318 72 49793 Street Signs Street Signs ToU!$1,337.77 Paid Chk# 074443 10/14/2002 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE E 613-499004)91 Beer For Resale Total EAST SIDE BEVERAGE $6675 299294 $6625 beverage re^ie Paid Chk# 074444 10/14/2002 EASTMAN KODAK CO E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-OfAce Equip Total EASTMAN KODAK CO $4^500 259NQ8190 $415^00 Maint Contract-MicrofUm Reade Paid Chk# 074445 10/14/2002 ELECTRIC PUMP L C02-49450-406 Repairs/Maint-Swr linesnifts ToMI ELECTRIC PUMP $M77.68 21585 $1.477 68 LS #8 Pump Repair Paid Chk« 074446 10/14/2002 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $101 58 12692 Total EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC $10L58 Ignition Override Paid Chk# 074447 10/14/2002 ENCHANTED GARDEN FLORAL G 101-19999 Suspense Account $35 63 1704 Tout ENCHANTED GARDEN FLORAL $35A3 Plant • Klein Paid Chk# 074448 10/14/2002 ESS BROTHERS A SONS E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies E 602-49450-227 Utility System Main! Supplies E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies Total ESS BROTHERS A SONS $276.90 EE4279 $485 64 EE4354 $10331 EE4.527 Infrashield Rings AdjRing $86585 ^aU Chk# 0)^4449 10/l4/2002 FAEGRE A BENSON LLP E 101-43290-800 Special Projects. Contingency $765.00 748631 Equip Cert Legal E)® CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 10/11/02 1237 PM Pages OCTOBER 2002 Check AfiiC Invoice Conimenl - Total FAE0REBBEN30NLLP $765.00 f^aid Chki 074450 W14/2002 FRANAANDBON8.INC E 415^8930-319 Other Profettional Seivioet Total FRANA AND SONS. INC $5J)15.0q^ 15753 $5,015^00 Seiwer Relocation - Sr Htir>g rarCKHToTHsi 10/14/2002 freshwater society E 101-41410412 BuHding Rentals Votal FRESHWATER SOCIETY PaidChk# 074452 10714/2002 OS K SERVICES E 10142110404 E 60249450-226 E 10143000-226 E 61349630-226 E 60149400 226 E 10143000404 E 10141900404 E 10141900404 E 10143000-221 E 10143000-226 E 60249450-226 E 61349830-226 E 60149400-226 E 10143000-226 E 60249450-226 E 61349830-226 E 60149400-226 E 10143000-226 E 10143000-221 E 60249450-226 E 61349830-226 E 60149400-226 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Orounds Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Equipment Parts A Accessories Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipnf>ent Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equ4>ment Equipment Parts A Accessories Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipnient Clothing A personal equipment Total OAKSERVICES Paid Chk# 074453 iWl4/2002 GENUINE PARTS CO E 60249450-221 E 10142400402 E 10142110-221 E 10143000-221 E 60249450-221 E 10143000-221 E 10142110-212 E 60249450-223 E 10142110-221 E 10143000-221 E 10143000-221 E 10142110-221 E 10143000-222 E 10143000-222 Equipment Parts A Accessories Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Motor Fuels A Lubricants Bldg/Grounds Mainl Supplies Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Equipment Parts A Accessories Vehicle Equipment A Parts Vehicle Equipment A Parts Total GENUINE PARTS CO. J735 00 $735.00 9205 Room Rental - Election $7245 271548 mats $2661 326990 Uniforms $62.06 326990 Uniforms $7 88 326991 Uniform - Stephenhagen $14 43 326992 Unifomt - Rathbun $9285 326993 Mat Service $50 66 326994 Mat Service - CH $50 66 326996 Ma: Service - CC $5219 333994 shop Toieels $65 35 333994 Uniforms $28.01 333994 Unifbrms $7 88 333995 Unifonn - steffenhagen $1443 333996 Uniform - Rathbun $6206 341034 Uniforms $26 61 341034 Uniforms $7.88 341035 Uniform - Steffenhagen $14.43 341036 Uniform - Rathbun $28.01 347997 Uniforms $5219 347997 Shop Toe/ets $65 35 347997 uniforms $7 88 347998 Uniform - Steffenhagen $1443 347999 Uniform - Rathbun $82430 $1276 710311 Trans X $1846 711798 Switch - 6AZ Trk $3 51 889820 Misc Supplies $39.62 889967 Filter.GaskeL CInr $9957 889968 Misc Supplies ($15 04) 890054 Filter Kit, Fuel Line $4 25 890307 Antifreeze $819 890638 Cable Ties $138 34 890752 Wiper Blades $2224 891549 Bulb, Spark Plug $925 891628 Splash Gaurd $40 46 892775 Velcro $16401 893472 Attemator #431 $25 87 893473 V-Belt $571 59 Paid Chk# 074454 10/14/2002 GOLF CAR MIDWEST E 61349830415 Other Equipment Rentals E 61349830415 Other Equipment Rentals ($0 96) 202126 $1.334 04 WXm Credit on Account Goir Cart lease 9/02 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11/02 12:37 PM Pages ToUi GOLF CAR MIDWEST OCTOBER 2002 Check Amt invoice Cemmewt $1.333 08 Paid Chkf 074455 10/14/2002 GOPHER STATE ORE-CALL E 602-49450-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $60.45 2080615 E 601-49400-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $60.45 2080615 ToUl GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $12^ August Locates August Locates Paid dhk« 074456 10/14/2002 GRAFIX SHOPPE E 101-42110-550 Automotive Equipment Total GRAFDC SHOPPE S280.10 26645 $2Mt0 Graphics-Sqd 195 Paid Chki 074457 10/14/2002 GREENIMAGE 0613-16420 Fixed Asset-Other equipment $19,583.00 2000325 JD 2653A SNfTC2653D090364 Total GREENIMAGE $197^ 00 Paid Chkf 074458 10/14/2002 HAWKINS CHEMICAL E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products $99302 468274 chlonne Total HAWKINS CHEMICAL $993 02 Paid Chkf 074459 10/14/2002 HENNEPIN C04)P SEED EXCHANGE E 101-43000-224 Street Malnt Matenals/Supply $48 94 29746 Grass Seed E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Matehals/Suppty ____$48 94 29825 Grass Seed Total HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE •S.-88 dhk* 074460 10/14/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $37160 072202 booking Ues 7/02 E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $185 80 081302 booking fees 7/02 ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF $557.40 Paid Chkf 074461 10/14/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR SRV E 101-42110-201Office supplies $112.50 2002-71 Mailing Labels ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR SRV $1127 m Paid Chk« 074462 10/14/2002 HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER - PW E 602-49450441 Licenses & Taxes $262 00 HCRR00733 Dakota Rail Lease ToUl HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER-PW $262 00 l^aid Chk« 074463 10/14/2002 HERC-U-LIFT E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $105 31 01p7188680 loader parts E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories ($17.30) 2092601 Credit on Account Tout HERC-U-LIFT $8801 Paid Chka 074464 10/14/2002 HINSHAW A CULBERTSON E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting $1.962 38 10248124 Application May/June 2002 E 101-41C0O-307 Legal-Consulting $320 00 10248125 Gen Legal E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $184 00 10248125 FMLA Issues E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $130 00 10248125 WayzaU Marine - Speakers E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $579 76 10248125 Purchase Agree-Hwy 12/OCBRd E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $1.679 00 10248125 Ed Miller Matte*’ E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $1.395 00 10248125 Hollander Hazardous Bldg E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting $520.00 10248125 Gen Land Use Matters E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer $1,322.32 10248126 Council Migs May - June 2002 E 101-41000-307 Legal-Consulting $48 00 10248127 Oen Legal June Total HINSHAWACULBERTSON $8.14046 E 101 421 iO-401 Repairs/Mamt-Ofnce Equip $79 33 31235 Typewriter Maintenance CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11A)2 12 37 PM Page? E10M19004(H Rtpairt/MaiTYt-Ofrice Equip Total HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES OCTOBER 2002 Check Amt Invoice Commefil S39.67 31235 Typeieriter Maintenance $119.00 Paid Chk« 074466 10/14/2002 HORNAOY E 101-42110-228 Training Supplies $507.60 243989 Ammo for Shoot Total HORNADY $507.60 Paid ChkS 074467 10/14/2002 HUMANE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO E 101-42110-317 Animal Care $42.50 5803 Total HUMANE SOaETY OF WRIGHT CO $42 50 Board Paid Chki 074468 10/14/2002 INTOXIMETERS E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts S Accessories Total INTOXIMETERS $181.05 103963 $181.05 PBT Mouthpieces l^ald diiki 074469 10/14/2002 J H LARSON COMPANY E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total JH LARSON COMPANY $15.05 4302571-01 LS Control Panel Lights $15.05 Paid Chki 074470 10/14/2002 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA E 231-45650-307 Legal-Consulting Total KENNETH N. POTTS. PA $2,391.66 10/1/02 Prosecutions - 9/02 $2,391.66 Paid Chki 074471 10/14/2002 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC E 101-42110-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip Total KUSTOM SIGNALS INC $1^0^136211 $140 00 Radar Repair Paid Chki 074472 10/14/2002 LACAL EQUIPMENT INC E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Totol LACAL EQUIPMENT INC J353.^ 2209525 $35350 Blades. Clevis PaikTil^ 074473 10/14/2002 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $6 37 38851 Spark Plug • Cut off Saw E 101-43000-403Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip $62.44 39239 Repair - Pole Saw E 101-43000-403 Repairs/Maint-MIsc. Equip $135 48 39345 Repair - Pole Saw E 101-43000-403Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip $151.41 39549 Chain Saw Repair E 602-49490-403RepaIrs/Maint-Misc. Equip $19.51 39734 Generator Repair E 613-49630-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $15 93 40056 Chain E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $33.29 40076 CarbKit ToUl LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT $42443 Paid Chki 074474 10/14/2002 LUBE TECH E 101-43000-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $25227 1437200 Motor Oa E 101-43000-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $15017 887717 Gear Lube Total LUBE TECH $402 44 Paid Chki 074475 10/14/2002 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKIS CO E 101-41900-301Auditing and Accfg Services $3.423 00 9829 Audit RFP #3 Final E 101-43290400Special Protects. Contingency $710 00 9829 Audit Joint Fira Proj E 602-49450-301 Auditing and Accfg Services $3.603 00 9829 AudR RFP «3 Final E 101-41900-301Auditing and Accfg Services $524 00 9829 Audit Raim Eapanaa E 61349830-301 Auditing and Accfg Services $2,392.00 9829 Aud4RFP#3Final E 601-49400-301 Auditing and AocTg ServioH $202.00 9629 Aud4RFP#3Final Total MALLOYMONTAOUEKAWKMVSKIACO $10,854.00 l>aUChW oySTS 1(Vf4/2002 MAtUNE Cd»ANY E 101-42110-221 EquipnwfltPaite&AoontoriM $44.80 8482S0 Anilmicrobial Soap CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® OCTOBER 2002 Total MRSUNE COMPANY Chick^H Involco Comment $44.80 PaW CfW 074477 10/14/2002 MATRX E 802-40450-226 Clothing A personal equipment E 602-49450-226 Clothing A personal equipment E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total MATRX $43 80 789538 $43 80 790246 $72.65 791160 Gloves gloves Masks $160.25 Paid ChidP 074478 10/14/2002 MCLEOD USA - PHONE BILLS E602-494S0-321 Telephone $52.45 6/2002 Phona BINS-6/2002 E 101-41900-321 Telephone $472 06 6/2002 Phone Bills-6/2002 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $202.31 6/2002 Phone BiUs-6/2002 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $5587 6/2002 Phone B«s-6/2002 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $47.41 6/2002 Phone Bins -6/2002 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $22 48 6/2002 Phone Bills - 6/2002 E 227-45500-570 Office Equip and Furnishings ($3,000 00) 6/2002 Equipment Credit E 602-49450-321 Telephone $47.47 7/2002 Phone Service E 601-49400-321 Telephone $22.50 7/2002 Phone Service E 602-49450-321 Telephone $52.49 7/2002 Phone Service E 101-42110-321 Telephone $202.46 7/2002 Phone Service E 101-41900-321 Telephone $472.42 7/2002 Phone Service E 601-49400-321 Telephone $5591 7/2002 Phone Service E 101-41900-321 Telephone $47407 8/2002 Phone Service 6/2002 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $203.17 8/2002 Phone Service 6/2002 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $55.91 8/2002 Phone Service 6/2002 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $52.67 8/2002 Phone Service 6/2002 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $47.47 8/2002 Phone Service 6/2002 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $22.57 8/2002 Phone Service 6/2002 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $5543 9/2002 Phone Service 9/2002 E 101-41900-321 Telephone $46162 9/2002 Phone Service 9/2002 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $53.52 9/2002 Phone Service 9/2002 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $206 42 9/2002 Phone Service 9/2002 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $22.94 9/2002 Phone Service 9/2002 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $46 96 9/2002 Phone Service 9/2002 Total MCLEOD USA - PHONE BILLS $428 58 E 101-43290-510 Und Total MIUER« EDWARD H J^aid 6hki 6^4482 l6/14/2002 MiNNdbMM E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone Tout MINN COMM $5.075 00 10/14/02 Well Buy Out $5.07500 $38.04 20261010027 $62 65 48300510020 $100 69 ' Pofio* Pagan PW Pagan Paid ChU IMn NEAPOUS OXYOEN COMPANY E 101-43000-221 Equipmant P«tt & Am»orlas $30.67 R109020891 Aoalyiana, Osygan 10/11/02 12:37 PM Pages ^aid ChkS 074479 10/14/2002 MIDWEST AQUA CARE E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds ToUl MIDWEST AQUA CARE $300 00 9/20ff)2 $300.00 Pond Main! Paid Chk# 074480 10/14/2002 MIDWEST FUELS E10M3000-212 Motor Fuels A LubricanU $550.00 95945 500 Gals Diesel 0101-14101 Gasoline Inventory $2.06165 95950 1542 Gals Unleaded Total MIDWEST FUELS $2,611.65 Jtktm CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 10/11/02 1237 PM Page 9 OCTOBER 2002 ■Si k Amt Invoice Comment E 101-42110-224 Equipment Parts A Acoetsories ToUl MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $15.97 RI09020892 Cylinder Rental $46.24 Paid Chki 0744^ 1CV14/2002 MN DEPT Of HEALTH •CON FEE • 0601-20602 Due to govts-State S1.134.00 1270041 Connection Fee 3rd Qtr 02 Total MN DEPT OF HEALTH-CON FEE $1,134.00 Paid Chki 074465 10/14/2002 MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC. E 101-41900-319Other Professional Servioas S60.00 517309 FCC License Renewal Total MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC.$60 00 Paid Chki 074466 10/14/2002 MR AUGIES COFFEE SERVICE E 613-499004)92Soh Drinks For Resale $49.50 21555 coffee Total MR AUGIES COFFEE SERVICE $49 50 Paid Chki 074467 10/14i2002 MUNICIPALS E 10M130(M37Training & Development $35.00 10/30^2 Fall Meeting - Vee E 10M130(M37Training A Development $35.00 10/30/02 Fall Meeting - Leskinen Total MUNICIPALS $7000 Paid COM 0744M 10/14/2002 NAVARRE CITOO E 613-49630-403Repairs/Maint-Mtsc. Equip $28 76 9/12A)2 Tire Repair. Labor Total NAVARRE CrrOO $2876 Paid Chki 074469 10/14/2002 NAVARRE HARDWARE E 101.45200-221Equipment Parts A Accessc'ies $1141 107165 Chain - Park Benches E 10M3000-221Equipment Parts A Acoes^Aories $12.76 107239 Markir>g Paint E 101.43000.221Equipment Parts A Accessories $6.26 107241 lOOw Bulbs E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $372 107242 MtscTool E 613-49630-201 Office supplies $15 16 107306 Batteries E 101-42110-201Office supplies $764 107396 Kleenix. Alcohol E 101-45200-223Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $14 26 107491 Misc Supplies E 101-45200-223Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $21 29 107551 Brush B-gon E 613-49630-201 Office supplies $19.17 107616 Insect Repellent E 101-45200-223Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $3.17 107670 BuR Nails E 10M2400-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $16.49 107836 Tape Measure - Insp E 101.43000.221Equipment Parts A Accessories $1594 107940 Batteries. Markers E 101-42110-226Training Supplies $733 106090 Bulk Nalls. Hrdwre E 10M1900.201Office supplies $445 106265 Keys. Keyring E 602.49450.227 Utility System Maint Supplies $1169 106302 Paint E 101.42110-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $74.42 106396 Marking Paint E 101-42110221Equipment Parts A Accessories ($23 39) 106501 Return • Paint Total NAVARRE HARDWARE $223 81 Paid Chki 074490 10/14/2002 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-321Telephone $755 66 506573311-01 Police Cell Phones Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $755 86 Paid Chkl^ 074491 10/14/2002 NORLING'S E 10145200404Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $2,100.00 17713 Topsoil. Seed Navarre Park E 10143000408Contracted Street Maint.$677 00 17716 Repair Erosion - Kelley Ave Total NORUNG*8 $2.977 00 E 101-43000-226 Clothing 4 personal equipment Total OBRIEN, RAmY $10000 10/KV02 $100.00 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11/02 12 37 PM Page 10 E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E10M1900-201 Office supplies Total OFFICE DEPOT OCTOBER 2002 Check Ami Invoice Comment $155 36 $18987 $1841 $22.49 $153.90 $188.08 $728.11 181270559-00 181270559-00 181291287-00 181291287-00 181636967 181636967-00 Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Paid Chk# 074494 10/14/2002 OLSON. RON E 101-41500-437 Training S Development Total OLSON. RON $8660 10/1/02 $86.60 Miteage-GFOAConf Paid Chk« 074495 10/14/2002 OROKO ROTARY E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses $127.00 50 DuesAfoats6/1-9/30A)2 Tout ORONO ROTARY $12700 Paid Chk# 074496 10/14/2002 OTTEN BROTHERS E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $94 68 271406 Plants-GC Tout OTTEN BROTHERS $94.M Paid Chk# 074497 10/14/2002 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $47 56 669837 Acetylene Regulator Tout OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY $47.56 Paid Chk# 074498 10/14/2002 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 0 101-21710 Life Insurance $240 00 67321002 PERA Life • 10^2 Tout PERA UFE INSURANCE $2^.00 ^aid Chk# 074499 10/14/2002 PIONEER E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $95 52 341 Land Use Applications E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $31.84 344 Land Use Applications E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing $17 91 345 Notice of Accuracy Tst Tout PIONEER $145^27 ’ Paid Chki 074500 10/14/2002 PLUNKETTS E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $6923 8^5929 pest control E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $7988 S-66479 Paper Wasp Exterm ToUl PLUNKETTS $14911 Paid ChKi 074501 10/14/2002 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC. E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $58 58 9593 Mowing - French Lake Park ToUl PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC.$M58 Paid ChMI 071502 10/14/2002 PRESS S NEWS PUBLICATIONS E 101-41900-352 Pnnting & Publishing $137 20 2526251-001 Adv fbr Emp • CS ToUl PRESS S NEWS PUBLICATIONS $137.20 Paid Chk# 074503 10/14/2002 PROTECTION ONE E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $17900 12677951 Quaitady Alarm Service ToUl PROTECTION ONE $17900 Paid ChW 074504 10/14/2002 QWEST E 613-49430-340 General Advartitlng $240 80 6124739904 Directory Adv E613-40830-321 Telephone $5917 6124739904 Phone Service E 601-49400-321 Telephone $103 00 612E440016 Phone Service CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11/02 12 37 PM Page 11 OCTOBER 2002 Checli Amt Invoice Comment Total QWEST S402.97 Paid Chk# 074505 10/14/2002 RATHBUK BARRY E 101-43000-226 Clothing & personal equipment Tout RATNBUN. BARRY $100.00 10/10^2 Safety Shoes $100.00 Paid Chki 074506 10/14/2002 REEDVENDINO E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbi Total f^OVENOUiO $78 05 3972 Concessions For Resale $7805 Paid Chk# 074507 10/14/2002 REUANT ENERGY E 601-49400-381 Gas & Electric E 101-42110-381 Gas & Electric E 602-49450-381 Gas & Electric E 101-41900-381 Gas 8 Electric E 613-49830-381 Gas A Electric Total RELIANT ENERGY $401.29 060006750600 Gas Service $33 80 060006750600 Gas Service $11.24 060006750600 Gas Service $41.30 060006750600 Gas Service $1^98 101302 gas service $503 61 Paid Chk# 074508 TM4/2002 RETTINGER BROS OIL CO. E 101-41410-439 Meeting Expenses Total RETTINGER BROS ON. CO. $2 75 54926 $2.75 Ice - Primary Election Paid d^kii 6>4^ 10/14/2002 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses ToUl RICKS SUPERVALUE $44.08 9/12A)2 $9.84 9/20/02 $13 03 9/30/02 $17.04 9/30/02 $8399 Insect Repettant - GC Napkins. Soap GC Supplies Water. Ice Paid Chk# 074510 10/14/2002 SCHARBER 8 SONS E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $8 01 2020243 AdtuatarP450 E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $6 34 2029552 Moerer Deck Mod E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $128.23 2029569 Vac Hose. Pin Tout SCHARBER t SONS $142!58~ t^aidChki 074511 10/14/2002 SEH G 602-16500Fixed Asset-Const in progress $7.034 57 91567 Wiiiow Dr/Fire Station Sewer Tout SEH $7,034*57 * Paidihte 074512 10/14/2002 STANTONGROUP E 101-4V200-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $52 50 329951 COBRA Adm 9/02 E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $173 25 329952 FSAAdm9/02 Total STANTONGROUP $22575 ^aidChk# 074513 10/14/2002 STAR TRIBUNE E 101 -42110-340 General Advertising $434 20 12757006 Adv for Emp - PT Officer Totol STAR TRIBUNE $434 20 Paid Chki 074514 10/14/2002 STAR WEST E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $4 26 114377 gasketi428 E 101-4300(M02 RepairaMaint-AutO Equip $704 99 170083 Repairs-S422 Total STAR WEST $709.25 bati£M(i 074515 10/14/2002 STEETER ft AMOCIATES G 101-20802 Oua to govta-Slata $100.00 Pmt4876 Rehind-Dup Pmt 2605 Mapleridge R 101-34410Plan Chack/Slia Exam Faa*$1,010.03 Pmt4876 Refund-Oup Pmt 2605 Maplendge R 101-32510BuHdmg Pannila $1,553-75 Pmt4876 Rafbnd-Oup Pml 2605 Maplafidga CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 10/11/0212:37 PM Page 12 •Total 8TEETER a ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 2002 Check^jt li $2.663.7S ^aid Chkf 0^4516 10/14/2002 STEFFENHAGEN« RON E 613-49630-437 Training A Development Total STEFFENHAGEN. RON $11000 10/M2 $11000 MTGF Turf Semlnar-Steffenhag«n Paid Chki 074517 10/14/2002 SUN NEWSPAPERS E 101-42110-340 General Advertising $240 80 S41501 Adv lor Emp - PT Offl^r E 101-41900-3S2 Printing & Pubttshlng $206 40 541630 Adv for Emp • CS Total SUN NEWSPAPERS $447.20 ^aUChki 074518 10/14/2002 SUTHERLANDS E 410-48913-489 Other Misceltaneous Charges $1,800.00 10/2AI2 Trees - Or Orch Sewer Total SUTHERLANDS $1,800.00 l^akichki 074519 10/14/2002 TALL TIMBER TREE CO E 101-43000-408 Contracted Street Maint $1,038 37 8/28/02 Tree Removal - Alley ToUl TALL TIMBER TREE CO $1.03837 Paid Chki 074520 10/14/2002 THE HOME DEPOT E 101.43000-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $158 69 8/20/02 Electric Drin ToUl THE HOME DEPOT $158 69 FaidChUl 074521 10/14/2002 THORPE OIST CO. E 613-49900-091 Beer For Resale $53 00 275999 Beer for Resale Total THORPE OIST CO.$53.00 Paid Chki 074522 10/14/2002 TKDA E 402-40032.304 Engineering-Consulling $2.566 99 58218 OCB Rd. Hwy 12-Fox E 402.48032-304 Enginaaring-Consulting $19,271.15 58649 OCB Rd - H«vy 12-Fox Tout TKDA U1.838.14 Paid Chki 074523 10/14/2002 TOLL OAS A WELDING SUPPLY E 101-43000^15 Other Equipment Rentals $40.65 E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total TOLL GAS A WELDING SUPPLY %A6^ 401177 403142 Cylinder Rental Cylinder Rental Paid Chki 074524 10/14/2002 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Ground 3 Maint Supplies Total TRUE VALUE HARDWARE $111.58 107034 $111.58 treated posts baid dhki 074525 10/14/2002 TRUXSTOR E 101 -42110-550 Automotive Equipment $1^257 23 19275 Topper -195 ToUl TRUXSTOR $1.257 23 Paid Chidi 6>4526 10/14/2002 UNITED RENTALS E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment RenUls $7029 505087 Barricades ToUl UNITED RENTALS $70 29 l>aid Chki 074527 10/14/2002 US BANK • MLWKEE E 308-47000-620 Fiscal Ageni'a Fees $21838 1212718 92 GO Bond Agent Fee E 671-47000-620 Fiscal Agent a Fees $9783 1212775 95 GO Bond-Agent Fee Final E 681-47000-620 Fiscal Agenfs Fees $95.55 1212775 95 GO Bond-Agent Fee Final Total USBANK-MLWKEE $411.76 E 601-40400-227 Utiirty System Maint Supplies $436 65 8760S01 Curb Stops. Stand Pipes CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 10/11/02 12:37 PM Page 13 Total US FILTER OCTOBER 2002 CItecfc teit Invoice Comment $436 65 Paid CMci 074529 10/14/2002 VALLEY-RICH CO E 601-49400-405 Repairs/Maint-Watermains/0lant $2.37523 6058 Main Break • 2500 Shadyvrood Total VALLEY-RICH CO $2,375.23 fal(ichi(# 074iio 10/14/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS E 602-49450-321 Ttlaphone $1426 10034585141Utility Cell Phone E 801-49400-321 Telephone $1425 10034585141Utility Cell Phone E 101-41900-321 Telephone $391.48 10035922058Cell Phones Total VERIZON WIRELESS $419.99 Paid CUM 074531 10/14/2002 VIKINO INDUSTRIAL CENTER E 602-49450-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $205.42 109940 Cylinder Calibration Total VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER $20'542 ^akd Chki 074532 10/14/2002 VILLAGE CHEVROLET • E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessofies $30 35 3481 Gasket Total VILLAGE CHEVROLET $30.35 Paid Chki 0:^4533 10/14/2002 VOGT HEATING 4 AIR E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $756 67 3481 Annual Maint • Heating Total VOGT HEATING 4 AIR $75667 f>al(i 6hkf 074534 10/14/2002 W.W. GRAINGER INC. E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $12311 495-731577-5 Wheel - Cut Off Saw ToUl W.W. GRAINGER INC.$123.11 Paid Chk« 074535 10/14/2002 WEST GROUP E 101-42110-208 Books & Periodicals $6816 1000032076 2003 Criminal Law Total WEST GROUP $68.16~ Paid ChkP 074536 10/14/2002 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E 601-49400-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $53225 502303 6 tires truckf712 E 101-43000-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $29 21 502803 tire repair E 101-43000-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip $263.53 502814 replace tire #427 Total WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE $824^ l^ald £hkf 074537 10/14/2002 wioMER INC E 601 -49400-405 Repairs/Maint-Watermains/plant $i.Mo.qo 5544 Mam Break Cty Rd 19 Total WIOMER INC $1.64000 Paid Chka 074538 10/14/2002 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC E 602-49450-381 Gas & Electric $21 93 3113009200 Eiectncal Service E 101-43000-381 Gas & Electric $2664 3113009200 Electrical Service Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $48 57 7ald Chki 074539 10/14/2002 XCEL ENERGY E 101-43000-386 Street Lighting $1.26819 002130011002 Street Lighting 9/2002 E 602-49450-381 Gas & Electric $2.155 50 Allocation Elecbcal Service E 601-49400-381 Gas & Electric $3.637 77 Allocation Eieciical Service E 101-41900-361 Gas & Electric $1.605 02 Aaocation ElecOcel Service E 101-42110-301 Gas & Electric $699 22 Aaocation ElecticalSefvia E 101-43000-361 Gas & Electric $167.88 AHocation Electical Servloa E 101-45200-381 i.as A Electric $1536 Alocabon Elecbcal Servioa E 613-49830-381 Gas S Electric $668 94 AWocatten Elecbcal Seivioa E 101-42110-381 Gas & Electric $942 AHocation Elecbcal Servioa CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 1(V11/021?;37PM Pag* 14 OCTOMRIOOI Invotea Cowimant E101-43 -304 OaaOEIactrIc Total XCELENBIIQV 0141.70 May 12 Signal Hwy 12/WHow 010.300.00 10100 PrfmaiyCaah 0109,060.20 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 227 OMPRCQUIP CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND 231 ORUQIFELONY FORFEITURE FUND 3001002 NMRPROVEMENT BONDS FUND 402 MUNICIPAL 8T AID ST CONSTUCT 400 PEROMNENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE 4101000 SEWER CONST FUND 4102001 SENIOR H80TIF CONST FUND 001 WATER OPERATINO FUND 002 SEWER OPERATINO FUND 013 GOLF COURSE 091 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 0711009 WTRIMPR BOND FUND 001 1909 SWRIMPRVMT BOND FUND 10100 PrtmafyCaali 901.906.29 (93.000.00) 92.301.00 9210.30 955.036.71 9104.00 91.000.00 95.019.00 913,175.04 922.530.00 925.073.01 92.775.01 907.03 905.55 9100.060.20 r ‘ . _.»■ - A- CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 1(V02A)28:47AM Pagel OCTOBER 2W2 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 PrlmaiyCMh Paid Chk« 074^94 10/2/02 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION G101-21711 Credit Union $10,595.00 Total CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $10.595 00 SAVINGS W/H 8 TRANSFERRED Paid Chk# 074395 10/2A)2 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES G101-21701Federal Withholdir>g $9,73561 FEDERAL W/H G101-21703 PICA Tax WKhholding $4,447.95 FICA & MEDICARE W/H G 101-21703FICA Tax Withholding $4,447.95 FICA S MEDCR CITY SHARE ToUl FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $18,631.51 Paid Chk# 074396 10/2A)2 ICNM RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 G101-21705Other Retirement $300.00 DEFERRED COMP Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 $30000 Paid Chk# 074397 10/2/02 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE G 101-21707Union Dues $0.00 UNION DUES Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $0.00 Paid Chk# 074396 10/2AI2 MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR G 101-21712Other Deductions $242 2^MOROWeZYNSKI #0014456477 Total MN CHILD SUPPORT PMTCTR $24227 Paid Chk# 074399 10/2A)2 MN DEPT OF REVENUE G 101-21702 State Withholding $3,977 73 STATE TAX W/H ToUl MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3,977.73 Paid Chk# 074400 10/2A)2 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST G 101-21705 Other Retirement $2.789 68 MN STATE RETIREMENT Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2.789 68 Paid Chk# 074401 10/2A)2 PEBSCO/OBRA G 101-21705 Other Retirement $16728 OenA DEFERRED COMP Tout PEBSCO/OBRA $167.28 Paid Chk# 074402 10/2A)2 PEBSCOAiS CONF OF MAYORS G 101-21705 Other Retirement $2.34200 USCM - ENTITY 2339 ToUl PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS $2.342 00 Paid Chk# 074403 10/2/02 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT G 101-21704PERA $6,579.66 PERA CITY SHARE G 101-21704PERA $5.12518 PERA EMPLOYEE W/H ToUl PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $11,704 84 Paid Chk# U74404 10/2A)2 UNITED WAY G 101-21708United Way $50 00_CHARITY DONATIONS ToUl UNITED WAY $50 00 Paid Chk# 074405 10/2A)2 WISCONSIN SCTF G 101-21712Other Deductions $184 62 JOHNSON # 0002756898 Tout WISCONSIN SCTF 1184.62 10100 Primary Casli $50,984.93 cmroFORONo *Check Detail Registei® 8:47 AM Page2 OCTOMER2008 J CImcIi Nimbtf Employtt Nim 051824 051825 051826 051827 DOOQE, RACHEL M. JOHNSON. MARY ANN LESKINEN. DENISE M. MOORSE. RONALD J. 051828 VEE.UNDAS. 051820 KUEHN. THOMAS M 051830 OLSON. RONALD J. 051831 PETTIT. SANDRA K 051832 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 051833 80BZIEN.SUEA. 051834 BORIS. SCOTT W. 051835 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. 051836 CORNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAY C. ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L. FISCHENICH.OANT. FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R. HENDRICKS. RONALD J JOHNSON. JEFFREY LARSON. NELL E MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROVVCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAMS SCHOENHOFF.JOHNB. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW. WITTKE, ANTHONY A ARNESON. JOSHUA A HERMAN. JOHN R LEE. JOSEPH P DOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A BOTTENBERG. WENDY C. GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA.GREGORYA. MEYER. WILLIAM C. OMM4. LYLE E VANG. BRUCE L WEINBERGER. PAUL E. BRINKHAUS, JOHN F. DEBAERE. DONALD 1. GREGORY. JAMES D HANSEN. STEVEN 051869 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G. 051870 OBRIEN. RANDY L 051871 PALMER. GREGORY A. 051872 RATHBUN. BARRY J. 051873 SKREEN. DALE S. 051875 VaO 051874 ABRAHAMSON.FREDW. 051837 051838 051839 051840 051841 051842 051843 051844 051845 051846 051847 051848 051849 051850 051851 051852 051853 051854 051855 0516j6 051857 051658 051859 051860 051861 051862 051863 051864 051865 051866 051867 051868 CITY OF ORONO 1(V02«2 8:48AM P«g«1 check register Pay Cfitclc Ch«ck Ptrlod Amount Data Chaek Slalua wr 7* 20 $991.69 KV2/02 OutaUnding 20 $71087 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $791.74 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $7.80 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1.194 99 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $990 31 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $102 07 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $484 09 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1,389.05 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $76443 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,166.64 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $295.40 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,281.86 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1.545 44 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1,487.96 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1.653 27 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,431.39 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $21002 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1,839.60 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,150.48 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,118.42 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $748 72 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $885 20 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $59233 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,452.04 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $15374 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1.51313 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $506 99 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,407.71 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1.365 46 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $707 05 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $82232 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $266 88 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,016 13 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,163.17 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,351.13 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1.760 33 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $56421 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $153 98 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1.35491 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1.443 58 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1.31970 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $1,208.07 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $926.83 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,047.67 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $68001 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $95231 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $958 28 10/2AI2 Outstanding 20 $1,052.79 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $1,076.59 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $000 10/2A)2Void 20 $74.10 10/2/02 Oulstandtoig 20 S0.00 10/Zt)2VoM 20 10.00 10/2A)2Vokf 20 $0.00 1(V2A)2Void 20 $106.08 1(V2A)2 OutstandinQ 20 $163.81 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $160.47 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $268.20 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $0.00 10/2/02 Void 20 $0.00 10/2/02 Void 20 $0.00 10/2A)2 Void 20 $0.00 10/2A)2Void 20 $138.37 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $208.49 10/2^2 OuUtanding 20 $118.61 10/2/02 Outstanding 20 $81.46 UU2J02 Outstanding 20 $1,349.62 10/2A)2 Outstanding 20 $170.78 $81,962.64 ^0f2J02 Outstanding w CITY OF ORONO eh«ck rtgittor 10/11/02 7:14 AM Pag«1 ciiicii Pay Chech CfitckNumber Emptoye* Name Parted Amount Data Chtelc Status 051895 PETERSON. BARBARA BDBsannafli $323.22 1(V14A>2 Outstanding 091M6 MOOR8E, RONALD J.10 $346.31 10/14A)2 Outstanding OS1097 SANSEVERE, ROBERT K.10 $269.30 10/14A)2 Outstanding 081000 MURPHY. JAMES L 10 $269.36 KV14A)2 Outstanding 081090 NYQARO.JAY 10 $269.36 1CV14/02 Outstanding 081000 \NHITE, JAMES M.10 $269.36 $1,746.97 10/14/02 OuMamftig DB«n ••INFORMATION oor / ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING cai tAcp'TlNQ OCT 1 4 2002 CJTY OF OflONO OF »% •r Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 28,2002 s.cCTING OCT 1 4 2002 Cl I r ur URONO Pages 2. LAKE USE ft RECREATION A. Ordinance Amendment, Discussion of an ordinance prohibiting the use of motorized watercraft on certain parts of Lake Minnetonka, amending Section 3.022. Foster stated that he was unable to attend the 8/14/02 Board meeting when this ordinance amendment was discussed in detail. He asked Wert for his comments on the discussion at this meeting. Wert commented on the work of the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force, noting that there was a lot of information collected and discussed at a number of meetings. There were a number of alternatives brought forward to the Board, recalling the Board meeting in May when a straw poll vote on various options was taken. Foster expressed concern about moving the point of demarcation from the mouth of Six Mile Creek upstream as proposed in the ordinance amendment. He believed that the electric motor limitation in the ordinance currently approved would solve the vast majority of the concerns of the Board and would not preclude property owners from enjoying the riparian rights they are entitled to by having properties that abut Six Mile Creek. He supported the ordinance already approved by the Board, noting that the City of Minnetrista could adopt a more restrictive ordinance than the one approved by the District. Babcock stated that there have been examples in the past when the District has set baseline standards and member cities have adopted more restrictive ordinances than these standards. Suer^ stated that the Board has spent a lot of time considering an ordinance that would balance the environmental concerns with the riparian rights of owners that have properties that abut the creeks referenced in the ordinance amendment. He noted that ordinance adopted addresses other creeks in addition to Six Mile Creek and that he would like to move on. Knudsen stated that when the straw poll voted was taken by the Board this past May. he understood that more than one draft ordinance amendment would come back to the Board for ccnskteraticn. When one ordinance amendment came back to the Board in June, he was caught off guard when it did not take into consideration the request from the City of Minnetrista to protect the historical rights of the four property owners on Six Mile Creek. He stated that he did not recall the Board receiving expert testimony that propeller action from an electric motor would have less impact on the environment and wildlife than propeller action from a gas motor. McMillan stated that she was the Board member who made the motion for LeFavere to draft the ordinance amendment being discussed by the Board. She expressed concern about restricting the type of motor use in the creek and would favor eliminating areas of the creeks that have historical use from the adopted ordinance. She believed that the primary environmental advantage of electric motors compared to gas mo» 'S is that they do not have gas fumes. She believed the type of dock structure, whether there is removal of vegetation, and whether a dredge is required are other environmental concerns that should be considered by the Board. She stated that she would not support grandfathering because she believed that is not good policy on public waters. Nolson stated that he did r,c* support the draft ordinance amendment. He expressed support of the ordinance adopted because there was a significant amount of work done by the Task Force, it greatly improves the situation, and it was a compromise to preserve the riparian rights of property owners on these tributaries. He questioned the logic of moving the point of demarcations upstream on both Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks as proposed in the draft ordinance amendment. If the City of Minnetrista has a desire to restrict motorized watercraft upstream from a certain point of Six Mile Creek, he believed that they could adopt an ordinance amendment that was more restrictive than the one adopted by the Bosvd. Lake Minnatonka Conaarvation Diatrfct Ragular iBoard Maating August 28,2002 Paga7 Babcock stated that when the Board took the straw poR vole in May, there were a number of possible amendments to the matrix prepared by LeFevere aid Wert. He recalled that there was significant discussion on possible anendments, with only a couple of amendments proposed by Board members that were voted on that evening. If a Board member believed tha amendment they wanted was not cotisidered in the adopted ordinance, they could propose it at a lata date. He stated tha he did not support the proposed ordinance amendment because he believed eliminating powa boat traffic in the proposed creeks is good for the lake ori a long-term basis. His long-term goa for the Board is to take incremental steps to protect the upstream areas of the lake by reducing externa loading of phosphorous from these tributaries. The characteristic of the wetland area of Panter*s Creek has changed significantly over the years with development and he questioned whether it makes sense to restore it to its pristine state. He believed K makes sense for Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks and he supported the ordinance adopted by the Board, noting that he believed there is other work for the Task Force to dea with pertaining to other wetland areas on Lake Minnetonka. In the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, it cans for public bodies such as the District to acquire easements over wetland areas to provide protection beyond wha can be provided through legislation. He suggested that the Board might want to consider this as an option to limit boat storage in these wetland areas, noting that he already had preliminary discussions with the frxir property owners on Six Mile Creek that have clamed historical use. Skramstad stated that he would support protecting the historical riparian rights of property owners that abut the tributaries referenced in the adopted ordinance, whether it be through grandfathering or ^justing the points of demarcation. Ambrose stated that the easement idea suggested by Babcock was intriguing and merited further exploration. He supported protecting the environmental aspect of the lake and protecting the intereste of the property owners that have historical use of these tributaries, preferably in the form of the ordinance amendment as propokd. McMillan stated that she understood that boat traffic on Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks was currently pretty limited and that the ordinance adopted would make them more accessible for boat storage. She believed teat this provide.* a false sense of accessibility. Babcock stated that he had concerns about removing restrictions of aH types from certain areas of both Long Lake and Painter ’s Creeks, including the removal of language that would allow for electric motors. McMillan stated that there are bays of Lake Minnetonka that are shallow that have not currently been addressed. Foster asked McMillan if there was a distinction between bays that do not have flowing water versus tributaries that have flowing water. McMillan stated that flowing water makes a difference; however, she did not have a scientific answer to it. Wert stated that the Board directed the Task Force to bifurcate the study of the tributaries from the wetland Breas of the overall lake. He believed that consideration of other wetland areas on the lake will be forthcoming and that the ordinance adopted was only the first step. Babcock questioned whether there is an absolute right to store and dock a motorized watercraft on a body of water based on the State of Minnesota's definition of access, citing the electric motor restrictions on Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis as an example. He stated that he believed the crux of the problem is the economic issues for a few property owners that need to be addressed. He questioned whether this supports the Lak* Minnatonka Consarvation District Ragular Board idaatlng August 28,2002 PagaB concept of eliminating the ordinance that has already been adopted by the Board. The MCWD has spent a large anxHint of money restoring wetlands near Lake Harriet and he believ^ that could be prevented in the upper watershed district by establishing the correct mechanisms. Nelson stated ttrat he would be supportive of continued discussions with property owners who can document historical usage, possibly through a conservation easement, as long as it limits the number of boats be stored. McMillw stated that in the draft ordinance amendment pertaining to Six Mile Creek, there was not language that described the area upstream of the fish traps from the Ralph Hatch residence. LeFevere stated that he was aviraiting the legal description of this location from the legal counsel for the four property owners. Babcock stated th^t he would prefer the Board not t^e action on the variety of reasons. • IIw w id ordinance amendment for a MOTION: Babcock moved. Nelson seconded to table discussion on fte draft ordinance amendment to a future Board meeting. Mr. Chris Dietzen, legal counsel for the four property owners on Six Mile Creek, stated that he would like to be heard before there was a vote on the motion. Foster denied the request from Dietzen because Robert ’s Rule of Order does not allow for discussion on motion to table. Dietzen stated that the Board had incomplete information that was not included in the Board packet. Babcock clarified that h,s motion was to table action on the draft ordinance amendment to a future Bo»d meeBna rather than table discussion of it at this meeting. ^ Foster asked LeFevere for interpretation of the motion, LeFevere stated that he believed the motion was out of order because there was no motion on the floor to table It appearerf that the intent of the motion made was to decide how to limit discussion of the proposed ordinance amendment, noting that this coukJ possibly be achieved through another motion Babcodt stated that his intent would be to allow for discussion of the proposed ordinance amendment at this meeting; however, not take formal action on it at this meeting. Foster ruled the motion out of order. Dieted stated foat correspondence was previously submitted that stated the ordinance adopted by the Board applied to his clients was unlawful. Improper, unconstitutior.al, and a taking of riparian rights. An invitation was ^viously made to investigate whether something could be done to resolve these issues. A verbal proposal has be^ade that wouW iTKJude either nwving the point of demarcation upstream from his clients or possibly grandfatherinn. Draft ordinance arnendrnents have been prepared that would either rnove the point of wre^tla. w. grarnffather his clients based on the discussion at the previous Boad rneeting. His clients have agreed to the following relating to these ordinance amendments; 1) that grvidfather rights would not extend to r] Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 28,2002 PageO guests or invitees of the property owner, 2) to limit the number of docks to four which would be one for each of his clients, 3) to release their property rights for multiple docks to four to resolve the dispute, and 4) to limit to the current ver^ of Code Smtion 2.02 of the LMCD Ordinance which limits the number of watercraft that may be stored at a dock structure. LeFevere asked Oietzen whom he was negotiating with. Dietzen stated that he was responding to comments from individual Board members, noting that his clients had a separate meeting with Babcock relating to potential easements. His clients would agree to execute a Settlement Agreement and a Restrictive Covenant under either of the ordinance amendments. If a conservation easement is more acceptable to the Board, his clients are acceptaule to consider it. He did not recommend that any portion of the ordinance adopted be changed, with the exception that subd. 4 should be added that would provide language for pre-existing rights for his clients. His dients would like the same rights that other property owners enjoy; however, his clients were willing to discuss this. He stated that he was unaware of any scientific study presented to the Board that substantiates the difference of external loading of phosphorous for an electric motor versus a gas motor. If the Board decides not to take action on an amendment that would address his clients concerns, he requested that they have an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Board to further address this issue. Mr. Adrian Herbst, The Bailer Herbst Law Group, stated that he represented Robert and Janice Halverson who are longstanding property owners on Six Mile Creek. His clients have 111 acres of property with 1,400' of shoreline. He stated that he was no; present to oppose any action the Board might take to address the four r/operty owners on Six Mile Creek. However, his clients would object to an ordinance that would entirely prohibit the uce of a motorized watercraft, noting that the current ordinance would allow for watercraft with electric motors. He commented on the concept of conservation easements and their applicability to his clients property. Amborse asked Herbst if his clients had historical use of Six Mile Creek in the past. Herbst stated that his clients have accessed Six Mile Creek in the past with both motorized and non-motorized watercraft, although they do not have a dock currently installed. Minnetrista Mayor Cheryl Fischer stated that she was at the previous Board meeting and that she \would like to see the District ordinances mirror the ordinances that may be adopted by the Minnetrista City Council. She stated that she understood the Board had spend a ‘Significant amount of time studying these issues; however, there are a number of conflicting parties interested in Six Mile Creek. Foster asked Mayor Fischer to have the City of Minnetrista staff forward agenda's, minutes, and packet information to keep the District infonned on city council discussions. Mr. Dan Kelly, legal counsel for Upland Farms, commented on the draft ordinance ameridment being discussed by the Board. The ordinance adopted was discussed for a number of months with a lot of thoughts discussed, adding it was a compromise. It takes into consideration environmental and property rights concerns, noting that he believed moving the point of demarcation was not consistent previous policy discussions. He believed that the balance of environmental and property rights would be a problem with the proposed ordinance amendment because non-motorized watercraft would be prohibit^ upstream from the new point of demarcation. He recommended that the Board not consider the proposed ordinance amendment. Mr. Greg Smith, 4000 Gamefann Road, stated that he had recently met with Babcock to discuss the concept of conservation easements. He believed that the proposal to limit the number of docks to four was a valuable Lak* Mirmatonka Conaarvatioii District Regular Board Meeting August 28.2002 Page 10 concession on their part. Additionally, he and his neighbors would be agreeable to the limit the size or the watercraft and would al^ by the ordinance upstream from their properties. He slated that he would Nke to see further discussion pertaining to the possibility of the concept of conservation easements. Foster stated that he believed the (bur property owners in question have historically had one watercraft. He expressed concern that the four docks proposal could have up to ftwr watercraft at each dock, which would result in 16 watercraft. Smith stated that he would be agreeable to further discussion about the number of watercraft that would be stored at the four proposed docks. Babcock stated that when he met with Smith and h® neighbors to discuss the concept of conservation easements, he represented that the discussions were with a Board member rather than as representative of the Board. The intent of the meeting was listen to their concerns and see if there were different solutions that could bfc^ht back to entire Board for discussion purposes. He expressed concern about future subdivisions arxt he believed that conservation easements might be one approach to deal with them relating to boat storage in these areas. ✓ Ambrose stated that the proposal offered by Dietezen was substantial and a good place to begin discu!ns. Jim Blakeway stated that he was in attendance to speak on behalf of most residents cn Halsteads Bay. There is some sentiment of the Hafsteeds Bay Wetlands Preservation Group In favor of continued historical use of property owners on Six Mile Creek. However, there is no sentiment to allow for further usage of Six Mile Creek, whether it is electric or gas motors, beyond these four property owners. Foster summarized what he believed were the discussions of the Board and the public at this meeting. He believed that it would be appropriate for a sulH»mmittee. chaired by Babcock, to work on the possibility of conservation easements and other details. He recommended that he and Wert should also participate in this meeting, noting that any other Board members would also be welcomed to attend these discussions. LeFevere provided an overview of Open Meeting laws, noting that any meeting scheduled would be subject to Open Meeting laws. The consensus of the Board was to direct staff to schedule a meeting in the near future to further discuss the concept of conservation easements. The meeting was recessed at 9:33 p m. and re-convened at 9:35 p.m. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 3. FINANCIAL A. July financial summary and balance sheet. Skramstad stated that the monthly finarraal summary arte balarrce sheet is generally on the consent agerrda' h^w he requested that it rwt be a consent agenda at this meeting because of the new format implemented in 2002 that compares planned revenues and expenditures versus actual revenues and expendllures for al three October 3,2002 Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 OOf Dear Ron:Vo On behalf of Jonathan Farmer, Dick Kroeger and myself, we wish to thank you for meeting with us a couple of weeks ago. We are encouraged by your support of and knowledge of work force and life cycle housing. We would like to continue our dialogue with you and the City Staff as well as the City Council Members in order to ensure that the City of Orono develops policies and procedures to ensure that woric force and life cycle housing are included as a necessary component of any new development in Orono. We feel as though the time is ripe to begin a commission which will study and implement the various tools needed to provide a variety of housing options to keep Orono ’s current standard of safety and quality of life. he conunission should be created to: (1) (2) (3) (4) Determine the need for work force and life cycle housing; Advise the City on changes to the plaiming processes, zoning ordinances and land use to facilitate the production of such housing; Assist the City in seeking developers who will create such housing in a wide range of income levels; and Assure that the City is proactive in securing financing and resources aiid forging partnerships to support development efforts. Thank you once again for your ongoing support and insight of this great need for work force and life cycle housing in the City of Orono. If you have any further questions and/or need any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (952) 249-9707 ext. 2. legan^nnettMegan metropolitan Council Bu<ld(np communtlfes fhal work ocr Cn Y September 27,2002 To: Local Unibi of GovernmcDt in the Metropolitan Area Re: Proposed Plans for Metropolitan Council Redistricting P / pfY.p ‘^'"''"■wvo.vo The Metropolitan Council invites you to comment on three proposed plans for redistricting the sixteen Council districts. Minnesota Stotutes 473.123, Subd. 3a states “the legislature shall redraw the boundaries of the council districts after each dicennial federal census so that each district has substantially equal population.” Redistricting is to take place for the Metropolitan Council each ten years in the year ending with the number ”3”. Prior to the 1993 legislative session, the Metropolitan Council submitted a redistricting proposal that was adopted by the Legislature. In keeping with that precedent the Council intends to submit a redistricting recommendation in the 2003 session. For the past few months a Metropolitan Council Redistricting Advisory Group has been meeting for the purpose of making a recommendation on new Metropolitan Council districts based on the 2000 census. The advisory group established several factors as criteria. These include: • Minimize the splitting of suburban communities. • Keep each district of substantially equal population. • Retain two districts entirely with the municipal boundaries of Minneapolis. • Retain one district entirely with the municipal boundaries of St. Paul. • Group communities locally that have some common subregional interests. Prior to the Redistricting Advisory Group (consisting of Council members and public representatives) making a final plan recommendation to the Metropolitan Council, the Redistricting Advisory Group is seeking public comment on three proposals that subtantially meet the redistricting principles. The three plans are available on the Council website at httP /Aaww.metfocouncil.ofQ/msouroaa/reaoufcea htm Go to this link and then scroll down to die “General” category and click on “Redistricting Proposals” to view these maps. District descriptions and population information on each district is included in this mailing. If you do not have internet access and wish copies of the maps please call the Council’s Data Center at 651*602-1 140. A public comment meeting wiil be held on Thursday, October 10,2002 at 3 p.m. in Room 1 A of the Metropolitan Council offices at Mean Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. As alternative ways to comment, persons may call the Council’s public comment line at (65 1 )602*1 500 and leave a recorded message or e-mail the Council’s Data Center at data.center@metc.state.mn.us regaiding the three redistricting proposals. Written comments may also be faxed to (65 1) 602-1464. All comments will be accepted until 5 p.m., October 11,2002. Your comments on the proposed plans are greatly appreciated. The Metropolitan Council tentatively plans to make a final recommendation at its meeting on October 23. Sincerely, Marc Hugunin Chair, Metropolitan Council Redistricting Advisory Group And Metropolitan Council Member, District 14 mctroccMincil.org Metro Info Line 602* 1 Metropolitan Council Redistricting Example Plan Notes The redistricting plans on the following pages are examples of plans that demonstrate the goals of tTie committee: communities of interest, ideal population and compactness. The plans also seek to minimize the number of municipalities split outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and to maximize the minority population in two districts. Some observations have come up regarding the committee’s wishes for redistricting, which may prove helpful in future decision making: 1.A compact southwestern district composed entirely of Carver and Scott counties has a population of 156,546, or 5.05% below the ideal. Adding small communities such as Mimietrista and St. Bonifacious can bring the district to under 3% deviation. However, the key to this district is the inclusion of Chanhassen. Without it, signiflcant parts of Hennepin or Dakota County (at least 23,705 people) must be included to stay under 3% deviation. This means the district must have part of Lakeville, Burnsville, Bloomington, or Eden Prairie - or several suburban city/township combinations. 2. To have two districts completely within Minneapolis and in '.he 3% dev.ation range, the remaining Minneapolis district(s) must contain alt or part of at least two cities (or part of Saint Paul) totaling approximately 100,000 people. In other words, this difference can not be made up with just Richfield (or Richfield and Fort Snelling), which has less than 35,000 people. Option 1 2 3 Overall Population Deviation <5%<3%<3% Number of Split Municipalities ’0 0 2 Minority Percentage in District 7 55.32% 55.32%54.86% Minority Percentage in District 14 36.26%36.26%42.18% ' Outside of Minoeapolis and St. Paul iriaftiiffttiiti ttifii Public Comment Option 1 District Descriptions District I - Western Hennepin County. Includes Champlin. Dayton, Hassan, Rogers, Maple Grove. Plymout Medicine Lake, Corcoran. Medina. Loretto. Maple Plain. Independence. Greenfield, and Rockford District 2 - Northeastern Hennepin County. Includes Osseo, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center. Robbinsdalc, New Hope, and Crystal. District 3 - Lake Minnetonka. Includes Edina. Hopkins, Minnetonka. Wayzata, Woodland. Deephaven, Greenwood, Excelsior, Shorewood. Minnetonka Beach. Tonka Bay, Spring Park, Mound. Victoria. Minnetrista. St. Bonifacius. Orono, and Long Lake. District 4 - Most of Carver County, most of Scott County, and Lakeville. District 5 - Chanhassen. Eden Prairie, and Bloomington. District 6 - Golden Valley, St Louis Park, Richfield, Fort Snclling. and southwestern Minneapolis. District 7- Downtown and North Minneapolis, portion of South Minneapolis. District 8 - Eastern and most of South Minneapolis. District 9 - Northern Anoka County. Includes Northeast Ramsey County. Forest Lake, Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Anoka County north of Anoka. District 10 - Southern Anoka County. Includes Anoka. Coon Rapids. Blaine. Circle Pines, Lexington, Spring Lake Park, and Fridley District 11 - Greater Ramsey County. Includes North St. Paul, Maplewood. Little Canada, Vadnais Heights, Gem Lake, Shoreview, Arden Hills. Mounds View. New Brighton, St. Anthony, Columbia Heights and Hilltop. District 12 - Washington County. Includes all municipalities except St. Paul Park, Grey Cloud Island Twp., Newport, Denmark 1 ownship, Afion, and Forest Lake. District 13 ~ Southern half of Saint Paul. n*' rict 14 - Northern half of Saint Paul, Roseville, Lauderdale, and Falcon Heights. District IS - Fagan. Burnsville, and Apple Valley. District 16 - Dakota County. Includes most of northern and eastern Dakota County Newport, St. Paul Park. Grey Cloud Island, Denmark Twp. Afion, Elko. New Market, and New Market Twp. Plan Minority Percentages District Population % Minority } - 1 167,774 6.15% : 2 156.688 22.14% i 3 • f A ^67.788 603% ' 4 171.467 569% I 5 f 160.394 10 15% 6 160,517 11.31% 7 1^:612 55 32% j 24 64%^•■*160.777'^ 9 167.12r '3 69% * 10 l'65.723 7 50% 1 11 t 167.953*9 96% 12 ““T73.657*6 76% 1 13 165.228 24 63% ’14 ■ ? . - f. 163.^9 36 26% ■ 15 169.304 11.13% * ‘ie . i 160.058 8 38% ‘ 1 I" Public Comment Option 2 District Descriptions District 1 - Plymouth, Medicine Lake, Maple Grove, and Minnetonka. District 2 -Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, and Hopkins. District 3 - Western Suburbs. Includes most Lake Minnetonka Communities, Eden Paririe, Chanhassen. Victoria. Chaska, Chaska Twp., Laketown Twp Watertown Twp. Watertown. Independence. Maple Plain, Medina, and Loretto. District 4 - Southwestern Metro. Includes most of Carver County, all of Scott County, and Burnsville. District 5 - Bloomington, Edina. RichBeld, and Fort Snelling. District 6 - Most ofSouth Minneapolis. District 7 - Downtown and North Minneapolis, portion of South Minncajjolis. District 8 - Minneapolis east of the river, Columbia Heights. St. Anthony, Hilltop, New Brighton, Arden Hills, Mounds View, Spring Lake Park, and Fridley. District 9 - Blaine. Coon Rapids, Lexington. Andover. Ham i.ake, Columbus Twp., East Bethel, and Linwood Twp. District 10 - Brooklyn Park. Osseo, Champlin, Anoka, Ramsey, Bums Twp., Oak Grove. St. Francis, Bethel, Dayton, Hassan, Rogers, Corcoran, Grccnfirld, and Rockford. District 11 - Ramsey County, includes most of Suburban Ramsey County. Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Circle Pines. District 12 - Washington County. Includes all municipalities except Cottage Grove, Newport, St. Paul Park, and Grey Cloud Island Twp. District 13 - Southern half of Saint Paul. District 14 - Northern half of Saint Paul, Roseville, Lauderdale, and Falcon Heights. District 15 - Dakota County north of Apple Valley. Includes Rosemount, Newport. St. Paul Park, and Grey Cloud Island Twp. District 16 -Dakota County south of Rosemount. Includes Cottage Grove, Niningcr Twp., Hastings, and Apple Valley. Plan Minority Percentages District Population % Minority 1 167.928 6.69% 2 168.418 14.86% 3 161.433*571% 4 168.025 808% 5 * 167.470 ’11.53% 6 VgO.425 19.87% 7 160.612 55.32% 8 167.696 14.36% “ 9 ^ 167.627 5.43% 10 KW.469*14.29% 11 160.216 7.60% 12 161.102 634% 13 165.228 24.63% ' 14 163.549 36.26% 15 166,278 9.59% 16 165,526 5.78% I a ra^ i i Public Comment Option 3 District Descriptions District I - Western Hennepin County. Includes Champlin. Dayton. Hassan. Rogers. Maple Grove, Plymouth, Medicine Lake, Corcoran, Medina. Loretto. Maple Plain. Independence. Greenfield, and Rockford. District 2 - Northeastern Hennepin County Include Os^eo. Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Center. Robbinsdalc. New Hope, Crystal, and part of North Minneapolis. District 3 - Lake Minnetonka. Includes Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka. Wayzata. Woodland. Deephaven. Greenwood. Excelsior, Shorewood, Minnetonka Beach, Tonka Bay, Spring Park, Mound. Minnetrista. St. Bonifacius, Orono, and Long Lake. District 4 - Carver and Scott Counties, except for Chanhassen and including pari of Lakeville. District 5 - Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, and Blcomington. District 6 - Golden Valley, St. Louis Park ’ ‘ificld. and southwestern Minneapolis. District 7 - Downtown and North Minneapolis, portions of South Minneapolis. District 8 - Eastern and southern Minneapolis, Columbia Heights. Hilltop, and St. Anthony District 9 - Northern Anoka County. Includes Blaine Lexington. Circle Pines, Anoka, and all municipalities north of these. District 10 - Coon Rapids. Fridley, Spring Lake Park. Mounds View. New Brighton. Arden Hills, and Shoreview. District 11 - Ramsey County. Includes eastern suburban Ramsey County. Roseville, Lauderdale Falcon Heights. Lino Lakes, and Centerville. District 12 - Washington County. Includes all municipalities except Denmark. Cottage Grove. Grey Cloud Island, and St. Paul Park. District 13 - Southern half of St. Paul. West St. Paul. Mcndola, Mcndcta Heights, Lilydalc. Fort Snciting and part of Maplewood. District 14 - Northern half of St. Paul. District IS - Eagan, Burnsville, and Apple Valley. District 16 - Dakota County. Contains most of Dakota County as well as St. Paul Park. Grey Cloud Island Twp., Cottage Grove, and Denmark. Plan Minority Percentages ; District 1 PopuU JO 1% Mifx>rity' [ 1 1G7.774 6 15% 1 2 166.519 22 83% ^ 3 ♦ 163.763*6.13% . "■ 4 156.546 5.38% 1 5 i 174.512 10 .15% ] • 6 ^’ 7 167.666 11 80% 1 54.86% i[171.668 8 159.716 21.55% • 9 i ! 168.913 4.54% • 10 - 164.070'846% ■ 166.251*9.04%' 12 162.737*641% 13•156.5M 18.35%"" 14 162.141 42.18% i 16 169.304*11.13% ’ 159.832 5.98% MCD Population: Alphabetical Listing MCO Popuiation Alton Andover Anoka Apple Vattey Arden Hrils Bayport Baytown township Beile Plaine Belle Ptaine township Benton township Bethel Birdiwood ViMage Blaine Blakeley township Bloomington Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Bums township 2.839 26.588 18.076 45.527 9.652 3.162 1.533 3.789 806 939 443 668 44.942 Burnsville Camden township Carver Casde Rock township Cedar Lake township Cenlervie Champlin Chanhassen Chaska Chaska township C'fcle Pines ( lates Cologne Columbia Heights Columbus township Coon Rapids , Corcoran Cottage Orove Credit River township Crystal Dahlgren towr ship Dayton Deephaven Dellwood Denmark township Douglas township L.igan East Be *vel Eden Pijir.o Edina f !Ko Empire township Eureka township Excelstor Falcon Heights Farmtogton F orest Lake Frft SneNir>g Fiidley Gem Lake Golden Valley Grant Greenfieki Greenvale township .♦i-A. * . 496 05.172 29.172 6-».3a8 3.557 60.220 * 965 1.266 1.495 2.197 3.202 .'iau::-,22.193 20.321 17.449 W»^^154 4.663 1,012 mamB.920 3.957 5P1607 5.630 ^'""30.582 y • ■ . m.- 3.895 22.696 1.453 4.686 3.853 1.033 1.348 760 63.557 10,941 54.901 47.425 472 1.638 1.490 2.393 5.572 12.365 6.798 442 27.449 419 20 281 4.026 2.544 684 MCD Population Greenwood Grey Cloud Isla 'Hi towns Ham Lake Hamburg Hampton Hampton township Hancock towmsh^ Hassan township Hastings Helena township Hilltop Hollywood township Hopkins Hugo Independence Inver Grove Heights Jackson township ^ Jordan LakeEftno Lake St Croix Beach Lakeland Lakeland Shores Laketown township Lakeville LandfaN Lauderdale Lexington Litydale LInoLakes Lin wood township Little Canada Long Lake Loretto Louisville township Mahtomedi Maple Grove Maple Plain Maplewood Marine on 81 Croix Marshan township May township Mayer Medidne Lake Medina Mendota Mendota Heights MiesvUe Minneapolis Mmetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Mounds View New Brighton New Germany New Hope New Market New Market township New Scandia township New Trier Hwtpon Ntr>ir>gef township MV-. •i-V 729 307 12.710 538 434 986 367 2.46 18.204 1.440 766 1.102 17,145 6.363 3.236 29.751 1.361 3.833 6.863 1.140 1.917 355 2,331 43.120 ‘ 700 2 364 2.214 552 16,791 4.668 9.771 1.842 570 1.359 7,563 ». t. 50.365 2.068 34.947 602 1.263 2.928 554 366 4.005 197 1 1.434 135 382.618 51.301 614 4,358 9.435 12,738 22.206 346 20.873 332 :.j57 3,692 116 3.715 865 MCD Population North Oaks No^t^ ot Paul r^orwood Young America Oak Grove Oak Park Heights Oakdale Orono Osseo Pir>e Sprir>gs Phymouth Prior Lake Ramsey Randolph Rando4)h township ’ *• • Ravenna township Richfield Robbinsdale Rockford Cp^) Rogers RosemounI Roseville SL Anthony St. Bonifacius St Fiands St. Lawrence tovmshtp St Louis Park ■ St Marys Po St P- St Pu San Frandsco township •4! —-rr t Sand Creek township Savage Sciota township Shakopee Shoreview •"^^wrewood *: South St. Paul Spring Lake Parti TfiT.Vt Spring Lake township Spring Park Stillwater StilNaterkwmshki Sunfish Lake Tonka Bay Vadnais Heights VermiDion Vermillion tcwr.ship Victoria r.-n* Waconia Waconia township Waterford township WalertOMn Watertown township Wayzata West Lakeland township West St Paul White Bear Lake While Bear township Winemie Woodbury Woodlarxf Young America township 3.863 11.929 3.100 6.903 3.95 26.65J 7.538 2.434 421 65.894 15.917 16.510 318 536 2.355 34439 14.12 144 3.588 14.619 3'».69C 8.012 1.073 4.910 472 44.126 344 287,151 5.070 888 1.551 21.115 285 20568 25.924 : 7.400 20.167 S.772 3681 1.717 15.143 *2.563 504 1347 13069 437 1.243 4.025 6.814 1.284 517 3.029 : 432 4.113 3.547 19.405 24.325 11,293 549 46.463 smI k I 4 2002 riLlUtoi V Llw :fl]3ia;nr.T 5 orn CITY Ur OrtOiNo October 1,2002 Dear Mr. Ron Moorse, The Dog Days Committee would like to thank the City of Orono for being a contributor to the success of Dog Days of Summer in Navarre. Many comimmity members enjoyed all the sidewalk and porch sales, dog parade, activities for Idds, classic car display and musical entertaiiunent. lire Chamber of Commerce office and other committee members have received overwhelmingly positive feedback. Please call the Chamber at 952-471*0768 with any suggestions or comments. Your feedback is important to us to ensure each year is successful. Also, mark your calendar! Dog Days of Summer is scheduled for Frid^ and Saturday, August IS and 16,2003. We look forward to your participation again next year. Sincerely, PatsylG^wPatsy Executive Director l4d(e Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce i V \4 *'”***“ I 4 20Q? nrj 5 orc.o CITY Qf OHOfio id for bdhg a contributor ules, dog parade, activities uriber of Commerce office otitive feedback. orconuiieitr Your br Friday and Saturday, Ml again noct year. %f I 4 2001 2002 Ma|il« Hain NEWS ^ I i f I ' fir ‘v«-; -W n <S .snauLL □ i ' *r cl -f Q ' r-cr — Fire Chief Dave Eisinger and Mayor Jack Vigoren With Maple Plains* New Ladder Truck FROM THE MAYORS’ DESK, Maple Plain provides lire protection and emergency medical services to parts of each of the cities of Independence, Medina, Minnetrista, and Orono under a contract that dates back to the late I970*s. About a year ago all cities agreed that the contract was out-of-date and should be upgraded. Maple Plain had its cit>- attorney draft a new contract which reflected the changes that brought the document into the 21st Century. The four contract cities responded by saying that instead of being our customers ^y wanted to share ownership and control of the department. They demanded a joint powers agreement; throu^ which a joint powers board, made up of representa tives (rom each of the cities, would oversee the fire department and own the equip ment and facilities. Maple Plains' City Council flatly refused to consider such a proposal. We have one of the finest volunteer fire departments in the st.nte and we are not about to give it away. We believe if it works, don’t fix it! Negotiations came to a halt and Maple Plain cancelled the antiquated contract effective December 3 1,2002, so as not to be strapped with the old agreement for another ye.ir At this time I am not sure how things will work out between the cities after January 1,2003.1 do know that we will continue to offer these cities the highest quality fire sers'ices at competitive prices. However, there is one thing I am absolutely sure of; as of January 1,2003 and for many, many years, the residents of Maple Plain will continue to have fire protection and emergency medical services from its highly and finely trained and dedicated volunteer fire fighters and those firefighters w ifl have the full support of the City of Maple Plain, its City Council, its Mayor and its resi dents. /'\ ■ ' . I 'October 3 Planning Commission, 7;00 p.m. 5 Salvation Army Pick-Up 8 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12 Fire Dept. Steak Fry & Auction 13 Fire Dept. Open House 22 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 27 Daylight Savings Time Ends November mm 5 ELECTION DAY 7 Planning Commission 11 Veterans Day-City Offices Closed 12 City Council Meeting 7:00 pm 26 City Council Meeting 7:00 pm 28 Tlianksgiving Holiday 29 City Offices Closed December a .-e 2 Truth-In-Taxation Meeting 7 p.m 5 Planning Commission . 7:00 p.m. 7 “View Santa" 10 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. NOV. 1ST—APRIL I5TH NO PARKING ON CITY STREETS BETWEEN 1:00 A.M.-7;00 A.M.