Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-12-2002 Council Packet
S.T li AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12,2002,7:00 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 Con^t Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are availid>le in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL •MG CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend NOV Urn ORONO APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of October 28,2002 * 3. Special Council Meeting of the Canvassing Board of November 6,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Deborah Halvorson, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith. Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (LinUt 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 4. #02-2823 Ron Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 5. #02-2843 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley Parkway - Final Development Plan Approval - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 6. Request for Payment No. 1 - Hackberry Park Playground Improvements CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 7. Year 2003 Non-Union Employee Pay and Benefit Adjustments - Resolution 8. Long Lake Fire Station Pay Request 9. Long Lake Fire Station Change Order No. 2 10. E>onations 11. Planning Staff Reorganization and Promotion of Wendy Bottenberg 12. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Maximum Fee - Code Amendment - Ordinance 13. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee - Expansions 14. View Roundabout Video CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT • 15. LICENSES Liquor License 16. BILLS : O AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2002 11/11 HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day 11/12 Council Meeting, rMer</ay, 7:00p.m. 11/14 Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. 11/18 Plaiming Conunission, 6:30 p.m. 11/21 Council Work Session, ThuRKlay, 5:30 p.m. 11/25 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 11/28 HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day 11/29 HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day • • ^ 12/02 Planning Conunission Work Session, 6:00 p.m. 12/05 Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. 12/09 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12/24 HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas (Afternoon) 12/25 HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas 0 Public Attendance Meeting D ate JiW o 1 ^ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please nLLOUTTHEINFORMATIONREQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER d .■^0^2^4- / y/'c ^ 3.. 4. 5. 6.. 7. 10.. 11. 12. 13.. 14.. 15. IinObu ^fappM^UPBnv • OM)VrORMf\PVBUCArr MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. OAI tt 0 NOV 1 2 2002 ROLL CITY U^ OHONO • • . --------^ The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Jay Nygard; and Late Arrival City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike GafTron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. DONATION Mayor Peterson accepted an $8,000 donation from Jim Anderst, owner of the Narrows Saloon, proceeds from its 2nd Annual Golf Tournament held this summer. Rick Meyers, of the Park Commission, thanked Mr. Anderst for his community spirit and recognized him for his generous fundraising efforts on behalf of the City Park Commission. Meyers stated that The Narrows Saloon in Navarre has become a focal point for community activities and indicated that he looked forward to future fundraising efforts. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items U\l, 18,20,21, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of October 14,2002 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 14,2002 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. 3. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees - RESOLUTION NO.4880 Mayor Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m, There were no public comments. Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m PAGE 1 of 20 I i • - , r # r V I V1 i:;Yrr.; MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. 3. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees - Continued Murphy questioned how the $92,770 Figure compared to years past. Moorse indicated that the figure was much higher than in the past, however, as the deadline approaches he expected the figure to decrease. In fact, he stated the figure is probably closer to $70,000 now and as the deadline approaches he expected the figure to be closer to $40,000- 50,000. Mayor Peterson wondered if the figure was alarming to staff. Murphy suggested that staff keep on top of these delinquent accounts since the state of the economy is so precarious. Sansevere moved, Nygard seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4880 providing for the collection of delinquent charges for the 2002 sewer and water utility ser\ ices, the septic inspection program, the recycling program, the false alarms, developers improvement fees, and other general service fees. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Rick Meyers, Representative Meyers reported that the resodding and reseeding in Navarre was complete and should look very nice in the spring. Aflcr several attempts to establish a prairie environment at French Creek, Meyers indicated that the attempts had failed to produce a prairie environment and the Park Commission w ill be meeting w ith the prairie restoration group to find out how to stait over again. Meyers pointed out that the Hackberry Park installation was on line. Gappa added that the concrete work was complete and that they were waiting for the equipment. Meyers thanked the Council for their support as the Park Commission continues to work to maintain the high standards they’ve set for Orono Parks. Meyers noted that the Commission discussed the lake access points and urged the City Council to make a recommendation for a timeline. Meyers staled that the Park Commission had held up its end of the bargain, mapping and categorizing the access points, and now would await Council direction. The Commission is aware that staff has many other priorities. White indicated that due to a combination of staff time and monetary restraints the access points were postponed. Of the 30 proposed and 13 to have been marked, he questioned whether any had been done. Meyers acknowledged that they had hoped to accomplish at least one this year, but that had not occurred to date. He stated that he understood they w’ere a low priority in comparison to the many things that fill staff s time and what happens next is up to the Council. PAGE 2 of 20 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued) White suggested the access point discussion be added to an upcoming work session agenda between the Park Commission and the City Council. Beyond December, Sansevere asked Meyers if the Park Commission would like to lessen their load over the winter and meet less often. Meyers indicated that, in his opinion, that would be fine since much of what they discuss during the winter months is repetitive. Mayor Peterson asked Meyers ifhe had made a decision with regard to his reappointment to the Park Commission. Meyers stated that he would like to continue his work on the Park Commission. Since several others terms would be ending, Meyers felt he should ic''iain in order to keep a certain level of continuity within the Commission. From what he had witnessed, Murphy believed Meyers to be a driving force within the Commission and he was glad that Meyers would continue his service. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • J. Marc Fritzler, Representative Fritzler indicated that the Planning Commission had done a great deal of work on the Dahlstrom Development Project and the Orono Professional Properties proposal which had taken them late into the evening last week. The Commission has had many full dockets and Frit/lcr indicated that he would be available for questions this evening. I.MCD REPORT - Llii McMillan l.ili McMillan was not present, PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. PRESENTATION - 7:30 P.M. 4. Sally Kocneckc, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission - 2003 Proposed Budget As the representatives were not yet present, they returned to this item later. PAGE 3 of 20 ________________________ iMUiiiih i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o^clock p.m. 22. Resignation of Paul Weinberger from City Planner/Zoning Administrator Positiotr* Resolution The Mayor read and presented Weinberger with a framed resolution of appreciation, and thanked him for his years of outstanding service to Orono. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE - FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Weinberger explained that the applicant, Barbara Hensley, intends to purchase the property at 38SO Shoreline Drive, which is currently operated as “Bay Furniture”. The applicant intends to operate an upscale resale store called “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer”. The proposed business will continue to sell furniture, antiques, crystal/china, jewelry, and home accessories such as lamps, pictures, and rugs. There will be a limited amount of clothing and accessories. The application is two-fold: 1) Findings of Similar Use to allow the furniture store to operate as a permitted or conditional use. If the Planning Commission and City Council deem the proposed use to be substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district, they can allow it. 2) The second part of the application is the commercial site plan review. The property is zoned B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District. Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 to permit use of the building as a resale retail business similar to the existing furniture store, and approved a commercial site plan for alterations to the parking lot subject to 9 conditions identified in the staff report. While he had no problem with the proposed use. White stated that he had two concerns, first why the antique shop was not an approved use originally, and second, he questioned what the City would do if the other end of the spectrum applied for a permitted use. He wondered how the City could designate what they do and don't want operating in this area. Although not all similar uses might be desirable businesses, Weinberger noted that this was unique in that it was not a drop off center and the owners indicated they expect at least 90% of the merchandise would be delivered by truck, not a customer drop off point. In order to avoid being labeled as capricious judges. White wished the City could provide him with a recommendation that distinguished this proposal from other future similar uses. White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve use of the property for a resale retail operation for **Hope Chest for Breast Cancer" finding the use b substantially similar to uses permitt^ in the dbtrict and to approve the commercial site plan for changes to the existing parking lot. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 4 of 20 ZJC. . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. *6. 802-2832 RANDY ARNESON, 625 DEBORAH DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE ~ PERMIT-.RESOLUTION NO. 4881 Murphy Moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4881 , a Resolution granting a conditionai use permit to approve the holding tank for the accessory structure. Staff has approved the holding tank and the property owner has agreed to a plumbing agreement for the holding tank at 625 Deborah Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #02-2833 G&G HOLDING COMPANY, 1160 LOMA LINDA AVENUE- VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4882 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4882, a Resolution granting lot area and lot width variances to permit construction of a new house on the property located at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #02-2835 THOMAS ADAMS, 500 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - RENEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4883 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4883, a Resolution granting variance renewals subject to the conditions as approved by the Orono City Council in the resolution approving the variance in 2001, including: the accessory building shall be completed and final inspection approved prior to issuing any permits to permit the house to be moved and/or remodeled, and all other accessory building (except for the approved garage) shall be removed prior to issuance of any permits for relocation of the house located at 500 Orchard Park Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. #02-2836 CHARLES AND JENNIFER PHELPS, 385 TURNHAM ROAD- VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 4884 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4884, a Resolution granting a front yard setback variance to construct a mud room on the street side of the residence located at 385 Turnham Road. VOTE: Ayes 5 Nays 0. 10. #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY, 3545 IVY PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4885 Weinberger explained that the applicant had requested a front yard setback variance to permit a 14 ’ third stall addition to the attached garage. The proposed addition would encroach 12 ’ into the required 30’ setback to the front/street property line. PAGE 5 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (#02-2837, JEFF DAN BERRY, Continued) Weinberger noted that staff did not support a variance involving a conforming structure, on a conforming lot, built after the standard for the zoning district were established. Staff was concerned that improving a variance for this project might set a negative precedent for additions and alterations to conforming structures on conforming lots. By a vote of S to 2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances. Weinberger noted that it was the majority opinion that white the lot and house were conforming structures, there were unique factors that could be applied to this property that do constitute hardships. Since the property is located at the end of Ivy Place, there is no outlet and the garage addition would not negatively change the character of the neighborhood. Weinberger explained that since the property is on the lakeshore, they would be allowed construction of a detached garage 10’ from the street property line, whereas the proposed garage would be 18’ from the properly line. The Planning Commission felt that the attached garage stall functioned much better for the property than a detached building. The Planning Commission believed that the overall appearance of the property would be enhanced by having an attached garage stall rather than a detached building located nearer the street. Finally, there are several utility easements on the property that impact the building envelope making additions to the house difficult. Weinberger pointed out that it was the minority opinion of the Planning Commission that the approval of a setback variance for a conforming structure on a conforming lot would set a negative precedent, especially since the lot was developed under current zoning standards. Sansevere believed it odd and questioned whether it was a flaw in the building codes that the applicants could be allowed a detached garage 10’ from the street property line versus not being allowed the proposed attached garage 18’ from the street property line. Because it is a lakeshore lot. Weinberger explained that the intent is that proposed garage additions or detached garages would stay in the back yard versus lakeside. Sansevere asked Weinberger if he believed there were legitimate hardships to justify the request. With the exception of the fact that it is a conforming lot with a conforming building, Weinberger stated that the Planning Commission makes a valid argument that it is more aesthetically pleasing to allow the attached garage, if the property owner were to agree that he would not come back and propose a detached building in addition to this application later. Sansevere stated that, if this were viewed as a hardship condition, it would not be seen as precedent setting. Mr. Danberry had nothing to add Murphy indicated that, in his opinion, the attached garage addition would not be out of sorts with the rest of the road and he favored their not losing trees to a detached garage. PAGE 6 of 20 K* ' ] I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (802-2837, JEFF DANBERRY, Continued) Danberry stated that no trees would be lost due to construction. As he lives near the site, White stated that he agreed with the attached garage proposal. Having been present at the Planning Commission discussion he concurred with their opinion and thought this looked good. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4885, approving a front yard setback variance to permit construction of a third garage stall addition encroaching 12* into the required 30* street yard setback for the residence at 3545 Ivy Place based on findings noted in the Resolution. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 11. BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, 3320 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY PLAT Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a Preliminary Plat for a two-lot subdivision of a 50^ acre site located on W'atertown Road. The property is located in a 2 acre /.one and will be divided by creating two building sites (Lots 1 and 2) and shared driveway (Outlet A). Weinberger noted that the general site plan meets all requirements for a front/back lot subdivision, a 3 acre site for Lot 2 is met. Since back lots are also required to have driveway access a minimum of 30’ i:i width. Outlet A has been designed much wider than the 30’ to allow the driveway approach to be located at the highest point to provide the best site lines for the driveway. There is no request for the development for a third property at this time. Weinberger pointed out that each lot has demonstrated two septic sites which meets local and state standards. I'here arc wetlands on Lot 1 and Lot 2, which are protected by the City and will be subject to some mininnil impact by this development, however 50% of the site is designated wetland. Due to Fire Code requirements for a minimum 20’ driveway access, including the portion across the wetland, a variance will need to be granted to allow access to go thru the wetlands, and WCA guidelines might require additional wetlands be created on the property. With regard to the stormwater trunk fee, Weinberger indicated that since the applicant has proposed to divide the 50 acre parcel into 2 building sites, the new Storm Water and Drainage I runk Fee (SW&DT) requires lots in the RR-IB (2 acre) district to pay S2,700 per acre totaling SI 35,000 for this lot. The applicant has requested that the fee be adjusted based on the fact the fee assumes full development, which will not occur in this case. The trunk fee amounts to $67,500 per lot In this case. Weinberger |>ointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan and approval of a variance to permit w idening of the driveway through the w etland based on four findings on page three of the staff memo, followed by five conditions on page four of the staff memo dated October 11.2002. PAGE 7 of 20 4 mimh p' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, Continued) John Boyer commented that, although this was a complicated issue, he felt that essentially the 10 dry buildable acre runoff would be treated within the property itself and was asking for an adjustment to the SW&DT. Weinberger pointed out to Council Exhibit B, prepared by Mike Gaffron, which creates a scenario in which the City Council could establish a per-lot maximum fee for the 2-acre zone. This fee would be based on the projected 2-acre zone overall density of 1691 homes on 6811 acres or 1 home per 4.03 acres at full development. Under this scenario, the maximum SW&DT Fee of ($2,700 X 4.03 acres » $10,880) per single family lot would come into play for a rural subdivision that contains an extraordinary percentage of wetland. Boyer felt that it was disproportionate that properties that produce the most runoff pay the least amount of fees. He also questioned how the SW&DT fees would affect remodeling projects, since he, as a builder, has bid on work 6 mos. or one year down the road which would then need to build in these fees. Weinberger stated that the City has not collected fees for remodeling and merely tlirough the planning process have they been able to begin the process. Gappa pointed out that smaller lots have a bigger impact on stormwater, that ’s why the cost per acre was higher in that zoning district. Staffhad attempted to factor in the fact that smaller lots don’t have enough room to treat rutiolTand at S acre districts you can be allowed credits if stonnwatcr can be treated on site. White questioned where Boyer foresaw the per acre fee, the $2,100 - $2,600 acre range. As she viewed it. Mayor Peterson clarified that she believed that Boyer felt that in order to be comparable to other 2 acre zoning parcels, the total fee should be in the neighborhood of $8,000 versus the proposed $10,000. She asked staff for their comments. Gallron stated that, in general, it costs more per unit to serve our low density residential users with stormwater and sanitary sewer which includes grading, ditches, and other work that needs to be done than at higher densities. On an overall basis, that is why the higher cost per acre for higher density areas was created for the 2 acre zones, and 5 acre zones were offered certain reductions. If the applicant was wondering what sort of rationale the City could look at to make this more fair and equitable, he staled that it would not be the overall density, this is an unusual circumstance, based on dry buildable land of merely 10 acres versus the 40 acres of w etland. Gaflron acknow ledged that, certainly, the $135,000 SW&DT Fee did not make sense. Murphy asked what the rationale was for coming up with any of the dollar amounts for the SW&DT. Kellogg stated that the City had a single number base that w as chosen within the City to look at SW&DT. PAGE 8 of 20 dikilitt .. ------------------ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, Continued) Gappa explained that this number was based on the average of 10 typical properties within the City, taking the total cost of the stormwater improvements and dividing that by the acres, thereby using the 2-acre district as the base, factoring up and down from there. Murphy asked staff whether they felt comfortable that, when they arrived at these numbers, they were fair and equitable and they could live with them. Kellogg confirmed Murphy’s statement. Murphy stated that he was glad to hear that the $2,700 figure was not an arbitrary number, that staff had used a valid equation to determine the fee, and Gaffron was able to reach a reasonable conclusion that supports the $10,000 fee. White asked the applicant if this scenario was similar in other communities. Boyer indicated that he had not been faced with this issue before and was not clear whether other communities assessed this fee or not. He felt it was examined on a per site basis and in most instances, the developer creates their own retention or stormwater pond whereby the concern is moot. Mayor Peterson asked staff if they could foresee other developments this could affect. Gaffron stated that the Dahlstrom parcel could be affected , as would other sites in the future. Dave Tuax, resident, stated that, in other municipalities, if you arc trying to relate this to the installation costs of sanitary sewer, they often use a linear foot of roadside as a yardstick. Kellogg commented that, in his opinion, the earlier statement that compares the park dedication fees to stormwater trunk fees, was like comparing apples to oranges. Park Dedication fees arc based on the number of users that are going to impact the park, whereas, the stormwater trunk fee cannot be based on the per unit fee because there arc many issues that are not being addressed when you develop a natural area. Since there will be runoff into the natural wetland area, what is going to happen downstream from this development, the natural wetland is going to change once this site develops, and Kellogg didn’t believe it fair to base the fee on a per unit basis, and instead he suggested it continue to be reviewed on an area basis. Based on the table supplied by Gaffron, Mayor Peterson pointed out that the SW&DT fees would be paid for by new development. Murphy clarified that, it seemed to him, the formula revolves around the City being able to rca.sonably account for all the costs of moving stormwater and drainage from all of Orono, through the City, and to the lake. He pointed out that this formula is based merely on a proportionate share of that total cost, it has PAGE 9 of 20 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. • (BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, Continued) nothing to do with the specific need to drain or move stormwater off a speciflc parcel. GafTron felt this to be a fair statement. He added that it was also fair to say that somewhere down the stream there would be a stormwater pond built that serves as a regional pond to serve this property and other properties, and since the density is smaller, the cost to them is higher per unit. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment to Municipal Code Section 3.22 - **Rules and Regulations Establishing a Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee** for consideration and adoption which incorporates a maximum per- lot fee for the 2-acre zones of $10,880. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4. Administrator Sally Koenecke and Chair Bruce Williamson, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) 2003 Proposed Budget Ms. Koenecke reported that the LMCC is comprised of 16 Cities around the Lake and every year the LMCC visits member cities presenting their budget and answering any questions they might have. She explained that the budget is itemized in terms of revenues and expenditures. The usage fees support the organizations. Expenditures include the franchise administration budget and studio production fees. This year the LMCC reviewed the franchise agreements with the cable companies to make sure they understood what their obligations were under the franchise agreement and found some non-compliance areas. Since that time, most have come into compliance and issues resolved. The other thing the LMCC has accomplished this year is to perform two audits, first, of the cable company ’s fhmehise revenues and the other having to do with their rate structure for basic cable. Koenecke noted that the last page reflects equipment needs for the LMCC. She pointed out that this year the LMCC purchased a used studio van available for broadcasting community events. Mr. Williamson pointed out that while each member City has ownership of the LMCC as it is structured under the FCC, it is not supported by general tax money, Sansevere questioned who would use the new studio van. Williamson stated that, while the van is available to all member cities, it has mostly been used by volunteers to cover community sporting events. Williamson explained that, under the joint power agreement, the LMCC is required to present its budget annually for approval by its member cities. He pointed out that only over the past several years has the budget evolved into covering the line items, as any City budget would be required to do. Sansevere asked if they were aware if the number of homes in Orono had increased from last year. PAGE 10 of 20 rrifcitflw MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mooday, October 28,2002 7:00 oVIock p.m. (LMCC BUDGET, Continued) Koenecke stated that she did know the percents, however, she would provide him with the figures from Mediacom. Williamson stated that growth seems flat, however, it is yet to be seen how the introduction of high speed internet services and satellite will effect cable. Murphy asked if all 16 communities were represented on the LMCC. Williamson stated that Orono has been most recently represented by Mr. Albertson, who has been highly supportive of the audit process. Murphy asked how long the franchise agreements lasted Williamson indicated that Orono is in year 3 of a 15 year franchise agreement, an a^cement that is not an exclusive contract. Murphy moved. White seconded, to approve the LMCC, Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission, proposed 2003 budget. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. #02-2841 DAVID DICKEY, 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 4886 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4886, granting a hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone variance to permit constrnction of an attached garage and foyer to the existing residence at 4425 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. #02-2844 BRUCE AND CAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4887 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4887, approving a hardcover variance to permit 5,555 s.f. of hardcover for a 19 ’ .X 28’ residential addition to the residence at 2601 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 14. n.EMING ADDITION TRAIL FINAL PLAT - RESOLUTION NO. 4888 Murphy asked that item #3, line 2, of the Resolution be revised to reflect that the earth berm would be at an approximate height to be determined in conjunction with the homeowners association and not less than 5 feet high. He indicated that Lundgren Brothers had agreed to work with Clark Jenney and the homeowners association to construct this berm. White moved, Nygard seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4888, amending the Reming Trail Addition final plat and final development plan with the condition that the berm be not less than 5 feet and the height determined in concurrence with the Orono Oaks homeowners association. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 11 of 20 J CT.T. , . -TTHB MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. 15. II02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY DISCUSSION OF WETLAND AND OTHER ISSUES Gaflron reported that the Planning Commission on October 21 recommended approval of the General Development Plan for the proposed medical/dental office after reviewing the most recent plan sheets. This item is scheduled for Council action on November 12 assuming a number of remaining issues can be suitably resolved. Some of the remaining issues that require Council discussion and policy decisions include: 1 . There is still no purchase agreement for sale of the City property to the applicants. GaHron explained that issues, which appear to be holding up completion of the purchase agreement, include the following. a) Potential need for wetland mitigation: Gaffion indicated that the questions that need to be answered include, if the wetland requires mitigation, who will be responsible, the seller (City) or buyer; if the buyers are responsible, how will that affect the purchase price; while on site mitigation is preferable, it is not known if that will be possible. Gaff-on laid out staff recommendations to this first issue, as follows: The buyer should be responsible for the mitigation; if the buyer can mitigate on site, the usability of the site is not diminished, therefore the price of the land should not be affected; if mitigation occurs offsite, this becomes an issue of negotiation of if or how the costs are shared among the parties. With regard to the wetland issue, although John Smyth of Bonestroo, on the City’s behalf, filed an application for exemption with the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) on or about September 1st, the MCWD has made slow progress at reaching any conclusion on our request. In their view, Smyth and Ben Meyers of Bonestroo, believed that the wetland on this parcel should be considered as incidental, since it was something that was created based on the City’s activities on that site over the past 8-9 years. Therefore, they still believe the wetland that is out there should not be something that is subject to the WCA, wetland conservation act regulations. Gaffron stated that the MCWD convened a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on Monday October 7 to view the site and attempt to conclude w hether the wetland is subject to mitigation requirements as filed, however, neither staff nor Smyth were notified by MCWD of that meeting and therefore were not given the opportunity to discuss the merits of our request. Gaf&on pointed out that as of October 25,2002, Mike Wyatt of MCWD staff had indicated that he was inclined to recommend denial of the exemption. Smyth still feels there is sufficient supportive information to change Wyatt’s mind. f 4 PAGE 12 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (#02-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) Currently, GafTron indicated that the City has extended the MCWD’s 60-day review period so that the City can present its case to the complete TEP panel before the MCWD board makes its final decision. The TEP panel is tentatively scheduled for November 7, the same day as the next MCWD Board meeting, therefore, final board action might be delayed until November 21,2002. While the purchasers are willing to revise their site plan to mitigate by creating wetland in the proposed lawn area southwest of their building, Gaflron maintained that, at this point, the wetland has not been officially delineated and it is unknown how large it is and/or how big an area will needed for wetland mitigation. Sanscverc questioned how common it was for our consultants to say the wetland was incidental and the MCWD to disagree, and say that it is a wetland in need of mitigation. Moorse indicated that this was the first time he was aware of this ever occurring. In fact, Moorse pointed out that the wetland delineator who first viewed the site wasn ’t convinced the site was worth delineating at all. Sansevere asked how then the MCWD was convinced otherwise, and concluded that others in the TEP panel needed to look at it. Gaffron stated that MCWD’s staff has come to a different conclusion than John Smyth, who felt the wetland should be exempt. The City, as well as John Smyth, have now been trying to pinpoint the delineation report in order to allow the buyers to proceed with their planning. Acknowledging that the applicants need to get something in the ground soon or wait until spring. White stated that the City needs to move this forw'ard. He was frustrated by MCWD’s lack of flexibility on this matter, and how their inability to make a decision would cost the applicant greatly. He questioned whether a political contact by the Council or Mayor could relay to the MCWD that this is an item of great concern, and cost, to the City of Orono. White urged the Council and staff to relay to MCWD that we like this development and don’t want to lose it. He felt this intersection would be held up as the lynch pin piece for Orono and it was being hung up by whether someone was sure or not there was a wetland to be mitigated for. White reiterated that it struck him as being inflexible that the MCWD was unable to allow the applicant to go forward with any kind of solution. Attorney Barrett arrived at 8:36 P.M. Murphy pointed out that the City has not done well negotiating with the watershed district and he was unsure where the problem lies, especially since some of the same issues arose with regard to the fire station initially. White questioned at what point the City stands up, gets involved, and goes to bat for a development that they would really like to see move forward, in an area surrounded by wetlands, we are arguing over one incidental wetland. PAGE 13 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (A02-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) Mayor Peterson asked GafTron who the Council needed to speak with, or push, and how should they do so. GafTron indicated that the 60 day window would expire at the end of the month, however, if the MCWD denies the application of exemption on the 59th day based merely on their staff person ’s recommendation, that would not give the City an opportunity to make their case to make the wetland exempt. Therefore, the City Consultant suggested the City tile for an extension in order to meet with the MCWD TEP panel on November 7 to make our case prior to the monthly meeting that evening. GafTron felt it was doubtful they would go from the TEP panel that day to the district meeting that night with a recommendation to call it exempt, and it would probably be continued until November 21,2002. Murphy inquired whether the TEP meeting could be set for the 7th and whether the City could be put on the watershed district’s agenda, so that a final decision could be made November 7,2002. GafTron stated that they could attempt to be put on the agenda. Sansevere suggested they make their case at the district meeting on the 7th, similar to how applicants oOcntiincs skip a step, or recommendations by the Planning Commission, in order to be heard by the City Council here. White stated that the MCWD could either accept the offer by the City to make the wetland exempt or they could accept the City ’s offer for some kind of solution, like the developers are proposing. Gaffron indicated that if the developers arc required to do some sort of mitigation, they would likely be required by the watershed to file a plan that the watershed would then have to approve for mitigation. While he was unsure how long that process would take, it could potentially take on additional 60 days. Mayor Peterson asked if staff believed the City ’s hands were tied. Gatfron stated that from a staff perspective, working within the MCWD’s system, the City ’s hands were tied, and it could take some political effort to make things happen. White suggested that staff contact the director of the MCWD and share with them that the Mayor and City Administrator would like to talk with him about a project wc have here, could you tell us how the City could work within their system to make their system w ork for us. White indicated that the City doesn’t know their rules, and he believed there were only so many projects that could have as huge an impact for a City as this development. He wanted to explain to the MCWD that the City could not let this multi*million dollar project escape because it was not deemed a priority to the watershed district. PAGE 14 of 20 I i m . ywmmrr-Y- •s . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. • • . tr‘* (#02-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) GafTron indicated that the call would need to come from the City Administrator or Mayor. White agreed, stating that the call should come from our Mayer or City Administrator to their Director. Mayor Peterson asked for further comments on potential solutions. Murphy indicated that he was hesitant to deal with staffs wetland mitigation issue questions until more answers were obtained from the MCWD. Gaffron stated that it could potentially help the developer if the City could define its position more clearly. Sansevere asked what sort of dollar amount they were referring to for the costs. Gaffron noted that it would be approximately $5,000- $10,000. White indicated that he was not prepared to hold up a $3.5 million project for a mere $10,000. Murphy asked if there was a standard as to whom pays for mitigation typically. Gaffron stated that, for example, Dahlslrom is purchasing their property as is and performing the required mitigation. Dr. Berg pointed out that they have bent over backward to accommodate the City with regard to Kelley Parkway, trails, and sidewalks. He stated that the difference between them and Dahlstrom was that Dahlstrom knew going into their development that mitigation was going to be a factor, whereas. Professional Properties of Orono did not. He stated that they do not have access to areas for mitigation in a timely fashion. Dr. Berg continued that they have been asked to give an easement and are surrounded on three sides by trails and sidewalks, he noted that all they want is to be given a clear picture of what they will be required to do before they purchase the property. Murphy asked what was more of a deal breaker to the applicant at this point. Moorsc indicated that, in his opinion, there were more important issues than who will pay for what. It is the timing, a wetland mitigation plan, and erosion control permit from the watershed that take precedence. Gaffron stated that there are permits that the developers need to get from the watershed, which include, the mitigation plan approval and erosion control permit, which would unlikely be granted until they are comfortable with the project and understand that it will not affect certain things. Gaffron added that this is a new commercial site and would likely require a stormwater plan, which has been supplied to the City that shows a pipe that goes to the Dahlstrom pond. PAGE 15 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (802-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) The watershed district has said that, conceptually, they agree with that plan but they have not yet approved the Dahlstrom plan cither. In fact, that pond has not been approved and may not be there when this property is ready to give stormwater off from it, and given the way the wetlands were looked at recently, GafTron was given the impression that the watershed may not accept the Dahlstrom development wetland delineation and stormwater plan either. There are many unknowns and GafTron felt there should be a contingency plan available for the MCWD so that they are comfortable with where the water wilt go if the big pond does not get built. Dr. Berg stated that they have been working with Vickie Lindahl, of Landforms,. to develop a stormwater backup plan, with two options, first to use the property next door and dig a hole in it for collection, the other would be to drain the water over to the MnDOT pond. In any scenario, Dr. Berg noted that no paving would be done until next spring, and the wetland would not be affected until then. Gaffron reiterated that mitigation is MCWD’s issue, although the City could work on behalf of the developer with the MCWD to some up with viable solutions. Since the City has been offered a development that it likes and one that fits all of our needs. White maintained that the City should make an effort to let MCWD know this is important to us. Mayor Peterson asked why the MCWD did not like this proposal. Moorse indicated that it wasn't a matter of them liking the proposal, there is a certain process to the way they look at their issues. Murphy asked whether the City should go to worst case scenario and back a plan that finds a mitigable plan to move this forward. While not unwise to prepare a back up plan, Gaffron felt the consultant still had a case for the incidental wetland. Sansevere asked who, besides the stafi'person Wyatt, was saying no to the application. Gaffron noted that Wyatt put together a TLP panel to look at this application, in doing so due to lack of representation for our side, which is a point of contention for the City, they only heard Wyatt’s perspective. Murphy suggested, once again, that the City make an official attempt to get on the MCWD agenda for November 7,2002. PAGE 16 of 20 1 I A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o*clock p.m. (802-2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) Moorse argued that our engineer or consultant should have been given the opportunity to attend the initial TEP panel to represent our interests, and believed a second panel should be scheduled with our people present. Murphy added that arrangements should be made to meet with their TEP panel on the 7th, the same day we are scheduled on their district agenda, to get a decision made. Dr. Kotteman stated that the only way they would be able to begin building this year would be if the wetland was found exempt, otherwise everything may have to wait. Gappa indicated that, for example, with regard to the fire station, the District could not make its final decision the same evening and it had to be put off for two weeks, which in this case would be November 21,2(X)2. As the end of the growing season is typically October 15, Gafiron maintained that had the MCWD made a timely decision after the application was filed September 1st, we would not be in this quandary. Issue b) Potential need to construct Highway 12 trail within the property. Gafiron indicated that based on discussions with MnDOT, it is unlikely they will approve construction of a trail in their right-of-way. Staff suggests the City obtain an easement along the south 10 ’ of the property for the trail, ’just in case’. Murphy inquired where the County stood on this issue. While Gaffron could not say, ultimately, he believed that the City would have to include it a.s part of its conditions. Dr. Berg pointed out that the 10 ’ they refer to is where the sign and proposed landscaping would be placed. Item c) Public sidewalks and trails constructed within the property Dr. Kotteman explained that, originally, they entered into negotiations to purchase a »'vo acre parcel, which has now been diminished greatly by all of these conditions. Conditions, which will impact and not be considered for inclusion in the final purchase price of the site. Sansevere questioned whether it would be done this way even if the City were not the seller. Gafiron stated that it could be precedent setting to some extent, however, the bigger issue is that the applicants are purchasing the entire parcel and granting easements back to the City, if they don’t want to purchase the entire parcel then the City will have to do a subdivision to either dedicate more right-of-way or do something that changes the property boundaries. PAGE 17 of 20 MINUTES OETHK ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o'clock p.m. (I102>2843, PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, Continued) Dr. Berg indicated that they do plan to purchase the entire parcel and believed that they will get the job done uDcr much common sense negotiating. Mayor Peterson asked the Attorney if this was problematic. Barrett noted that the City was well within its rights to wear two hats, as seller and regulator. Dr. Kottcinan stated that they sincerely appreciated the City Council’s interest in their project and willingness to approach MCWD on their behalf. Mayor Peterson urged staff to set the meeting v/ith the MCWD TliP Panel for November 7, 2002 and keep her abreast of developments. Sanscvcrc stated that he woidd suggest a name to them in order to set up a meeting with an advoeate or representative of Orono who might be on their side and assist in making inroads with MCWD. Dr. Eberts reiterated their appreciation to the City Council for their going *to bat ’ for the development. I Ic stated that, ultimately, this would be a great thing for Orono. Sansevere concurred, stating that this is an important project for the conununity, and one the Council wants to see happen. MAYOR/COUNCTL REPORT • to be continued Mayor Peterson suggested that the C’ity send out letters of condolence to the Wellstone camp and to those who lo.st loved ones in the Wellstone plane crash. Mayor Peterson inquired if the upcoming work sessions were still scheduled for November 14 and 21. and December 5, 2(M)2 at 5:30 P.M. M»»orse imlicated that those were the dates they had discussed. *16. HOUSING WEEK NOVEMBER 16-23,2002 - PROCLAMATION Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt the proclamation selling the week of November 16-23,2002 as Housing Week in Orono. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUHI.IC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT Gappa had nothing to report. PAGE 18 of 20 :: A *— A MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *17. PROMOTION OF KURT ERICKSON TO POLICE SERGEANT POSITION Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to promote Kurt Erickson to the Police Sergeant Position. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *18. POLICE DEPARTMENT - TACTICAL RIFLE PURCHASE Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Police Departments tacticai rifles purchase. 19. VEHICLE FORFEITURE UPDATE Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to reject the vehicle forfeiture. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *20. POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FOR UNDERAGE ACCESS TO ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE CHECKS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the grant for underage access to alcohol compliance checks. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *21. POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTANCE OF NCMEC COMPUTER DONATION Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept a donation from the Nationai Center for Missing and Expioited Children. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 22. RESIGNATION OF PAUL WEINBERGER FROM CITY PLANNER/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR POSITION - RESOLUTION 4879 White moved, Murphy seconded, to accept Paui Weinberger’s resignation effective November 5,2002, and to adopt appreciation RESOLUTION NO. . VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Mayor Peterson and Sansevere dissenting. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Barrett had nothing new to report. *23. LICENSES There were no licenses. PAGE 19 of 20 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, October 28,2002 7:00 o’clock p.m. *24. BILLS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT • continued Mayor Peterson reported that the North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition has initiated an ofTicer of the year program and hope to choose a candidate to award this to by December. After reading a letter submitted by one of the candidates for Mayor that felt the City should endorse the school referendum issue. Murphy questioned the City Attorney whether the City could or should officially take a position reg^ing school referendum. Sansevere asked how a governing body, like the City Council, could endorse that. Attorney Barrett indicated that his first reaction would be that it was not something the City should take a position on, however, he would investigate the legality of the question. ADJOURNMENT Sansevere moved, Nygard seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of October 28,2002 at 9:27 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor ■> PAGE 20 of 20 iitifciaAiii i si i k * I- »•> NOV 1 2 2002 MINUTES OF THE CANVASSING BOARD MEETING CITY OHONO HELD NOVEMBER 6,2002 AT 8:00 A.M. - . ROLL The Council met as the Canvassing Board on the above date and time in the Orono Council Chambers. The following members were present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Jim Murphy and Bob Sansevere. Council Members Jay Nygard Jim White were absent. The following represented City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse and City Clerk Lin Vee. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Council members were given results of the November 5,2002 General Election. Council Member Sansevere moved. Council Member Murphy seconded, to declare Barbara Peterson as Mayor for a 2-year term beginning in January of2003, to declare Bob Sansevere and Jim Murphy as Council Members for 4-year terms beginning in January of2003, and to certify the results of the November 5,2002 municipal election as follows: Mayor - Elect one for 2-year term Barbara Peterson Bruce DeWitt Write-in receiving 2^44 votes receiving 1,317 votes receiving 12 votes Council Members - Elect two for 4-year terms Bob Sansevere Jim Murphy Write-in receiving 2,487 votes receiving 2,128 votes receiving 65 votes Vote: 3 ayes, 0 nays. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Murphy moved. Council Member Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Canvassing Board at 8:09 a.m. ‘RE-OPEN* Council Member Sansevere moved. Council Member Murphy seconded, to re-open the Canvassing Board meeting at 8:11 a.m. I .‘I.S ■x'.i’ : MINUTES OF THE CANVASSING BOARD MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 6,2002 AT 8:00 A.M. ROLL The Council met as the Canvassing Board on the above date and time in the Orono Council Chambers. The following members were present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Jim Murphy, Bob Sansevere and Jim White. Council Member Jay Nygard was absent. The following represented City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse and City Clerk Lin Vee. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 8:11 a.m. Council members were given results of the November 5,2002 General Election. Council Member Sansevere moved. Council Member Murphy seconded, to declare Barbara Peterson as Mayor for a 2-year term beginning in January of2003, to declare Bob Sansevere and Jim Murphy as Council Members for 4-year terms beginning in January of2003, and to certify the results of the November S, 2002 municipal election as follows: Mayor - Elect one for 2-year term Barbara Peterson Bruce DeWitt Write-in receiving 2344 votes receiving 1,317 votes receiving 12 votes Council Members - Elect two for 4-year terms Bob Sansevere Jim Murphy Write-in receiving 2,487 votes receiving 2,128 votes receiving 65 votes Vote: 4 ayes, 0 nays. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Murphy moved. Council Member Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Canvassing Board at 8:12 a.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mavor / ^ f r% kf- aooo H leoo. I J 4000 Q 3S*T “*0 3»0 Orono, Minnesota Bering Index Map risifes. 6 fegrn .i t Aux. ioaoK (•i north ffCVlfCD* ic^r. ?, If toFca a.f u iB.Mi AM t, Iffi M. M.Mi BMn. •• itt> ir.itw IlLittS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12,2002,7:00 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 Cons'ent 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 NOV 1 2 2002 CITY Oh OHUi^UAPPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of October 28,2002 * 3. Special Council Meeting of the Canvassing Board of November 6,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS — Deborah Halvorson, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith. Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT • 4. ^02-2823 Ron Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 5. ^02-2843 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley ParU ay Final Development Plan Approval - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 6. Request for Ptt>7ncnt No.l - Hackbeny Park Playground Improvements CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 7. Year 2003 Non-Union Hmplo3rec Pay and Benefit Adjustments - Resolution 8. Long Lake Fire Station Pay Request 9. Long I akc Fire Station Change Order No. 2 10. Donations 11. Planning Staff Reorganization and Promotion of Wendy Bottenberg 12. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Maximum Fee - Code Amendment — Ordinance 13. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee - Expansions 14. V'iew Roundabout Video CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT • 15. LICENSES Liquor License • 16. BILLS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 12,2002,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARK'>VAY, ORONO, NUNNESOTA UPCO.MINGlSSUES AND EVENTS 2002 11/11 11/12 11/14 11/18 11/21 11/25 11/28 11/29 HOLIDAY, Observ ance of Veterans Day Council Meeting, rwcs</ay. 7:00pM. Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission, 6 30 p m. Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day 12/02 Pbnnini! Commission Work Session, 6.00 p.m, r^oiinrit Application Deadline: 9/3/02 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/02 Extension: 12/31/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy ^ttenberg Title: Zoning Administrator Item Description: M02-2i23 Ron Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive Variances DATE; ITEM NO. 7 Agenda Section: Zoning •MG NOV 1 2 2002 CITY OF ORONO Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and exhibits of 10/21/02 Application Summary: 1. Section 10.2S, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback; Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1C zoning district is 10’. Variance Requested: To permit deck replacment to be 7.S’ from side property line. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to encroach 19' into the average lakeshore setback. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LK2); Hardcover in 75-250 ’ Setback Zone: Within 75-250* of the lakeshore there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 3,228 s.f. (34%) hardcover where 2,369.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage by Structures: In all zoning districts, for all lot of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessoty structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Variance request: To permit 2,283 s.f. (22.1%) where 1,600.95 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Application Summaiy: The appi icant has requested variances to side yard setback, hardcover in 75-250' setback zone, average lakeshore setback and lot coverage by structures to replace an existing deck to the lakeside of the residence. The applicant has removed the existing deck due to safety concerns. It had rotted and people were beginning to fall thru it. The residence was built in 1976. At that time a variance for lot area was granted. There have not been any additions just upgrades to the residence. A new roof has been put on the residence and the patio doors on the lake side were installed in 1999. Because the applicant has removed the deck and the permit on file did not specify the dimensions L of the deck, dimensions were taken from assessor’s tax files. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve application with the following conditions: • Deck to be limited to 300 s.f. • Deck to be 7.5* from side property line. • Deck to encroach 19 ’ into average lakeshore setback. • Addition of stairway accessing tne deck off the lakeside front or side with a 4’ landing and 3’ stairway width. • Removal of lakeside shed when the permit for the deck is issued. • Rear shed shall remain in its present location. • Structural coverage to be limited to 2,360 s.f. (22.1 %) • Hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone to be 3,148 s.f. (33%). Applicant shall remove a portion of the driveway to decrease amount of hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1(B), SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C)(6), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(LK2); AND SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B) FILE NO. 02-2823 WHEREAS, Ronald Cloud, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3460 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: That part of the Westerly I lalf of Lot 19, Lydiard's Park Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the westerly extension of the south line of Birch Lane, (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 1 0.03,Siibdivision 1 4(C) to allow 2,283 s.f. (22.1 %) lot coverage by structures where 1,600.95 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (CK6) to allow encroachment of 19' into the average lakeshorc setback. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2)to allow 3,228 s.f. (34%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback where 4,089 s.f. (43%) hardcover exists and 2.369.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a side yard setback of 7.5' where 10' is required to permit replacement of a lakeside deck and stairway; 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 October 21. 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, lof6 -'J r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2823. Ilie property is located in the I.R-IC Zoning District where .5 acre is the minimum required lot area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this appi ication on October 21,2002 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. 1 he deck as proposed will not obstruct neighboring views. U. The deck will be replacing an e.xisting deck of the same si/.e. (300 s.f.) C. The patio doors need a means to exit the residence. D.The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone will decrease to 3,148 s.f. (33%) by removing a portion of the driveway. H. 1 .ot coverage by structures will be limited to 2,360 s.f. (22.1 %). F.The side setback variance will have no negative impacts on the adjacent property. I he 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 afiect tralTic 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 dilllculty; is necessary to pre.serve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. I he City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations ol the Planning Commission, repi>rts by City Staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2 of 6 f f f 1 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipn) 7o<"ing Code Section 10.03,Subdivision 14(C) to allow 2,283 s.f. (22.1%) lot coverage by structures .vhere 1,600.95 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(6) to allow encroachment of 19 ’ into the average lakeshore setback, Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2)to allow 3,228 s.f. (34%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 4,089 s.f. (43%) hardcover exists and 2,369.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a side yard setback of 7.5’ where 10 ’ is required to permit replacement of a lakeside deck and stairu ay. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan and building plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. The hardcover to be removed from the driveway shall be removed prior to final inspection of the deck (indicated on Exhibit A). 3. The lakeside shed shall be removed when the building permit is issued for the deck. 4. 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 w ithin one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances w ill expire on that date (November 12,2003). 5. 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. 6. 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 agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. 3 of 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of November, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November, 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 November, 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 4 of 6 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this before me. day of ,2002,j)ersonally appeared _ who is personally known to me _ whose identity I proved on the basis of _ whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of.j a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN before me. On this__day of ,2002,personally appeared who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of.., a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Sof6 m Exhibit A RON CLOUD / \ oV.'¥' ■'■ •>'■■• V-:.' 4 \ \ \ m \ \ \ "•V, /! ■•V / m. \ \ \s \ \ \ / ^0^ L Vx<v‘^ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ / Page 6 of 6 TO: FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:October 11,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 13,272 s.f. less Co. Rd. 51 ROW = 10,673 s.f. Exhibits: A Assessor dimension of deck B StaffReport and Exhibits - 9/16/02 C Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting - 9/16/02 Application Summary: This application was before the Planning Commission at the September 16,2002 meeting. It was tabled due to the representative present was unable to answer/commit to many of the questions and issues addressed by the Planr*'’g Commission. Staff did contact the applicant to set up a meeting to discuss the application and issues the Planning Commission brought up at the meeting. After several traded messages, at the writing of this report the meeting had not occurred. Because this has not occurred the proposed plans for the deck and three season porch have not changed. The following are the issues the Platuiing Conunission discussed at the meeting. These were also stated to the applicant on the phone the day after the Planning Commission meeting: Remove lakeshore deck, can replace with lock box. Remove shed located at rear of property. [)eck meet 10' side yard setback. Deck to be constrjcted to be same size as what existed. Three season porch not permitted to be constructed because property is over allowed 15% structural coverage. Deck: The applicant did submit a picture including the removed deck. The deck that was removed was estimated by the applicant to be 512 s.f. However, researching tax assessor’s files, this property record has the deck that was removed to be 300 s.f. (Exhibit A). m-2823 Ron Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 10/11/02 Page I of 2 ] ! Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1C zoning distnet is 1 O’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 7.5 ’ from side property line. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and SecUon 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakcshorc Setback: The average lakeshorc setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to encroach 19' into the average lakeshore setback. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250 ’ Setback Zone: Within 75-250' of the lakeshore there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 3,419 s.f. (36%) hardcover where 2,369.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage by Structures: In all zoning district, for all lot of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Variance request: To permit 2,571 s.f. (24%) where 1,600.95 s.f. (15%) is allowed. c53rx>il3 = Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation is the same as previously stated in the September 16,2002 report. Staff recommends the applicant be permitted to construct a new lakeside deck, replacing what existed with the following conditions: 1. The deck be the same size as existed. 2. The deck (and porch if approved) meet the 10’ side setback. 3. fhe shed located by the lake be removed. 4. The shed on the rear of the property meet a 3 ’ setback from the property line. 5. The porch be allowed only if Planning Commission concludes it will not encroach on lake views enjoyed by the neighbors. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. U02-282S Ron Cloud 3460 Sorth Short I^tve 10/11/02 Pag* 2 of 2 CITY #PID OS' I I / < OOyVj ADDRt'sr. :^^(rO ' [ . M n >> / /I'TT / \ I V I I I • I -M 6 t fs-kr r ■«•- //. ')Hr>k i v>/- ' ________J fl if* ' Oon(^ -fj'pt e ;/ t T ^';?v-v • 'vT. »»J<c .> -”S srv Hf OIMENSIOfJS 3'’«^ * 30 'A. TYPE PORCHES -’IK' SO. FT. /^y/1- /Zr-. O M.t DECKS /7 — . /‘T' *2^x /<r GARAGES /r<J> /?C3 roCJ _£:24. other OUiLDir^GS • -7- a •V: (uj RErjTALS ■ sales j DATE i CONSIDERATION j RENTS .. . Y2LJOO . J1 11 L . i i . I: BUILDING PERMITS DATE NUMBERi type1 i AMOUNT ii 1 li^cf-oor j 2ooo 1 *- • ! |^l^^ni••0 ;i -:ioo ‘♦hi 1 * V“ La A.* 1 ►_--------------------1______ COMMENTS y ^y^, ,^'0 / cjoX/ n'TZ-'ni u}>‘' 'ifc3 4.r> v^^’o DATE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Pianner September 5,2002 #02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) Lot Area: 13,272 s.f. less Co. Rd. 5 1 ROW = 10,673 s.f. Exhibits: A Application B Survey C Elevations D Letter to owner in 1981 E Permit for deck in 1976 F Plat Map G Property Owners List H Hand drawn sketch of deck removed I 1 990 Air Photo of Property J Photos of Property K Hardcover Worksheets Pertinent Code Section: 1 . Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1 C zoning district is 10’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 7.5 ’ from side property tine. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to encroach 19' into the average lakeshore setback. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250 ’ Setback Zont: Within 75-250* of the lakeshore there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 3,419 r.f. (36%) hardcover where 2.369.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage by Structures: In all zoning district, for all lot of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not e.xceed 15% of the lot area. Variance request: To permit 2,571 s.f (24%) where 1,600.95 s.f (15%) is allowed. tH02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Pajf* I of 4 L Application Summary: The applicant has requested variances to side yard setback, hardcover in 75-250 setback zone, average lakeshore setback and lot coverage by structures to replace a deck and construct a three season porch to the lakeside of the existing residence. The applicant has removed the existing deck due to safety concerns. It had rotted and people were beginning to fall thru it. The proposed deck is slightly larger than what existed The proposed deck is 20’ X 30’ X 17’ (571 s.f.). The deck that was removed was 19’ X 30’ X 15’ (512 s.f.). Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1976. At that time a variance for lot area was granted There have not been any additions just upgrades to the existing residence. A new roof has been put on the residence and the patio doors on the lake side were installed in 1999. Because the applicant has removed the deck and the permit on file did not specify the dimensions of the deck, the applicant has provided an air photo from the Spring of 1990 and submitted a hand drawn measurement of the deck that existed. Also, when visiting the property you can see the old footings. The photo shows the deck that was removed existed on the property for approximately 25 years. Side Yard Setback: The deck that was removed was in alignment with the east side of the residence. The proposed deck will continue in u straight line with the east side of the residence. The deck is proposed to be 7.5 from the side property line. The subject property is required to meet a 10’ side setback The hardship, if one exists, is purely aesthetic. Average Lakeshore Setback: 1 he deck including the railing is 6’ in height and is considered structure. The proposed deck encroaches 19’ into the average lakeshore setback. The proposal also includes a three season porch to be constructed on top of the deck on the northeast section. This porch will be more of a potential view encroachment than the former deck. Hardcover: The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is more than the allowed 25%. The applicant is proposing to remove a substantial amount of driveway to lower what exists on the property. The property currently does not have a deck, therefore the deck is not included in the existing hardcover numbers. 'When the removed deck is calcul,-ed into that, the amount of hardcover drops from approximately 4,089 s.f. (43%) to the proposed 3,419 s f (36%) «t02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 95,-2002 Page 2 of 4 -!W Shed by Lakcshore; The shed located by the lakeshore is non conforming. Staff reviewed the record for this property and it was determined that staff had attempted to get the previous property owner in the I980 ’s to remove the* shed. It was referred to as a fish house on a concrete block foundation. Orono zoning Code prohibits the placing of temporary or permanent structures within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The structure is larger than a permitted lock box. Lot Coverage by Structures: The amount of lot coverage by structures is increasing slightly due to the larger size of the deck. The lot coverage by structures was 2,000 s.f (2,512 s.f with old deck) and is proposed to be 2,571 s.f. an increase of 59 s.f. to what previously existed. Statement of Hardship: The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1976. 2. Does the Planning Commission feel the deck and three season porch are in character with the neighborhood? Will the three season porch limit lake views by adjacent neighbors? If so, what is the hardship? 3. Would the Planning Commission rather have the deck be the same size as existed and meet the 10’ side yard setback in order to bring the deck into greater conformity? 4. The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is above the allowed 25%. The existing driveway is proposed to be reduced to 16 ’ wide and should not be reduced any further. Are there other items in the 75-250’ setback zone that can be removed to further reduce hardcover? 5. The lakeshore shed is non-conforming and should have been removed or relocated in 1981 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. a02-2S23 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Page 3 of 4 -budlhideai ---- Staff Recommendation: St^ r^mmends the applicant be permitted to construct a new lakeside deck , replacine v^liat existed with the following conditions: 1. The deck be the same size as existed. 2. The deck (and porch is approved) meet the 10 ’ side setback. 3. The shed located by the lake be removed. 4. The shed on the rear of the property meet a 3* setback from the property line. 5. The porch be allowed only if Planning Commission concludes it will not encroach on lake views enjoyed by the neighbors. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. y fi 1 I IV02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3400 North Shore Drive 0/5/2002 Page 4 c'4 . .1 ^ ..-V" ANALYSIS Structural Coverage Hardcover v '*\: , A ‘ ■'• * t • V’T.i'rWHiP^lJr■ >? V f "■ - V'- m Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 10.673 s.f. (Minus ROW)Allowed: 1.600.95 s.f. Existing: 2.000 s.f Existing: 2.512 s.f Proposed: 2.571 s.f 15.0% 18.7% (Does not include removed deck) 23.5% (Includes removed deck) 24.0% Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75 ’1,195 s.f 0s.f 77 s.f 77 s.f (Minus ROW)(0%)(6.4«/o)(6.4%) No Change 75-250'9.478 s.f 2.369.5 s.f (25%) 4.089 s.f (43%) -with removed deck 3,577 s.f (37.7%)-without deck 3.419 s.f (36.0«/i) f If Ap» %atk>n H ^Z~Z8 23 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received 8/2 / /a2 Amount Paid S2SO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address PMtoQ ^€3*91 ______ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) i 7 - J - U Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _________________(month/ycar) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_____________________ APPLIC^^ Name Phone (home) _______________ Phone (work) 7ls& - Address: 3V<po /^•AJPi City: _______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: 3 sqcoo (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficultyor unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: V»*«o * (attach additional sheets if necessary) O O required submittals ihc apnlioHon 3. 4. 7. 8. 1. >L Completed AppUcation Fonn ifsrTb.t'r/ r"? “o »»p <yu Fiance. A^03. Oow cS,-?:|^.59jS) Dep«tt.«, of - reproduclion. ? " P™'"'*' 0) copy 8^5” x 11" for T proiS to*'SoTpS^'['7ci^7^^ j!7®“ “ y the property. This would include namfcre^ °r ^ an interest in As an addendum to this aoDlication V appJ*cant(s) if not current owner(s). you wish ~ »“>« Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. 6. A «%*kW «r ^ ^ _____________APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE «d/or consult. exp.u^s'tocun^l/'J^.^f fc. pay„e„,? infonnatioo,uppl«dj^.«dcoaec.,od« «“ Applicant's Sj^nanire Date ^lodXu OWNER'S SIGNATURE ™ ™ .■E"gi;r" -r*- members forpujosesrf i„ves.i*.,io„ „d verifi«lL “f^------^ >tuucauon or mis request. !j^mre TyOCk^y.,... ^ DaleO*!^ Applicant must have all submittals into th® r;r« «rr . Commission MeeUng. Planning Comrnission Meeting i^‘T Planning month. Applic.nl, ‘7 «" Momfay of e«h Commission and Council. If m aoDliciint L meetings of the Planning make arrangements to have an authored aaent attend * ^ ****"f* * *®**®^“*®^ meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting Building M.O CJO > :r./vy- iv-vi- -'-rt Lsf-).* ;‘ iX ■'•• Vi.«!.* V - i-H ISici’J.y''- *,k.. - ; .%viMmmm i -.rr' lAcicii {ic» ^ UMlt SUadirJL^ I f f ^ f f :. •. ’/ t ■'^ / «k .) 9 m — • J:tW:) tu^ flowSfc- P iMli firclrs /l>iect~ Add:it<fia 3*f(eO M Stie>r<.Pr r4 . :■■. •• . A C'tcfar ^\o«lin« ♦d C oc |<. ^ PnAJhl-t MbfiCiJ - FHl PecL S+vHcficr^ +t) tc -fr^4v.-f«)L — 5/’i^ 4* 0 b«. Cellar- +o b< C^ciar- 7/” iO ' o pccitication 3 Boy Vfdorion Roof 1 1 V \ rrr r MI) ------------- -mm b f ••. • • % \* • \ • • •* * * * . . *v GITYof ORO r: . ft Offici* liiix li4i«Cryiita) Hny. Minnraiuta ri6:i2M«Munici On thf North Shore of Lake Minnetonka BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL CORRECTION ORDER February 2, .1982 John G. Nelson 3460 North Shore Drive Wayzatar MN 55391 Re: 3460 North Shore Drive - Fishhouse Dear Mr. Nelson: An inspection conducted at the above subject property on Janua: 1982, revealed that the fishhouse has not been removed. You notified this department in a letter dated October 3, 1981 that you would need special equipment to move the fishhouse at that time. You asked for an extension of time until the ice w. safe to drive on. Now that the ice is safe to dr.we on, it sho' be possible to remove the fishhouse within 10 days (February 1 Your failure to eliminate this code violation will leave no alternative but to refer the matter back to Council for direct. If there is some reason why you can not comply, please feel fr- to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Thomas J. Jacobs Building Official cc: Council Walter R. Denson, City ^dministrator Alan P. Olson, City Planner Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator p • \'xj - mm mm i ^3V;i>)r!?M —V ■^**‘« «»« ■ ;■ mmm.-': r.. « /» CITYof ORON I’lwi Offia* Ikix l»«>*(*r.valal Bay. Minm-wotu .’Wi.iJ.I* Municipal O .* 1 ••f 1 • ♦ 0/1 Ou' Sorth Shore of Lake Minnetonka March 12, 1982 John G. Nelson 3460 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Nelson: I promised you that I would write this letter as a follow-up of our meeting at your residence on Wednesday morning, February 24, 1982. At our meeting, you agreed to lower the existing accessory structure '■ into the lakeshorc bank and to remove the propane gas tank from the | side of the structure. You stated you would complete this work sometime during June of this year. The City Council has recommended that in the future should residents wish to rebuild such lakeshore storage sheds that they be constructe as a lock box not to exceed 4' in height. Such structures may be allowed to cover more ground area if the 4' height is maintained. I'm glad we were able to clear up any misunderstanding that may have arisen over Council's original directive and to thank you*for your patience. Sincerely, \ Z t. * x1 :» ./ • • Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator cc: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Offici . ONOu On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka •••••••% September 17, 1981 ore Drive ssaw K g : North Shore Drive* fioir.eov;ners Dear Mr. Nelson: You and I have a problem which must be addressed. Several property owners in your neighborhood have been using the area between the road and Crystal Bay for storage of fish houses, lawn sheds, trailers and other similar items. The practice has gotten to the point where the City has received complaints about the situation. All affected property owners are receiving this same letter. An inspection of the entire area was conducted on August 31, 1981. On your property we found: One 8 X 12 fishhouse on a concrete block foundation Orono Zoning Code Section 34.202 pro.tiibits the olecino or keeping of any temoorary o»- oei—anp^n*- ^ P^^cing orwithin 75 of ^ o- PCi...anenu building or structure crowded and have specialproblems due to the location of the road. You marflnd it difi-icult to lelocate the structures at all. if you do so they must be placed in the side or rear of your property no' less than 10 feet from any property line. They may not be placed between your house and the road. Any new slab, footing or foundation requires a building permit. loocing. SL'ILUI.SU A ZUMNC - 47J-73i7 ASScssiNr: AD.MI.MSTRATION A f lNA.SCl - 47J 7J3S PtILIC t»UkK$ .7 APniCATION mt BUILDING PERMIT and OimnCATE of occupancy VniAOl OF ORONO, MINNESOTA .YtCTlONS: *«$ NlMBCRtO I TM«U I) MUST BE PILLC9 IN ^MMIT is WBUtO Twcl SITE AOOAES8 34^r» kl^-U czf.^,. LEGAC OCSCRIPTION N? 3378 3. DATE 7- J>l- 7f OWNER INamtl R^T^WMSER ^^Cy parcel NUMBER (Adiirr «) ■UILOCR tNama) (Tat. No.l TYPE OF WORK UZE OF STRUCTURE (WMIM y■N iB iII (WMIM > lOavmt COMFIETIONOATE •“ nna. 9 NO OF STORIES lu. 4aM hilJ^ T 10 ESTIMATED COSTESTIMATED COST 12. PROPERTY DIMENSIONS 13. NO. OP PAMILIES (II Appi,c«bU| ir. REAR YARD 1*. J.OST area PER FAMILY SO FT IS. SlOE VARUS >e. 1st. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon alt of the penalties of 1^. for the purpose of inducing the VILLAGE OF ORONO to take tha action herein requested, that all slatcnu-nts herein are true and that all work heroin mentioned will be done in accordance with the ordinance of the VILLAGE OF ORONO. the <iate of Minnesota rulings of the BuUd^g Department. *h Mii permit fee ^ <9 STATE FEE PENALTY FEE________ TOTAL Fat_ ZONING DISTRICT FIRE ZONE AGGREGATE FLOOR AREA FLOOR AREA RATIO material file with OFFSTREET PARKING CONSTRUCTION FOOTING__ FRAMING riNAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED DATE • ■ 'A,V-r; •/ t rfl •>1/ \ ■■ MM KATE M/Zl/9i MTCN sn HCfWEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXON SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PMSSARl PACE 1 PROP AO0R OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAIK/ABOR M M-117-2S AS •••! •SA7E URCN U T H RERNARO ELK RERNARO TNOI^S N RERNARO SA7R RXRCN U NAYZATA NN R5S91 SR RR-1X7-2S AS RRR2 •SA9R RXRCN U E LXUEOUXST A S UUEQUXST . ERXC J A SHELLY R LILJERUIST 3A99 RXRCN LA NAYZATA HN S5S9X SS M-1X7-2S AS RRX2 •SATA NORTH SHORE OR HAROLD J RROUELLETTE HAROLD J RROUELLETTE SA7* NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN 5SS9X ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANi/AOOR SR IR-UT-ZS AS Alls •SARA NORTH SNORE 01 ORUCS A RRUCS A SARA NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA HN S5S9I SA AA-IIT-ZS AS AAIA •SA9A NORTH SNORE 01 JOHN R JONES JONN R JONES SA9A NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA NN S5S91 SA AA-UT-ZS AS AAX5 •SA9A NORTH SHORE OR K H CARLSON A 0 L CARLSON RENTON H A OXANE L CARLSON SA9A NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA HN 55S91 ONNER NAME TAXPAVU NANE/AOOR SA AA'UT'SS AS AA2A •SAAR NORTH SNORE OR CSRALO J RAY ETAL OERALO J RAY SAA2 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN SSS91 SA AA-XXT'ZS AS AA2X •SABA NORTH SHORE OR NXLLXAH C OOOEN NXLLXAN C ODDCN SABA NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN SB391 SA AA-XX7-2S AS AA2S •SABA RXRCN U E R ENCLER A 0 ENCLER EONARO R A BONNXE ENOLER SABA SXRCH LA NAYZATA HN BBS9X j PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SA AA-U7>2S AS AA2A •SAAA NORTN SNORE OR JAN ERLER JANES A NARY ERLER SAAA NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA NN BBS91 SA AA-X17-2S AS AAZB •SABA NORTN SHORE OR A R EVANS A N K EVANS ANY X A NAONX K EVANS SABA NORTN SNORE OR NAYZATA HN BBS9X SA AA-U7-2S AS AAZA •SAAA NORTH SHORE OR RONALD TRUMAN CLOUD RONALD TRUNAN CLOUD SAAA NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA HN BBS9X PROP AOOR ONNU NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SA AA-XXT-ZS AS AA27 •SAAA OXRCN LA 0 S A 0 R XNOVALSON OOUGLAS A DEBORAH XNCVALSON SAAA OXRCN LA NAYZATA NN BSS9X SA •••117-2S AS AA2A •••SA AOORESS UNASSXGNED NENNEPXN PORFEXTEO LAND CXTY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL SAY HN BSS2S TOTAL BATCH BAl BAAIA i R^rypole * miiw ^ ‘" "1 S!!?sr;A. .; ' SB Sffe' m-' iUmmi • 0 . **^?-^ -'■• . •**..* - ; V • * — - I s' ■ 4. “• • F.TJt <i)v' «'v m w^ W s mm '^4,r -m II •> V •; • -• x-' •;i-;r S*v W^M m k r|f '"■ ^:^^•^;;^'v' ! lii/ ‘ . *vi T~n--^-•KC-'-> .■■’\-.v» ■ jr ' '''i 7 -ir'-^ £.* • \\ < '/ * \ . w« r^ :>viN'fi’r>-,' , • * - * ■ . ' f * • ’ "^"v ''vOC-’ J ’ * .V ••i --1' .N* I .7^ '1 • • ^; j * '.I'.‘-3' * |!1 I ■ii m • *1 •■'. ' . . • • ;.w \: ■ ' ■■■■/■.P«B ‘ a^Wf. 1 f 4 . ^ < pP !ifS¥ I- m:'m--:m r 17' VN*> r « • . ^ • • yf;'^='... ,f- bSfMri; >ti ^ »HWS s>, -.A*. . '. i§‘^‘'V0 ‘^ IT ' : , •■<!'-asifw'4* . ^-i2 X J ^4•:« • V *L “2^ '* * ? . *• ‘m •/ I •' Vv i^ -^, *■ )5'^-- «......I j, ||jS'^faSi-c‘rt’^/- '^*5 ^1 ■^M %. . "'. ‘' J^ ' * «j ’jTn^i^rJ f ipi ijt"4».--J j ; f-i-1l_^^i »# »)*:» .*'«• :■.... 'i^ V' 5 *ir*. -.-X-T^j J i. . I /r//>;?rC 'J^*k4N!L»Vvi;4 !^* *•—"'; :‘'-*^ ,;^i^ ^ --5^ / -rrrrrrr^ i ? : • ; ' . '11^;L -if -KSSitSS^ 1 spiiim 1 . -fl^ I .; fe ‘ ' Q W «?4 J V 1 • ! 1. >• •'•-■J* A' * I'7 L<ia It riitl ! *gifc^..:•>.«'■■. .yw< • .-: V ^ .^r^;’:v-‘V.v: ', ••' *v^ ' • i.. ': iV:,r • .. *- -.>: * >r .. :i*i2J3g^ I I V BABDCOVERCALCULATION WORKSHEET setback ZONEt (CmCIXONE) SRiimniLj 75450*2*0-500*500-10CO* m OHABDCOVERPfZOWE A. Houi« ______• • X • •S.F. Ltofft X’ X X S.F. S.F. S.lc. B. *Oanxe • • U*. \• • C. Dilvcway X • •• , • • • • • • •• .• •- ' X X • •?, •• •• •V •• • . • S.F. D. Sidewalk X X E. Patlo/Deek X X F. Lendacipe UndeAala By Plastic Or Fabde X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTV AREA IN ZONE A • • • ■ :________. B .xlOO A. House Lis|th • VTid^ X X X B. Carafe C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E, Batlo/Deck X X * F; ljudscape Uoderlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X Oe Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ A _____________ ♦ B.XlOO - 5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. • S.F. 77 S.F. XLTias S.F. S.F. 7« S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. in 1i S.F. S.F. * ••j* • HAIUDCOVER CALCULA^QM WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* ^545g>^ 250-500* leXtSTlNGHABDCOVERlNZONE A* Hotts* ______•• • 500-1000* - ■ ■ • mi S.¥. Ltoffi X* X X S.F. ,S.F. ,S-5. . B. ‘Oanfc ..•••• %^ • ’ C. Drtvewv ••• ^ • • • X V.. •• • • • • **• •* * /. • • •• • *•• S.F. X- X .... o:'*v 'sp- S.F. T>. Sidewalk X X ^ S.F. • ______S.F. £. £«do/Dcck X X S.F. 5.F. F. Lindscqw Undetliii& By Plutle Oc Fabric X X X S.F. "S.F. "S.F. O. Odier S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTV AREA IN ZONE •A • • • - • ■ ■ . B . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE * A. House ____________ X xlOO ^ . - Li:|Si WMih X X X B. Gtri^e C. Driveway X X Da Sidewalk X X E. Patlo/Dcck X X F; Ludscape Uoderialn By Plisde OrPibric X X X O. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A _____________ B _ m S.F.mm S.F. m ’S.F. m •• _S.F. n <44 i S.F. “ „juq "S.F. S.F. • •• »••~S.F. • 441 ■ • • S.F. “S.F. • S.F. - •■'sJ. “S.F. ••• • • • _ «F. • • xIOO ■ ■?4l 9 '^r.O ^ d.F- ■"S.F. 2,56 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEE1V4G Monday, Augnst 19,2002 6:30o’do€kp.m. construction prior to building the easterly house. Chair Smith moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approvatoTX^Ucatlon #02-2828, Tony Lund, Vacant Lot next to 4515 North Shore variance for lui crea and lot width, subject to stafTs rccommcndatloiisfircoinplete site drainage plan approved by the City Engineer prior to golMPtf^mncil be submitted, and demolition of the existing house at 4515 North^hoif'Mve will occur before construction of this lot to ensure the averageJ^eshofTsetback will be recognized as Illustrated on Exhibit C. VOTE: Ayes 6, Frirtler dissenting for reasons cited earlier In the Minutes. (#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD, 3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE 9:50 p.m. - 10:05 p.m. While the Applicant, Ronald Cloud, was absent, Doug Schmidt of Hastings Conservatories was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant had requested variances to side yard setback, hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone, average lakeshore setback, and lot coverage by structures to replace a deck and construct a three-season porch to the lakeside of the existing residence. Bottenberg pointed out that the applicant had removed the existing deck due to safety concerns and the proposed deck was slightly larger than what existed. The proposed deck is 20’X30’X17’, (571 s.f.) while the deck that was removed was 19’X30’X15* (512 s.f.). Since the original deck was removed and the pennit on file does not specif^' its dimensions, the applicant had provided the City with an aerial photo and hand drawn measurements. The deck including the railing is 6’ in height and is considered structure and encroaches 19’ into the average lakeshore setback. Bottenberg noted that the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is more than the allowed 25%, in fact, without the deck, the hardcover is 36%, down from 43%. She continued tfiat the shed located by the lakeshore is non conforming and staff had attempted PAGE 26 of 26 /• y MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Augast 19,2002 6:30 o'clock pjn. to get the previous property ownc? to remove it since the 1980’s. The lot coverage by structures was 2,000 s.r (2,512 s.f. with the old deck) and is proposed to be 2,571 s.f., an increase of 59 s.f. to what previously existed. Mr. Schmidt sUted that he was unfamiliar with the existence and history of tfie lakeside shed and could not commit for Mr. Cloud to tearing it down. Chair Smith suggested that Mr. Schmidt convey the Commicsion’s thoughts to Mr. Cloud and they table the application. Fritzler asked if the other outbuildings would be allowed to remain. Gaf&on questioned whether a 10’X12’ shed by the driveway was to remain. Mabusth elated tfiat it adds to the lot coverage. Hawn stated that, in her opinion, the proposed conservatory would be something that would be obtrusive to the neighbors. Having visited the site, Rahn indicated that the footings that are there dictate the size of the deck. He believed that the previous deck size had been overstated and would recommend it be replaced by something similar to the original. Gaffion suggested reviewing the assessor's records to see if there was a measurement of the old deck recorded there. With regard to staffs recommendations, Chair Smith agreed that, item #3, the shed located by the lake be removed. Berg inquired as to whether the shed at the rear of the propei^ near the driveway should be PAGE 27 of 27 . I ,‘.V . 1 . • . .1 S'. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. removed also. Mabusth reminded the Commission that this is the first opportunity they ’ve been given to mandate the rc' ral of the rear shed. If a permit cannot support its existence, Hawn suggested the shed be removed. She asked what the hardcover would be ut if these things were removed. Mabusth reminded the Commission that they required a grade level deck for the Livingston application and suggested the Commission offer the applicant the opportunity to replace the shed with a lockbox. While visiting the site, Hawn indicated that one of the neighbors approached her stating that they did not wish to see any additional hardcover on the property. In fact, d ie to the road being paved and the excessive amounts of hardcover in the area, the neighbor asked if there was anytlang the City could do about the poor overlaying job and runoff. Gaffion stated he believed that the original overlay may have caused issues and he would follow- In conclusion. Chair Smith indicated that the deck needs to remain the same original size, the shed by the lake needs to be removed, the rear shed by the driveway removed, and due to the amount of structural coverage she felt the proposed three season porch would not fly. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to table Application #02-2823, Ronald Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant’s representative to convey staff and Planning Commlsflon recommendations to the applicant VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 28 of 28 #02-2843 November 7, 2002 Page 2 3. Potential need to construct Highway 12 trail within property 5. 6. ISSUE: Our discussions with MnDOT some weeks ago suggested they will not approve construction of a trail in their right-of-way. It would have to be located within the property. Staff recommends the City obtain/rctain an casement along the south 1 O' of the property for the trail, ‘just in case’. Applicants don’t want this due to proximity to treatment rooms. The issue relates to how this afTccts the site layout and whether buyers will want to reduce the price because of the easement. Staff Recommendation It is crucial to the City’s plan for a trail along Hwy 12 that we have the ability to use property along Hwy 12 for a trail. If using Mn/DOT r-o-w is problematic, we need to obtain an easement over the dental office property, and this is the time to accomplish that. The Resolution Granting Development Plan Approval contains language requiring this easement. 4. Public sidewalks and trails constructed within the property ISSUE: Public sidewalks will be located partially within the property and partially within the Kelley Parkway right-of-way. The City should obtain an casement over the portion of sidewalk outside the r-o-w, as it will serve the public. Applicants have suggested that if they have to give an easement for the sidewalk or have it within the property, the purchase price should be reduced to reflect this. Staff Recommendation A developer is responsible for meeting the requirements of the City regarding trails and sidewalks. The Resolution Granting Development Plan Approval contains language requiring this casement. Acrcage-B'ised Fees - Staff Recommendation. The City should calculate the acreage-based development fees (sewer and water connection fee, storm water and drainage trunk fee) on the gross acreage of the site not exclusive of easements. Stormwater Manaeement. The stormwater management plan for the site is to pipe all runoff to the Dahlstrom pond. Early inklings are that MCWD conceptually is OK with this, but hasn’t approved the Dahlstrom plan. Also, it is unknown whether MCWD will accept the wetland delineation and mitigation plan provided by Dahlstrom. or whether MCWD approvals will require any revisions to the Dahlstrom plan. The bottom line is that if there is no Dahlstrom pond to connect to when the dental office is completed, where does the water go? #02-2843 November 7,2002 Page 3 Staff Recommendation It is important that the City require a contingency plan. No contingency plan has been submitted by the applicants as of this writing. Staffs expectation is that such a plan would include construction of a temporary ponding area on the Adjacent Parcel, to be used until such time that a regional pond is available within the Dahlstrom site. A temporary pond would presumably only have to be installed If the Dahlstrom Pond is not available at the time of final inspection. 7.Status of applicants* MCWP stormwater plan and erosion control permits. The applicants applied to MCWD for Stormwater Plan approval and an Erosion Control permit on October 31. It may take as much as 30-45 days for those permits to be issued by MCWD, and no work on the site can be commenced until those permits are issued. 8.Engineering Matters. There are a number of minor engirccring matters noted in Tom Kellogg’s lettcrof September 25,2002 which have not been formally addressed by applicant but will need to be addressed prior to issuance of building permits. Rezoning of **2745" Kelley Parkway The applicants control the adjacent parcel and are using a portion of it to serve the needs of their medical office use. Because the adjacent parcel Is guided for office use in the CMP, it should ultimately be zoned B-6 Highway Commercial District as will be their comer lot. The B-6 District allows the limited, primarily non-retail uses consistent with how this area is guided in the Comprehensive Plan. Because rc/.oning of the adjacent parcel was not the subject of the initial public hearings for this project, staff has scheduled and noticed for a separate hearing on the rc/.oning. The applicants must provide the City with a copy of their purchase agreement for the adjacent site and confirm whether the current owners have any objection to the rezoning. Staff would note that mere rc/.oning to B-6 will not guarantee the site is developed via the PUD process; note that the PUD process was required for the comer lot because the City owns it and made that a requirement of the sale, but we don’t have that control over the adjacent parcel. Because applicants have incorporated a portion of the adjacent parcel into their site planning, language is included in the final development plan approval that requires future development of the adjacent parcel to be via the PUD process. ^02-2843 November 7, 2002 Page 4 Review of Final Development Plans Site Plan. The site plan is nearly identical to the layout approved in the Revised Concept Plan Approval. The easterly entrance to Kelley Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the adjacent property to the east, and is located directly across from the Orono Police driveway as required by the City to eliminate left-turning conflicts for exiting vehicles. The existing Police driveway may become more commonly used in the future, as the preliminary Traffic Study being conducted by Boncstroo & Associates suggests that the southerly driveway from the City Administrative Complex to Old Crystal Bay Road should eventually be closed. The westerly access from Kelley Parkway will be "in-only” which provides easy access for patient drop-off and pick-up while providing less of a stacking backup conflict for curs exiting onto westbound Kelley Parkway. The easterly parking lots arc connected by two "through” corridors to additional parking on the adjoining property. Required parking is 72 stalls, of which 67 arc provided on-site and S are provided on the adjacent property. A total of IS stalls arc provided on the adjacent property to serve this site, yielding excess parking of 10 stalls which applicants believe will be necessary to serve their intended medical office use on the comer property. Parking layout meets the appropriate design standards in terms of stall size, driving lane width, etc. - The trash enclosure has been located on the adjacent parcel, to accommodate future shared use. It opens to the east for ease of trash vehicle access. Its architectural styling is identical to that of the proposed medical building. - The site plan provides for just over 36% green space, well in excess of the 25% minimum. Architectural Style . The single-story building is approximately 16,000 s.f. in total floor area and retains the .same architectural styling as the original approved plans. The building is oriented with its front entrance facing northeast toward Kelley Parkway. The plans incorporate an outdoor seating garden area on the southwest side of the building. All four sides of the building will be faced with brick above a split stone veneer with pre-cast stone highlighting, with pitched roof and asphalt shingles. We assume absent further information that the materials presented earlier are still proposed (the board showing the materials will be available at the PC meeting). The abundance of windows, especially those extending above the main ceiling height, provides for an attractive facade from all viewpoints. Site Lighting . The lighting plan indicates eight freestanding 25 ’ high light poles with a ‘Somerset’ style shoe-box fixture. The average lighting for the site is 1.2 foot-candles, with a range from 0.0 to 10.4 foot-candles within the site. While Orono Code does not contain numerical standards for lighting, staff has reviewed codes from a number of other cities and would suggest the following: .• . 1 ^ ► '*■' #02-2843 November 7,2002 Pages Not all cities limit the height of freestanding light fixtures; Plymouth limits them to 30' but not higher than the principal building, or 25' and not higher than the principal building when within 300' of a residential district. The 25' fixtures proposed arc similar in height to those used along the center of the main front parking lot at the new Orono Middle School, and similar in height to those on the perimeter of the Otten Brothers site. The peak height of the proposed medical office building is approximately 32'. As a contrast, the lighting fixtures in the City Hall parking lot arc 14' above grade. Among other cities there appears to be a wide range of lighting 'limits’ as measured in candlepowcr at the lot line; the typical standard for a non-rcsidential property noi ‘‘butting a residential property is '/i • I foot candle at the lot line; the proposed plan exceeds this ‘‘long the west and south boundaries, primarily because the City is requiring the developer to provide lighting for the trails. Plymouth has established a minimum of 0.9 foot candles at any point within a commercial parking lot for purposes of personal and traffic safety and crime prevention; the proposed plan has many locations that will be darker than 0.9 foot candles. At an average of 1.2 foot candles, the site might be characterized as adequately lit without being excessively lit; however, for example, one of the more poorly lit areas is the 4 handicap parking stalls.... Orono's goal should be to provide for adequate lighting for safety and security while maintaining the dark night skies that residents have come to enjoy. Absent ordinances that establish strict standards for how this should be accomplished, stajf believes the proposed lighting plan is reasonable but might be improved upon by judiciously adding more lightingfixtures and placing them at a lower height. Sianage. Site identification signage is shown on Sheet El.l and has been slightly enhanced from earlier versions with architectural features similar to the building. Loth arc backlit, which is allowed by code. The sign along Highway 12 will be 12' in height and that near the comer of Kelley and OCB Road will be just over 6'. Height and location of both signs meets code requirements. The sign along Highway 12 has a defined signage area of about 68 s. f. per side (2 sides); that at the N W comer of the site is 24 s.f. per side. Per the B-1 standards which govern signage in the B-6 zone, no individual sign shall exceed 50 s.f in area. Planning Commission recommended approval of the signage as proposed. Total signage allotment for the site is approximately 300 s.f which will not be exceeded by the two signs proposed. Parking Easements/Agreements. Council concluded that allowing the required parking and shared access to occur outside the boundaries of the property (on the adjacent lot) was acceptable without a lot line rearrangement, subject to parking casements or agreements being established betw een the two properties as allowed by Code Section 10.61 Sud.6. Such easements have yet to be submitted by the applicant but will be required prior to final development plan approval by the Council, and are subject to acceptance by the City Attorney. #02-2843 November 7,2002 Paged ^ - Trail alone Highway 12. The Revised Concept Plan Approval Resolution states that the proposed pedestrian trail along Highway 12 shall be constructed by the developer and shall be 8' wide, of bituminous surfacing and shall be located either within the Highway 12 right-of-way, subject to MnDOT approval, or within the Property, approximately abutting the south Property line. Because it is unkHOwn at this time whether the Highway 12 shoulder may be converted from a rural section to an urban section, the exact location and design of the trail cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, construction ofthis trail may be deferred until such time that development of the Adjacent Parcel occurs, and/or until such time that a decision on the design of the Highway 12 shoulder is reached. The Cuy Council shall make the final determination of when and how the trail is to be constructed. Developer as part of the Development Agreement shall post suitable financial security in the interim for such construction. The City shall be responsible for the maintenance of this trail upon its completion and acceptance. The trail is shown south of the power poles for the time being, but may ultimately end up within the property boundaries, so sign and lightpolc placements should be such that an 8 ’ clear corridor will be available adjacent to the lot line. The City should require that an easement be granted for this trait now, and ifultimately not needed could be extinguished in the future. Kelley Park way Lighting. The City has yet to reach a conclusion on the style of street lighting to be provided along Kelley. The developer is responsible for this lighting under the terms of the Concept Plan Approval. Note that Dahlstrom is proposing a decorative lighting style along Kelley that includes a double exposed globe fixture rather than shoebox style lighting. Building Limited to Office Use. The Concept Plan Approval indicated that a formal amendment of the PUD would be needed if more than 5% of the gross floor area is proposed for retail use. Applicants have suggested that 5% may be too limiting. Staff would suggest the 5% limit remain in effect unless applicants can present a strong case for a higher limit. Landscaping Plan. The Landscaping Plan is shown on Sheet L2.1 and includes a wide variety of shrubs to enhance the building and the entry island. It also provides a nice screen to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure opens to the east; Planning Commission recommends that it be further screened to limit direct view by westbound Highway 12 traffic. The sign islands arc highly landscaped and the southwest facing point of the building appears to have a significant evergreen (black hills spruce) buffer to the trail, presumably to provide some patient privacy for that treatment area. If the Highway 12 trail ends up within the site, we might expect similar treatment along the southerly windows... The trees proposed along the OCB Road trail are proposed in a fairly wet environment; applicants* landscape designer should confirm they will thrive in the wet conditions. Along Kelley Parkway are proposed two sugar maples (either side of the west entrance) and three Skyline Honey locust. Since the City has not decided on a streetscapefor Kelley Park way, final City acceptance of these species and their spacing should be left for future reconsideration. Developer should confirm that the landscaping plan meets the minimum $25,000 valuation required by the zoning code for this $1.5 million project. Tom Kellogg has revised his Letter of credit improvement valuation listing to show the landscaping at the $25,000 valuation level. #02-2843 November 7,2002 Page? Planning Gommitsion Recommendation -- r Planning Conunission lecoinmendcd as follows regarding the following topics: 1 . Approval of rezoning of2745 Kelley Parkway (adjacent parcel) to B-6 Highway Commercial District. 2. Approval of site layout. 3. Approval of architectural design. 4. Approval of lighting and signage plans. 5. Approval of landscaping plan. Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval included the following conditions: a) Final approval by Council should not be granted until the following issues are resolved: 1) Wetland existence and mitigation if necessary (Resolved) 2) Stormwater plan satisfactory to City Engineer and MCWD. (Pending with MCWD; no contingency plan has been submitted to city) 3) Purchase Agreement to be finalized. (Pending) b) Approval shall be subject to a Development Agreement to be drafted by the City, such agreement to incorporate conditions of development approval as outlined in the Concept Plan Approval resolution, also including conditions for future development of the adjacent parcel. (Draft Agreement attached; Council should identify any changes desired) c) City Council should reach a conclusion regarding the strcelscape of Kelley Parkway within a timefiame that allows the applicants to plan for boulevard trees and street lighting consistent with the remainder of Kelley Parkway. (Needs attention...) d) Presumably as part of the sale transaction between applicants and City, Trail easements should be granted by the applicants. Trail easements need to be described legally, and incorporated into a Trail Easement document. #02-2843 November 7,2002 Pages — I—• * StafT Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached “Resolution Granting General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 3 for Professional Properties of Orono, Inc.**. The resolution includes language that allows approval to become effective only when the remaining issues have been resolved and all conditions requiring action by the applicants have been satisfied. Optionally, if Council concludes that approval should not be granted until certain remaining issues have been resolved. Council may table approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend tfie attached resolution. OPTIONAL ACTION: Table until specific issues have been resolved (please identify those issues). >; v; V ’7^? r- ' -;<r I J m !■w- »* 1 -i:--.. • 0 Jt •-'iV'X “ '^ r -A:' J SHEET BIBIK IM914 K*r-«r tvFffr m c&Htr w ____________t»tMg « mm mrnmim • i/»»timttff »MI JTlBiiVB > t'Fi S 0 »< rVl 0€X^ ^ 4 V«mmmmti »r*ci BUI MWfBk •-NIB. Ox KELLET PARKWAY _______________ m > • > !CiniprawrM£;;^:;n^jpC!iUiaia\i T^aBm -■ — inr) V- ' ^ i: < ♦ • V r* * • J'^lL’t 5s !».••■ -% -• - Vi-* ,'^. W . J <y ~.tf .'V,:■• :l -JV ••/ L./J, br^/i X-ti ^•^ V k* vur ;/r. ieJ IW) 0 I » 4 > •) 1> \ A I —i/TTT^33Rn •niMUiioci ■j. »,V*- • j <■ *i r> ‘ »^ ' I •{l ^H m_5J: '^12^- LQ -:'J '.:■S 'i g5o -.A 4^ \i \ p?' 1 T J ^1 ;t!1 1 ,n f nVv is: ■M fB;;7 ■ A • •■•b-f- ^ N 89‘15’26~ W 234.84 • mtt»M n«. U. e. WIGMU/AY NO. 12 \ INOTCSI ^ tiS^SJOrJS'.SfSJS? L^JRSia !kS^VSSM^^^^ S^SS r*MS01A O-AAf OiA«MC» UM0KW 0M«t5 |0 vMtAum lAM liPRiwin at wrrtH *s to t»« •COA^ 0» ioaiowaM Mcvno rr onoos mpau wto C9onm muo m mio »hmo on io e«i«TaxTai o mt minti»M<»a m Rona msaarsa^s^g^^ ^ * iSrS^JSS£^£S n^MOIMC ffaus ro •» »mO «Tm * «* n «i«rt OARTIO »rvt 2!ff A •• n W«I omaiofrn #* OC. AfO AT 49 mu 4mOM to fTAiA. A r« am nsrat no . rmo * cam » oorno *n mi mcmu TO » uaw KB Ml C»«rMjr>»i 9TAOC ACram o MT aBcaioa«CB9 •t>mi« tkh mab mb tk ootm m tcir MjiBTiKm itBoariiT kb BHdumoM f»« BLAOC Kotnr. AS Ban OR «k« KM MO Oi n« OOIM. »U »MU. Bl COrOABIO TO n« HMi SToxTiBai KA«e samoo bt it« oMrcacroB on to BTAiM ACTMI ibb . » BB9 comti ofli MO or no g moaw n a»i nan CMiif euu MO omiB g mn kb auKgLC 9TBMTB G>KtT MO narcR nano cootn cubb aao q/tthl IBOM iff TBAMStm TO OBOK9IO BS9 CXBB MO OTTag OMOrtS CBflfl 9HCI IPARKING SUMUARY8 0« St«u. KB KW 94 0» UMU M4CM 1W944U BA 040 • VOtM. BMOAg • ««> fffttL • BOOO 94 j!.w. torat. • 79 trails 9Ta*OAAP rauJ (OM gtlj IK90I 49 wMWCao trauf (gafoj « iratoaio traus (0» Btif} («90) a roTAi Mono 9tau9 Mono UREA SUyUARYfl JMMfjg. CBIOOAACB Muat TO m oa TOTM. MMA Kovoau SvBR 9T. 99K0 94. TO»M BT774 97. OOja Oaftern^ nOi CJTV MBA. •Bb4 OoplwrttaliOMCall nOTYMBA — n OBMl laxMos. bBoo.a9 n tOQ!WffiMl*lil Bunesoc MBTgiipOtl. m S640MSM r S123M2M7 M1234S2D0 ww jhtMkconi i»» «<«a»o«>» cHanfc ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER project tOe: DENTAL CUNIC ORONO.MN LANDFORM »«MI u iM>mrmarnmrnm naia'* Oiollllla: PflEUtANARY SITE PLAN firmdfo:iMaei4 Wt ymw inmffr 7f cUBdodbr u/v Me.f-1W2 BB. iBiB 1f1 ^ **<>*•*44 »*J0 7 » /«i•9Ki> i:-4r*<*' »A< J 4 4 a»ri4i 4 4/0 OP*BOP««T 9*AOI KP lUBfrrai gavoMM m mm mi •M MS C^rftATKM • ng»tfn«on4» nomas Maamog Mi'•* •«• 1 ■ ■■! » — * ^vn w • w^Bi r4-i pTM ■g td C0mer____ \»04 tac * f \ \\ N ! r“«tST -Tool •OCr* A 1----------L , *...........................................■ —If ^ rn>< a i ■ KELLEY PARKWAY r:ti!..‘iK5|vi'.ii''jT|'Tr.i:T*rTi7r i.'!\i' CJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Oi 01 8 91 91 lO or OS OJ OJ 10 • 14 00 0*0« 4S IJ u iO or o 00 lO If u iO /j “1 so IS lO tl [I cil to IJ 04 00 0#' Ol 01 01 Oj Oi 01 0> 01 01 01 Ol Oi 0»^ Ol Oil Oi I 0-* »i 1 0 0« fc^OO 1 0 1 ^ I»1 01 01 01 07 07 07 01 00 01 0 «s « ps OJ 01 01 04 01 -u tJ i 1 >0 po 00 01 00 07 01 a 00 00 II ii tj 11 10 00 10 U to «J 11 oo Of oo ur»l 00 10 11 so 11 10 u lU»iT ooo OMKTIOI * IS 11 u 0* OS 04 O^ 01 01 Ol 01 04 Or OY OS 10 ^ 9» Ij •» 04 Id 71 *1 l>—o^ II IS 14 10 so 41 14 11 10 0« 01 01 Oi lO to OS OS^C^ 01 Ol .04 04 cAsi 10 lO uo OO^VH II 44 11 il *• " •’ •' 1^^ U3X-r 04 to «o 40 Of LI 11 SI 40^ C3J it IS >0 40 04 SI ii lO ,^is SI 10 n IS 10 04 II IR3 04 OS 00 04 04 01 04 04 IS |4 04 OS OS Of lO 04 i9 IS 10 10 14 10 14 lO U. & MiOMWAT NO. INOTESI «4MM MuoMrr iSSSoB?wSSniSSJ^ fL gwgjg * WC» * IWKH 0 loot 40OO04NlOtffT SOMHtWM VM OOQWO OV dTT 00 OIM. ItOOSOfA OMSSCS. UMOOIK 0M«» « OIWlAOTSli OtMO liwwa Ot ««n»4 AS TO «• «o«ACY OS ooovontti soovoo or on«ai mt a« AU w 04MO w lotf sioig^ai wO Mr ROrOOSllOOl AM MW ISO10 AT noiiMuo M moMmr ■aiUlONAlRE SUIIIURYa srrwt uoa orr oise. imp ufm us •a A 0 so BSTATISnCSI AwC rut. If 400V COAliO »M 40000 on 0.4 sc 00 sc iO Jt^SL L<>:r ••Star SMt Out M SCAU mr shea L J tOOflamifeiiA fcHMOc U40S.1SM f 6123M22S7 f I123«2ia0 ORONO PROFESSIONAL CENTER pfOiACtlRIf: DENTAL CUNIC ORONO.MN LANDFORM *s»i;r’ tlMlilt: PREUMINARY SITE UGHTIN6 PLAN fiSfiflt IMB014 tm 1'-» dmobr Pf crocMObr VA m__••1MI « Mi iMiiM » Ml *JO ; Ml AT. no VO 1 S/^41.SA0 Stscisr 4 VO OMMSMir 0T4a «i0O»sn4s mOKTIMMaiUMtf m Ml CfimVATOI M Mi in—^wo^» 1 1 Mi.i 1^1* m mm mm. y r / » • • •• j r;v\.v ‘<v ■-.H.'iCjT^'^'i-*' ;.'■ ’’•‘,* V if*-Jw . V, - . . X xn* .-.-« .itev ' t: 'V* * V- '•■ V • -LANDSCAPE K-nTr«;Bm=a..LiiMjL'i- I t*A*v *A ;>i*»»x'' w vi*-4 #t#» ••• v"! >%•.« tj 5ttri’'M; » it> tj « iri %« ^<-% 4^ Wii 4*4 wn.^rs '"* ‘*‘*’^*^ C»4l*4tf?* »«** i;oun»«rt con :>-ekous trees K©;;•la;i *4.» >p»t.ct C,4kCA W-tfAtA OECIOUOL'S SHRUBS 0 ,^v »CcrvACv ••uaMpi VM-tHT< ’SUPAT CJrt>x;»4 9 C*4.*ev !••••« *a 94A«» tkCplL.' •ULAfr-*d rutkV^.s *4*rjB •CcrrA£vt 9 £*«.so»99- . 994 0 4 »>»:%• .-UTU44A*. »«-» «-r* tj-n* VT*t*N 0N<’^*4kk P £*4.PCT •- « 4l^ 0 yX-^ K «A,4 etc; tecKA •t4*«_A *’.:*ixA >.A eac 9 04.dCt *A « 4W ' • . ‘4*TO *4.'>- t«f »4 t%(«| %'tth 9»'«*iA X^><4fA A«»«v*o VAlei^ 9 04 w J*v A 99* 4v 4 AA»K*et\..f •^*^i*'«.|A A4»l%>3.»»d AVtXM^A 9 04 WT 4>* . 44'4 •?f«4a4n*M fArf%eM>-«r.d JLtAlKAAX #44 1 c*4. tVT ¥ • IM19 CDG) *AO. CJl.HCDG> ECO (ECO K;7Mtf (T>T> •lDO T4A.9 • n»^ TAiXr Jl/ 0««*09 »/ty:*i» urrt^t A*m4 J.>^n <«I>.t444S CCTTAC’A •4r»>y* Aii«ca>««A« r^> XCTiWAfcS TK>*i'* >•••9* CIXO ***** (ETO •»Mi4M»4 •'* * (ECO ♦'Wi^*** •■** 1* fryr^ ».ta^iM PERENNIALS t*eto Atx-t v«r..A4r4.^t »«CAArHJ9 •MkkMiAVaro • Ot. I**0»*A •«:ta *U4tV4^V4 • £*4 99 Av'j** *:♦9rsxp 1 CAi9K»^A- 'jyt gr^ fM 9’tux 4 C'«0 •«'»e><A**.9 • C*4pAni-9'4-ji t» c%e V.. j^- ilXO *<'**^ ECO ^ ^ ECO ^ [Tyr^ HCV%4 CBUNDSCAFE REQLTlKLMEKTSaEHSia 1 *44 ka'Ma.5 CcA^etr *••- *r|tr4M aavca^i** c* > y«.A4Pt AM.' m L» •UWfc* I’.Al **1I 44^ 4BIAM CArtA.l »M> • n««t d A cw*4>’A*0' at ott'* »•« 'em* j* tiAAri jt. t.« ^t *4j r>« icm« »«:■« <K 1*« ^A44 f>« A«>». i %HI»« 4 C%.'i>-Ud t«».d »SA*. -*.» A ^4-.r :A*4?t* * j % »«;»«) cjidiAjtt.'y ‘m* v*** m A;vrvi >> » N«T *1 ^o-f ait»*.'«.<*44 rma w*4 m*«i * rt^v* ca*m j»7h ro S.4 >« 1 • -■-» T-a-k «* t.Ot •*'- VA • tc» K.^1 ,Kn ttOo: fcAiH C4*r»C CM •^^9*- •-»■*- ^ ’««^» -»9.A..»o A^A».•^4: HC V«A*4 -4*rt A («, >- vt >««4K>oa> imu -ucw $0’huo <v« r«t ♦ ntetf »• « -C4 *»• TJ ■» M«C>«e »r MLCAf**. ;o»fwvd j »4MMC lat i4*c-»c*^ tmi v-4.. M •«^?4^to *• rv# or» » »• rtn lA^i. a StjCAA^f #aam; idAkf) •«4*t*v r» ntM* aaa^-a^i # t» *<f4,.j >. *Tt A M d • a Visit - 1^ tS'VAxa i<i«.atw aj« n^*vi£v 0 0* %«SLGi.' •ocirvC.'V SAdi «* n«^ •* a*« t«i ■«/) r l««/ a* ^A**.#*** ttvd J **• .Ai^-% A^ •».A#i W.. tA^jOr nt'KiMS m 4 a-A»*V V> A VMW 1* i:J»#C4*MmS •»'- '.4 ACU4.V*kC " «*. 'J4i» AAAAt •’ .*Af«:.4'US «o>C’ .A4^» m*iaa^va« t»€ tri »*«#« IX<CYA,4 «*k.t ;.c« »*.vax «ecAVi>. ▼Oipaai Gopher Stale Ooe Call *w*i&rrAacA 4» at e »n ^CA. Mtte •• f AA^r'rt „i'»«> >» ^.ur v^ia.«4 wt ’.''A, axAt*Tfe9 avm ctd«>4 c-m***c*im s *3 tuoi RjkAffi *j.ca(E»< tj .a’a." tr- AUkAvif «r4*x v^ 4^4 icrt'ic r.« SflWM ^ AAa't *-4W. AOtit 3y*i JLX«V^ k Aa#/< § ^.AAt'M vt »•.» ex.i*'..*4: .A'1 'i^Mk c »«t c* 'dwoi »k> *4kj n*M KK%C 'M44 ,}I .>'Xm9 .» . »te’UA<r VO f/9 flp PtAt KTld «m I ;»0t«»o - |;a:<jcs7 is*nt'tc mci»c-f »**kt • %c%mocc mojmo 'vrtr .aacva/i »a*^ • 97SXC ♦ ti Jt AkJdCt »a4i,% 9t ItOM 9 $.ccoac3 4 V** .4m'V*a* - .».veK'*^ i *0 AaA^JV *44 UWC^'AM 0fviA5 *S iaCMf ^«e«M •evto > aAAk' CE’*** i nR.A*t #’« iTA.aiv 4, cjw f%*u\ r7X*#ee^ AA-jvd* eti; vj a '< aa^vij »»•- ksrn* »»o «f m 3* tVAurtc oa HU. UMLd^t 4» *<»«k*4 K.VMS IAC«« 3jP^ MA53t SCAU FtET Sheet tiUe: PREUMIf^Y LA^OSCAPEPlA^^ pT^KT/X___________SAC^OH ICO r-2ir <rww> *y*t<bif « isit iu«4ii« ( »••■ 4« r «* 1-.4 . K C X . • ■• *»»% ,• *. I *,9 C*>0^ a/»il>A4 Ca-«»- PftCitCT UANAa*) -ttVRUt » .# C£H*rCA*>C»» gr* X oT GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___4 R « 0 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REVISED GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY FILE NO. 02-2782 WHEREAS, Professional Properties of Orono (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in property located at 2765 Kelley Parkway within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant was granted General Concept Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development of the Property via City Council Resolution No. 4823 on June 10, 2002. Resolution No. 4823 granted conceptual approval for rczoning of the Property from RR-’ IB, One Family Rural Residential District to B-6/PUD for medical office use of the parcel, and granted General Concept Plan Approval for a 15,000 s.f. one-story medical office building on the Property; and >VHEREAS, the applicant has revised the General Concept Plan and has requested City Council approval of the Revised General Concept Plan; and WHEREAS, the revisions to the General Concept Plan include expansion of the proposed medical office building to 16,000 s.f as compared to the 15,000 s.f building initially proposed; reorientation of the building toward Kelley Parkway as compared to its original orientation toward the Highway 12/Old Crystal Bay Road intersection; revision of site traffic circulation and parking layout; and use of the adjacent parcel (legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, City of Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; hereinafter the “Adjacent Parcel") for parking and shared access; and WHEREAS, the Orono City Council makes the following findings in regard to Revised General Concept Plan approval; FINDINGS 1.The City Council finds that Findings numbered 1-5 and 7-10 of Resolution No. 4823 remain applicable to the Revised General Concept Plan, and arc incorporated herein by reference. Page 1 of 12 & CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 6 0 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 The proposed medical office building at 16,000 s.f. in area rather than 15,000 s.f. remains at a one stoiy design and retains the same architectural styling as the original plan. The building orientation has been reversed so that its front entrance is facing northeast toward Kelley Parkway rather than southwest toward the intersection of Hwy 12 & Old Crystal Bay Road. Applicants have advised the City that they now have a signed purchase agreement to acquire the 2.5 acre Adjacent Parcel to the east, and the Revised Concept Plan indicates the potential for additional parking on that site as well as a shared access to Kelley Parkway. The easterly entrance to Kelley Parkway in the Revised Concept Plan will be a full access shar^ entrance with the Adjacent Parcel. This was formerly an “in- only ” access point. It is located directly across from the Orono Police driveway as required by the City to eliminate left-turning conflicts for exiting vehicles. The westerly access from Kelley Parkway will be “in-only ” which provides easy access for patient drop-off and pick-up while providing less of a stacking backup conflict for cars exiting onto westbound Kelley Parkway. The easterly parking lots are connected by two "through” corridors to additional parking on the Adjacent Parcel. Based on applicants’ revised submittal C2.1, required parking is 72 stalls, of which 67 arc provided on-site and 5 arc provided on the adjacent property to the east. The site plan indicates that a total of 15 stalls arc proposed on the Adjacent Parcel to serve this site, due to the applicants’ expectation that a total of 83 stalls arc likely necessary to adequately serve their intended use of the building. The revised parking layout appears to meet the appropriate engineering and zoning design standards in terms of stall size, driving lane width, etc. The 2.5 acre Adjacent Parcel for which the applicants have a purchase agreement, is similarly guided in the Orono Community Management Plan for commercial office use and is also currently zoned RR-IB. It would be appropriate for this Adjacent Parcel to be rezoned to B-6/PUD concurrently with rezoning of the property. The Adjacent Parcel should be subject to the same development standards as the property, as they will be guided and zoned identically. Page 2 of 12 miTItiilrtrtir • • CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO ri 60 9. The applicant has provided revised preliminary plans attached to this resolution as Exhibits A and B including site plan and landscaping plan (both dated 8-5- 02) and revised conceptual building construction plans (dated 8-6-02) which the Council finds are sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the project. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLNTID that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the Revised General Concept Plan for development of a 16,000 s.f. medical office building on Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, subject to the following declarations and conditions: 1. 2. The Oty of Orono will approve rczoning of the property to B-6 (PUD) as described herein upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan approval. The City of Orono wilt approve rezoning of the Adjacent Parcel to B-6 (PUD) as described herein upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan approval, subject to successful completion of a public hearing by the Plaruiing Commission regarding said rezoning. The Adjacent Parcel may be developed for any permitted or conditional use allowed in the B-6 District, but shall be developed only via the PUD review and approval process. 3. Conditions for Development Plan Approval are as follows: A. Development Standards and General Conditions. 1) The Development Plan for the Property shall meet all setback standards for building construction and parking as established for the B-6 District in the zoning code, as defined in the following table: if j Page 3 of 12 .r<r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 48 60 1 BuUdlDc/Development Standards Required 1 Lot Area 2.0 acre min. 'Lot Width 100’ Principal Structure Setbacks Front (N)35' Side (E)10’ Rear (S)30' Side Street (W)35* Parking Setbacks -includes driving lanes Front(N)20’ Side (E)5*1 Rear (S)15* Side Street OV)15* Building Height Peak Height N/A .Defined Heif^h^30* max. The above table values arc based on the B-6 standards for residential zoning of the Orono municipal facilities to the north and the Orono Schools to the west; the industrial zoning to the south; and the intended commercial office zoning of the Adjacent Parcel to the east. Required off-street parking per Section 10.61, Subd. 10 shall be provided at a ratio of no less than 5 stalls per 1000 s.f. net building fioor area. Final parking layout and traffic flow shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Parking provided on the Adjacent Parcel to serve the minimum parking requirements or for excess parking for the Property shall be subject to an agreement as provided for in Orono Zoning Code Section 10.61 Subd. 6. The area of the Adjacent Parcel used to meet the minimum parking requirement for the Property shall be e.xcluded from pertinent calculations when the Adjacent Parcel is developed. Page 4 of 12 i k • ' f 4 8) CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ft ft A The northeasterly access driveway to the Property shall be a shared driveway with the Adjacent Parcel, shall be centered on the common boundary between the Property and the Adjacent Parcel, and shall be operated as a standard “in-out” access. Appropriate traffic and parking signage within the site shall be installed subject to the Orono staff and City Engineer's review and approval. Applicants shall demonstrate to the Council’s satisfaction that the southwest facade of the building facing the Highway 12/Old Crystal Bay Road intersection is treated architecturally as a primary facade that presents a positive visual image toward said intersection, with commensurate high quality landscaping. The percentage of the Property that is devoted to green space (not including areas within road rights-of-way) shall be ma.ximized to the greatest extent possible but in no case shall be less than 25% of the lot area. * Landscaping plan shall meet all landscaping standards established for the B-6 District in Section 10.45, Subdivision 6(H). In addition, the Developer shall be responsible for sodding the boulevard of Kelley Parkway and any other areas outside the Property boundary that may be disturbed. The developer shall create a “pariewa/* character through substantial landscaping along Kelley Parkway; shall provide substantial deciduous trees along the west boundary, and shall provide a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees along the south boundary of the Property Along Kelley Parkway, the Development Plan shall incorporate a green (sod) boulevard no less than 8 feet in width behind the curbline of Kelley Parkway; a concrete sidewalk 6 feet in width located partially within the right-of way and partially on the Property, and a setback to parking from the north lot line of no less than 20 feet. The Property owner shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of the sidewalk and boulevard. Page 5 of 12 i .1 H za CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4R HO Street lifting along Kelley Parkway adjacent to the Property shall be provided by the Developer and shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council. Along Old Crystal Bay Road, the setback from the eastern edge of the existing trail to the back of parking lot curb shall be no less than 5 feet. A suitable buffer to provide a sense of physical separation between the parking lot and users of the trail shall be provided, in the form of a hedge or vegetative barrier, a berm, a short barrier wall, additional separation, or some other method acceptable to the City Council. A trail casement shall be granted to the City over the westerly 25' of the Property. The City shall be responsible for maintenance of this trail. The proposed pedestrian trail along Highway 12 shall be constructed by the developer and shall be 8' wide, of bituminous surfacing and shall be located either within the Highway 12 right- of-way, subject to MnDOT approval, or within the Property, approximately abutting the south Property line. The intent of this trail is to provide a connection to the existing and future trail system along Highway 12, while providing separation from the traveled portion of the right-of-way. Because it is unknown at this time whether the Highway 12 shoulder may be converted from a rural section to an urban section, the exact location and design of the trail cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, construction of this trail may be deferred until such time that development of the Adjacent Parcel occurs, and/or until such time that a decision on the design of the Highway 12 shoulder is reached. The City Council shall make the final determination of when and how the trail is to be constructed. Developer shall post suitable financial security in the interim for such construction. The City shall be responsible for the maintenance of this trail upon its completion and acceptance. Signage and lighting on the site shall adhere to the pertinent zoning code standards, and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Site lighting shall be low and shielded, similar to Page 6 of 12 f oT O'CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A A fitn the style of lighting found at the Orono Administrative Facilities. Site lighting along the west and south boundaries shall be provided adequate to light the trails along these t\^o sides of the property. Final decisions by the Developer regarding colors, types and qualities of building materials shall be subject to Council approval. The proposed building shall be subject to the Architectural Standards for the B-6 District per Zoning Code Section 10.45, Subd. 6(1). The proposed dumpster enclosure shall be compatible architecturally with the proposed medical building and may be located near the southeast comer of the Property to allow for joint use with the Adjacent Parcel. The use of the building is specifically approved for professional office use. Retail uses accessory to the office use may be allowed through a formal amendment of the PUD, but if approved the combination of all such uses shall not exceed 5% of the gross floor area of the building. Applicants* architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of building permits. Developer shall provide suitable evidence of Miruiehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval of the stormwater management plan before Development Plan Approval will be granted. Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". All erosion controls as required by the City and by the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencement of excavation on the site. This Revised Concept Plan approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval docs not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the review process continues. Page 7 of 12 zo lZFM»W^] ■ > V‘ W ■ ■|- '. .1 GlTYof ORONa- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. —4U8 60----- C. Plans and Speciricatfons. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate junsdictions: ^ 1) Final plaris and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided to the City for final review and approval with the Preliminary Plan set. The Public Works Department and MnDOT shall revie\^’ and approve all utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer ami . ^u-miain plans shall be provided and are subject to approval by the Public Works Department. 2) Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MnDOT have approved the stormwater plans. 3) Final landscaping design plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the B-6 zoning district. 4) Final building construction plans, including: a) elevations of all sides of the building; type and color of exterior building materials; proposed floor plan; b) c) d) building dimensions; and c) the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. Page 8 of 12 *>• GlTYofORONO D. E. F. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 48 60 Parking lot construction plans, including confirmation that parking lots and driving lanes will be paved and provided with concrete curb and gutter, and that all driving lanes within parking lots shall have a 9-ton minimum pavement section. A geotechnical evaluation of the soil shall be done in conjunction with the pavement design and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 6) 7) Detailed signage and lighting plans. Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review progresses. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development i^eement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the development. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks, retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The standard Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee for commercial development shall be paid by the developer at the rate of S6,480 per acre (2002 Fee Schedule). The City Council shall determine prior to final Development Plan approval whether the Developer will be charged additional fees for off-site stormwater improvements that benefit this property. The Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee shall not be charged for the acreage within the Adjacent Parcel that is to be developed to serve the property; said Fee for the acreage in the Adjacent Parcel shall be charged at the time the Adjacent Parcel is developed. Page 9 of 12 VJ GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 60 3. 5. G.Park Dedication. The City Council shall dclennine prior to Development Plan Approval whether Park Dedication requirements are applicable to this project. If so, the City will determine the dedication requirement in land or fee payment prior to Development Plan Approval. H. Sewer and Water Connection Charges. The applicant shall pay sewer and water connection charges to the City in an amount to be arrived at by use of the following formula; ^ ^ * S14,115/acre ■» Connection Charge Due where: A = number of SAC units required for the office building 2 - number of sewer/water units paid previously 2.0 acres •= area of the Property $14,115 = per-acre connection fees for 1989 Highway 12 municipal sewer & water project. This Revised General Concept Plan Approval resolution approves the development concept subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of this resolution and all other requirements of the City. This resolution does not constitute approval of the rezoning of the property nor of the Adjacent Parcel. Such approval ^all only be considered when the City Council finds that all Conditions for Development Plan Approval” as identified herein have been met. This ReviMd Gweral Concept Plan Approval shall be effective for a period of 6 months from the date of this resolution. If Development Plan Approval is not grated within that period, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective penoG. The undersized applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 10 of 12 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.__4 8 60___ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 2002. ATTEST: i Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicant (for Professional Properties of Orono, LLP as Developer) Ronald J. Mo($ne (for the City of Orono as Property Owner) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this / V^av of 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. r--’ % »ugaag>.?«»as»M ■CH2L aRACH, NOTAKr I9UCUC • 'T\ My CoonMon EipkM Jaa 31.Notary Public Page 11 of 12 --1?1 ,CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ® ® STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this / day nf 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. m©RACh^L D0?rc FL-us.r;.: —.'X 8 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this / ^ day of 2002 by Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator of the City of Orono, a Minnesota _municip?l <;Qn?Qral iQn. antLsairi instrument was executed on behalf of the City. \ RACHa DODGE NOTARY PUaUC • MMMSrOTA /My ComnMon Eipirw Jan. 31.7Xf>^ A?ot e.V^c-g Occ ( STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public On this day of . 2002, personally appeared before me, _____ who is personally knowm to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath^affirmation of _________________ a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/hcr/their free act and deed on behalf of Professional Properties of Orono, LLP. Notary Public Page 12 of 12 f I n I4ICA lACAlldlt liATj OWM. MM CaESZSAMMKVUTIOlil < ^sr I* 5T3m ?£pcs—' srx.i^ S' SecyK- S’ • #% V # Ml ST &£ §}• I •• RESOLUTION NO.482 3 DENTAL CLINIC EXHIBIT A-1 COVERSHEET ORONO, MN eacNuiuiG SYuioue CaimUTY tVMtOUCZSIBDaKXSSCD CaiSm/VTIim C0MTACT8I 0 <s> CatlTC 1TW80IJI •»« II •■VMM Rg55«.2f«3T —avp.esssw l,ll!!li]*0BM ^SSZ^m S5£. BS^ssm. rj v.-.-.v.- CZISURVCY SYMtOUaSZSSB • R3SSa*S9‘- cscm sum nwci « • «» ••k..%a ♦ Sb s G3U08IM CQMTMt SYMtOUC Oopher Stale One Cal tZC[/t> S-17'07^ . IMMI • MMI cfinifi OllflM.aMC OMMQ.ICI LANUFORM eiMi a» ORaimitm rmrn C0.1 . •»r n w iCA H H s § r j r ! •■ g S :.mm:^'>m^ -t'< ^ : ■ ■■ ■■."tVrK • ^ ^ i- • s- ^ ■ . ^ ^ 1 ;, ,4-;... ■i-.v-,i^m,-... . ... ..V'- ■■' . ' V i' ' ICSLLBY FA«<a:AY ■\ u. 6. Mi6»<aAr NO. Q ) V'" A '. 1 i ’< -.C *^' ^ rk # •* t n C3wn wfevraafir® ••*-•-•• ' STurrrjsasi—••••“ * »w55r3SSKS^* 'SfSS* osA-ssnsssas 3POIOM6 SVmiAaTI snsiTju*.s'.*:c* mtm M Mi •iKi W •« tMSIMt tWMM conn OnULOBK OmLIM LANDFORM 'S'SS?-hj-LJfcau ■ ruT s s s ? zo ClfPUN r»v t M C2.1 /1-I 5:3s |:r i « *.> 1^1 II nil I ii^Mit-. .;*VWMc» ^ ----------rT.T-7 , i • ••••• . • • ..V4I y-^^S^^KBuer PMOiAr >> i*^ »V . • • • • ^ tfteue^C^ I ' § s *.i «l •««•» U. 6i »«M(Ar NO. Q »* .* mm §■ K 4 t A RESOLUTION Na IIIOTtX sRssssa EXHIBIT A-3 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN * jrS SE%^&y9 » msSTssu"——-• *S5^^15CS£rsr * zs;^ivsvursrsszsvi saxrjBss E ac4U ■ PUT 00 Unii 9 51 O S H > rg i I f«iani$mmmm AMMO HHVDfiDMILcormi ocm/nciMe ONMLMN LANDFORM •*••«•*•%••••••■•(■ GMMfiM rmrn wSSuuUP^^" C3.1 •••t’Y .. rtH>JAf^Mau>:TVja7rc;-«iaflcnali ■»**-*M>j«**-- m- m» • • •«»• • - • • • —4a3r — • - J»- t K RESOLUTION NO. ' ^ ® 2 S W^ir » MTS*#' ^ H iins'tr tr t34.«4 [------- \ u ft. HaMiAr HP. Q GBims 'mm EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN » ^ ss CPgg.<A^!gJw_«ga s*^ ?>r'Sf*Ti !■ I csatirc/vnuTT contaciii M MM 1 MM s«.. —C93W £»«*•sse. agLgrwR SSr BMHUW t w «4•srjfss- nruj UMM m mt §o _ 35•< ► H I’' zo f MM • MMM C8R8I mmtLtkmc omiiM LANDFORM irnuTTPUR r«» C4.1 «»•)’*r § I 1 n <5 9SW 3 » n §<gSgi2 O H P3’’ r 2 *< •zo it shea L J /I-3 fmmm • mtmmm OMIlfl oerTM.aMC(MQK1.IM aompuii ^SlaMWi P1.1 fiv*>1s L If y V.:< ^yX '.i » . \ \ I r. •^i^lCuwCtc hjo ?0{?^'?v?9^^SnAfGwiKT^ Sf .iFi^railalWI: i'___ nAA/ywi^n/uiAAnniio*^-j t lt4 i ISSSSSSSS '■VrtS-Ato!:(»yOvwww Kfillli^Bil^ es g m £- b v> PS3 ^2 S^ « ^ ^ Pg-w r ^ 5s§ ,1 slWtl L J tWBV99nmmm ••• ••«>*•• conn ocirr/iLCMC(mm,m Exnmwmamim E1.1 §'"!• c/> •< V' “■ !:• $ ; * JVV y/^ ^ T r. t^M*»*W*l*J*B^ 2 3s sa ;I;.';::!!SS^^ Spjfgy ©-g^P«afatgsjuJty^Tiatt.^^§ii 5! O O 2 9B *V 9SPaS^ r 5 s/jea L J A-<; tmaav » MMSB conn pnriiaMC omnoiiwiiM MOnUSN OCLOaURf amiiM E1.2 s §:■*?• i :.,l ii “II • r^riiiTM I rt ■< rM i imT: 5^, •J f. RESOLUTION NO. 0 ■*1= TTTTT ORONO e- PROFESSIONAL CENTER 2725 KOLEY PARKWAY EXHIBIT B-4 f PRELIAUNARY SIGNAGE PLAN -4UliMLM SION NRTHMciarr WHITE LETTERS *7^ * I^PRS CAST CAP ^-PRECAST’ STONE t3*»4* • BRICK •ROCK PACE PRECAST STONE 5lg:NASE 'A'_______ 1/4* • I'*®* DATEt 4.n-J«®J© t Ml 7r- fLAN VfgMI a*-or_1 ORONO . PROFESSIONAC mm u^PRS CAST CAP ^Pl« CAST STONE —ALUiWLIi SION UATH BACKLIT UMTE LETTERS IS TOTAL PARKMO STALLS TS STALLS REOUIRSD SCREENED ROOF TOP UNITS PROPERTYLINE HIGHUMTD r\ SITE PLAN01/2(0 • DATEi 4*n-2002 7\ SlgiNlA^E *'S'_______ 1/4* ■ r-®’ DATE! 4>n-}002 2 O W 5!NORTH U\ 'I IMBI-tlN TtltSMOir MinniiM IBW dfft ORONO PROFeSSKMAl CENIER prt|cc!irat: DENTAL CUMC ORONO. MN ihidlRIc: SHE PLAN AM) SIGNAGE Ml f MM| •PYI S1.1 s: I ■rn n Oot 17 2002 8:18RM B0NE8TR00 R08ENE RNDERLIK 6516361311 P.l * { ■ f f ‘ 0* • • • \t • . I/II Bonestroo ^j^Rosene vv Anderlik& Associates En^iniftcrs 4jArchltects September 25,2002 Mr. Mike Gaffron ^ -Planning Director ' , CityofOrono Pest Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 c. ani AsMdaivf, Inc. It m Ammiailva Actlaf^^alO^pofmnliy *^r‘"ir|fi i i ^ aad Ciepiiqrtt Owfitd OltP a apw itfoo, rx • Manrin L. Sorv«l«. PX • Ofpnn K. C006. PC. • RoPerf G. Scttunlcht, PC. • icfry A. •ourckm. Pf. Cafifultamt: Kolicrt W. Roicn*. PC. • ioteph C Anaarllk. PC. • tkkartf E. lUmer. P£. • Susan M. Cbafta CPA. Atsudaia Prinfipati: Ka*tli A. Gofdon. PC. • Ropart R. Pfaffarte. PJ. • Rfcham W. Ponar. PC^ David O. Loikoia. PC. • Mark K Manson. PC • Mkfiaai T. Rauemana PC • 1M It FlaWl Pi. • Kannadi P. Andarsor^ PC.-« liarli R. Rolfi. PC. • David A ■onaiirao. MlBA. • SMwy P. WIRlamioa PC.. LS. • Agnas M. Rlng^ HE A • Alan Rick'ScIvnidl. PC. • Tnomas W. Pafaf ioa PC. • Jamas R. Maland. Pi. • Milat E Jansaa PC. • L PhWIp Graval M. PE • Danial J. Cdgartoa PC. • Itmaal Mardnai. PC. • Thomai A Syffeo. PC. • Shaldon J. Jolvuon • Date A Grova. PC. • Thomas A Roudiar. PC. • RotMTt X Otitef y PC. Offlcat: St Paul. St ClouE Rocltestaf and WMmar. MN • MRwjukaa!. Wl • Ovea^. (L ilta: wwwiwnauroocom *.1 Re: Professional Properties of Orono File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2782 Dear Mike: • a / • 9 \ • We have reviewed the development plans for the Professional Properties building. The site is located at 2765 Kelley Parkway in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and TH 12. The proposed use of the site is for a dental/mcdical complex. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Sanitary Sewer: The sanitary sewer service is shown connecting to an existing manhole along Old Crystal Bay Road. The proposed 8-inch PVC service pipe will connect at the existing manhole invert elevation of 1006.4. The developer may want to install the service pipe at a grade of less than 1 % between the building and the existing manhole to minimize the excavation depth for the service pipe. This will require the construction of an outside drop at the existing manhole. Final plans should include profile views of the sanitary sewer. The plans should also include typical sections for trail and street repair. All repairs to the trail and street shall be made immediately after they are disturbed. 2. Water Main: The proposed water main design appears acceptable. The proposed connection to the existing water main stub should be coordinated with the City and installed in accordance with City standards. 3. Storm Sewer/Grading: The proposed storm sewer is shown discharging east of the site. The proposed pipe invert is something less than 1014.93 (proposed upstream invert at CBMH-5). Based on existing topography the discharge pipe inven elevation will be 5 to 6-feet under ground. The applicant should provide additional detail as to how this storm sewer system will work. Riprap should be provided at all outlets. The southwest comer of the site should be graded so drainage is directed easterly into the existing MN/DOT ditch. The existing culvert under Old Crystal Bay Road should be bulkheaded an 1 abandoned. The proposed grading plan shows grading within the MN/DOT right-of-way. Plans should be submitted to MN/DOT for their review and approval. The proposed grading plan shows grading and parking lot construction on the adjacent property to the cast. The applicant should verify they have control over this parcel and include additional grading information to identify how drainage will be handled on this site. 2335 WVst Highway 35 • St. Paul. MN 5Sn3 • 65F636-4600 • Fax: 6S^634-t3l1 Oot 17 sooe atlSAH BONESTROO R08ENE RNDERLIK 8516361311 • P.*' .'=0 Additional stonn sewer may be necessary on the easterly parcel to convey stonn wate^ flows. Final plans should show plan and profile views of the proposed sewer and include sforfti sewer details. A drainage area nuq> and storm sewer calculations should be submitted for our review. Silt fence and any other erosion control measures should be in place prior to any site grading. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for their review. 4. StreetafTraila/ftrking: A geotechnical report, R-vai.^ recommendation and pavement design should be provided for review. A typical street section for repairs to Old Crystal Bay Road should be included in the plan set. Details should be provided for the proposed bituminous trail along TH 12. MN/DOT should review and comment on the location and design of the trail. 5. Fbumclal Guarantee: We have estimated the cost of site improvements to be $196,936, the itemized estimate is attached. The applicant should provide a financial guarantee of 150% of this ariKMint or $295,404 prior to any work on the site. The financial guarantee can be reviewed and reduced periodically as work is completed and accepted. The financial guarantee should never be less than $20,000 until the job is complete and all work has been accepted by the City. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLflC 8c ASSOCIATES, INC. ____Tom Kellogg Attachment Cc*. Oreg Oappa, City of Orono Qot 17 2002 SilSnH B0NE8TR00 R08ENE RNDERLIK 6518361811 p.3 CITY OF ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES COMMERCIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAT FILE NO. 2782 •* SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESVMATE: EST. UNIT EST. ______________ITEM________________UNIT QUANTITY PRICE COST Mobilization Site grading Common excavation Sdlect granular material Aggregate baae, Cl. 5,100% crushed Type 31 bit. base course Type 41 bit. wear course Bituminous material for tack Concrete curb and gutter Landscaping Concrete walk 6" DIP 8" DIP 6* gate valve & box 8* gate valve & box Hydrant Connect to existing water main 12* RCP storm sewer 15 ” RCP storm sewer 18" RCP storm sewer Storm catch basin w/casting Storm catch basin MH w/castIng 8* PVC sanitary sewer SanKary sewer clecuiout Connect to existing sanitary sewer Silt fence LS LS CY CY TN TN TN GL LF LS SF LF LF EA EA EA EA LF LF LF EA EA LF EA EA LF Estimated Construction Cost •l•50% Security Deposit Total Soeurity Dopoolt Required 1 1 3000 1500 1800 680 400 400 2200 1 1920 20 160 1 1 1 1 194 183 225 2 4 187 3 1 700 $5,000.00 5.000. 00 5.00 16.00 11.00 32.00 35.00 1.00 8.00 25.000.00 3.00 20.00 25.00 800.00 1.000. 00 1.500.00 1,000.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 1.200.00 1,500.00 23.00 300.00 1.000.00 3.00 $5,000 5.000 15.000 24.000 19,800 21.760 14.000 400 17,600 25.000 5.760 400 4.000 800 1.000 1,500 1,000 4,850 5.490 7,875 2,400 6,000 4,301 900 1,000 2,100 $196,936 98,468 I ii & Final Development Plan Review Punchlist r^ mM02-2782/2842 Professional Properties of Orono - Medical Office Building 802-2843 .Professional Properties of Orono - Rezoning of **2745" Kelley Parkway Legal Descriptions: Lot I, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and Lot I, Block 2, City of Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Adjacent lot) PINS 8:33-118-23 12 0002 33-118-23 12 0008 General Concept Plan Approval: Resolution No. 4823 on June 10, 2002 granted conceptual approval for rezoning to B-6/PUD for 15,000 s.f. medical office use, incl. preliminary site plan approval. Revised General Concept Plan Approval: Resolution No. 4860 on September 9, 2002 granted approval for the revised layout including expansion of the building to 16,000 s.f., reorientation of the building, and use of the adjacent parcel (Lot 1, Block 2, City of Orono Addition) for parking and shared access. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: □ Signed purchase agreement for principal lot □ Copy of signed purchase agreement to acquire the 2.5 acre Adjacent Parcel. Also need consent of current owner to rczonc. Under the staff-proposed terms of the rezoning approval, the Adjacent Parcel may be developed for any permitted or conditional use allowed in the B-6 District, but shall be developed only via the PUD review and approval process. This requirement may need to be established via a covenant for tltc property. □ Drart "Shared Access and Parking Agreement" for the shared access driveway and the 5 stalls that will be on adjacent lot to meet the parking requirement for the main lot, agreement must indicate conditions of use, etc. as provided for in Orono Zoning Code Section 10.61 Subd. 6. The area of the Adjacent Parcel used to meet the minimum parking requirement for the Property shall be excluded from pertinent lot area and parking calculations when the Adjacent Parcel is developed. □ Suitable evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval of the stormwater management plan before Development Plan Approval will be granted. ^^/Parking lot striping & traffic signage plan Page 1 of 4 I y^^ltc signage and lighting plan. Shall adhere to the pertinent zoning code standards, and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Site lighting shall be low and shielded, similar to the style of lighting found at the Orono Administrative Facilities. Site lighting" along the west and south boundaries shall be provided adequate to light the trails along these two sides of the property. Street lighting along Kelley Parkway adjacent to the property shall be provided by the Developer and shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council. ^^^^inal building construction plans, including: a) elevations of all sides of the building; b) type and color of c.xtcrior building materials; c) proposed floor plan; d) building dimensions; and c) the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. ^^a^amples of final colors, types and qualities of building materials. The proposed building shall be subject to the Architectural Standards for the B-6 District per Zoning Code Section 10.45, Subd. 6(1). The proposed dumpster enclosure shall be compatible architecturally with the proposed medical building and may be located near the southeast comer of the Property to allow for joint use with the Adjacent Parcel. Parking lot construction plans, including confinnation that parking lots and driving lanes will be paved and provided with concrete curb and LMitiermid jh.-it {ill_drivin^> innrg parking lots^iall have a 9-tnn.minimum pavement seetion^ p^nforhiitrai soil shall be done in conjunction with the pavement design and shall be submitted to the Cit Engineer for approval.^ □ Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including any proposed revisions to e.xisting serv ice facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided to the City foxJmal-Mjikw and approval with the Preliminary Plan set. The Public Works Department and InDOTjl^ review and approve all utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer and watermain “phnw-shaiTbe provided and are subject to approval by the Public Works Department, □ Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stomnvatcr facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. DevelupweiH-51an Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District atfdMnDOT h^ approved the stomuvater plans. Development gjan / JUfdMnDOr Im^ ,^f^Trail & sidewalk plans as well as final landscaping design plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the B-6 zoning district. These guidelines must be met: - Must present a positive visual image toward Kelley Parkway. Page 2 of 4 • landscaping plan shall meet all landscaping standards established for the B-6 District in Section 10.45, Subdivision 6(H). In addition, the Developer shall be responsible for sodding the boulevard of Kelley Parkway and any other areas outside thc'pftpcrty boundary that may be disturbed. The developer shall create a “parkway" character through substantial landscaping along Kelley Parkway; shall provide substantial deciduous trees along the west boundary; and shall provide a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees along the south boundary of the property. - Along Kelley Parkway, the Development Plan shall incorporate a green (sod) boulevard no less than 8 feet in width behind the curbline of Kelley Parkway; a concrete sidewalk 6 feet in width located partially within the right-of way and partially on the property; and a setback to parking from the north lot line of no less than 20 feet. 1 he property owner shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of the sidewalk and boulevard. - Along Old Crystal Bay Road, the setback from the eastern edge of the e.xi.sting trail to the back of parking lot curb shall be no less than 5 feet. A suitable buffer to provide a sense of physical .separation between the parking lot and users of the trail shall be provided, in the form of a hedge or vegetative barrier, a benn, a .short barrier wall, additional separation, or some other method acceptable to the City Council. A trail easement shall be granted to the City over the westerly 25 ’ of the property. The City shall be responsible for maintenance of this trail. - I'he proposed pedestrian trail along Highway 12 shall be constructed by the developer and shall be 8' wide, of bituminous surfacing and shall be located either within the Highway 12 right-of-way, subject to MnDOT approval, or within the Property. appro.ximately abutting the south Property line. I he intent of this trail is to provide a connection to the existing and future trail system along Highway 12, while providing separation from the traveled portion of the right-of-way. Because it is unknown at this time whether the Highway 12 shoulder may be converted from a airal section to an urban section, the exact location and design of the trail cannot be detennined at this tinr.*. Ihercforc. construction of this trail may be deferred until such tinte that de\clopment of the Adjacent Parcel occurs, and/or until such time that a ilccision on the ilesign of the Highway 12 shoulder is reached. The City Council shall make the final dctcmiination of when and how the trail is to be constructed. Developer shall post suitable financial .security in the interim for such construction. Ihe City shall be responsible for the maintenance of this trail upon its completion and acceptance. o Draft Develupnieiit Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City rc(|uirements for the development. ti Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the eompiction of site improvements. The City Kngineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to landscaping, grading, erosion Page 3 of 4 zo control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks, retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a fin^cial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. " □ Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The standard Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee for commercial development shall be paid by the developer at the rate of $6,480 per acre (2002 Fee Schedule). The City Council shall determine prior to flnal Development Plan ^proval whether the Developer will be charged additional fees for off-site stormwater improvements that benefit this property. The Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee shall not be charged for the acreage within the Adjacent Parcel that is to be developed to serve the property, said Fw for the acreage in the Adjacent Parcel shall be charged at the time the Adjacent Parcel is developed. D Sewer and Water Connection Charges. The applicant shall pay sewer and water connection charges to the City in an amount to be arrived at by use of the following formula: A- 2 X 2.0 acres x $14,115/acre « Coinfection Charge Due where: A - number of SAC units required for the office building 2 “ number of sewer/water units paid previously 2.0 acres = area of the Properly $14,115 = per-acre connection fees for 1989 Highway 12 municipal sewer & water project. Additional items to Remember: ■ Applicants architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of building permits. n. ^ V. ^ Page 4 of 4 1 k.1. -t *" ■ ■ Revised Oran 11/7/02 A RESOLUTION GRANTING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3 FOR PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, INC. - FILE #2843 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 (hcreinaAer “City Council”) has adopted land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City: and WHEREAS, Professional Properties of Orono, Inc. (“the Applicants”) have a pending purchase agreement for property owned by the City of Orono located at 2765 Kelley Parkway and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinaAer the “Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicants additionally have an interest via executed purchase agreement for property located at 2745 Kelley Parkway and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, City of Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinaAer the “Adjacent Parcel"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by the Applicants for development by the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of the Property and a portion of tlic Adjacent Parcel; and WHEREAS, on September 9,2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4680 granting General Concept Plan Approval for the proposed development, which approval includes the following elements: Page I of 7 -zta. 1.Rczoning of the Property and the Adjacent Parcel from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to B-6 Highway Commercial District Planned Unit Development (B-6 PUD); and Commercial site plan approval and conditions for proposed office building on the Property and the Adjacent Parcel; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to execute Planned Unit Development No. 3 Agreement providing for the installation of certain improvements as a condition of site plan approval for the construction of a Medical Office Building on the Property and on a portion of the Adjacent Parcel, and which agreement documents the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the Property and the Adjacent Parcel; and WH ERE AS, the Applicants have agreed to submit and execute a Shared Access and Parking Agreement over the portions ofdriveways and parking areas within the Adjacent Parcel that will be used to meet the parking requirements for the building to be developed on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to grant public easements to the City over existing and proposed trails and sidewalks within the Property and the Adjacent Parcel; and WHEREAS, the Developer has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the Zoning Code and related Ordinances of the City including: I.Submittal of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit approving the grading and stormwater management facilities plan for the development of the Property and the Adjacent Parcel as proposed per the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. Sheet C3.1 dated 9-18-02. Payment to the City of Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fees for the developmenc of the Property in the amount of $12,986.00 based on Trunk Fee of $6,480 per acre and gross acreage of Property at 87,279 s.f or 2.004 acres including those portions subject to trail and sidewalk easements 3. Payment ofSewerand Water Connection Charges in the amount of $pnor to issuance of any Site Improvement/Building Permits. Final amount will be based on the following formula; Page 2 of 7 i I { *■ Connection Charge Due = A -2 x 2.004 acres x $14,U5/acre A where: A number of SAC units required for the office building 2 = number of sewer/water units paid previously 2.004 acres = gross area of the Property SI4,IIS = per-acre connection fees for 1989 Highway 12 municipal sewer & water project per 2002 City Fee Schedule.) 4.Granting to the City of public easements over existing and proposed trails and sidewalks within the Property and the Adjacent Parcel. WHEREAS, City staff and consultants have reviewed the plans for this PUD application and hereby specify approval of each attached plan and identi fy them as part of tlie official record for Planned Unit Development No. 3: 1.Approval of site plan per ‘Treliminary Site Plan ” Sheet C2.1 dated 9/18/02, subject to potential relocation to a location within the Property of the trail currently proposed within the Highway 12 right-of-way. 2.Approval of “Preliminary Grading Plan ” per Sheet C3.1 dated 9/18/02, subject to the additional requirements of the MCWD and subject to the additional requirements and conditions specified by City Engineer Tom Kellogg in his letter dated September 25, 2002. 3.Approval of “Preliminary Utility Plan ” per Sheet C4.1 dated 9/1 8/02,subjcct to the additional requirements specified by City Engineer Tom Kellogg in his letter dated September 25,2002. 4.Approval of “Preliminary Landscape Plan” per Sheet L2.1 dated 9/17/02, subject to the following additional conditions: a) City reserves the right to require revision to the tree species and tree locations proposed along the Kelley Parkway frontage to ensure their compatibility with the final Kelley Parkway streetscape plan yet to be approved by the City Council. Page 3 of 7 7 k 5. b) 1 he trash enclosure shall be further screened by vegetation to niinimi/c direct view of the opening by westbound Highway 12 traffic, subject to City staff approval. Approval of floor plan and facade elevations for the Medical Office building per Sheets Al.l, Bl.l and HI.2 by Shea Architects (undated). 6. Approval of Signage Plan per Sheet Bl.l (undated). 7. Approval ofLighting Plan per Sheet B2.1 dated 9/1 8/02, subject to limiting the height of light standards to 20' above grade and revising the location and number of luminaires to more uniformly light the parking areas. NOW^THERF.FO^**,, be I r resolved that based on the findings of Re.solution No. 4680, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 3, subject to the following conditions: I. 3. 4. General Development Plan Approval is granteil subject to conditions established within Resolution 4()80 and subject to the conditi< ns established within the Planned Unit Development No. 3 Agreement and other pertinent documents. Upon the final approval and c.xccution of this resolution and me Planned Unit Develojuncnt No. 3 Agreement, the City Council shall fonnallyapprovc an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to re/one the Property and the Adjacent Parcel from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District to H 6 Highway Commercial District Planned Unit Development (B-6 PUD), and iunending the Orono Zoning ('ode by adding language establishing Planned Unit Development No. 3 (PUD-3) to include he property a:ul the Adjacent Parcel. Upon approval of this Resolution the City Council shall direct the Mayor and Clerk to c.\ecute other documents require<I by this PI ID re/oning, including but not limited to the “Phuined Unit Development No. 3 Agreement". Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Page 4 of 7 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ATTEST: I? Zoning Administrator. Changes in uses: Significant changes in the location, size, or height of the Medical Office structure, and any other changes to the approved final development plan deemed by the Zoning Administrator to be signi ficant may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. li substantial development has not occurred within one year after approval of PUD No. 3 as set forth in the Planned Unit Development No. 3 Agreement, the City Council may declare the approvals granted within this resolution and within said Agreement as null and void. It is specifically noted that further development of the Adjacent Parcel for a use al lowed in the B-6 District is anticipated. Such further development shall be governed by the Planned Unit Development process. Those portions of the Adjacent Parcel used to meet parking requirements for the Property shall not be used in calculations related to development of the Adjacent Parcel. However, calculations of lot area, park dedication fees, storm water trunk fees, sewer and water connection fees, etc. for the Adjacent Parcel shall be calculated based on the entire area of the Adjacent Parcel. The approvals granted in this Resolution shall not become effective until such time that the Developer successfully completes purchase and provides suitable evidence of ownership of the Property and the Adjacent Parcel. This approvals granted in this Resolution shall become effective only when the all conditions of approval requiring actions by the Applicants have been satisfied. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 12th day of November, 2002. Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 5 of 7 ilimii 1 r i- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me on this__d<ty of .2001 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota muricipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument ‘vas acknowledged before me on this day of ,2001 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. — a» • • 1-* 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On Ihis 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 of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that iic/she/thcy executed tite same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .20 personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____ whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on theoatli/afrinnation of a credible witness and wlu) executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/shc/they executed the same as his/hcr/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 7 of 7 '.-i^ .mihi Reviled Dram 1/7/12 CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINESOTA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 3 AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AT 2745-2765 KELLEY PARKWAY -- r DEVELOPER: PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this___day of 2002, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called “City”), and Professional Properties of Orono, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, its heirs, successors and assigns (hereinafter called “Developer”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development rezening application (PUD) including a commercial site plan review, for the purpose of developing a 16,000 s.f. medical office building on property located at 2745-2765 Kelley Parkway; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2002 the City Council granted Concept Plan Approval for development of a 16,000 s.f medical office building (the “Medical Office Building”) per Resolution No. 4680, on the condition that the Developer enter into this agreement to provide for conformance with the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinances, and to provide for the installation and maintenance of improvements asociated with the development. NOW, THEREFORE, in considcrat! <n of the premises, and of the actual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows; A. General Terms and Conditions 1. Property Descrintion. This Planned Unit Development No. 3 Agreement for Professional Properties of Orono, Inc. Medical Office Building applies to the following described property located in Heimepin County, Minnesota: Page I of 12 Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial 2. 3. Lot I, Block I, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinaRer the “Property”); and Lot I, Block 2, City ofOrono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Adjacent Parcel”) Zoning- The Property and the Adjacent Parcel are zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning. pgrminy<iu?g?- Within the Property the only pennitted principal structure is the 1 6,000 gross s.f.. Medical Ofticc Building as depicted in the preliminary site plan (attached hereto as Kxhibit___) and preliminary building plans and elevations (attached hereto as Exhibit ____)• The permitted use of the Medical Office Building is general medical office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The office building shall not be used for general retail use, except that retail uses customarily accessory to the general medical office use may occur in no more than five percent (5%) of the office building gross floor area. Other uses shall not be allowed except by amendment of this PUD agreement. Within the Property the only accessory stmetures allowed shall include Monument idcntilicution signs per the approved plans. No other accessory structures arc permitted on the Property except by amendment of this agreement. Within the Adjacent Parcel no principal structure has been approved under this approval. However, it is expressly noted herein that the intent lor me Adjacent Parcel is the future development of an additional office ^'vjlduig or some other ui.c allowed within the B-6 Highway Commercial District. Such future development shall be subject to the Planned Unit Development approval process, and shall require a separate PUD approval.. Within the Adjacent Parcel, the only structure pennitted under this approval is a detached trash enclosure construct.*d of materials comparable to and compatible w ith those of the principal structure on the Property per the approved plans as shown in Exhibit Within the Adjacent Parcel, the development of a shared access and p,irking area is allowed as shown on Exhibit___. Such shared acc**ss and parking shall be governed by the Shared Access and Parking Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit . Those portions of the Adjacent Parcel used to meet parking requirements for the Property shall not be used in calculations related to development of the Adjacent Parcel. However, calculations of lot area, park dedication fees, storm water trunk fees, sewer and water connection fees. etc. for the Page 2 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial .T. Adjacent Parcel shall be calculated based on the entire area of the Adjacent Parcel. t Users shall be obligated to conform to all applicable Orono ordinances and to the provisions of this PUD agreement. The foregoing uses are permitted pursuant to this PUD agreement. 4. Site Access. Internal circulation for the Property shall be via private driveways and park..ig areas. The only access to adjoining public streets shall be onto Kelley Parkwa>. The westerly access to the property shall be an entrance only and shall not allow exit movements. Additionally, a shared access providing for full entrance and exit movements shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit __to serve both the Property and the Adjacent Parcel. One future additional access point to Kelley Parkway may be allowed for the Adjacent Parcel. Such access location shall not be constructed until approved via the PUD approval process in conjunction with future development of the Adjacent Parcel. Off-site access improvements that are the responsibility of the developer shall include construction of curb cuts and driveway aprons within the right-of-way of Kelley Parkway, as well as the relocation of existing hydrants and storm sewer facilities as necessary to accomplish the required site accesses. All such off-site improvements shall be performed to City specifications and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Ser\ ices prior to commencement of such improvements. 5. Building Design and Construction. The medical office building on the Property shall be constructed according to final plans which shall first be certified by the Plaiming Director as being in conformity with the approved plans attached as Exhibit __. The exterior of the building shall be of materials consistent with the preliminary materials proposal attached as Exhibit ___. The trash enclosure located on the Adjacent Parcel shall be constructed of materials consistent with the principal structure on the Property per the approved plans. Construction of the medical otTice building shall be in conformance with the building codes and regulations adopted by the City of Orono. Any substantial changes to tlic gross square footage, footprint/wall/roof dimensions or defined building height shall require a prior amendment to this Agreement. 6. Landscaping. The approved landscaping plan attaci.ed to this Agreement as Exhibit shall be strictly adhered to, with the following conditions; a) City reserves the right to require revision to the tree species and tree locations Page 3 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial proposed along the Kelley Parkway frontage to ensure their compatibility with the final Kelley Parkway streetscape plan yet to be approved by the City • Council. ■ b) The trash enclosure shall be further screened by vegetation to minimize direct view of the opening by westbound Highway 12 traffic, subject to City staff approv al. 7. Lighting- Site lighting shall adhere to the approved lighting plan attached to this agreement as Exhibit 8.Signage. Signage on the site shall be limited to the required traffic control signage, and to the 2 approved monument signs as shown on the approved Signage Plan attached hereto as Exhibit__. Parking and traffic control signage shall be installed subject to City staff and City Engineer approval. B. Installation and Maintenance of Improvements y* Intprovcmcnts: In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City of Orono, the following described public or private improvements (hereinafter collectively called the “Improvements") shall be constmcled, installed and maintained by the Developer according to the lenns and conditions contained in this PUD Agreement: Site grading, driveways, curb and gutter, parking lots, sidewalks, retaining walls if required and all ncc .ary erosion control measures per the preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion C atrol Plan attached hereto as Exhibit___(hereinafter called "site grading improvements"); Construction of sanitary sewer and water connections, and relocation of the hydrant located at the Northeast comer of the property (hereinafter called "sewer and water improvements ”) and constmetion or relocation of storm sewer lines and facilities (hereinafter called "stomiwatcr improvements") per the preliminary Utility Plan attached hereto as Exhibit (c) Underground natural gas. electric, cable and telephone service to be arranged by the Developer with the utility companies involved (hereinafter called the "other utility improvements"): (d) Landscaping and site revegetation improvements per the approved Landscaping Plan Page 4 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial ; attached hereto as Exhibit__(hereinafter called “landscaping improvements”). (e) Traffic control signage subject to approval by the City Engineer and Public Slices . Director. (f) Any additional improvements listed within the Site Improvements Cost Estimate attached hereto as Exhibit Construction Plans: Detailed plans and specifications for the complete installation of the Improvements shall be submitted by the Developer for the approval of the City prior to issuance of applicable City permits. The Plans and Specifications shall conform to all current City standards for ail applicable work and shall comply with the terms of this PUD Agreement. 11. Construction of Improvements: (a) Commencement Date - The construction of hnprovements shall begin no later than (b) Completion Date - All Improvements shall be completed no later than Contractors - The Developer shall select, retain and supervise the Contractor(s) responsible for Improvement construction. The City reserves the right to require satisfactory proof of successful experience and adequate financial status of any such contractor. Where required by City ordinance, the contractor shall first obtain a license from the City. Pre-Construction Conference - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer and the Developer's Contractor shall meet with the responsible City official to review construction plans and schedules. Permits - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer's Contractor shal 1 apply for and receive all necessary permits from the City and/or government agencies having jurisdiction. Permits • Prior to the start ofany construction, the Developer’s Contractor shall apply for and receive all necessary permits from the City and/or government agencies having jurisdiction. Required City permits relative to the Improvements include the following: Site Grading Permit; Utility Construction Permit; Sewer and Water Pages of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial ■'I 12. 13. 14. Connection Permits. Developer is advised that an Erosion Control Permit must be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before commencing any grading activity on the site. * ~ (g) Construction - The construction, installation and materials shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Insurance - The Developer will cause each person who constructs and installs any Improvement to maintain complete insurance coverage including Workmen ’s Compensation, Liability and Property Damage. Performance Deposit : For the purposes of assuring to the City that the Improvements will be completed according to the temis of this agreement, and that the Developer \vill pay or will cause to have paid all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished, the Developer or his General Contractor will deposit with the City prior to issuance of site grading and building pemiits an irrevocable letter of credit in a form satisfactory to the City providing that the City is able to draw upon such letter of credit in its sole discretion to complete the Improvements If the Developer fails to satisfactorily coi.iplete the work prior to the completion date specified in Section 11 above. The amount of such deposit shall be 150% of the estimated improvement costs per the schedule to be attached to this document as Exhibit__. The amount of such deposit shall not be reduced before substantial completion of the Improvements. The letter of credit shall expire no sooner than six months afier the completion date specified in Section 11 above. I’ws itnti ,E^PV•^SCS; The Developer agrees to pay all City fees required per the current City I'ce Schedule and further agrees to completely reimburse the City for all the variable additional expenses it incurs in regard to the review and approval of the Improvements including, but not limited to, direct City payroll and overhead, costs, and fees p;iid to consultants and other professionals, which arc not covered by City application fees. Maintenance . The Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of all privately owned Improvements including roads, sidewalks, and storm sewers, regardless whether casements for such Improvements have been granted to the City. Developer shall pomuinently maintain site lighting, r-gnage and landscaping consistent with the approved Plans for said improvements. Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of all sewer and water lines that arc defined as “connections ” as indicated on the approved Utility Plan. Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that the appearance and design of the building arc maintained per the approved budding and construction plan, and shall be responsible for Page 6 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial L ensuring that the site amenities and features as shown on the approved site plan are maintained per said plan. IS. Developer Representations and Covenants. The Developer hereby makes the following representations and covenants: (a) The Developer has the legal authority and power to enter into this Agreement. (b) The D.:veloper reasonably expects to obtain financial resources suHlcient to enable the completion of the Improvements. The Developer will, subject to the requirements of Section B - Installation and Maintenance of Improvements hereof, construct, operate and maintain the Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and all local, state and federal laws and regulations, and will construct or pay the costs of construction of any site improvements, utilities, landscaping, stormwater management facilities, roads, parking facilities which are necessary in connection with the construction and such improvements. At such time or times ns may be required by law, the Developer will have complied with alt local, state and federal environmental reviews, licenses, and will be in compliance with the requirements of federal, state, and local authority. The Developer will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all local, state, and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Improvements may be constructed. (f) It is intended and agreed that the covenants provided in this Section shall be covenants running with the land not the owner or developer. 16. City Representations and Covenants: The City makes the following representations as the bajis for the undertaking on its part here in contained: (a) The City is authorized by law to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The City will, in a timely manner, subject to all notification requirements, review and Page 7 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial mMk 17, 18. 19. act upon ail submittals and application of the Developer and will cooperate with the cITortorthc Developer to secure the grantingofanypcmiit, license, or other ap^proval required to construct and operate the Improvements; provided, however, that liothing contained in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit in any way the reasonable and legitimate exercise of the City’s discretion in considering any submittal or application. (c) The Property is zoned for purposes which include the Development as proposed. The City has issued all necessary commercial site plan review approvals for the proposed development on the property. Compliance . At any time and from time to time the Developer may request that the City provide the Developer a certificate certifying that that the terms and provisions of this Agreement have been complied with and that this PUD Agreement is in full force and effect with respect to the development for the pu-pose of facilitating sale, mortgage, insurance or other matters. To the extent that there be any bona fide defaults in such compliance, the Developer shall be affordeu a reasonable time to bring the development into confonnance, and thereafier the City shall be obligated to provide such ccrtificaie. Binding Effect: The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding deemed covenants ninning with the land. References hciein to Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of them. This agreement at the option of the City shall be placed of record so as to give notice hereof to any subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of all or any part of the property. NalKCa; whenever in this agreement it shall be required or pennitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on ihi.* other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United Slates certified mail (return receipt requested) to the atidresses set forth below. Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. Notice to City Notice to Developer CityofOrono CIcrlc^Administrator l*.0. Uo.x 66 Crystal Bay. MN 5532.1 Page 8 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial «• # 1 i i r * __— ir.» II 20. 22. 23. Parties may substitute notice provisions upon notice to other parties. Incorporation bv Reference: All plans, special provisions, proposals, spcciFications and contracts for the Improvements furnished and let pursuant to this agreement shall he and hereby arc made a part of this agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full. Disclaimer bv Citv: It is understcxl and agreed that! .. 'ity, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any maimer to the Developer or Developer's contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or any other person, firm or corporation, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions, or causes of action of any kind or character, arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance and completion of the Improvements. Hold Harmless and Indemnification: The Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the as.^ertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of this agreement by the Developer, its employees, agents or sub contractors, whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Remcd\ for Default: Default by the Developer of any of the terms of th'S agreement shall automatically result in the suspension or withholding of all permits, licenses, occupancy certificates or other authorizations issued by the City in connection w ith the property included tn this development. The remedies afforded to the City under this Section shall be in addition to any other remedies to which the City may be entitled by law or other agreement. Default by the City shall entitle the Developer to seek injunctivc/mandatory relief through the courts, together with other relief as the law may provide. Right of Entry. The Developer hereby grants to the City, its agents and its employees, the right to enter on the property for the specific purpose of constructing or completing any and all of the agreed upon Improvements should the Developer not complete those Improvements by the date specified in Section 11. Controlling Agreement . To the extent that there is any difference or ambiguity between this Planned Unit Development Agreement and other agreements between the City and the Developer, this Planned Unit Development Agreement shall control. Page 9 of 12 Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial, STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Tha foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of____ by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ,2002 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 1'he 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. STAI R OF MINNESOl A COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public On this day of ..20. personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____ whose identity I proved on the basis of__________________________________ ____whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of___________________________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/shc'they executed the same as hi&1tcr/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 11 of 12 Developer Initial City Clerk Initial , ^ ^ ■-K1 LIST OF EXHIBITS t- Exhibit A.....Preliminaiy Site Plan Exhibit B.....Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit C.....Preliminary Utility Plan Exhibit D..... Preliminary Building Plans & Elevations Exhibits ..... Landscaping Plan Exhibit F..... Lighting Plan Exhibit G.... Signage Plan Exhibit H.... Site Improvements Cost Estimate ■ . \ i* "• 1- 41msm ''x s.-- ■ i,' H •V irff i i, /4 '■ -IS’’. r'‘ V '. r- ' h ■ • X'.'lf -ir ■ :•■■ •«'' Page 12 of 12 Developer Initial, City Cleric Initial ^ i \wia<r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 1 2 2002 QFY 0*=ORONO DATE: November 12,2002 ITEM NO.: b Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa TUk Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director ’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment #1, Hackberry Park Playground Equipment Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and reconunend approval of this Request for Payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment #1, Hackberry Park Playground Equipment Project to ODESA Construction Inc. in the amount of $88,989.74 il\t Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects ■ofitifroe, ffoigat. AndtrQli antf Aiioclmti, Inc. If an Afllrnuillve Acijoa/lqti«l Opporiunliy Imploygr •nd tniploytt Owned Principal!: Oito C ioneitroo. PX • Marvin L. Sorvala. PC. • Glenn R Cooii. PE • Poberi G Schunichi. PC. • Jerry A. Sourdoo. PC Senior Coniwitantf: Poben W. Poiene. PC • Joieoh C AnderUk. PC • Richard C Turner. PE • Sutan M Ebertin. c PA Aitoclaie Principalt: Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfelferle. PC • Richard W Eotter. PE • Oavid O Lotkota. PC • Mark A. Hanson. PC • Michael T. Rautmann. PC • Ted it field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PC • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Oavid A Ronetiroo. MR A • Sidney P Wiiuamsoa P4.1S • A^s M Ring. MR A • Alan Rak Schrtudl. PC • Thomas W Peterson. PC. • James R. Maiand. PC • Miles R Jensen PC • L Phillip Gravel III. PC • Oaniel J Edgerton. PE • Ismael Martmex. PC • Thomas A Syfko. PE • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove. PE. • Thomas A Roushar. PE • Robert J Oevery. PE. Offices: St Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and Wiilmar. MN • Milwaukee. Wl • ChKago. II TMbsIte: wwwbonestroo com November S. 2002 Mr. Greg Gappa Cily of Orono P. O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323-0066 Hackberry Park Playground Improvements BR\ File No. 139 02-118 Request for Payment No I Dear Mr. Gappa; Attached arc three (3) copies of Pay Request No. 1 for the above-mentioned project. This pay request covers work completed through November 5, 2002 in the amount of $88,989.74. VVe recommend the City accept this pay request and pay the Contractor the amount due. Please review, sign all three copies and distribute as follows: I copy I copy I copy City of Orono Contractor Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates Inc. If you have any questions, please call me at 651-604-4861. Sincerely, BONtS I ROO, ROSENF, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. r\ Stuart M. Krahn, ASLA S.MKcxQv^ Attachment 2J3S W*it Highway 36 > St. Paul. MN SSItJ • 6SI-S36-4600 • Fax; S5t-S36-I3ll L j^lonestroo Rosene v]|Anderi(& |\|| Associates Owner City of Orono. P. O. Box 66. Orono. MN 55323 Date: November 5,2002 For Period:10/2/2002 tu 11/5/2002 Request No.1 Contractor ODESA Construction, 10300 Golden Soike Rd, P. O. Box 205, (JHman. MN 56333 infinttniArcMItcti CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT HACKBERRY PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS BRA FILE NO. 139^2-118 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount Chartga Ordar • Addition Change Ordar • Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5% Subtotal Less Amount Paid Previously Liquidated damages - AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 102.14601 s 8 0.00 000 102.146.01 93.67342 0.00 93.673.42 4.68367 88,989.74 0.00 0.00 88.989.74 Recommended for Approval by: BONE8TROO. ROSENE. ANDERUK S ASSOCIATES. MC. Approved by Contractor OOE8A CONSTRUCTION Approved by OMmer. CITY OF ORONO Specified Contract Completion Date: December 30,2002 Date. iimnMfat No. 1 2 3 Mm Unit Contract Quantity Unit Pfica Quantity to Data 811 tonoa, ragular Pretaction of catch basin in straat SHa graOing/nnal shaping Ramova aidsling swings and slide 4* HOPEdraintaa wHh Isbrle sock 8*HDP£<draMla wMh Csbrlc sock Connect drain Ma to structure Concrato play area curbing (8*xir) S* ooncrato pavement Syntoatte rasiant suftisdng Racycia drainage aggregate (CV) Drainage aggregate (CV) Oeotoxtle FMsr Recydad rubber Has (3^) Engineered vtood liber mulch (LV) Play structures (oomplele) S«Mg*(oomplela) Sodding, lawn type Saeding (shady mix) Total Base Bid Total Base Bid Total Work Completed To Date Amount to Dale LF 190 1.93 190 S366.70 EA 1 180.00 1 $180.00 LS 1 8012.00 0.9 $5,410.80 LS 1 484.80 1 $484.80 IF 250 4.87 250 $1,217.50 LF 64.5 7.87 84.5 $665.02 EA 1 239.20 1 $239^0 LF 368 15.86 368 $5,636.48 8Y 741 7.86 741 $5,824.26 8Y 429 17.51 $0.00 CY 23 5.90 23 $135.70 CY 30 24.96 30 $748.80 SY 525 2.05 525 $1,076.25 EA 9 89.90 5 $449.50 CY 215 28.32 215 $6,068.80 LS 1 60304.61 1 $60,304.61 LS 1 2977.00 1 $2,977.00 SY 300 3.00 300 $900.00 AC 0.25 3072.00 0.25 $768.00 t93.673.42 $93,673.42 $93,673 42 fimfvMiot PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF ORQNO BRA FILE NOfl39^2-118 CONTRACTOR OOESA CONSTRUCTION NW 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ClIVOhORONO • . . DATE: Novcmbcr7,2^02 ITEM NO: V Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Year 2003 Non-Union Coni^nsation Adjustments - Resolution I'hc following wage and cafeteria benefit plan contribution adjustments for non-union staff are proposed for 2003: 1. Pay: Increase pay ranges by 3.0% 2. Cafeteria Benefit Plan Contribution: $40.00 per month Increase to a ma.ximum contribution of $500.00 per month Compensation Adjustment Criteria An outline of the criteria on which pay and insurance adjustments are generally ba.scd is as follows: A. Pay Adjustment Criteria 1 . Cost of living increase a.U.S. Consumer Price Index: annualized increase from September, 2001 to September, 2002 is 1.5%. b.Minneapolis/Si. Paul Consumer Price Index: annualized increase from the first halfof 2001 to the first half of 2002 (July 2001 to July 2002) is 2.3%. 2. Market comparison. a. I he majority ofeities in the metro area are providing pav adjustments of 3.0%. Cafeteria Benefit Plan Contribution Adjustment The City generally increases its cafeteria benefit plan contribution to cover 50% of the family coverage premium increase. The insurance premiums for 2003 will increase by 10.75%. Altliough this increase is significantly larger than we had hoped, it is also significantly lower than the increases most other organizations are experiencing. i Request for Council Action continued Page 2 November 7,2002 Year 2003 Non-Union Compensation Adjustments m-' There arc three health insurance coverage options available. MIC 1000 is a high deductible/high co pay option in which a lower premium is balanced against the risk of high out-of-pocket costs. Medica Elect has minimal co payi, but offers a narrower network of clinics. Medica High offers a broad network of clinics, fhe majority of those with family coverage arc in the Medica High option. The monthly family coverage premium increases for the three Medica options arc as follows; MIC 1000: $70.97 Medica Elect; $77.18 Medica High; $84.49 Based on covering 50% of the family premium increase, it is recommended the City’s cafeteria benefit plan contribution be increased by $40.00 per month to u total of $500.00 per month. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached rc.solution approving pay plan adjustments for non-union employees for 2003, which reflects a 3.0% adjustment to pay schedules and an increase in the City’s cafeteria benellt plan contribution to $500.00 per month. iet» RESOLUTION APPROVING PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-UNION CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 2003 WHEREAS^ the City Administrator is responsible for annually presenting pay plan adjustments for City employees, with the exception of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements: and WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated in the proposed 2003 Amuial Budget to fund the recommended pay plan adjustments and such other matters of compensation as herein specified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orono City Council as follows: 1.That the 2003 employee pay schedule; reflecting a 3.00% pay adjustment effective 1-1-2003, is approved. 2. That the City's cafeteria benefit plan contribution increase to $500.00 per month. 3. That City employees using their own vehicles for approved work related business shall be compensated at a rate of S.365 per mile. Adopted by the Council this 12th day of November, 2002. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Page I of 1 uMiHiti REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 7,2002 •ITEM NO: <?' Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Nine Ron Moorse i/Ja City Administrator's Title Cily Administnlor Report Item Description: Payment Requests-Long I'^ake Fire Station When the City authorized payment of invoice number 19856 from BKV for architectural services, the amount authorized did not include $ 1 67.33 in miscellaneous expenses. Council's authorization of this amount is needed to enable lull payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the payment of $ 167.33 to BKV for architectural services, to be funded from the Joint Fire Account. 1 »iMn REOl^EST FOU COUNCIL ACTION NOV I 2 2002 CITYOFOflONo DATE: November 7,2002 ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Adminbtrator Reviewed: Item Description: Change Order Number2-Long Lake Fire Station Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Attached is Change Order Number 2 for the Long Lake Fire Station Project. The change order includes a number of additional costs related to necessary plan revisions identified during construction. The change order items have been reviewed and approved by the construction manager. The highest cost change order items were reviewed and approved by the fire station construction committee. I1ic total amount of the change order is $26,342.86. This amount is well within the remaining contingency amount. FYl, due to poor soils in the rear parking lot area, and in the area of the new road at the south end of the site, additional costs have been incurred for soil correction to provide an adequate base for the parking lot and the road. Iliese costs are also within the remaining contingency amount. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Change Order Number 2 for the Long Lake Fire Station Project in the amount of $26,342.86. Constructive Ideas Planning & PrtconstructiOA Services Project Cost Analysis • CPMSchedulir October 9,20Q2 Ms. Michelle Morse, City Administrator City of Long Lake 1964 Park Avenue P.O. Box 606 Long Lake, MN SS356 Re: Long Lake Fire Station - Change Order No. 2 Dear Michelle: Attached are five (5) copies of Change Order No. 2 for the Long Lake Fire Station. This increases the contract of Rochon Corporation in the amount of Twenty-Six Thousand lliree Hundred Forty-Two Dollars and Eighty-Six Cents (S26.342.86) for miscellaneous changes and coordination issues made to the project to date. Please execute this change order and return three copies to me for distribution. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS INC. William A. Wolters President /lai ce: RonMoorse-CiiyofOrono RonKiik-KPMI Ml lefllNSonAwMM.Sate 300-StPad.MN5S103*(6SI)2254740* Fu(6Sl)22S474l SOO‘4 ZLiLt axvi ONOI iO JUI3 8 ZZ96 ZS6 IC^St Z00Z.9I'lOO fi dl ORDER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR RELO OTHER AIA DOCUMENT G701 THIS OOeuMCNT HAS IMMHTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATrORNEV IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESRECT O ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION. AUTHENTICATION OP THIS ELECTRONICAUY DRAFTED AIA DOCUMENT MAY BE MADE BY USING A^ DOCUMCN 3401. PROJECT: (Nam*. Bddnss) Long Late Firs Station 340 Willow Drive Long Late, MN CHANGE ORDER NO.TWO (2) DATE:October 3,2002 TO CONTRACTOR:Rochon Corporation SuKe 120 3050 Annapolis Lane North Plymouth, MN 55447 ARCHITECrO PROJECT #: 1615.01 CONTRACT DATE: CONTRACT FOR:Complete Construction The contract is changed as follows: 1. Proposal Request # 2. Add roof Insulation because of revisions to the beam bearing Elevation, made to acoommodate the P.C. Concrete wall panel supplier. (Requested by the Architect) 3. Mise. Cost Claim # 1 for 240 added LF of silt fence Per MN Creek watershed district (Required by the Minnesota Creek Watershed Olstrlot) 4. MIso. Cost Claim f 2. covers the costs to re«install the water line due to poor soils conditions. (Required by poor site Conditions) 5. Mise. Cost Claim « 3. Re-^uppty hames 118A, 118B, & 124B. (Architect Request^ 6. Mise. Cost Claim • 4. Increase in parapet height to achieve Factory Roof Wananty. (Architect RequestedO 7. Misc Cost Claim # 5. Added metal stud wail at mezzanine to miss angle. (Architect Requested) 8. Proposal Request # 6. Revise the siae A location of the Mechanical roof screen. (Requested by Structural & Mechanical Engineers) S. Proposal Request # 7. Relocate the reinstalled silt fence. (She Condition) to. Proposal Request # 8. Infill Beams at the admin area columns. (Architect Requested) 11. Proposal Request# 11. Add truck fill water meter A RPZ valve. QAntOhlS 154)I\BUSVC04J)0C $ 4.281.00 2. Proposal Request «3(R). Misc. plumbing, storm drainage, venting, and sanitary drainage $ 2,962,23 revisions. (Omit RPZ pricing. • see PR • 11) (Requested by the State Plumbing Code Division) $ 574.00 $ 2.285.00 $ 735.00 3 850.00 3 265.63 3 2.301.00 3 1,233.00 $ 2.010.00 3 8.083.00 fdo’4 ZLH*DINT. SNOl JO Alio ZZ9f> 9t» 296 ICS9T 2002.91*130 it 13. ASI • 2. R«viS6 beam>bearino elevations to accommodate pre-cast wall panel Installation. No cost change 14. ASI # 3. Revise detail 12/S4 dimension from 4* to 3*. No cost change No cost changelS.ASIi4. Revise door locations&re-configure entry at 110 & 111, Clarify window dimensions at 110. Id. ASI # 5. Clarify invert elevations of site utilities, and location of service entrances.No cost change 17. ASI # 6. Direction On how make revisions on mis-located mechanical roof screen. 18. Proposal Request #4. Rejected. No cost change VOID 10. Proposal Request # 6. Revise Breaker configuration for CUH's.754.00 Total of kerns # 1 • i i8. Including Contractor's overhead & profit $ 26,342.86 The original Contract Sum was Net change by previously authorized Change Orders The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was The Contract Sum will be Increased by this change order in the amount of The new (Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maximum Price) including this Change Order will be The Contract time will be Increased by 7days. The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order is therefore January 7,2003 I 1,981,000.00 $ 82.220.00 $ 2.06'.220.00 $ 26.342.86 $ 2.089.562.86 S • • • •• NOTE: This summary does not reflect changes in the Contract Sum, Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price have been authorized by Construction Change Directive. «rhich Authorized; ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER Bosrman Kroos Vogel Group. Inc. Address^ 222 ^ Ml RochonCorp. CItv of Long Lake Suite 120,3650 Annapolis Lane North 1964 Park Ave. Plymouth, MN 55447 Long Lake. MN 55356 UMCHT oyn * CHANOI OltOER' 1SS7 iOlTION * AIA - COPYRIGHT 1867 [j^A^BY DATE THI AMCaiCAN INSTITim OS AaCHITECTS, 173S NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINOTON. O.C. WARNlNO;UnlMnMdplwtoMfn(ins«taWMU.S.copy(1gMlMra(Miesue|wttolt0alpmweutlen Th^itocumwilwntacIrordalypaducsdWIi AUsnseweeistreweeuMewWwutvteidtanuteithedstealeeineonnilWdbiiow.______________p miiMionorirM 500-4 lL%Lt 8XV1 SNQl 40 Alio 3396 9tf 356 ICS5I 3003,9riOO i : .>^ V •> V.N^' r' ■ r ■asM m&m3C";S'- TUSli!>!liaF. 'iCW:' V'i V '■ ?_ ■‘■:V* >. : ■.;-•■♦ ‘•. • y ’ i| FINI I Hmm 1 Ui« Lalui FUa SUtioa Proposal Roqiioil Log I Ti— I tUMHmW »W1 ■TTTTm r*7! ■rasraa ot#Ni I a 1 #fiWiMi • fOI ama OWIiOOit UMOIm «l Mini tBi pM OOllOtMft aiA OS/17/; CM M •a.aaojoo|i tttaooo s 11.120^. aopnwo t 4.aai.oo I a.aai.oo s <aii)o; aop^vmi ; $M/2002 I !Pi 1.M QMI/10Q2 lUInMM OrMtAMl unatoioamm *MMn «i r#iMngn 07/l0/aa0i Ptflii Srtlliy «><#. M CaS. if. Mttf 07/taoa0l*llMMlM MVtM aaM/aaat iMnuit Mmtd in iiM UntioJiMul^alai a.SS^9] I 2.901^3 I t962.9j; «0pfO«id 9.190.17 * I . • $ ...NkIM fir nrycSMi luaiiio f OiifciKi Oa/17/aOM PtM< dlwimtiii ia/MAU-l 42 mUMMmm [Wuciaiwslarmfltr MaHItilMfft CM Ml Mnh AtMSinm I CM ; : ‘ ll«ch ' Ml 7S4.00 t tMJOO S 1.23X00 * I TSOjOO i ijmms coooo t 794i» xjoibo I.231J00 2,01900 9 201900 S 2019 .00. 7 i <7^. . . a^«:t sjnoil' ( tiuieo* t (tOMMil' ., ------ fO'iif' 9/20/2002 9/20/2002 Monm 9/20/2002 02^00 I 42ii.OO 2 29*2.93 3 OM X fVrMt«fQ/SUlaolMN 5.100 Wil«f malar 4 IKadihdl 0.00 X 754i» 2 2301.00* 2 I2J1O0 2 UaaO CoMUnM nl€ia>ii^lipit4PmclMfi. Casinfl unO StMarf mnad la ta^ali dMtfO. InerMWiMiilh to Mi «rMGtor«l liMtoi M19 j(» 3 MUOO 3 tokkUtt«lt ‘M. ................... idhcoMMCto toktiwoMKl by MKk. ' ShiuM intoll* «mM to liXtot StM 4 Mito toi In 9iM^, • • • iiaiiL liXIHU JJUl HKUm on 0% to O o lo u»•• C«J lO Of to U9 Ol lO to o » 4 b-l K O •O se Cl ffrs • Una Uto IM MM 'aa o»•.o CO o o \^-;-J^-: ■ '■ Une Uk« rir« SMtoA - Schaduls ol ms«W«R«o« C*iH IAdMt«MlMlMC« l'lii«i»»iirt*w>w 111*. It—i »** S Mil m UI iM «m I «l <A*m*4m to *i4w Mi^ tcionii>iM rtiwf Vt* I M'ma M »"**•*••*•• . 10 Ml •• i»iMf M I*** II>IIO«OIWMl tolMUllKkWI IS CMl MM •< ^ ^ IS Oui^ lo h#it ##•* Munli Jl ^ It’ ‘ . IS* 10 tl 21 2 J Sti rfobccminl aimUmSlrtl msOti lit# Si^* Ml SI4.0B tiMjta' 7».M «4.ed M400. 574.00 . 240100 73540 05000 ' \ 206.00; innm M m O MMd *M m S Oppfovtd 't^iVaooi " in\nm ' ' wim ' t/IO/IOOI mm m • '7^^' M>49. •“naUri ....................... •* PMnt U37.44 •• •InfOO U•r ••• •* •IIIS-53• • 0m • mm * • • • • uniaii ihitM ' rmSit • • • • • • 70.00000 4I40<I S700‘ 41400' • SU.QO* 57.00* SI4J00 mmem* 0^ PMkIInt ftndng • • • • •• ••• •• !• .00 •• mm 0 0 • • •• • mm> THOO ■SMlSlTBLlpllwfS^^M 'OSOlOO* *1 ^ 26543*. .2 “ luoirafi eledriMl fUbllly d pMf• »» • * ** ollUfct cil <lf. *«lMdiOt 4 pliayhw ' ' 'eilMaiK.cttiiMirtlOtoOHiniLSM X M*M ...............................0««»ihe.€M»9«f«W»»«IM«*S« » fmm ' oitt' jf X UiOwidHl wwwtlfMHiaowXiM I ' X^NoilouMimh*............. • •••♦ ••••■* • •• CMMrtCMUpOfMrf .•*•• »•••• •" »-• o»•• UJ *o CP ro «o o\ lo lo O M »0 *< 0 1a ______*MG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION * 2 2002 CIlYOFOflo^o DATE: November 7,2002 •ITEM NO: / 0 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator's THIc City Administrator VA Rqx>rt Item Description: Donations ^ The City has received two donations. Bonestroo Associates has donated $200.00 to be used toward the City ’s park and recreation goals. The Narrows Saloon has donated $8,000, which is the proceeds from a golf toumament/lund raising effort in support of the City ’s parks. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the donations from Bonestroo Associates, in the amount of $200.00; and from the Narrows Saloon, in the amount of $8,000.00; and to express the City ’s appreciation to Bonestroo Associates, and The Narrows Saloon and all who participated in and contributed toward the golf toumament/f\md raising effort. 1: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NW 1 2 20K cirroFORONo DATE: November 7» 2002 ITEM NO: // Department Approval: . Nibm Roq Moorse TItk CHy Administrator Administrator Reviewed:m Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Planning Staff Reorganization, and Promotion of Wendy Bottenberg To City Planner Position It is recommended the Planning and Zoning staffing structure be changed from one entry level planner and one senior planner, to two mid-level planner positions, to better match the Department ’s workload. The mid-level planner position is recommended to be placed into the salary schedule at Level 3, which has a salary range of $44,000 to $51,760. The person to be hired through the current City Plamter hiring process will be placed into this pay range. It is also recommended that Wendy Bottenberg be promoted to the City Planner position, and placed into the Level 3 pay range at step IV, which is the top step of the range. COUNCIL .ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the planning staff reorganization to create two City Plaimer positions at Level 3 of the pay schedule, and to promote Wendy Bottenberg to the City Planner position at step IV, effective November 11,2002. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 1 2 2002 CITY OH OHONO Date: November 5,2002 Item No.: 1 2- Dcparlment Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Ordinance Amendment: Revisions to Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee - Maximum Fee for 2-Acre and 5-Acrc Zones List of Exhibits A - Proposed Ordinance for Adoption B - Current Fee Schedule At Council's October 28 meeting staff was directed to bring forth an ordinance establishing a maximum per-lot SW&DT Fee for development of lots in the 2-acrc zoning district. Original Establishment of 'Per-Acre' Amount The ‘$2700 per acre’ fee amount for the 2-acrc zone was initially determined in 1999-2000 by reviewing 12 representative sites in Orono expected to develop over the next 5-year period. The projected costs of storm-water improvements associated with development of those sites were totaled, then ^lividcd by the gross acreage equated to a 2-acre single family development scenario (including wetlands). For the 5-acre zone, the equivalency factor yields a fee of $2.160 per acre. The Storm Water Management Plan (S WMP) suggests that this fee be reviewed and adjusted i f necessary near the end of the 5-year period. The existing adopted fee structure (sec Exhibit B) reflects the greater costs per unit required to pay for stonnwater improvements as the density and number of units paying for the improvements decreases. Higher density development pays significantly more per-acrc but less per-unit than low density. Fee Amount is a Potential Issue for 2-Acre and 5-Acre Zones In considering establishing a cap for the SW&DT Fee for low density areas, staff initially concentrated on the request in front of us. i.e. the Boyer parcel in the 2-acrc zone which is 80% wetlands, and which would generate an inordinate SW&DT Fee per lot under the current code. Similarly, in the case of a hypothetical 5 -acre zone site of 30 acres of which 12 acres is wetland and 18 is dry, the property could be split into just tw o lots, and the current SW&DT Fee w ould be 30 x $2160 or $64,800, i.e. $32,400 per lot, which is likely to be challenged. Under current code this could be reduced by 50% (in the 5-acre zone only) by granting buffer easements over drainageways, lot perimeter and wetland areas. However, even with such a reduction, the fee amount for a 5-acre zone site with a high percentage of wetland will likely be of equally great concern to developers. y'l b SW&DT Fee Amendment November 5, 2002 Page 2 Orono’s subdivision policy has been and will continue to be retention of wetlands in private ownership rather than having them become publicly owned. Wetlands are most commonly platted as parts of individual building lots and owned by the lot owner, or in the case of PUD/PRD/RPUD developments they are typically platted as ‘commons’ areas controlled by a private homeowners association. In either case, under the current ordinance and under the proposed amendment the SW&DT Fee calculation is based on total acreage, including wetlands. Proposed Maximum *Pcr>l,ot* Fee A maximum ‘per-lot ’ SW&DT Fee is proposed for the 2-acrc and 5-acrc zones to 1) reflect the reduced level of stomiwatcr impacts from low-density development of properties with high percentages of wetlands and 2) maintain a reasonable proportionality between resulting lot values and imposed development fees. For the 2-acre zones, staff recommends a maximum fee based on the projected 2-acrc zone overall density of 1691 homes on 6811 gross acres or I home per 4.03 acres at full development, which is shown in Table 3B-2 of the CMP. For ease of calculation, a 4.0 acre factor should be used. Under this scenario, the propo.sed maximum SW&DT Fee of ($2,700 x 4.0 acres = $10,800) per single family lot would come into play lor a 2-acre rural subdivision that eontains an extraordinary percentage of wetland, or for any 2-acrc zone subdivision in which individual lots are proposed in excess of 4.0 acres. The same rationale is recommended to be used for the 5-acrc zone: the CMP-proJected 5-acre zone overall density is 190 homes on 1330 gross acres or 1 home per 7.0 acres at full development. A maximum SW&D T Fee of ($2.160 x 7.0 acres = $1 S,l 20) per single family lot could be established, and this wt)tild still be eligible for the up-to-50% reduction for buffer casements. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance to Amend Section 3.22 by Establishing a Maximum Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee for the 2-Acrc and 5-Acrc z^nes. itti ifliUiBii I l■ii ifi (■; ORDINANCi: NO. , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECriON J.22 OF I HE ORONO MUNICIPAI. CODE TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM PER LO'I' STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND TRUNK FEE FOR lilE 2-ACRE AND 5-ACRE ZONING DISTRICTS AND AMENDING THE 2002 CITY FEE SCHEDULE nil- Cll Y COUNCIL OI ORONO, MINNIiSOTA DOES Iir-RnBY ORDAIN: SECTION I. Municipal Code SccJi«>n 3.22, Subsection 3, Subd. 2, “Acreage Fquivaicney Factors' is hereby revised us follows: “Subd. 2. Acreage Fquivalency Factors. Recognizing that different ty|)cs of land use generate different amounts of stomi water runoff, an aiuivalcncy factor multiplier is a.ssigned to each land use type. The 2-acre residential lot is considered as the standard in the C'ity because a large percentage of the land in the City is zoned for 2 acre single family residential land use. 'I he 2 acre single family residential lot will be assigned an equivalency factor of 1.0. The table below lists the equivalency factors for different land uses. I hese equivalency factors will be applied to the base trunk fee per acre. Land Use Eqiiivuleney Factor Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone (I ){2)O.K Single l amily Residential 2 Acre Zone (3)10 Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone 1.3 Single ^lunlly Residential 1/2 Acre Zone 1.5 Multi l-iiinily Residential 4 Units/Acre or 1 ess l.« Multi I'umily Kcsiiicntial (ircatcr than 4 Units/Acrc 2 1 Commercial or Industrial 2.4 (I) liulk!; llibClJiCHl Ikductioii. For llic 5-acrc /oiimg tlisli ict, a rcduclu)n of up to 50"« ol tlic trunk fee foi llte Itii will be alUiwed for tlie percenlagr of the lot protected by perimeter and'or diainage way buHc i easenieiils 1 liese buffer easement areas sball leiiiaiii iti a natural emublioii !•«>[ titc 3-acic /otuntt rlisinet. anv lot exceeding 7.0 yross aeres including wetland, shall be eliaritcd a maximum tnink fee equal to the trunk fee for a 7.0 acre naicel iiudlJut shall fcmaut ebiubk lot tllC un to ?0“o reduction noted in m above, such reduction based on the peiveuiage of 7.0 acres that is placed m buffer easements. L31-MBAimuin l ec. l or the 2-acre zoning districts, anv lot c.xce.-dmi! 4.0 gross acres including ■Wetlatid. diall be cliaracd a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk iVc for a 4 0 acre parcel." Page 1 of 2 I SECTION 2. The 2002 Orono Fee Schedule, Ordinance No. 212,2nd series adopted December 10, 2001, and entitled “An Ordinance Adopting the 2002 Fee Schedule" is hereby amended by adding the ‘Maximum Fee* language additions from Section 1 of this Ordinance to the table entitled ‘2002 Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fees* on Page 7 of said Fee Schedule. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective upon approval and published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at its regular meeting held the 12th day of November, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of2 e I ZONING APPLICATIONS fCONT.^ Applicable Code Section STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES Ord. No. 214,2*^ Series Storm water trunk fees apply to new development and redevelopment of existing properties and provide funding for the storm water infrastructure necessary to serve the City. The trunk fee Is based on the land use and acreage of the properly being developed. An equivalency factor multiplier is assigned to each land use type, with a 2-acre residential lot considered as the standard in the City with an equivalency factor of 1.0. The table below lists the storm water trunk fees per acre for the various zoning districts and land uses in the City, with a base fee of $2,700 per acre. 2002 Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Pees New Development Trunk Fee/ Land Use Acre Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone (1)$2.160 Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone $2,700 Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone $3,510 Single Family Residential Vt Acre Zone $4,050 Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less $4,860 Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre $5,670 Commercial or Industrial $6,480 (I) For the S-acre zoning district, a reduction of up to 50% of the trunk fee for the lot will be allowed for the percentage of the lot protected by perimeter and/or drainage way buffer easements. These buffer easement areas shall remain in a natural condition. Redevelopment projects will be defined as any project to either remove and replace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures. These projects will be charged a portion of the base trunk fee adjusted for the area of expansion of impervious surface above the existing conditions. The table below lists the base trunk fee based on the area of impervious surface expansion and adjusted for the type of land ujc. The trunk fee shall be determined by multiplying the appropriate fee by the acreage of the development site. Area of Impervious Surface Expansion Residential Redevelopment or Expansion of Existing Development Trunk Fee/Acre Commercial or Industrial Rcdcvciopmcnl or Expansion of Existing Development Trunk Fee/Acre 0-1000 Square Feet $950 $2,270 1000-2000 Square Feet $1,890 $4,535 More than 2000 Square Feet $2,700 $6,480 00 2002 Fee Schedule'-Page 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NUV 1 2 2002 CllYU^UHONO Date: November 7,2002 Item No.n Department Approval:Administrator Approvai: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee • Redevelopment and Building Expansion Projects List of Exhibits A - Ordinance 214, Second Series B - Current Fee Schedule C - SWMP Excerpts The ordinance establishing the Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee for new development includes a provision that charges a portion of the base trunk fee for redevelopment projects which rcs jlt in increased impervious surfaces (hardcover) on an existing site. This fee applies to all residential, commercial and industrial projects “to either remove and replace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures ”. Although the ordinance was adopted in December 2001, implementation of this section of the ordinance has been delayed pending further review and interpretation. Staff is recommending several revisions to this section of the ordinance. Ordinance Applicability The ordinance as written apparently applies to all structural expansions that increase impervious surfaceIt does nsi appear to apply to mere non-structural impervious surface increases such as driveway expansions. It is unclear whether it was intended to apply to non-structural increases associated with projects to replace or enlarge existing structures. Yet non-structural hardcover expansions have the same stormwater impacts as structural expansions. Mere non-structural hardcover expansions such as paving driveways or adding ground-level patios often do not require building permits. Also, building permits for properties outside the Shoreland /one normally do not require hardcover calculations. The ordinance could add significant costs to the building permit process in merely requiring that the surveyor calculate hardcover to determine the size of S W&DT Fee to be charged or even whether it should be charged. The cost of hardcover calculations might exceed the SW&DT Fee the City would collect... As adopted, the ordinance suggests that it’s OK to add certain types of impervious surface but the fee is applied if it’s a structural addition, and ftuther costs are incurred if the project is not already required to have before and after hardcover calculations. We would have to justify the thinking behind all this to everyone who is charged the fee, and it seems to be a potential fairness issue. SW&D r I ce - Redevelopment November 7,2002 Page 2 Acreage-Hased P'ee Seems Inequitable for Expansions/Additions 'I he SW&DT Fee cliarge for replacing or enlarging existing structures as adopted is calculated on an acreage basis (see bottom table in Exhibit U and similar table on page 3 of Exhibit A). This means that the fee for an addition to a house on a large lot is much more than for the same si/c addition to a lu)usc on u small lot. For example, the person building a 1500 s.f. addition onto a house on a 6- ocrc lot in the rural area where the stormwater impacts of that additiotj are minimal, will end up pitying a SW&DT Fee of (6 x $1890 = $| 1,340) while the same 1500 s.f addition to an existing house on a '/i-acre lakeshore lot will pay only ('/i x $ 1,890 = $945). Again, this appears to be a gross inequity in the redevelopment portion of the ordinance. 'I he redevelopment portion of the ordinance was incorporated prior to the final draft of the SWMP. and does not match the final SWMP version. 1 he SWMP establishes the redevelopment SW&DT |■cc without regard to the si/e of the site and merely on the si/c of the addition. It also uses the average SF'R or C'ommcrcial/Industrial water quality fee segment as a ba.se tnink fee, without factoring in the water uuantitv element. This is shown in SWMP Table 7.21 as follows: Tabic 7.21 Strucliirc Expansion Fee Schedule Area of Expansion Fee Schedule ($) KesidentiaP C'ummerciaFIndustriaP 0-1000 square feet 1/3 avg. trunk fee - $460 1/3 avg. trunk fee = $955 l(M)l-2000 square feel 2/3 avg. tnmk fee = $930 2/3 avg. trunk fee $1935 > 2tMM) square feel Full avg, mink fee == $1385 Full avg. trunk fee $2885 ' (\»iiuticicul ln(liiNtiial water quality mink lee is $2K8.S per acre; fees based on this amount This table establishes a SW&DT fee structure that should be equitable between large ;md small properties, and establishes dolLir amounts that arc likely to generate a lesser number of complaints or challetiges ihati the ctirretu ordinance. It should be noted that the SH htP allotvs/or use of water qualit}* treatment alternative Methods and BMP's in lieu of the SnSDT Fee for redevelopment projects. Once the SUMP is adopted and in effect, the permitting process will have another layer of complexity for staff and applicants to contend with. Staff is trying to minimize this complexity. SW&DT Fee - Redevelopment November 7,2002 Page 3 Options to Consider 1. 2. 3. a) Adopt a revised Redevelopment SW&DT Fee structure that is not calculated by the size of the site, but merely calculated on the size of the addition and based on the water quality portion of the average SFR 2-acre standard trurdc fee. This would be completely in agreement with the SWMP wording and intent; and b) Determine whether non-structural hardcover additions, whether or not added as part of a struetural expansion project, should be subject to the fee. Revise the code language to match your conclu.sion. While non-structural hardcover has the same stormwater impacts as structural hardcover, it is time-consuming and costly to document before and after hardcover conditions in order to determine the proper fee amount. Drop the SW&DT Fee entirely as it relates to expansion or redevelopment. This would require a major revision to the final draft SWMP which is currently undergoing final review by MCWD, and this change might not be accepted by MCWD. Dropping this fee entirely would result in loss of revenues needed for future stormwater system facilities. a) Add more categories or create a direct relationship between the square footage of Impervious Surface Expansion and the fee. As proposed in the table above, the fee for a 50 s.f. or a 998 s.f. addition would be $460; for a 1002 s.f. addition or 1,999 s.f addition it would be $930. The fee could be broken up into increments of 100 s.f. instead of 1000 s.f and still be quite functional, relatively easy to administer, and generate relatively little controversy. b) A second option would be to charge a fee of $0.45 per square foot; this will require a more detailed hardcover calculation to get it right, but the fairness is hard to argue. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of Option la and Option 3a. - Staff recommends that under Option I b, only structural hardcover expansions will be charged the SW&DT Fee. Properties would still be subject to the Shoreland hardcover regulations for limiting the percentage of hardcover on the site. • Staff recommends again.st Option 2. An ordinance amendment will be drafted for Council adoption should the Council choose to make any/all of the above recommended changes. A ORDINANCE NO. 2U . SECOND SERIES 'an ordinance amending THE ORONO CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN: • following language is hereby added to the Orono City Code as Section 3.22- Rules and Regulations Establishing a Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee with ordinance to become effective December 10,2001 with charges consistent with Section 3 applicable to all affected properties. Section 1. Storm Stwer SYHtm; SlaWgry AmhQrity, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, authorizes cities to impose just Md reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities ("charges"). By this section, the city elects to exercise such authority. ^ 2. Eindinss and P<rt?rmin4lions. in providing for such charges, the findings and determinations set out in this subsection are made. a. In the exercis.: of its governmental authority and in order to promote the public health safety convenience and general welfwe, the city has constructed, operated and maintained a stom sewer system ( the system ). This section is adopted in the further exercise of such authority and for the same purpose. b. TheVstem, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through the imposition of special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Such financing methods were appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary and desirable to provide an alternative method of recovering some or all of the foture costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of charges as provided in this section. c. Development ur redevelopment of land changes the characteristics of the storm water runoff from the property ind re.^ ts in the need for improved storm water facilities, and also increases the demand on the storm water system which results in greater maintenance and operational costs of the system. c. In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes to make them j'ust and equitable. Taking into account, the status of completion of the system, past methods of recovering system costs, the topography of the city and other relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to assign responsibility for some or all of the future costs of operating, maintaining and improving the system on the basis of the acreage of land to be developed or redeveloped. d. Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm >\'ater nmoff carmot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of t js section undertake to establish a reasonable and practicable methodology for making such charges. Page 1 of 4 Section 3. Rates ajd Charges. SuM. 1. StPim WfttffjTwnlc FfC Dtt^rminftiion The city has developed a Surface Water Management Plan that mcludes design cntena for storm water systems and preliminary design information for a comprehensive storm water system in the city. In general, storm water trunk fees are calculated by dividing the total cost of system construction, by the number developable acres the system will serve. The appropriate base trunk fee per acre to be used on a citywide basis, shall be determined as necessary using this methodology. 2- AWMtEwiYtlaitYFMWn Recognizing ihat different types of land use generate different amounts of storm vmter runoff, an equivalency factor multiplier is assigned to each land use type. The 2-acte residential lot IS considered u the standard in the city because a large percentage of the land in the city is zoned for 2 acre residential land use. The 2 acre single family residential lot will be assigned an equivalency factor of 1.0. The table below lists the equivalency factors for different land uses. These equivalency factors will be applied to the base trunk fee per acre. Land Use Equivalency Factor Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone (1)0.8 Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone 1.0 Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone 1.3 Single Family Residential '/i Acre Zone 1.5 Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less 1.8 Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre 2.1 Commercial or Industrial 2.4 (1) For the 5-acre zoning district, a reduction of up of 50% of the trunk fee for the lot will be allowed for the percentage of the lot protected by perimeter and/or drainage way buffer easements. These buffer easement areas shall remain in a natiiral condition. ^^ahlishing stgrni Tnink F^e Ch^g?S, The Stonm Water Trunk Fee Charges, for various land uses, shall ^ mcluded in the Orono Fee Schedule and shall be changed as necessary by adoption of an ordinance amendmg the fee schedule. Section 5. N;w Pcvg|QPmcm PfOlWU New development projects shall pay the base trunk fee per acre of land developed adjusted usmg the appropriate land use equivalency factor. Page 2 of 4 n Section 6. RtdtytlftPnwnt PfgJgCt?» Redevelopment projects shall be defined as any project to either remove Jid replace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures. These projects will be charged a portion of the base trunk fee adjusted for the area of expansion of impervious surface above the existing conditions. The table below lists the per^ntage of the acreage base trunk fee based on the area of impervious surface expansion and adjusted for the ty^ of land use. The trunk fee shall be determined by multiplying the appropriate fee by the acreage of the development site. Area of Impervious Residential Development Commercial or Industrial Surface Expansion Percentage of 2 Acre Single Percentage of Family Residential Commercial/Industrial Base Trunk Fee/Acre Base Trunk Fee/Acre 0-1000 Square Feet 35%35% IOC0-2000 Square Feet 70%70% More than 2000 Square Feet 100%100% Section 8. AdiUStmcilt of Storm Water Trunk Fee Charges The intent of the storm water trunk fee is to provide funding for improvements to the storm water system as the result of development in the city. Current regulations require property owners to provide storm water treatment for the storm water from the development property. The city reserves the right to develop policies to provide storm water trunk fee credits for storm water mprovements on developing properties that provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is required to treat the storm water runoff from the development site. Section 9. Pavmcnt of Storm Water Trunk Fee Charges All applicable Storm Water Trunk Fee charges shall be paid in full before any building or land alteration permits are issued for the project. Section 10. Sw?pl.YID& IllfoTOSltQPi The owner, occupant or person in charge of the subject property shall supply the cit)' with such information as the city may reasonably request related to the use, development and area of the property. Willful failure to provide such information or to falsify it is a violation of this section. Section 11. Drainage and Erosion Control . Subd. 1. • DfflinffKi Plftfli In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the direction, quantity or quality of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the development are submitted to the City Engineer, and are found to be in compliance with the city's storm water management policies. Run off shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility. 2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit for any development, improvement or alteration of land, a plan for erosion and sedimentation control shall be presented with the site plan. The erosion and sedimentation control plan shall specify the measures to be used before, during and afrer construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control measures shall be maintained in good working order until site stabilization occurs. Page 3 of 4 -I MiSsSi Subd. 3. Approyafi Plans and provisions required for compliance with this subsection must be submitted to th^ Ci^ Engineer for approve. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective upon approval and published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers. 10* day of Decen^r Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at its regular meeting held th( ATTEST: L inda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Published in t'is Laker and Plonasr newspapers the week of December IS, 2001. v„ Page 4 of 4 r ZONING APPLICATIONS rrONT^ Applicable Code Section STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES \ Orel. No. 214,2*^ Series 2002 Storm Water and Dmlnoge Trunk Fees New Development Trunk Fee/ luand Use Acre Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone (1)S2.160 Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone S2.700 Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone S3.5I0 Single Family Residential Vi Acre Zone S4.050 Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less S4.860 Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre $5,670 Commercial or Industrial $6,480 (I) For the 5-acre zoning district, a reduction of up to 50% of the trunk fee for the lot will be allowed for the percentage of the lot protected by perimeter and/or drainage way buffer easements. These buffer easement areas shall remain in a natural condition. Redevelopment projects will be defined as any project to either remove and replace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures. These projects will be chanted a portion of the base trunk fee adjusted for the area of expansion of Impervious surface above the existing conditions. The table below lists the base trunk fee based m the .r.. . Imp«r.to.. >.rr.« .>p.ask>. ..d f.r .k. typ. .r Th. trunk f« .bull b. d«.rml..d b, m.ltiplyin, tb. .ppruprt.,. f„ ^ “!!;: Area of Impervious Surface Expansion Residential Redevelopment or Expansion of Existing Development Trunk Fec/Acre Commercial or Industrial Redevelopment or Expansion of Existing Development Trunk Fee/Acre O-IOOO Square Feet $950 $2,270 1000-2000 Square Feet $1,890 $4,535 More than 2000 Square Feel $2,700 $6,480 w 2002 Fee SchetAt/e-rave 7 f 4 I I 1 4 1 Y Tl a 1 3 4 I I I C ❖ 7.7 System Financing It Is the desire and Intent of the Cit/s leadership to establish an equitable . and fair system to fund infrastructure for both new development in the City and for areas that are already developed. The City Council has determined that as a matter of policy, the following assumptions are reasonable: 1. Current residents of Orono should not have to pay for system improvements associated with new development. 2. All residents, land/business owners of Orono should bear some responsibility for operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the existing system, as well as Improvements aimed at priority wetlands and waterbodies. 3. Contributions to various agencies ’ grant programs (through taxes, fees, etc.) should be available to the City, Its residents and land/ business owners for runoff management system and surface water Improvement projects. The timeframe for improvements depends on development and future MUSA expansions. Storm sewers and water quality improvements should be constructed and assessed as development occurs. Education and water quality monitoring programs are to be financed by the City and potentially through grants/cost sharing opportunities. Grants and/or cost-sharing opportunities are listed in Table 7.23. 7.7.1 New Development New development requires construction of ponds and pipes to accommodate increased runoff. The City of Orono requires the developer of a parcel to pay for infrastructure needed to minimize Impact associated with development of that parcel. The mechanism to have developers pay for runoff management features is through a one-time "trunk fee." In general, trunk fees are calculated by dividing the total cost of system construction, by the number of developable acres the system will serve. However, the City’s approach to applying trunk fees is to do so in five-year increments to mirror the typical CIP period. Therefore, the trunk fees shown in Table 7.21 (approved by City Council December 10,2001 and effective January 1,2002) reflect estimated system construction costs associated with the development of parcels that staff has Identified as likely to be developed in this five-year CIP period. The land uses projected for these parcels are representative of the type of Otyof Orono DnttSurt^ W§ttrM»n9genmtPtan 727 Implementation -.tat I I I 1 1 I I I I ] 1 development thot may occur In Orono In the foreseeable future. Trunk fees will be revisited sometime In year four or five of this period to determine If adjustments are necessary for the next CIP period. It is anticipated that the majority of development In the City will be in the form of 2-acre single-family residential (SFR) parcels. Therefore. 2-acre SFR parcels were designated as the standard by which an “equivalent factor" was determined for each of the other types of development (see Table 7.21). As such, the 2-acre SFR has an equivalent factor of 1.0. Other land uses generate runoff at rates that reflect their respective amounts of Impervious surface. For Instance, on the same two acres that may have been used for one home under the 2-acre SFR. there would be four homes under the '/2-acre SFR. The four homes/driveways/walks/etc. would generate a proportionately higher amount of runoff. At the same time, one home under the 5-acre SFR acres Is going to generate considerably less runoff. The following equation illustrates how the “base" trunk fee was computed: C«il 9§ f«r la Parctli Number «f Acrei In the ia Parceli ■ai« trunk Pm ■ $2^n per acre Therefore, an equivalent factor derived from the runoff coefficients found In Section 4.1.3. was assigned to each land use. The base fee of $2,670 per acre was then multiplied by the pertinent equivalent factor to determine the trunk tees for eoch of the land use designations. Land Use Equivalent Factor Water Quality Trunk Fee($)‘ Water Quantity Trunk Fee ($)* Total Adjusted Fee/Acre ($) Adjusted Fee per Lot ($)’ 5 acre SFR 0.8 965 1175 2,140 10,700^ 2 acre SFR 1.00 1205 1465 2,670 5,340 1 acre SFR 1.32 1590 1935 3,525 3,525 acre SFR 1.48 1780 2170 3,950 1,975 Townhomes, 4 units /acre 1.80 2,160 2,640 4,800 1,200/unit Cbmmerciat/Industrlal 2.4 2885 3525 6,410 6,410 X ac * SS% of total trunk fee« In | per aae * Tli« dty w« review and uptUte Injf* fe«s on • regular basJj, check *v«h d(y lUrr fbr currenl rates Oty of Orono DfwnSur^ WiterMMigmentPfM 7-28 Imphmentition I I [ I 1 I I I \ 4 1 1 1 I i I I The justification for charging a trunk fee is that a regional system will be developed to manage water quantity and quality. The proposed system of . ponds and pipes has been designed to account for ultimate development, anticipated land uses, and site characteristics. So while certain features of a regional system may not be physically located on a given development site, they still convey, treat, and/or store runoff from that site. 7.7.2 Expansion of Existing Structure Many expansion projects take place In fully developed areas and therefore don’t require new pipes and/or ponds. But, because of increased runoff from increased impervious area, there is additional pressure on existing pipes and/or ponds. In fact, it is likely that the water quality treatment part of the system could not accommodate additional runoff. Therefore, the property owner should be responsible for water quality treatment. As part of the overall system, the City Intends to update and/or expand water quality treatment. The equitable way for a property owner to bear the expense for his or her portion of the system upgrade is to pay a portion of the water quality trunk fee based on the square footage of the expansion. See Table 7.22. Table 7.21 Structure Expansion Fee Schedule Area of Expansion 0 ■ 1000 square feet 1001 * 2000 square feet square feet Fee Schedule ($) Residential* y* trunk fee =■ $460 y» trunk fee = $930 Full trunk fee » $1385 Comm/lndust* y» trunk fee = $955 % trunk fee = $1935 Full trunk fee » $2685 ' Averaoe SFR water quality trunk fee Is $1385 per aoe; tees based on this flgure * Commerdal/Industrlal water quality bunk fee Is $ 2885 per aoe; fees based on tfrls figure Lakefront Expansion There will also be Instances of expansion to private homes or businesses that are situated In lakefront settings or adjacent to wetlands. In many cases, properties in this setting discharge runoff directly Into the lake or wetland. While this type of drainage may not tax existing Infrastructure, it does put a burden on the water quality of nearby lakes or wetlands. So treatment of runoff will bo required on-site using traditional or alternative methods. Be It a lakefront setting or not. the City will require that treatment of runoff from an expansion project site be coordinated as demonstrated In Figure 7.5. atyofOfono Ora/t Surface Water Mtnigement Plan 729 Jmptementation II ■■■ aTi ~r r II ■ 11 kia i f ii—■ i 1 ik i iiii a 11illiilf ■ n m ivr n11 ~ H'~n m ~i ii > m rM~u kl ~i ii ~r 'rifi “ i •J I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I ! I ! I I I I I 7.7.3 Developed Areas Maintaining and upgrading the existing infrastructure will continue to be needed for developed areas. And it should be noted that, as system features for new developments come on line, they become part of the existing infrastructure. Until December 2001, the policy of the Cit/was to finance runoff drainage facilities through a special assessment against benefiting properties. All land within a drainage area had been considered to benefit since all land contributes runoff to the surface water system. However, on December 10.2001, the City Council approved a Storm Water and Drainage Utility. The “stormwater utility ” as approved is structured as an ongoing fee to residential and commercial property owners. Funds generated from this fee [effective January 1.2002} will be used to upgrade and maintain the existing system and future add-ons. While stormwater utility rates are a function of land use, they are actually determined from an equivalent factor based on the size of a parcel and its percentage of impenrious surface. As with the trunk fee described earlier, the 2-acre SFR with 20% impervious surface is the “typical” land use in Orono and therefore has a Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) of 1.0. A base rate of $9.00 per quarter was set for this REF. and no parcels will pay less than this amount. Qty of Orono Dn^SutUce Water M$nagenmt Plan 7-30 implffnentation I f L NOV 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ul I Y Ur UHONO DATE: November 7,2002 ITEM NO: /V Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse THk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Viewing of Round-about Video At a previous Council meeting, the concept of a round-about as a potential solution to traffic congestion at intersections that do not meet warrants for a semaphore, particularly the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and County Road IS, was discussed. The Council requested that a computer model of a round-about be provided to show how the round-about would work with the high trafRc on County Road 15. The software used by Mn/DOT to model the operation of interchanges cannot be used to model a round-about. Bonestroo is looking into obtaining the software necessary to model the round-about. In the interim. Shelly Johnson, the lead traffic engineer at Bonestroo, has provided the City with a seven minute video that shows numerous round abouts in operation. The video will be available to view at the Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. w [ ff • - w ••• NOV 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ci i Y UH OHONO DATE: November 8,2002 ITEM NO: /5 Dcparliiicnt Ann Name Lin Vee roval:Administralur Reviewed: Name l.in Vee Title City Clerk Item Description: List of Licenses for Cmmcil Approval ON SALE TEMPORARY LIQUOR LICENSE 1.Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Two Days - L'vent to be 1 leld on November 20 and 22,2002 COUNC IL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approvc/deny the above listed licenses. Agenda Section: Licenses # , f state of Minnesota County of Hennepin City of Orono License No: |2002 13, Amount: I $50.00 V- h \\ V, V Temporary On Sale Liquor License Upon investigation and satisfactory evidence of the qualification of the licensee, this license is granted and pursuant to application and payment of fee thereof, and is subject to all the provisions and conditions of the laws of the United States, the laws of the State of Minnesota, the regulations and ordinances of the City of Orono, and the rules and regulations of the Liquor Control Commissioner, pertaining to such; and subject to revocation according to law for violation thereof. This license is not transferable except by consent of the issuing authority. Granted To: Business Name: Business Address: Commencing: Terminating: Business Description: Minnetonka Center for the Arts Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive November 20, 2002 November 22, 2002 Minnetonka Center for the Arts Issued by authority of the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota on: November 12, 2002 Attest: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk '1^:2750 K*N^P«^ay, P.O. Cfyital Bay, MN 55323 ' * • ; |(»S2) 2494600 /In: (952) 2494616 / % t ii V i n ! • . ./^:v rfriau uk!!^.: Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive The following conditions have been placed on this license: 1. Any alcohol purchased at the site must be consumed on site and not taken aboard buses or other transportation. 2. Alcohol sales are to be restricted to persons 21 years or older. Encourage and "ID under 35" policy. 3. No sales to intoxicated persons. 4. Non-alcoholic beverages must also be available and food of some type. 5. The name of the responsible person for the control of the event must be provided to the Orono Police Department with contact phone if problems occur. 6. The Orono Police Department may revoke the licence at any time for any violations. -----Httiauite d on site and not taken *5 or older. Encourage food of some type. of the event must be one if problems occur. ze at any time for any C IOMieOO-460 Other Mi!cettaneou! Charge! Total BAYSlOE FLORAL $58 58 $58 58 17155 Plant • Callahan PaidChk;^^ 074656 11/12/2002 BFI OF MINNESOTA .INC E 101-45200 404 Repatrs/Moint Dldga/Ground!$157 80 307115 waster service Dederwood F 101-45200 404 Repaira/Maint BkJga/Grounds $78 90 307190 waste service- Etackberry f: 101 45200 404 Repaira/Maint-DIdga/Ground!$65 75 307214 waste service • Fast Long lake 1: 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Bldga/Groundn $157 80 307388 waste service Orono lake L 101-41000480 Other Mtsceltaneou! Charges $257 48 307420 waste seivice- CM E 613 40830-480 Other Miscellaneous Charges $72 33 307461 waste service-GC Total BFI OF MINNESOTA. INC $700 06 PaidChk# 0/46fi7 11/12/2002 BIFFS INC. El 101 -45200>4 15 Other Equipment Rental! E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rental! $67 75 W17631G ($5 02) W176317 toi)et!/Biderwood (oilet!/!ummit I 9'i n ■ 1 ‘ ^ ♦WTiW: t 11 •] r«TiI:W r»ii] A V F CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© NOVEMBER 2002 .xm repairs/iviainrAUTO tquip E 101-42110-402 Repsirt/Maint'Auto Equip b 101 42110 402 Reralrs/Mainl-Auto Equip E 101 47110 402 Repairs/Miint-Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repairi/Maint-Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repalrs/Malnt-Auto Equip E 101-42110 402 Repatrs/Maint Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repairs/Maint Auto Equip E 101-42110 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110 402 Repairs/Malnl-Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repalrt/Mainl-Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repalrs/Malnt-Auto Equip E: 101 42110 402 Repalrs/Malnt Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repairs/Mainl Auto Equip E 101 42110 402 Repairs/Maint Aulo Equip E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Vainl Auto Equip ToUl CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 29 $3*>00 $35 00 $556 59 $28 20 $44 91 $98 20 $28 00 $565 45 $40 15 $91 95 $91 95 $56 95 $190 67 $55 20 $49 95 $2,337 20 22758 22759 22772 22777 22802 22815 22816 22823 22824 22828 22847 22851 22852 22861 22866 22877 Oil Change #190 Repair M16 Lock #191 Repair Ground Oil. Brakes. Trans #192 Oil Change #189 OH. Grill Lights #191 OH. Siren Cntrl #188 Spot Handle #189 OH. Brakes #187 Replace Bulb #191 Tires. Gull lights #192 Tires. Diagnstc #189 Tire #190 Battery. Tires #185 Tires #191 Tires #187 Paid Chk# 074664 11/12/2002 DCA-WIRE ONLY O101-2I/1U (>CA/Sf)endingAccounts Tout OCA-WIRE ONLY $600 00 102902 $600 00 fleic ipd/10/29/02 E 101 42110 311 Data I’roressing Communication E. 101 41 IKK) 321 I ftlephone Total DEPT OF ADM • INURTECH GROUP $37 00 $134 87 $171 87 OV0209108 W02090603 PVC-September 2002 ptiune seivice 9/2002 1t/08A)2 12 2^PM Page 2 7*aidf-hh# 674fl65 11/12/2002 DEPARTMENT OP AOMIN •DOCUMENT E 101 45200 310 Other Professional tiorvices $173 25 0803M0252 T’ark Minutes E 101 41300 310 Other Professional Services $823 50 0803M0509 Council Minutes E 101 42400 310 Other Prufessional Services $405 05 0803M05U9 ENanmng Minutes I- 101 42400 310 Other Professional Servlcei $905 57 0603M0511 As Buitts 1: 101 413(X)310 Other Professional Servloei $10051 0803M0536 Monthly Reports E 101 4241M) 310 other Professional Services $796 83 903M0511 As Duilts Total 01 PARTMENT OF ADMIN • DOCUMENT sas as^aasatai ^ ^ ^ _____________— $3,205 40 |>aH| 074667 11/12/2002 DNS ROOFING. EEC E 101 41000 404 Kcpattn/Mainl IlIrtgi/OtniimK Total UNS ROOT INO. EEC $300 00 101402 $300 00 ruuf repaif/PW bldg Paid Chk# 074608 11/12/2002 E.ZRECYCLINO P 101 432t*0 3tr> Conlr.irt Recycling Pit kup Total E /RECYCLING $6.31764 4411 $6.317 64 Recycling 1 f/D2 Paid Chk# 074660 11/12/2002 ELECTRIC PUMP 0 602 16300 GfiOa' 16.310 (i 602 16300 1 ived Asset Other improvements 1 lied Asset Other improvements 1 ued Asset Other improvements Total ELECTRIC PLIMP $9.C04 46 21669 $9.604 46 21669 $9 604 46 21669 $28 813 38 Control Panel - LSI9 Control Panel • LStO Control Parcel-LS17 l>aMlChl>« 0746/0 11/12/21)02 FARNIOK, CORREY E 101-42110 437 1 laming A Oevelopmant ToUl FARNIOK, CORREV $5 28 101602 $5 20 fnditi/lit responder iiatning Paid Chk* 074671 11/12/2002 OAtL'SINC. 1 tOI-42110 2» d Clothing 6 personel equipment •52 95 56016529 Qovei - fiachenidi • • CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® i 1/08/0? 1??6PM Page 3 Tout OAivsmc, NOVEMBER 2002 CtYecIiAmt^lnvolce Commenl 152 95 t“ * PeU Chk# 6746>2 \M\inm OReodky,JAMES 1 101 43000 441 lleanMt A Taiat $10 60 102002 ditvert liceriie/C:iai» A Total OREOORY, JAMES $10 60 FaldChk# 074073 HSLMESABI 1 101 43000 221 rqulpment Parti & Acceiiorlii $1.0807855600 Cutting Edgat Total HSLMfSABI $1.080 28 PakiClika 674074 11/17/7002 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 1 tot 47110 437 1 raining & Davalo|MiMnt $3000 103002 02»ut>ervlior tretn/SUAKL Total NCNNeP’N COUNTY SHERIFF $30 00 Paid Cliki 074876 I1/I7/7002 HERMAN, JOHN F 101 42110 430 Meeting Expeniei $1884 110402 Chief! mtg iiippliei 1 101 42110 220 Clothing A perional equipment $28 40 110402 iniic equip 1 101 42110 322 Poitege $4 42 110402 ceitifled mail h<abi n»Lii A7,4A7e Total MERMAN. JOHN i 4/l^i^AA4 1 AA a a^^SAakAAatA $40 85 $154 70 $15470 4310038E 101 41000 ??3 Mldg/nroundi MainI Uupptlei Total JH LARSON COMPANY '{'•Id C»iK# 07<4fl77 I JdMklibN, RidK e 101 4^110 :m7 AitmiatCare Total JOHNSON, RICK haW Clihi 074878 TH12/}9B}~irMiNiVH N. RbtTS, l>A ” E 101 41000 :io; tegsl Coniutlinu $2,301 00 110102 iiiei bulba $82 50 $82 60 110302 deof inmoval pioAociition for OUO? folal KENNETH N POTTS. PA $2,301 00 PadClik# 074670 I l/iMM} LCSKINI'N. OCNISC M f- 101 41300 43/ l(aininii & l)«vaki|MiMiil Total ICSKINEN, DCNISe M. ?eiil (liik* 6>4W6 1 l6¥*A 6il company $20 00 $20 00 11/7/02 iicMithy WoiLftila Serniiuir E 101 41000 480 Olfiai Miiceltiiiieout Chaiga* Total tOB*8 OIL COMPANY T^AKi^.bkii 0/4KAI I i/12/2062 iOOIS t 101 42110 310 ItXilS Applicalkmi t 101 42110 .120 (>irt«f Communlcatkmi t 101 41000 .120 other (!ommuntcatfoni I* 101410011 111 |)ete Pmh ottirig C^onmninkatton Total IcmiS $07 60 $07 60 28682 oil Mtcrr i1it|total $1,635 00 $183 00 $183 00 $10 00 $2,031 00 22271 22271 22271 22271 Polko Mm'Ofili 0D2 Inter not 0/U2 Internet 0/02 Merm Cty CunneU 0/02 l^aki Chki 0740S2 IWIJ/^OOJ LONGLAKiPSWCRiQUIPMENT K lot 4.1000 .'.*1 T()(iipn<anl I'ait* A Ai'rattoiiat 10 38 0409S4 total lONOlAKt POMtNeOUIPMl’NI $8 38 PaUlilikf 67kl83 H/lJ/200} MCLEO6 iiilA • I^HONG BIUS I! mV 4U4*tO l.’l talaplutna I: ru)l 4U4(Hi t.'l lolaplum# li lUI 4.M 10 .1.M lala.>lu>no Q iOl-4liiOO-3JI lalopliuiia CeOIAMOaUi ToIopIumm $4/40 $3lt 43 I.M4 18 S4M7I $;.t 80 8805384 8885384 8885384 8885384 5885.184 Phoiia SaivK* rtiona SaivNj* Ptiona SarviL« itiona Saivlcs I'hona SatvKf .J CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 11/08A)2 12:29 PM Page 4 NOVEMBER 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 602-40450-32J Telephone Total MCLEOO USA-PHONE BILLS $55.52 58S5364 Phone Service $880 04 PaidChkO 074684 11/12/2002 MIDWEST FUELS E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants O 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory ToUl MIDWEST FUELS $1.15500 $3.666 84 93502 93502 932 2 diesel 1713.4 gals gas M 074685 11/12/2002 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $15.85 E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentals ToUl MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $47.54~ RI100020896 oxygen Rl 10020895 oxygen Paid ChMT 074666 11/12/2002 MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING E 101-43270-442 Spring.Fall.X-mas Cleanup $1,580.001638 Big Island Clean Up Total MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING $1,580.00 Paid Chk# 074687 11/12/2002 MINNETONKA SOUND S LIGHTING E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds C0100902 cK sound system Total MINNETONKA SOUND 8 UGHTING VO 00 Paid Chk# 074688 11/12/2002 MORRIES FORD E 613-49830-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total MORRIES FORD $1^11 $57.11 375292 buckle assy/#610 Paid Chk# 074689 11/12/2002 MPLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $285.00 03-032 training/JJ Total MPLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE $285.00 PM Chk# 074690 11/12/2002 MTIDIST CO. E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Total MTI DIST CO. $540 00 333774 drain wtr system/CC $540.00 PM Chk# 074691 11/12/2002 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-321 Telephone Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $715 02 506573311-01 cellphones $71502 Paid Chid 074692 11/12/2002 OFFICE DEPOT E 101.41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies ToUl OFFICE DEPOT S182 79 184063466 S223 40 184063466 $40619 Office Supplies Office Supplies Paid Chk« 074693 11/12/2002 PPAIRIE OFFSET E 101-41900-201 Office suoplies $640 06 118061 Envelopes. Letterhead ToUl PRAIRIE OFFSET $640 08 Paid Chkff 074694 11/12/2002 QWEST E 613-49830-321 Telephone $58 95 111202 phones E 613-49830-340 General Advertising $24096 111202 phones ToUl QWEST $29991 Paid Chk# 074695 11/12/2002 RELIANT ENERGY E 101-41900-361 Oas 6 Electric $80 32 oct2302 gas service E 602-49450-361 Oas A Electric $M 33 oct2302 gas service E 601-49400-381 Gas & Electric $401.04 oct2302 gas service E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric $213.43 oct2302 gas service E 101-42110-361 Gas 6 Electric $85.77 OCI2302 gas service * CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 11/08/02 12 25 PM Pages NOVEMBER 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-41900*381 Gat & Electric Total RELIANT ENERGY $104 62 oct2302 $696 71 gat tervice Paid Chk# 074696 11712/2002 RHINO LININ08 E 101-42110-402 RapairsMaint-Auto Equip Total RHINO UNINOS $379.00 3214 $379 00 Bed Liner -tq195 Paid Ciika 074697 11/1272002 8CHOENHOFF, JOHN E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $18.34 102502 mealt/training Total 8CHOENHOFF, JOHN $1834 Paid Chkf 074698 11/12/2002 SENIOR COMWIUNITY SERVICES E 101-41800-490 ContributkMit to Civic Org't $3. W7.M 110102 4th Otr 2002 services Total SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES $3,907.50 Paid Chk» 074699 11/12/2002 STANTON GROUP E 101-41900-469 Other Mitcellaneout Charget S64 00 330934 COBRA Adm • 10A>2 E 101-41900-489 Other MitceHaneous Charget $173 25 330935 FlaxAdm-10/02 ToUl STANTONGROUP $237.25 haid ChkF 074700 11/12/2002 STAR WEST E 101-42400-402 Repaifa/Mainl-Auto Equip $4M.10 170537 repairs Bztruck Total STAR WEST $494.10 Paid ChkP 074701 11/12/2002 STREICHERS E 101-42110-226 Clothing & peraonal aquipmant $1912 324254.1 Cuff Holder E 101-42110-226 Clothing & pertonal equipment $158.90 326903.1 Jacket • Fischenich E 101-42110-226 Clothing & pertonal equipment ($18 90) 327126.1 Credit - Sergeant Tout STREICHERS $159 12 Paid cUa 074702 11/12/2002 T.L. STEVENS E 101-41900-404 Repairt/Maint-Bldgt/Groundt $272 75 3023 REPAIR LEAK Q POST OFFICE Total T.L STEVENS $272 75 Paid Chk» 074703 11/12/2002 TEMPORARIES-TO-GO E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employeet Regular $60 00 10718 election help ToUl TEMPORARIES-TO-GO $60 00 Paid Chk« 074704 11/12/2002 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 101-41900-322 Pottage $1.800 00 103102 postage meter ToUl UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $1.800 00 Pa]d Chk# 074705 11/12/2002 VEE. LIN E 101-41410-437 Tratning & Development $39 65 110702 Election treats E 101-41410-331 Travel Expentet $10 35 110702 mileage E 101-41410-439 Meeting Expentet $19 12 110702 welcome supplies E 101-41900-489 Other Mitcellaneout Charges $33 02 110702 tuppliet ToUl VEE. LIN $10214 l>aiddhiiil 074706 11/12/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS E 601-49400-321 Talaphona $1669 101802 ealphonaiAw E 602-49490-321 Talaphona $1669 101802 oanphonat/s E 101-41900-321 Telephone $33596 10202 caUphontt ToUl VERIZON WIRELESS $369 34 11/12/2002 W.W. GRAINGER INC. E 601*49400-221 Equipment Partt A Acoettonet $61 11 495-602464-8 wheel CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 11A)8A)2 12:254^ Page 6 NOVEMBER 2002 Check Amt Invotee Comment TotM W.W.ORAI $01.11 11712^002 WEINBEROER.PAUL £101-42400^37 Training A Development Total WEINBERGER. PAUL ^alci ciiki 074709 $4500 10402 State plan conOPW&WB $45.00 11/1 'Trirr 2 XCEL ENERGY E 601-40400-361Ou A Electric $2,429.20 erater E 101-42110-361OatAEIectric $942 CO Ntes E 602-49400-361Oee A Electric $1,188.42 sewer E 101-45200-361Oee A Electric $7.96 parks E 10M3000-381Oee A Electric $9.30 street E 613-49630-361Oee A Electric $203.36 golf E 101-43000-386 i31$1,236.55 120202 stiites Total XCEL ENERGY $5.0W.2i 10100 PrimaryCash $167.51806 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 225 PARK FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 10100 PrimaryCash $44,221.03 $66,989.74 $3,016.29 $30,132.74 _ $J.1M26 $167,516.06 CITY OF ORONO 10/29/02 9:16 AM Pagel ch«ck regittor Chocli Numbtr EmployM Hmmm 051965 DOCX^. RACHEL M. 051066 LESKINEN. DENISE M. 051067 MOORSE. RONALD i. 051066 VEE. LINDAS. 051969 KUEHN. THOMAS M. 051070 OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K ANDERSON. BRUCE L. BOBZIEN. SUE A. BORIS. SCOTT W. BUDIG STACIE M. CARLSON. MICHAEL B. CORNICK. JAMES L. DEMBOUSKI. JAY C ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L FISCHENICH. DAN T FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R HENDRICKS. RONALD J. JOHNSON. JEFFREY MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW. WITTKE. ANTHONY A, 051904 ARNESON. JOSHUA A. 051005 HERMAN. JOHN R LEE. JOSEPH P BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A BOTTENBERG, WENDY C GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A MEYER. WILLIAM C OMAN. LYLE E VANG BRUCE L WEINBERGER. PAUL E BRINKHAUS. JOHN F DEBAERE. DONALD L GREGORY. JAMES D HANSEN. STEVEN OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G OBRIEN. RANDY L. PALMER. GREGORY A^ RATHBUN. BARRY J SKREEN. DALE S ABRAHAMSON. FRED W. BLAIR.JANISA. JENSEN. ROONEY W. 051071 051972 051973 051074 051075 051076 051977 051076 051079 051060 051061 051062 051063 051064 051065 051086 051967 051966 051969 051990 051091 051002 051903 051906 051097 051006 051909 052000 052001 052002 052003 052004 052005 052006 052007 052006 052000 052010 052011 052012 052013 052014 052015 052016 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 ?2 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 n Chtck Amount $97009 $03^ 75 $135 U $1,156.70 $1.10276 $269.94 $404 23 $1,453 25 $1.000 43 $1.402 49 $69567 $568 48 $1 936 63 $1.504 89 $1.67815 $2,059 04 $1,397 20 $103 04 $1.850 80 $1,235.01 $1,251.74 $571 78 $66901 $1,922 12 $432 31 $1.450 95 $325 63 $1.608 80 $1.729 57 $976 67 $768 36 $265 36 $1.084 29 $1,253 25 $1.357 60 $1.04641 $61461 $103.13 $1.354 91 $1,405 27 $1,251 92 $910 08 $1.140 63 $1.007 77 $639 39 $1.077 05 $662 03 $072 10 $1.21211 $6351 $32.70 $15364 Chtck Date Check Status 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30A)2 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30A)2 Outotanding 10O0A)2 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30A)2 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstamkng 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30K)2 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding 10/30/02 Outstanding ..aJa................. J'Zi n CITY OF ORONO clMck r«gi«l»r 1(V2»02 9:18 AM Page 2 r Ch9ck Mymlior Employ—Mfw 0S2017 092016 062010 062020 062021 092022 062023 062024 Pay Partod ClMck Chack Amount Data Chack Stalua MAR8EUAOANO.22 120.48 ^0no^02 Outstanding MCINTYRE. WIUIAME.22 $14932 10/3QR)2 Outstanding OA8. DANIEL 0.22 $91.14 10^30/02 Outstanding PEICKERT.OARYJ.22 $79.93 10/30/02 Outstanding ROSS. JOHN A.22 $81.28 10/30/02 Outstanding SMYTH. KATHERINE a 22 $47.80 10/30/02 Outstanding STEFFENHAOEN. RONALD 22 $1,49941 10/30/02 Outstanding STORK, JOHN r 22 $87.19 $94,284.66 10/30/02 Outstanding \ m :'y ‘’ CITY OF ORONO check register 11/00A)26:S7AM Page l Clwcii P«y Clwck Chock Number Emptoyee Name PorkMi Amount Dolo Chock Slotut T* ' •=^TT' % • '*■ ttBL*jHF!PPM| 052025 PETERSON. BARBARA 11 $32322 11/12/02 Outttomllng 052026 MOORSE, RONALD J.11 $34631 11/12/02 Outstanding 052027 SAN8EVERE. ROBERT K 11 $269 36 11/12/02 Outstanding 052026 MURPHY. JAMES L.It $269 36 11/12A)2 0utsUnding 052029 NYOARO. JAY 11 $269 36 11/12/02 Outstanding 052030 WHITE. JAMES M.11 $26936 $1.746 97 11/12/02 Outstandbig m i I MUJi\i k , 1 ~i t-rr . *•• • information ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING NOV 1 2 2002 OF CITY OH OHONO • % /