HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-2001 Council PacketAi;i<:NUA H>K rOlINCIL MEETING SET FOR 1 UESDAY« NOVEMBER 13.2001,7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
(*) Asterisk items ore considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council
under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items arc available in the
Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve/Amend
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P^L
2. Stormwater Utility - Resolution
APPROVAL OF MINITTS
• 3. Regular Council Meeting of October 22.2001
• 4. HRA Meeting of October 22.2001
• 5. Council Work Session of November 1.2001
••rtmNO
NOV t 5 2001
Cll Y ur unoNO
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe. Rcprc.scntativc
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabusth. Representative
PUBLIC COMMENTS • (Limit S Minutes Per Person)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
* 6. #01-2689 Mondeep Sodhi. 4080 Dahl Road - ARcr-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use
Permit - Resolution
7. #01 -2711 Western Steel Ea*ction. 2687 Wayzata Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit
8. #01-2714 Frederick Puzak. 1340 Baldur Pork Road - Variances - Resolution
* 9. #01-2716 Brcnshell Development. 2200 Shady wood Road - Variances - Resolution
10. #01-2718 Amendment to Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision IS Relating to Fence
Standards
* II. #01-2726 Erotas Building Corporation, 450 Orono Orcliard Road • ARer-the-Fact VariaiKCS •
Resolution
* 12. #01-2736 Long Lake Fire Station. 340 Willow Drive North - Conditional Use Permit - Public
Hearing - Continuation to November 26 Meeting
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
13. Demolition of Structures at 340 Willow Drive North and 3770 Shoreline Drive
14. Golf Course Equipment Purchase
15. No Dogs in Porks Where Posted • Ordinance
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13,2001,7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
1 6. Purchase of Voting Booths
1 7. Maintenance Agreement for Telephone System
1 8. 2000 - 20?0 Community Management Plan - Final Adoption - Resolution
19. Long Lake Fire Station Contribution
20. Tax ForfeU Parcel. PID 04-11 7-23 1 3 0002 - Resolution
21 . Moratc: ium on Telecommunication Antennas and Towers - Ordinance
22. Funding for Navarre Home Ownership Program
23. 2002 Non-Union Employee Pay Adjustments and Insurance Contributions - Resolution
24. Request to Approve “Working Out-of-Class” Administrative Sergeant Assignment
25. Porks Donation
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
• 26. LICENSES
Special Event
• 27. BILLS
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS
2fiSl
1 1/05 - Park Meeting. 7:15 p.m.
II/I2 - HOLIDAY. Observance of Veterans Day
I I/I3 - CoutKil Meeting, Tuesday. 7:00p.m.
II/I9 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m,
1 1/22 - HOLIDAY. Observance of Thanksgiving Day
1 1/23 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day
1 1/26 - Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m.
12/03 - Park Meeting, 7:15 p.m.
12/10 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
12/24 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas
12/25 • HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas
Public A ttendance
Melting D ate // /^ oj______
m Council
Planning Commission
□ PARK Commission
□ Other _____
Please ntLotn'TiiE iNroRMATioN requested
BELOW roR OUR CITY RECORDS.
PRESENT FOR (fhMi afenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
0/-ZVZC
dIV t
AM A
X 'Pc V I AV. >/ vW
/2rrzv
7.
8..
10..
11..
12..
13. _
14. _
• cMsTOBMf fimjr jm
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
••cctinO
NOV 1 5 2001
CUT or onoi^O
DATE: November 13. 2001
ITEM NO.: 2.
Department Approval:
Name Grcgor>' A. Gappa
TIUe D»reclor of PuKic Semtes
Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Publk Service's Dircclun Report
Itrai Deacriptioa: Public Hearing on EstablKhment of a Storm Water Utility
Introduction
Municipalities create storm water utilities so that dedicated funds are available to operate, nuiniain.
manage, construct or reconstruct their municipal storm water drainage systems. In Uie past, special
assessments against benefiiting properties, or general tax revenue financed most stonn water
improvements. These financing methods have not been uniformly successful in providing sufficient
revenue.
Applying assessments requires proof of benefit and it is difficult to prove a benefit to upstream
properties in the drainage area. Recently, assessments have been successfully challenged in die
courts, since then it has become increasingly difficult to prove benefit against assessed properties.
Most commonly Cities draw from the general fund to finance municipal improvement projects.
With its levy limits for municipalities, the State Legislature has limited the ability to fund projects in
this manner. For the past several years, the City of Orono has included a S45.000 ia.x levy for die
stonn water improvements in the PIR Fund. As a result of die tax levy limits, the City ’s ability to
adequately fund the year 2002 budget was limited. At the budget work session the Council directed
staff to remove the S45.000 PIR budget item from the tax levy and to begin the process for the
implementation of Storm Water Utility.
A storm water utility is a dedicated revenue source intended to alleviate the burden on general funds
and avoid the time and expense of assessment proceedings. All Minnesou cities, under MSS
444.07S. can establish a storm water utility. Essentially, the storm water utility is identical to a
water or sanitary sewer utility, in which the utility's users finance the utility's mfrastructure costs.
A "user* is normally defined as any develt^ied propeny that contributes storm water runoff to the
storm drainage system. City owned propeny. park properties owned by other governmental units,
and undeveloped privately owned lands do not fund the utility.
Typically, the City charges the storm water utility fee to all ■users" with the fee based on the
amount of runoff tliat each property generates. The runoff generated relates directly to the amount
of impervious area found on the property. Consequently, a property with more impervious area
uses the system to a greater extent than a property with less hard surface.
Pagcl
1*1 r ,
A storm water utility is an equiubte funding inetliud because it cfiarges users according to their use
of the system, similar to what is done under the water and sanitary sewer utilities. The user charge
is not associated in any way with property value, property taxes, or the owner's income.
Storm Water Utility Benefits
The purpose of creating and implementing a storm water utility is to provide an equitable, dedicated
funding source for additional or improved storm water drainage services. Some benefits that can be
realized by these services and the activities that help the City realize these benefits arc listed below.
Funding from the storm water utility could be used to finance projects that provide these benefits.
• Flood control
• Water quality control
• Wetland protection
• Erosion and sediment control
• An enhanced storm water conveyance system.
Fee Structure
The following criteria will be used to determine the total runoff and fee structure:
•Model Storm: 5-ycar frequency. 3.6" of rainfall in 24 hours.
•Soil Conservation Service Hydrology Methodology to determine amount of runoff.
• Average Single Family Residential Unit: 2.0 Acres. 20®/o Impervious Surface.
The use of a standard fee for all residential properties is the only practical method to implement a
storm water utility. We posed the question on residential storm water utility fee structures on a
nationwide public work ’s web site discussion group. W’e received numerous responses and all of
the other agencies were using a standard fee for residential properties and some form of
equivalency factors for nonresidential properties.
Thirty single-family residential properties, ten properties in each lot size zoning district: '/j, I, &
2 acre zones, w ere analyzed to determine the average percentage of impervious surface for
properties in the City. The weighted average hardcover percentage is 20%. This weighted
average is based on the number of homes in each zoning district.
Page 2
The average lol size in each of ihe zoning districts, '/i. 1.2, & 5 acre districts, was determined by
dividing the number of acres in each district by the projected number of homes at full
development in each district. The average lot size for the City was calculated by using a
weighted average of the percentage of homes in each zoning district at the previously calculated
average lot size for that district. Approximately 50% of the homes in Orono arc in the 2-acre
district, 45% are in the '/a & 1 acre districts, and 5% in the 5-acre district. The weighted average
lot size was determined to be 2 acres
The use of an average residential lot size is the only practical method for implementation of a
storm water utility and is also equitable. The smaller lots may have less impervious surface, than
the larger lots, but the runoff rate is increased because of less pervious lot area to slow the water
down and allow for infiltration info the ground. The runoff rate determines the size of the storm
water facilities required. The larger lots may have more impervious surface, than the smaller
lots, but the runoff rate is decreased because of the larger pervious lot area to slow the wuter
down and allow for infiltration into the ground.
The overage single family residential lot runoff defines the fee structure’s basic unit, the
"Residential Equivalency Factor" (REF). Non-rcsidential parcels will be assigned REF values
based on the amount of rtuioff general^ by these parcels versus the amount generated by the
typical single family residential lot. This REF will be determined based on the acreage and
percentage of impervious surface for each non-rcsidential lot. The following table provides a
listing of per acre REF factors based on the percentage of impervious surface for the parcel. The
total fee is determined by multiplying the REF factor from the table by the acreage of the parcel.
The REF cannot be less than one for billing purposes.
JUSiiM
%
Impcrvioas
Runoff
(Incbct)
REF/2
■err
REF/1
acre
0 0 50 0 62 0 31
5 OSS 0 72 0 36
10 0 66 082 0 41
IS 0 74 0 92 0 46
20 0.80 1.00 0.50
2S 0 98 122 61
SO 1 16 145 0'3
35 / 34 168 0 84
40 no 18'0 04
45 168 210 105
50 1 86 2 33 1 16
55 2 04 2 55 123
60 220 2 "^5 I 38
65 2 38 2 98 / 49
TO 2 56 3 20 160
75 2 74 3 43 172
80 2 90 3 62 181
85 308 3 85 193
90 3 26 402 2 01
95 3 44 4 30 2 15
100 3.60 4.50 2.25
Fee rate
There arc approximately 3.000 existing homes in Orono today with full development projected at about 3.700
homes. There arc currently about 350 RtF units of non-residenlial property in the City. This number of units is
not projected to increase significantly at full development because of the minor amount of non-residential
property in Orono. Today, there arc is a total of approximately 3.350 RF.F units for billing purposes.
The Council discussed this issue at the October 22"^ meeting and established a fee of $9.00 per quarter per
residential unit.
Attached to this report is a listing of the non-residential properties in the City with their number of REF units.
The owners of property with five or more units were sent a letter notifying them of the public hearing. A
sample letter is attached for review. Staff has not received any public comments regarding the proposed
Storm Water Utility.
Storm Water Projects
The proposed $9.00 quarterly fee will generate approximately $120,000 in annual revenue. The Storm Water
Management Plan lists approximately $11 million dollars of storm water projects for both water quality and
quantity improvements. These arc the larger projects in the City. Attached for your review is a list of $1.2 million
dollars in Priority Capital Improvement Projects from the Storm Water Management Plan.
In addition to the project listed in the plan, there are also numerous smaller projects that need to be completed.
These smaller projects arc generally located in the older fully developed areas of the City and adjacent to the
lakeshore. These projects arc needed to solve local flooding problems and prevent property damage to homes.
Several problem areas include. Crystal Bay Road. Highwood Road, and Lyric Avenue. The Highwcod Road
pn>ject is the result of a failing older draintile system that is an integral component of the required storm water
drainage system in this area. There are numerous situations like this in the City with older draintile sy stems
across private properties that arc in questionable or unknown condition, fhese systems were installed years ago.
by private property owners, w ith no easements in place or any records of construction The costs for replacement
or repair of these systems arc unknown.
As the trend of tearing down existing houses and rebuilding larger homes along the lakeshore accelerates, we
have been e.xperiencing more complaints and concerns about flooding and increased runoff. A typical example of
this is the recent problems encountered along Caroline Avenue as the result new larger homes being built.
Sct eral years ago. the City spent $60,000 for a project to prevent flooding problems in the Tonkaview Lane/
North Shore Drive area caused by vacant lots being developed.
Rccommendatioiis
1. Conduct a public hearing on the implementation of a Storm Water Drainage Utility.
2. Approval of the ordinance establishlitg a Storm Water Drainage Utility effective lanuary 1. 2002.
3. Approval of a $9.00 per quarter per residential unit Storm Water Drainage Utility Fee to be included in the
year 2002 City Fee Schedule.
J
m
Carman Bay Stubbs Bay
PondCB-Q3 (1)19.000 Pond SB-Q16 (1)15,000
Roadside techniques along
Blaine Ave in subdistricts
CB-0 and CB-2 (II)
9,000 Ravine stabilization in
subdistrict LC-23 (1)108.000
Pond CB-Q9 (I)20,000 Pond LC-Q1000 (1)33,000
Forest Lake Pond SB-Q9.1 (II)110,000
Ravine stabilization in
subdistrict FL-19(I)63.000 Ravine stabilization in
subdistrict SB-9 (II)135,000
PondFL-Q15(l)18,000 Pond SB -Q5 (II)13,000
Roadside techniques in
subdistrict FL-0 (II)10,000 Ravine stabilization in
subdistrict SB-5 (II)68,000
Ravine stabilization in
subdistrict FL-20 (1)108.000 PondSB-Q11 (II)23.000
Maxwell Bay
Roadside techniques along
Bayside Road (II)30,000
PondMB-Q7 (II)47,000 Roadside techniques along
Tonkawa Road (II)15,000
North Arm mmi Tanager Lake
Ravine stabilization in
subdistrict NA-0, extending
SW from node 590 (1)
72.000 Study flow at top of sub-
district TL-11/node 901 (I)19.000*
PondNA-Q9 (1)47,000 Roadside techniques along
Browns Road S (II)27,000
Ravine stabilization at north
end of subdistrict NA-0, near
pondNA-QSOOO (II)
72,000 Roadside techniques aiong
Shoreline Drive (II)27,000
Ravine stabiPization at north
end of subdistrict NA-0 (II)72,000 TOTAL 1,168,000
“---------
for nv(M •tabOtuttoA. coati aro tstlmataa oo/y baud on $90 par Inaar IboT
* Study eoita of $4000 par yaar lor four yaan. plua Inlial purcfiata of aampOns aquipmoni $3,000
• par Wtaar loot coats rapraawrt an awarapa ovar *a langOi of tha projact ala
Non-RcsiUcnlial Properties
Adflcm
2389 Blaine Ave
3250 North Shore Dr
3324 North Shore Dr
450 Old Crystal Bay Rd N
2380 Shadywood Dr
2385 Shadywood Dr
2420 Shadywood Dr
2445 Shadywood Dr
2455 Shattywood Dr
2477 Shadywood Dr
2500 Shadywood Dr
1444 Shoreline Dr
1449 Shoreline Dr
1955 Shoreline Dr
3333 Shoreline Dr
3340 Shoreline Dr
3360 Shoreline Dr
3380 Shoreline Dr
3400 Shoreline Dr
Name
onice Building
North Shore Marina
Way/ata Marina
VCI
Snyders
Daghmers
Navarre Auto Repair
1 National Bank
England Dentist
Tonkawest Offices
Freshwater
Windward Marina
Kings Cove Marina
Sailors World
Ricks Super Value
Culvers
Amoco
Multi-Tenant
Navarre Hardware
EID Asm % IMTi
17-117-23-34-0012 0.68 100%
08-117-23-41-0006 2.60 60%
08-117-23-41-0012 1.90 85%
33-118-23-1300-12 4.96 37%
17-117-23-44-0006 0.83 74%
17-117-23-44-0102 0.19 40%
20-117-23-11-0002 0.87 80%
20-117-23-11-0015 0.53 73%
20-117-23-11^17 0.40 42%
20-117-23-11-0027 1.32 37%
20-117-23-11-0034 5.00 32%
11-117-23-22-0006 0.41 75%
11-117-23-21-0001 1.87 75%
10-117-23-42-0024 0.74 65%
20-117-23-11-0024 2.90 75%
17-117-23-44-0085 1.34 90%
17-117-23-44-0101 0.44 100%
17-117-23-44-0100 0.26 100%
17-117-23-43-0099 0.28 100%
Number
REF.g) liiilL
2.25
1.38
1.93
0.84
1.60
0.94
1.81
1.60
0.94
0.84
0.73
1.72
1.72
1.49
1.72
2.01
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.5
3.5
3.6
4.1
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.1
3.6
1.0
3.2
1.1
4.9
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
Page 1
Number
AdlIrcM
3416 Shoreline Dr
3423 Shoreline Dr
3440 Shoreline Dr
3465 Shoreline Dr
34% Shoreline Dr
3502 Shoreline Dr
3542 Shoreline Dr
3572 Shoreline Dr
3574 Shoreline Dr
35% Shoreline Dr
3605 Shoreline Dr
3607 Shoreline Dr
3701 Shoreline Dr
3850 Shoreline Dr
3860 Shoreline Dr
875 WayzataBlvd
2060WayzataBlvd
2120 WayzataBlvd
2160 WayzataBlvd
2190 Wayzata Blvd
2350 WayzataBlvd
2605 Wayzata Blvd
2687 Wayzata Blvd
2725 WayzaU Blvd
3505 WayzataBlvd
3800 Woyzau Blvd
Mamg
Multi-Tenant
Hiduud Keaveny
Richard Bloomquist
Shoreline Center
Village ProfT. Bldg
Lowells Auto Parts
LNR Properly
Animal 1 lospital
Dairy Queen
GAP Cabinets
Qwest
Mika A-1 Rental
Casco Run Offices
Furniture Store
Shoreline Service Center
New Horizon
Sidney Rebels
Wear
Wear
Green Valley
Often Nursery
Washington Scicntinc
Ace Prop
Veda
Dog House
Otter. Management
PIP Acres
17-117-23-43-0098 0.54
20-117-23-12-0034 1.64
17-117-23-43-0142 0.15
20-117-23-12-0033 0.95
17-117-23-43-0155 0.31
17-117-23-43-0114 0.31
17-117-23-43-0113 0.46
17-117-23-43-0151 0.31
17-117-23-43-0149 0.45
17-117-23-43-0107 0.62
20-117-23-21-0028 0.87
20-117-23-21-0029 1.16
20-117-23-21-0033 3.64
17-117-23-33-0006 0.77
17-117-23-33-0005 0.62
35-118-23-44-0005 5.34
34-118-23-24-0058 6.70
34-118-23-24-0001 0.87
34-118-23-21-0002 1.55
34-118-23-21-0033 0.93
34-118-23-22-0014 10.00
33-118-23-13-0015 26.70
33-118-23-13-0002 2.04
33-118-23-13-0014 9.16
32-118-23-13-0001 6.00
29-118-23-34-0009 1.85
% IMP. REPrn Uniti
46%
55%
40%
29%
50%
80%
40%
70%
80%
60%
27%
15%
6%
40%
24%
6%
1.05
1.23
0.94
0.61
1.16
1.81
0.94
1.60
1.81
1.38
0.61
0.46
0.36
0.94
0.50
0.36
PHNDING SUBDIVISION
45%
95%
60%
55%
30%
50%
37%
3%
17%
1.05
2.15
1.38
1.23
0.73
1.16
0.84
0.36
0.46
1.0
1.9
I.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.0
3.3
1.2
12.3
19.4
2.3
7.6
2.1
1.0
Page 2
Naoiber
Address Name PIP Acres % IMP.B£EXU
2420 Dunwoody Avc Calvary Mcntoriul Church 20-117-23-21-0018 2.60 35%0.84 2.2
865 FcmdulcRdN St. Edward Episcl. Church 25-118-23-44-0002 4.30 11%0.41 1.8
117 Glendale Dr Colvin Presb. Church 34-118-23-33-0001 6.00 13%0.41 2.4
325 Leaf St New Thought Church 05-117-23-41-0020 4.46 21%0.50 2.2
3745 Shoreline Dr Good Shepard Lutheran Church 20-117-23-21-0025 4.80 18%0.46 Z2
2060 Sixth Avc Trinity Lutheran Church 27-118-23-31-0002 4.90 27%0.61 2.9
3655 Togo Rd Jehovah Witness 17-117-23-31-0036 1.35 43%0.94 1.2
645 TonkawaRd Temple Israel of Mpls 05-117-23-33-0019 18.30 1%0.31 5.6
200 Old Long Lake Rd Wayzata Country Club 36-118-23-43-0001 145 1%0.31 44.0
405 North Arm Dr W Lake view Golf Course 06-117-23-32-0003 137 1%0.31 42.0
265 Orono Orchard Rd S Orono Golf Course 02-117-23-22-0005 45 1%0.31 13.0
725 Sixth Ave Spring Hill 25-118-23-33-0004 146 1%0.31 44.0
200 Wood Hill Rd V. ood Hill Country Club 02-1 17-2'-12-0001 121 1%0.31 37.0
2180 North Shore Dr Lake Minnka Envir School 10-117-23-31-0098 0.58 28%0.61 1..0
2240 North Shore Dr Minnka C .tter for Arts 10-117-23-32-0019 5.65 37%0.84 4.7
2100 Sixth Ave Orono Woodlands 27-118-23-31-0024 2.47 11%0.41 1.0
685 Old Crystal Day Rd Administration Orono School 33-118-23-21-0002 50 12%0.41 20.0
1025 Old Crystal Bay Rd High School/ Ice Arena 28-118-23-34-0003 44 13%0.41 18.0
800 Old Crystal Bay Rd Middle School/ Lee Carlson 28-118-23-42-005 52 10%0.41 21.0
REF (I) ° Residential Equivalent Factor
Page 3
10 "^ViCv^ iTicvfl
So»' VAor<< (JY^WS -Y\\S
\^W<iy'GITYofORONO
Munkipal Offices
SirNt Mdmfc
2750 KtiliT Paiinny
Orom. MN 55356
Mallii Miriu:
P.O Ba66
CiysUI B«|. m 55323^6
October 26.2001
Orono School District
68S Old Crystal Bay Road
Long Lake MN 55356
Dear Propert)’ Owner;
Storm Water Ulilit>
The City of Orono is considering the establishment of a Storm Water and Drainage Utilit>' which is
a separate utility fund that is used to provide funding for the construction, operation and maintenance
and of the City’s storm wrater drainage system. The City is in the process completing a Storm Water
Mrnagement Plan which includes numerous projects to control the flow rates and improve the w aier
quality of the storm w-ater runoff throughout the City. Completion of these projects will provide
t^nefits in reduced flooding and erosion caused by storm water runoff, and also improved water
quality of the runoff. Storm water runoff can be a significant source of both sediments and nutrients
which can result in impaired water quality' in lakes, streams, aini wetlands. The implementation of
a storm water utility w ill provide for a dedicated and consistent source of fu.nding for completion of
storm water improvement projects.
Fee Structure
The following criteria will be used to determine the total runoff and fee structure:
*Model Storm: 5-year frequency. 3.6" of rainfall in 24 hours.
*SoiI Conservation Service Hydrology Methodology to determine amount of runoff.
• Average Single Family Residential Unit: 2.0 Acres, 20% Impervious Surface.
•Fee per Residential Unit, $9.00/Quarter, Included on Quarterly Sewer Bill or
Annual Septic Bill
TOiplHBS(f52)2 <» tm • ras(fS2)24M61(
www.cUnaojDajn
The average single family residential lot runoff defines the fee structure's basic unit, the "Residential
Equivalency Factor" (REF). Non-residential parcels will be assigned REF values based on the
amount of rtinoff generated by these parcels versus the amount generated by the typical single family
residential lot. This REF will be determined based on the acreage and percentage of impervious
surface for each non-residential lot. The total fee is determined by multiplying the REF factor from
the table by the acreage of the parcel. The REF cannot be less than one for billing purposes.
The fee for your property was determined based on the following information.
Administration
Acres: 50
% Imperv ious 12%
Residential Equivalent Factor /Acre 0.41
Numberuf Units (Acres X REF) 20
Total Quarterly Fee (Units xS9.00) S180
High School/ Ice Arena
Acres: 40
% Imperv ious 13%
Residential Equivalent Factor /Acre 0.41
Number of Units (Acres % REF) 18
Total Quarterly Fee (Units x$9.00) S162
Middle School/Lee Carlson Fields
Acres: 52
% Imperv ious 10%
Residential Equivalent Factor /Acre 0.41
Number of Units (Acres X REF) 21
Total Quortcriy Fee (Units xS9.00) SI89
Total Quarterly Storm Water Utility’ Fee S531
Public Hearing Scheduled
The Orono City Council will be conducting a public hearing regarding the implementation of a
Storm Water and Drainage Utility at it’s regular meeting on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. The
meeting will be held at the Orono City Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. The public hearing
is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. This hearing will be an opportunity for comments and questions from the
public on this issue.
The average single family residential lot runoff defines the fee structure’s basic unit, the "Residential
Equivalency Factor" (REF)- Non-residential parcels uill be assigned REF values based on the
amount of runoff generated by these parcels versus the amount generated by the typical single family
residential lot. This REF will be determined based on the acreage and percentage of impervious
surface for each non-rcsidential lot. The total fee is determined by multiplying the REF factor from
the table by the acreage of the parcel. The REF cannot be less than one for billing purposes.
The fee for your property was determined based on the following information.
Administration
Acres: 50
*/o Impervious 12%
Residential Equivalent Factor/Acre 0.41
Number uf Units (Acres z REF) 20
Tout Quarterly Fee (Units zS9.00) S180
High Schaol/ Ice Arena
Acres: 40
%lmpenious 13%
Residential Equivalent Factor /Acre 0.41
Number of Units ( Acres z REF) 1 8
Total Quarterly Fee (Units zS9.00) SI62
Middle School/Lce Carlson Fields
Acres: 52
% Impervious 10%
Residential Equivalent Factor/Acre 0.41
Number of Units ( Acres z REF) 21
Total Quarterly Fee (Units z$9.00) S189
Total Quarterly Storm Water Utility' Fee S531
Public Hearing Scheduled
The Orono City Council will be conducting a public hearing regarding the implementation of a
Storm Water and Drainage Utility at it’s regular meeting on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. The
meeting will be held at the Orono City Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. The public hearing
is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. This hearing will be an opportunity for comments and questions from the
public on this issue.
ORDINANCK NO._____. SECOND SERIES
an ordinance amending the orono city code
TO ESTABLISH A STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTIUTY AND
USER CHARGFii FOR THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE imUTY
THE CITY OF ORONO. MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. 'Fhc following language is hereby added lo the Orono Cily Code as
Section 3.21- Rules and Regulations Relating lo Uie Storm Water and Drainage Utility.
Section 1. Storm Sewer System: Statutory Authority. Minnesota Statutes, section 444.075, authorizes cities lo
impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities ("charges"). By this
section, the city elects to exercise such authority.
Section 2. Findings and Determinations. In providing for such charges, the findings and determinations set out in
this subsection are made.
a. In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the public health, safety,
convenience and general welfare, the city has constructed, operated and maintained a storm sewer system
("the system") This section is adopted in the further e.xcrcisc of such authority and for the same purpose.
b. The system, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through the imposition of special
assessments and ad valorem Utxes. Such financing methods were appropriate lo the circumstances at llie
time they were used. It is now necessary and desirable lo provide an alternative method of recovering
some or all of the future costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of
charges as provided in this section.
c. In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes to make them just and
equitable. Taking into account, the status of completion of the system, past methods of recovering system costs,
the topography of the cily and other relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to a.ssign
responsibility for some or all of the future costs of operating, maintaining and improving the system on the basis
of the expected stoim water runoff from the various parcels of land w ithin the cily during a standard 5 -year
rainfall event.
d. Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm water runoff cannot be done with
mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of
this section undertake lo establish a reasonable and practicable methodology for making such charges.
Page 1 o£ 4
Section 3. Rales and Charges^
Subdivision I. Residential Fauivalent Factor . Rates and charges for the use and availability of the system shall be
determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" ("REF"). For the purposes of this section, one
REF is defined as the avenge volume of surface \%-ater runoff coming from an average single famil> residential
lot of 2.0 acres of land and 20% impervious surface.
Subd. 2. Determination of RHPs - Non- Residential Properties. REF's for all land uses other than residential uses
shall be based on the percentage of impervious surface and size of the property as listed in the following table.
The minimum fee for any property shall be one REF.
%
Inpcnrtou
Runoff
(inches)
REF/2
■cre
REF/1
acre
0 050 0 62 031
5 O.SI 072 0 36
10 066 082 0 41
IS 0 74 0 92 0 46
20 0.S0 1.00 aso
25 0 98 122 61
30 1 16 145 0 73
35 134 168 0 84
40 1 50 18'0 94
45 168 210 105
50 186 2 33 / 16
55 204 2 55 1 23
60 2.20 2 75 1 38
65 2.38 2 98 149
70 2 56 3 20 160
75 2 74 3 43 1 '2
SO 2 90 3 62 181
85 3.08 3 85 193
90 3.26 407 2 01
95 3 44 4 30 215
100 3.60 4.30 2.25
Page 2 of 4
Section 4. Fstiihlishing Basic Rate. In dcicnnining charges, the council shall, from time to time, by rcM)Iution
establish a basic system rate to be charged against an average single family residence. The charge to be made
against all other land uses shall be made in accordance with Subdivision 2.
Section 5. Standardized Acrcaee. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges against property used for
avc ge single family msidentuU purposes, such properties shall be considered to have an acreage of 2.0 acres.
Section 6. Adjustments of Charges. The city council may by res<^Iution, from time to time, adopt policies
providing for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels, based upon Hydrologic data supplied by
alTcctcd property owners, demonstrating an actual Hydrologic response substantially diflerent from the RF.F
being used for the parcel or parcels. Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of
the City Engineer and shall not be made effective retroactively.
Section 7. Fxeluded Lands. No charge for system availability or service shall be made against land which is
either (i) public or private street right-of-vvay; (ii) vacant and unimproved land with substantially all of its surface
having vegetation as ground cover or (iii) land owned by the City of Orono (iv) park land owned by other
govemmenta’ agencies.
Section 8. Supplying Information. The owner, occupant or person in charge of any premises shall supply the city
with such information as the city may reasonably request related to the use. development and area of the
premises. Willful failure to provide such infomiation or to falsify it is a violation of this section.
Section 9. l•-stimated Charges. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of uny premises fails or refu.ses to
provide the information requested, as provided in Section 8. the cliarge for such premises shall be estimated and
billed in accordance with such estimate, based upon information then av.iilable to the city.
Section IQ Drainayc and Erosion Control. Subdivision I. - Drainage Plan. In the development, improvement or
alteration of land, the direction, quantity or quality of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the
development arc 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.
Subd 2.1 fositm and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit for any
dev elopment. improvement or alteration of land. i plan for erosion and sedimentation control shall be presented
with the site plan. The erosion and sedimentatior control plan shall specify the measures to be used before,
during and after construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control measures
shall be maintained in good working order until sUe stabilization occurs.
Subd. 3. Approval. Plans and provisions required for compliance with this subsection must be submitted to the
City Engineer for approval.
Page 3 of 4
litMliiMiliL
SECTION 2. Thii ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall be effccuvc
January 1,2002
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at Us regular meeting held the
13* day November 1 3,2001 .
ATTEST:
I
I Lindas. Vee. City Clerk Barbara Peterson. Mayor
Page 4 of 4
CfTV or OMMOMom or rutLic mamno
fMO tTOMM WaTINuniiTf
NoiM is 9I*«1 »«I Otpno OH OmmN mm M eonducang • pwMk
Mtring ftrnHmma a«*p<*m«ni*Bon ol aH15«fcKi»r£?c
SlTgta5:5!S.“«X»7»» poNte hainng • •*»**Aj»a< te» 7 00 p m
Wi iwSrtna "« ^ •"tBHiiwawii and «jaa«ona P*^5"Mteai A mm mtmt and Drawaga UWtp
ka a aapvaia uiity lund tfiai it uaad M
mnafata ravanua lar iha canttructien.
Sntan and mamiananca and o* 0« oAr‘*
amm—roamayartiam Thap.ogtgl
•Mil l» oar laJWiar propartr « MOW
liiMMiaidBS^ prapaiaai m* aa cnarpad a
•• baaad an *«a ftotidanaai Eavavatam
Fioar (l«F) lor tm propa<ty T^a aiortn
■•w um laa adi ba mcr.dad m ra aapae
•Mm or lAMr Ma lar ra pnwadkr
LmOaS Wa
OArOam
iFublrftd in Tba UMr and Pmnaar
OaZ7aNNo«3.300i)
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota. County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he
is an authorized agent and employee of the
publisher of the newspaper Known as THE
LAKER. Mound. Minnesota, and has full
knowledge of the facts which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02. 331A.07. and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.)ThepriniBd Drainage & Storm
_____________ W»fc.T flF-iUhy__________
which is attached was cut from the columns of
said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week for ^ successive weeks.
It was first published Saturday
the 27 day of October .2001.
and was thereafter printed and published
every Saturday, to and including Saturday.
the 3rd day of November 2001:
—_
Authorized Agent
Suscribed and sworn to me on this
3rd day of November______. 2001.
Notary Public
KRfSTIHOUl
HOfMYFIJSUC-MNKESOTA
HCweei t .......... i
■eeei mi
Rate Information
(1) LowMt dAMiM rate paid by conunarciai usars
for comparabla tpaca: S15.00 par irKh.
(2) Maximum rata afcmad by law lor abova maBar. $15.00.
p) Rata actuaSy chargad lor abova maBar: $7.73 par inch.
Each addrtionai suocatiiva waak: $5.62.
^ ibki'
imn
.j'lkioy
• *<"u
'• •. i1 * (viIO
.' . H '«
7>wO—0%
U&t -
mm’}*
iTj* fJl/.'*laim
t±riij -ry:
-r*r^-“*y
~r."n -*
iiriMianii
' n*
n*>i1 •• '■
(I91M ! Jh'i ;. '
MiTiQBVil 01 V'uum^aiiuii
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he
is an authorized agent and employee of the
pubiisher of the newspaper known as THE
LAKER. Mound. Minnesota, and has full
knowtedge of the facts which are stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with aN the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
quaiified newspaper, as provided by Mkinesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07. and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B.) The printed »01-2736 CUP
which Is attached was cut from the columns of
said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week for l__ successive weeks.
It was first pubished Saturday
the 27 day of October 2001.
and was thereafter printed and pubQshed
every Saturday, to and including Saturday.
day of 2001;
Authorized Agent
Suscribed ar>d sworn to me on this
27th day of October______, 2001.
Notary Public
MWnHCXM Ins I
RMt Information
(1) Low«e dMsZwd rw« paM by oommcfoal us«f«
lof comparabit apao*: 115.00 par inch.
(2) MaxinHNn raia aSowad by law lor abova manar; $15.00.
(3) Rata actuaiy chaipad lor abova maflar: $7.73 par inch.
Each additional luocatsivo waak: $5.62.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Momlay, October 22,2001
7:00 o’clock p.n.
■•ceriMQ
NOV I 5 2001
Cl I r or om
ROLL
The City Council met on the above-menlioned date with the rollowing members present: Acting Ma>t>r
Richard Flint. Council Members Bob Sanses'ere. Jim White, and Jay Nygard. Ma>w Barb Peterson was
absent Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Michael Gaffron,
Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Boltenberg. City Engineer Tom
Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Attorney Tom Barrett arrived at 7:28 p.m.
Acting Mayor Flint called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
(«1) APPROVE/AMEND
Items IS. 16. 17. 18.20.21.23.24.25. and 26 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Wkitc BMived, Saaacverc accawM. to approve the Coofcot Afcoda as aaMwIcd.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PRESENTATIONS
(M2) LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMhllSSION -2002 PROPOSED BUDGET
Sally Koenecke. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission, addressed the City Council regarding
the Commission's 2002 budget. Koenecke indicated the budget involves three separate funds consisting
of franchise administration, studio/acccss production, and capital improvements firnd. The LMCC is
also including in the budget this >oar an audit of Mediacom’s financials, which is a one time item at a
cost of SI 7.000. Koenecke stated the LMCC is a I6^ity joint powers agreement which monitors the
franchise agreement w ith the cable company.
Koenecke stated one part-time position is being added to the studio in an effort to get more
programming out, with the studio being available to all 16 cities to produce television programming for
their city.
Flint inquired what a resident should do in the event the cable company docs not satisfactorily resolve a
complaint.
Koenecke stated the person with the complaint should first call the cable company, and if the complaint
is not satisfactorily resolved, they should call the LMCC and ask for herself Koenecke stated she then
would file a formal written complaint with the cable company, who has a certain period of time under
the franchise agreement to respond to that complaint. If it is not resolved, it would then become a
violation of the franchise agreement. Koenecke indicated in the past they have alwa>-s experienced
good response from the cable company except during the recent major upgrade when a number of
changes were made in the services. Koenecke stated those problems are being now resolved and things
are running smoother.
PAGE I
MINITTESOFTHE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.ni.
(02 - Lake Miaaetoaka Comaiaakatioas CoaiaibsioB, Coatiaaed)
Sonsevcrc inquired what percentage of Orono is served by cable.
Koenecke stated she does not have that data available at tonight’s meeting but would be able to supply
that information. Koenecke recommended at the time new development is going in. the City should
contact the commission to notify them of the new development going in so cable can be installed at that
time.
While moved, Nygard seconded, to concur with Oroao's portion of ibe Lake Minaeloaka
CommnaicalioBs Commission proposed 2002 budget. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(»3) WESTONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT - INFOR5UTION REGARDING REFERENDimi
ELECTION
Dr. Pam Mc>ers. Superintendent of Westonka School District, addressed the Orono City Council
regarding the school’s upcoming referendum. Mey ers stated the referendum is needed in order for the
school to continue to keep quality teachers, to continue current programming, and to maintain small
class sizes. Mey ers noted this is a referendum for operating expenses, which is different than the
referendum they passed last year for routine maintenance and technology.
Meyers stated due to recent tax cuts the Westonka School District will only receive a 0.3 percent
funding increase lor 2001 and 2002. and 1.5 percent for 2002-2003. which does not keep up with the
rate of inflation. Mey ers stated if the referendum is not approved, the Westonka School District would
need to cut programs and increase class sizes.
Sansevere inquired what the response has been to the proposed referendum to date.
Meyers stated the families that currently have children in the school district are very supportive of the
referendum, with the rest of the households generally being supportive of the referendum. Meyers
noted only 30 percent of the households currently have children in the school district Mey ers stated
they are attempting to inform the households without children currently in the school district the
importance of this referendum. Mey ers indicated the levy amount Is anticipated to decrease over the
years based on anticipated growth in the school district.
Nygard inquired why Westonka would only be receiving a 0.3 percent increase.
Meyers stated there currently are 350 school districts throughout the State of Minnesota, with each
school district being impacted differently. Meyers stated there are 20 elements that are considered when
determining state funding, with the Westonka School District only receiving money for certain
categories.
Flint thanked Meyers and O’Malley for appearing before the City Council.
PAGE!
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
7:00 P.M.
(#4) FOREST LAKE LANDING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Flint noted this item has not been noticed as a public hearing, with the Council merely acting on the
recommendation of the Park Commission regaling classiHcalion of this lake occess point.
Moorse staled the Park Commission has recommended that the Forest Lake Landing be classified as a
Class I. which includes activities such as pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, and
launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. The Class I category does not include the
swimming beach use. The Park Commission has recommended against classifying the right-of-way as a
passive natural area.
Moorse stated the City Council may w ish to address the question of whether a trail should be installed in
the right-of-way and whether a set of stairs should be installed to provide access down the hill to the
lokcshore.
Sansevere inquired what Planning Director Gaffron's recommendation is concerning this access point
Gaffron indicated his knowledge of this access point goes back approximately 20 years, with his
understanding being that this access point has not been frequently used in the past with the City never
taking any steps to do any improvements to the area. Gaffron stated in his view very limited use of this
access point is reasonable, w ith pedestrian access to the lake also being reasonable. Gaffron stated in
his opinion installation of a dock or swimming is not reasonable for this location, and that perhaps some
fishing could be done from the lakcshore.
Gaffron slated there is an issue w ith parking in the neighborhood. Gaffron stated in his view these lake
access points ore intended to serve the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Sansevere commented in his view this access point should be passive. Sansevere stated in his opinion
fishing or sw imming is not appropriate at this site.
White staled the encroachments from the Mullin property do pose a problem with this access point, with
the Council or Park Commission not suggesting at this time that those items be removed out of the ri^t-
of-way. While stated all of the lake access points arc public property, and in his view this access point
will not become heav ily used. W hite commented in his view the uses suggested for this site appear to
be reasonable and that the City con address any problems that may possibly arise in the future at the
time there is an issue.
Nygard commented in his view there has been a struggle over the past year over whether anyone should
be entitled to use this lake access point. N>gard stated this is public land, and that the recommended
passive use for this lake access point is appropriate for this location. Nygard stated he is supportive of
making this site accessible and to make it safer for people to get to and from the shoreline. Nygard
stated the City has an obligation to protect these lake access points, which are a priceless heritage, for
future generations. Nygard stated he is in favor of the Park Commission's recommendation.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
((M - Forest Lake Laadiaf, Coatianed)
Flint inquired uhether the Council should vote on the classification first and then whether a pathway
should be designated next, or whether the Park Commission should explore the issue of a designated
pathway more.
Moorsc stated he is unsure whether the Park Commission has made a formal recommendation regarding
the pathway or its location. Moorsc stated it is up to the Council whether they wish to address both
issues loni^t or direct the Park Commission to discuss the pathway and stairway further.
Sansevere staled he would like more information regarding the pathway and steps, as well os how many
of Ute other lake access points will also need a stairway constructed.
In response to a comment from a person in the audience. Flint indicated he would prefer this item not be
open^ up for public comment.
Gail Blackstone. 446S Forest I.ake Landing, stated the Mayor had indicated at the last meeting that there
would be a public hearing regarding this item.
Flint stated the Council has a large agenda tonight, noting there have been a number of opportunities for
the public to comment on this particular landing. Flint stated the Council did hold a public hearing on
this item already.
Jon Blackstone stated the notice they were given stated there wnuld be a public hearing.
Flint stated his understanding of the notice that was given was to notify the residents that the Council
would be voting on the recommendation of the Park Commission loni^t.
Gail Blackstone requested she be able to give a copy of the notice to the Council.
Sansevere stated if the notice docs slate there would be a public hearing tonight, the Council should
perhaps open the hearing for comments.
Moorse slated this item was not noticed os an official public hearing, but the notice does indicate there
will be opportunity for public comment. Moorsc stated it is his recollection there was a meeting where
there was public comment on this item for over an hour, with the Mayor indicating that the neighbors
would be notified when this item was before the Council again.
Flint inquired whether two residents in favor of the classification and two residents opposed to the
classification could be appointed to speak on this issue.
Gail Blackstone requested that eveo one who received notice of this matter be given the opportunity to
speak.
Flint indicated whoevxr had comments woulc be heard, but requested that each person limit his or her
comments to three minutes.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moadsy, October 22,2MI
7:00 o’clock p.a.
(#4 - Forest Lake Laodiof , Cootiooed)
Lisa Mullin, 4440 Forest Lake Landing, commented her biggest concern regarding this take access point
is the lack of a buffer between her property and the right-of-way. Mullin stated her property is located
almost on top of this access, with her well, a portion of her driveway, front steps, deck and
appro.ximatcly one-half of her yard being located in this proposed access. Mullin stated she is a single
mot'ier and has concerns regarding strangers using this access point and others at all hours of the day.
which makes her feel extremely unsafe.
Sansevere inquired what Mullin would like to see happen with tliis lake access point.
Mullin stated a natural area for this site is very reasonable. Mullin stated she would not be opposed to a
few neighbors using the site, but commented the City cannot control who uses this site. Mullin
reiterated a natural classification for this site is the most reo:;cr.uble given the logistics of the
neighborhood.
Sansevere inquired w hether she would prefer to see a stairway constructed.
Mullin stated she would like to see a stairway constructed.
Nygard inquired whether Mullin thought the illegal deck, driveway and well located in the right-of-way
deterred people from traversing in this area.
Mullin stated tliey legally are entitled to use this lake access point, but questioned whether they would
care about her property. Mullin stated she is unsure how the City could have allowed those structures in
the right-of-way in the first place and then years later come back and say they will now be opening it up
to the public.
Nygard stated the City did not allow any of it and they were put there illegally.
Flint requested the Council hear from another resident.
Dick Osgood. Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, staled he has been working with
Staff on this issue and has sent a letter to each of the Council members. Osgood inquired whether the
Council has received that letter.
Flint indicated they did receive a letter several weeks ago.
Gaffron stated the letter was included in the Council packet approximately one month ago.
Osgood stated their con -ems are w ith the Citv ’s process of considering these accesses as a class rather
than this one per se. O: good stated since this is the first access point to come before the Council, he
would like to express *.ieir concerns. Osgood stated Lake Minnetonka is a public body of water, with
everyone having access to it Osgood stated the lake is used on an extensive basis, and suggested that a
more appropriate access site be found, which can provide adequate services. Osgood further stated he
would l&e to see natural landscaping used as a means of restoring some of these shorelines.
PAGES
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o’clock fua.
(IM - Forest Lake LaadioK, Coatinned)
Gail Blockstone. 4465 Forest Lake Landing, indicated she and her daughter have anended all the public
meetings regarding this access point. Blackstonc c.xprc:,ied safety concerns if this access point becomes
more heavily used, citing a number of small children in the area, the lakeshore being secluded from the
roadway, the lack of a bufl'er to the neighbors ’ properties, and the lack of parking in the area.
Blackstone inquired why the Council is considering developing this access point now when the City in
the past has chosen not to actively develop it. Blackstone suggested this area be lefl natural as it has
existed that way for a number of years. Blackstone noted the Park Commission has indicated it has very
limited funds to make any improvements to the local parks, and questioned whether thousands of
taxpayer dollars should be spent to construct a stairway when it has experienced very little activity in
the past years.
Blackstonc indicated there is an access to Lake Minnetonka located across the rood that does not need
additional development or oversight Blackstone stated the police arc able to view that area from their
cars on the roadway without having to leave their vehicles.
Blackstone stated although she is unaware of what permits arc required to permit a well and other
structures to be located within the right-of-way. she is under the assumption the City did approve those
structures at the time they were constructed.
Val and Bob Wolff. 150 Forest Lake Landing, addressed the Council regarding this access point.
Mrs. Wolff stated to the location of their house, they w ill be greatly affected by use of this access
point and the au^.u irafTic tliat w ill be generated. Wolff stated in her view this access point is not
conducive to this type of use and that the area should not be used for fishing or sw imming. Wolff slated
in her opinion the area should be left natural. Wolff expressed safety concerns for herself and her
grandchildren if this access site is to be opened up to the general public. W'olff expressed concerns that
this situation could become sim^ar to the land access point near Coffee Channel. Wolfe requested the
Council lake into consideration all of the residents’ concerns.
Mr. W'olff commented since September 11*, security has become a main issue with most people, and by
opening up this little area, it will make it public to a number of people. W'olff stated the distance
between the Mullin property and the Lines property is 104 feel.
Tim Lembke 4445 Forest l.ake Landing, presented a resolution to the Council for their consideration
requesting this area be classified as a natural area.
Lili McMillan. LMCD. stated she has two observations she would like to comment on. McMillan
recommended if any improvements to this Fire lane are made over what has historically been there, the
uses allowed should be very specific along with adequate enforcement. McMillan stated in her view if
improvements are made to this particular site, it may change the use of it and additional enforcement
may become necessary.
McMillan stated in her view fishing and swimming are really not compatible in an area like this, and
cautioned the Council against allowing the two uses together. McMillan commented fishing and
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock iMik
((M - Fomt Lake Laadiag. Continnc *)
swimming also tend to be things where people will stay in a particular area for an extended penod of
time versus launching a kayak or a canoe, and would have a difrerent impact on the property.
Tim Line. 4415 Forest Lake Landing, indicated he lives ne.\t door to this access point. Line expa*ssed
safety concerns should this become more heavily used, citing recent break-ins and a peeping Tom that
the neighborhood has recently experienced over the past summer.
L ine stated at the time they purchased their property the access point was dormant and they were told
the City docs not have any intentions for developing the site. Line stated they are very concerned about
the safety of the ncighboiliood and people who do not live in the immediate area that w juld use it and
how this area would be policed. Line sjggested the City consider developing some type of pass for the
people who are entitled to use the lake access points.
Line noted this street is very narrow, with no parking being allowed on the street. Line stated due to the
narrow ness of the street, people who drive dow n the street have to back up in someone's driveway in
order to turn around. Line stated he also has a concern regarding the maintenance of these access
points, noting the Park Commission has very limited funds to do improvements. Line stated Orono’s
parkland continues to grow, but the funds to improve these areas have not been increased. Line stated in
his view there needs to be a plan in place for maintaining these areas.
Line further expressed concerns regarding the policing of these areas, noting that the onus of
maintaining this access point w ill be upon himself and the other adjoining property owner.
Line staled they are in favor of this area being classified as a natural area, noting that over 60 people did
sign the petition saying they arc supportive of that concept. Line requested the Council consider
classifying this site as a natural area.
Shirley Bull. 4690 Tonkaview Ijinc. encouraged the City Council to follow the rrcummendation of the
Park Commission and restore this access point. Pull indicated the three other access points located on
Forest Lake arc undeveloped and arc inaccessible due to the topography Bull commented since the
Forest Landing access point is the widest site and the only one located on the west side, it would make
the most sense to utilize this access p^vint.
Bull stated in speaking w ith other residents interested in this access point, it is her belief that there will
not be a great increase in the amount of usage of this site or in the traffic. Bull indicated the City of
Orono already owns a great deal of natural area in the Saga Hill neighborhood, which is in dose
proximity to this site. Bull stated she lives next to the Saga Hill area and she had concerns regarding the
amount of traffic that would be generated by the usage of this area. Bull stated the amount of traffic
generated utilizing the Saga Hill area is minimal, and in her view the some will be true for the Forest
Lake Landing.
Bull pointed out there have been a number of break-ins all over the City and not just limited to the
Forest Lake Landing. Bull commented the City of Orono’s philosophv in the past is that any resident
should have access to the lake, which should be maintained.
PAGE?
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Momlay, October 22,2001
7:00 o’clock p.m.
(#4 > Fores I Lake Lamliag, Coathnied)
Flint inquired Mhether Dull was in favor of swimming at this location, noting the Park Commission*!
recommendation dues not include swimming.
Bull stated she would not have a problem if sw imming were not allowed at this location.
Peter Martinson. 4416 Forest Lake, indicated he has recently purchased his property, and had he known
about the access point, he would not have acquired the property. Martinson expressed concerns
regarding the possible liability to the City if someone gets hurt at this right-of-wray. noting there is a
fairly steep embankment to the shoreline at the present time. Martinson suted he would be in favor of
the area being turned into a natural area, but is opposed to it being used for any other purpose.
Sansevere inquired what the City’s liability would be if someone got hurt carry ing a canoe or other
small boat down to the shoreline at any access point.
Tom Barrett. City Attorney, stated the liability concerns would be the same for all access points with
the City being insured. Barrett stated the City does have an obligation to moke appropriate access for
the uses allowed.
Patricia AlTcldt. 476S Tonkaview Lane, indicated she currently resides next to the park entrance to Saga
Hill, and in her view some of the opposition to this access point is the “not ..< my back yard syndrome".
AfTeldi staled the Saga Hill area experiences very little tralTic, with the park generally being used by the
people in the neighborhood. AD'etdl stated the important issue before the Council is to determine
whether access should be available to those residents who do not reside on the lake. Affeldt stated the
City could post no parking in this area, which should alleviate the traffic concerns.
Jon Blackstone. 446S Forest Lake Landing, slated the City Council needs to take a close look at their
decisions that impact the security of any area, especially in light of the recent past. Ulackstone stated in
his \ iew the City is not preserv ing this lake access fXMnt but rather developing it. Blackstone stated the
access pi'int has not been used in recent years
Blackstone indicated they do experience additional traffic in their ne-ghborhood due to the Lines
residing in their neigliKuhood, and in his view this access point will only increase the traf c to the area.
Blackstone stated he would like the Orono Police Department to patrol this area.
Blackstone encouraged the City Council to classify this area as a natural area, noting the Park
Commission was split on a four to three vote.
Maisha Hickey . 4640 Tonkaview Lane, commented most Americans are in a higher state of security
nowadays, and in order to alleviate some of these safety concerns, the residents in the neighborhoods
need to get to know one another. Hickey staled in her view the only pci>ple who will utilize this access
point are the neighbors, and that fishing at this site should be restricted. Hickey indicated it is her belief
the people who utilize this access point will respect Lisa Mullin’s privacy, and inquired what will
happen to Mullin’s well and deck and other structures if this site were turned into a natural area.
Rich Walter. 4470 Forest Lake Landing, stated the issue for him is the suitability of this access point.
Walter stated in order to make the Forest Lake Landing access point a suitable, legal, and liability-free
PAGES
II I*•
MINUTES OF TIIE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MoMlay, October 22,2001
7:00 o’clock p.ni.
(W4 - Forest Lake Landiag. Coatlaued)
Flint inquired whether Bull was in favor of sw imming at this location, noting the Park Commission’s
recommendation does not include swimming.
Bull stated she would not have a problem if sw imming were not allowed at this location.
Peter Martinson. 4416 Forest Ijike. indicated he has recently purchased his propertv'. and had he knowti
about the access point, he would not have acquired the property. Martinson expressed concerns
regarding the possible liability to the City if someone gets hurt at this right-of-way, noting there is a
fairly steep embankment to the shoreline at the present time. Martinson staled he would be in favor of
the area being turned into a natural area, but is opposed to it being used for any other purpose.
Sansevere inquired what the City’s liability would be if someone got hurt carry ing a canoe or other
small boat down to the shoreline at any access point.
Tom Barrett. City Attorney, staled the liability concerns would be the same for all access points with
the City being insured. Barrett slated the City does base an obligation to make appropriate access for
the uses allowed.
Patricia AlTeldt. 4765 Tonkaview Lane, indicated she currently resides nest to the park entrance to Saga
Hill, and in her view some of the opposition to this access ptiint is the “no .n my back yard syndrome".
AfTcldl staled the Saga Hill area experiences very little trafTic, with the park generally being used by the
people in the neighborhood. Afl'eldt staled the important issue before the Council is to determine
whether access should be available to those residents who do not reside on the lake. Affeldi staled ihc
City could post no parking in this area, which should alles iale Ihc irafTic concerns.
Jon Blackstonc. 4465 Forest Lake Landing, stated the City Council needs to take a close look at their
decisions that impact the security of any area, especially in light of ihc recent past. Blackslone staled in
his view the City is not preserv ing this lake access pi>int but rather developing it. Blackstonc stated the
access point has not been used in recent years
Blackslone indicated they do experience addition il traffic in their nc.ghborhixxl due to the Lines
residing in their neighborhood, and in his view this access point will only increase the iraf'c to the area.
Blackstonc staled he would like Ihc Orono Police Department to patrol this area.
Blackslone encouraged the City Council to classify this area as a natural area, noting the Park
Commission was split on a four to three vole.
Matsha Hickey . 4640 Tonkaview Lane, commented most Americans are in a hi^er state of security
nowadays, and in order to alleviate some of these safety concerns, the residents in the neighborhoods
need to gel to know one another. Hickey suied in her view the only people who will utilize this access
point are the neighbors, and that fishing at this site should be restricted. Hickey indicated it is her belief
the people who utilize this access point will respect Lisa Mullin’s privacy, and inquired what will
happen to Mullin’s well and deck and other structures if this site were turned into a natural area.
Rich Walter. 4470 Forest Lake Landing, staled the issue for him is the suitability of this access point.
Walter stated in order to make the Forest Lake Landing access point a suitable, legal, and liability-free
PAGES
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday, October 22.2001
7:00o’clocb p.ai.
(04 - Forest Lake Laadiag, Coatiaaed)
Commission are very minimal, and recommended the parking issue be further discussed.
GafTron stated currently no parking is allowed on the street in this area. Oaffron stated the turnaround
was created to enable people to turn around if they missed seeing the dead<end sign.
White stated in his view the City will need to delineate the lake access point in some way. and that
the Mullin's well will also need to be addressed. White recommended should the well ever be replaced,
the well be relocated on Mullin’s property.
Sansevere commented in his view the City needs to take some steps in order to help protect Mullin’s
right to privacy.
Nygard stated to his know ledge the City Council has not suggested that the City will be spending a
significant amount of taxpayer money to improve this site. Nygard stated the issue of security has been
raised numerous times, and if that logic were to be applied, the City would need to close down every
other lake access point because there will be people using the lake access point that are not always
known to everyone in the immediate area.
Nygard stated he is still in favor of passive use for this access point, noting he is in favor of the
recommendation by the Park Commission with the inclusion of fishing.
Flint commented he has always viewed this os a neighborhood access to the lake, and would be in favor
of keeping it open. Flint stat^ one of the important issues to address is distinguishing between the
Mullin’s property and the pathway down to the lakeshore. Flint indicated he is in favor of the Class I
classification recommended by the Park Commission, with Ashing being restricted.
Saascs-erc moved. White accoaded, to approve a Class 1 daaaillcaikM for the Forest Lake laad ia g, with
the foiiowiag uses beiag allowed at thU site: Pedcstriaa access to the lake aad laaachiag caaocs aad
other sauM boats aot reqairiag a trsfler, with the aad trstaarl ia g ao ihhia g orswhaadag will be aBowed
at this site, VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0,
Flint inquired whether the City Council wanted to address the location of the pathway and whether steps
should be installed at this site.
It was the consensus of the City Council to refer this matter back to the Park Commission for their
recommendation on those two items.
(Recess taken at 8:43 p.m. to 8:53 p.ro.)
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
•(#5) REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER S, 2001
White moved, Saaseverc seconded, to approve the minates of the Ref alar City CoaacU Meeting of
October 8,2001, as snbmiCted. VO*E: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Paaline Boaebard, Representative
Bouchard reported the Park Commission has been continuing to receive some donations from the local
residents in the City, noting one resident has planted some daffodils in the Navarre Pork end the
Narrows Saloon Im donated the proceeds from a golf tournament held at the end of the September.
In addition. Barb Wolf with Lutheran Aid has also donated two benches for the Seven Nations ParL
Bouchard stated the Park Commission has not yet received a response back from the MS Society
regarding their request for possible funding of a drinking fountain at the Navarre Park.
The Park Commission has been approached by a local resident interested in donating money or
equipment towards the building of a skate board park on park property. Bouchard stated the Park
Commission feels a dedicated skate board park would be frequently used and that the Cry stal Bay Park
would be a good location for this ty pe of facility, especially if a portion of the road in that area is
vacated.
Bouchard indicated the Park Commission does have concerns regarding the funding of the porks in tlic
year 2002. and would like to have a work session w ith the Council to discuss this issue. Bouchard
stated the Park Commission would like the Council to consider possibly allocating any monies received
from the cellular telephone antenna tower to the Park Fund.
Flint noted the City Council did not approve a cell tower in that area.
Bouchard commented the City of Orono is rich in parkland, but the City is far behind in making any
type of improvements to these parks to enable the local residents to enjoy these areas. Bouchard noted
the City of Minnetonka has approved a multi-million dollar referendum to fund their parks and open
spaces.
Bouchard inquired whether the letter to the residents near the French Creek Preserve has been
sent out. Bouchard noted this item has been discussed for a couple of months now. Bouchard noted a
sign has recently been posted saying dogs must be on a leash, which is different from the Pork
Commission recommendation requesting that no dogs be •Mowed in this area at all.
Flint suggested Public Works Director Greg Gappa be contacted regarding the status of the letter.
Moorse stated it was his understanding it was also mentioned in the City newsletter.
Lili McMillan, LMCD, commented the French Creek Preserve is a wonderful area for bird watching,
w ith eight to nine different species of birds having been spotted in this park. McMillan concurred that
no dogs should be allowed at all in this area.
PAGE II
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mraday, October 22.2001
7:00 o'clock p.«.
(Pork Commission Commeots* Continued)
While commented there are certain times of the year as uell when people should be restricted from
walking through this area. Wliite noted Hennepin County does limit access to certain areas of its parks
at difTerent times of the >ear.
Bouchard stated the Park Commission also discussed the possibility of developing a fenced in dog park
at one of the area parks, with Saga Hill being suggested as a good location due to the availability of
ample parking and the amount of land available at this site.
San severe inquired how many acres the Park Commission wos considering converting into a dog park.
Bouchard staled the Pork Commission did not discuss the specifics of a dog park, but that in her view
perhaps four to five acres would be appropriate.
Sanseverc inquired when the Park Commission could c.xpcci to receive the proceeds from the golf
tournament.
Bouchard staled at this time she is unsure how much was raised and when the money would be given to
the Park Fund. Bouchard commented the I.urton property would also be another possible site for a dog
park.
Moorse indicated if the Council wants to prohibit dogs from City parks, it would need to adopt an
ordinance with this restriction.
PLANNING CO.MMISSION CUM.MENTS - BiU Stoddard. RepresenUth c
Stoddard stated he would be available at tonight's meeting to answer any questions the Council may
have.
LMCD REPORT - Uli McMillan
McMillan stated the Council should have rcceiscd a copy of the propi>sed LMCD ordinance prohibiting
the use of motorired watercraft on three of the creeks flowing into Lake Minnetonka. McMillan stated
the LMCD has had a concern for the past several years regarding marginal lakesho.e being developed.
McMillan stated the ordinance is designed to help minimize the environmental impact in these sensitive
waters, to preserve passive areas of recreation on the lake, and to protect these areas from the pressure
of added development/boat storage. McMillan stated the LMCD did create a Wetlands Task Force
approximately one year ago to look at these issues, with this ordinance being a product of their review ,
lite committee determined that it would be appropriate to focus their attention on the creeks first to help
improve the water quality going into Lake Minnetonka.
McMillan stated she is looking for some input from the Council on this ordinance. McMillan suggested
the City send u memorandum out to the affected landowners inv iting them to attend the next LMCD
meeting.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o ’clock iMB.
(LMCD Report, Coatianed)
FlinI noted the City docs not have Jurisdiction over this matter, and suggested McMillan contact former
mayor Gabriel Jabbour for his input.
Nygard staled in his view this issue is worth looking into by the LMCD.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Hollander. 200 Hollander Road, requested the City Council consider installing some American
Flags somewhere in Navarre, noting at the present time there are no American Flags flying in this area.
FlinI staled the only location where the City would be able to fly a flag would be at the Navarre l*ark.
While commented the merchants in this area could also fly the American Flag if they so desire.
Hollander suggested the City consider flying the flag on some of the light posts in this area.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
«(«6) IV2600 BRIAN KERBER, 740 ORCHARD PARK ROAD - AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE
APPROVAL
Wkitc moved, Saascverc seconded, to approve the anwadmeal to the variance to pcrmil conslrvction of
a new garage rather than relocating the eibting garage for Brian Kerber,
740 Orchard Park Road. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
(«7) M640/41 DUNBAR DEVELOPMENT, INC„ 2060 WA YZATA BOULEV'ARD - FINAL PI.AN
APPROVAL RESOLUTION NOS. 4703,4704. AND 4705; ORDINANCE NO. 207,
SECOND SERIES
Mike Pagh. Representative of Dunbar Development, appeared.
Gaffron suied the Council on October 8*^ reviewed the Final plans for this project, with the City's
landscape planner since then also hav ing reviewed the landscape plan. The City 's landscape consultant
did find the plan acceptable for this area. Gaffron noted the Council also rev iewed the deferred fees
situation and concluded that the deferrals would be recouped through the last five years of TIF proceeds.
Gaffron stated the Watershed District hiSs indicated this item w ill be on their November 8*^ agenda.
The City has also been informed the issues relating to Mu/DOT have been resolved and that the
Metropolitan Council will be approving the City's Comprehensive Plan at their October 24*^ meeting.
Staff is recommending that any approval given by the Council tonight be conditioned upon receipt by
the City that all the other agencies involved in this application have given their approval to the project.
PAGE 13
JMmi.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday, October 22.2001
7:00 o*clock p.in«
(02640/41 Dunbar Drvelopncnt, Continued)
GafTron stated the documents before the Council include the resolution for preliminary plat approval; a
resolution approving the general development plan and final plat; the PUD 2 A agreement for the ofTice
building; the PUD 2B agreement for the senior housing facility; the rezoning ordinance; and the
development agreement relating to Orono Woods ApaiUnents.
GafTron noted Steve Rosholt. Anomey-at-Law, is present at tonight’s meeting in order to answer any
questions relating to the development agreement.
Flint inquired if the bonds arc not sold, how the City w ould protect itself and go back to status quo.
Rosholt stated the answer to Flint’s question is two-fold, with the first part relating to approval of all the
zoning issues. Rosholt stated the Council could elect to make those approvals subject to the successful
sale of the bonds. The second issue before the Council relates to approval of the TIF District, which
could also be made subject to the successful sale of the bonds.
Flint stated he would like the City to return to status quo if there is not a successful sale of the bonds.
Flint commented the developer would be required to come back to the City if he elects to use a different
form of financing on this project. Flint inquired if the City approves the rezoning, whether that w ould
be a problem if the project does not go forward.
Rosholt slated the City could make it subject to the developer obtaining successful financing of the
project within a certain period of time.
Tom Barrett. City Ailomey, slated the City has the ability to rezone the property’ should the project not
be completed.
Flint inquired w hat document covers the management of the units.
Rosholt stated that would be covered in the ground lease agreement.
GafTron stated the Orono preference would be covered in Section 4.4. non-discrimination restrictions on
use.
While moved, Sanscverc seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4703, a
Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Property Located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard.
VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
White moved, Nygard sccoaded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4764, a
Resolution Granting General Dcvelomenl Plan Approval for Planned Unit DcvcIopoMat No. 2 for
Orono Ambar, L.L.C., aad Approviag the Plat of Orono Ambar. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.in.
(M2640/41 Dunbar Development, Continued)
White moved, Sanseverc leconded, to approve the Planned Unit Development No. 2A
Agreement for Orono Ambar Ollke Building, and to approve the Planned Unit Development
No. 2B Agreement for Orono Woods Apartments, as amended October Ut*^.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
White moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 207,2'*’ SERIES, an
Ordinance Amending the Mnnkipal Code of Orono and Asnending the Ofllcial Zoning Map by
Rexoniag Property Withia Ontlot F. Sugar Woods, Hennepin Connty, Minnesota, from B-1 Retail Saks
Bnsineas District to B-4 Highway Commercial District or RPUD Reiidfntial Planned Unit Development
District and Adding Sectioa I0.S3 Snbdivlsioa 9 Regarding Planned Unit
Dcvelopmcal No. 2. VOTE: Ayes 4, Na>o 0.
White moved, Sansev ere seconded, to approve the Development Agreement and to approve and adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 4705, a Resolution Approving Issuance of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds and
Authorizing Eiccutioa of Bond Documents and Development Agreement.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
•(00) itOI-2707 ROB EDDINGTON AND MARK LARSON. HILL STREET - VACATION -
RESOLUTION NO. 4706
White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4707, a
Rcaolution Vacating a Portion of an Unimproved Street Within the Plat of Bayiide Addition to Lake
Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for Rob Eddington and Mark Larson,
28SandJlSCrestview Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*(«9) hOl-2710 DONALD AND JOANNE DAVIDSON, 568 KEENE AVENUE - VARIANCES
White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a
Resolution granting variances to permit the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot
for the property located at 568 Keene Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(ttlO) hOI-2714 FREDERICK PUZAK, 1340 BALDUR PARK ROAD - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO.
Fred Pu2ak Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on the property
located at 1340 Baldur Park Road, which is located at the end of the Baldur Park peninsula. The
Applicant is proposing to remove the e.xisting residence and construct a new residence. Because the lot
is located on o peninsula, 79 percent of the lot is located w ithin 75 feet of the lakeshore.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday, October 22,2001
7:00 o*ck>ck p.ai.
(#01-2714 Fred Puzak, Conlinacd)
Variances are required co allow the new building to encroach within 48 feet of the lakeshore, which is
approximately the same setback as the existing structure, and to allow hardcover w ithin 75 feet of the
lAeshore. A variance to lot area is also required. This property consists of 0.495 acre, w ith the
minimum lot area being 0.5 acre.
The Planning Commission had recommended approval of this application by a vote of 7 to 0 for the
variances subject to the condition that the property owner verify cither confonning septic sites or
connection to City sewer be completed. The lot is not immediately adjacent to City sewer and the
property owner would be required to extend the sewer line to his property as well os obtain on casement
from the adjoining property owner.
The Applicant did hire Koch's Soil Testing to complete soil testing and design for a septic system. The
tests and design s^ork show that the property can support a maximum three-bedroom system. The
proposed house was proposed to be a fivc-lKdroom home. Matt Bollcrman, On-site S> stems Manager,
has approved the design, but for a house with three bedrooms or less. State Code requires that the
numt^ of bedrooms in a single-family residence be used to determine the required system capacity.
Weinberger staled back in 1970, the lots adjacent to Mr. Pu/ak’s property were commonly owned up
until the early 1970s. The house was required be connected to City sewer at that time. The property
owner did not agree to connect the house or to provide sewer connections to any of the vacant lots.
Eventually the property sold, w ith Lot 30 being sold to Mr. Puzak and the other remaining lots
being purchased by Mr. Franklin.
Weinberger stated the issue before the Council is whether the sewer line should be connected to the
Puzak property. Weinberger stated at the time the lots were sold, an easement for sewer was granted
over Lot 3 1 to Mr. Puzak that provided for private septic tank and drainflcld use
At the time the Planning Commission reviewed this application, a plan showing a five-bedroom
residence was rev iewed. Since then it has been determined that there are not two suitable septic sites to
support a five-bedroom house and that the maximum would be for a three-bedroom system.
Staff recommends approval of the variance application subject to the property owner submitting final
architectural plans converting two of the five proposed bedrooms into another use. The existing non-
compliant septic system would be required to be abandoned per state and local requirements and the
new three-bedroom sy stem installed prior to occupancy of the new house. Weinberger noted any
change to the by out of the house or exterior plan would require a new variance application.
Puzak stated he does have the documentation showing two alternate septic sites for his property, with a
possibility for extending the primary site to accommodate a four-bedroom house. Puzak stated it is not
his primary goal to build a septic system, noting he has attempted in the past to obtain an easement from
the adjoining property owner. Puzak slated in his view the house plan that he has developed is
reasonaole, and requested the Council approve his plan subject to the sewer issue being deferred. Puzak
reauested he be given time to resolve the sewer issue.
PAGE 16
MINITTESOFTHE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Momlay, October 22,2081
7:00 o'clock p.n.
(112640/41 Doobar DcvcIopoMot, Cootioued)
Puzak slated even though the new house is larger than the existing house, the hardcover is being reduced
due to reductions being made to the driveway in the 0-7S’ setback.
Sansevere staled in his view stale law should require that septic systems be based on the size of the
house rather than the number of bedrooms. Sansevere commented the Applicant would not need to
change his design if he simply choose to call one room a den and the other a library.
Gaffron stated state law dcHnes a bedroom as a room with a closet. GafTron stated once the closet is
removed from a room, it is no longer considered a bedroom. Gaffron suted the property owner would
be required to obtain a building permit if he decides later on to add a closest
Puzak stated he has submitted this conceptual design so they could address ih*; hardcover and setback
issues, and that the new design would reflect three or four bedrooms. Puzak stated he would be revising
his plan.
Stoddard slated the new plan is an improvement over what currently exists, noting the Planning
Commission reviewed a plan that depicted five bedrooms. Stoddard stated the plan before the Council
could conceivably be for a seven-bedroom house with some minor alterations. Stoddard stated the main
issue before the Planning Commission was the septic.
William Franklin. 1730 New Brighton Boulevard, slated he is the owner of the property betw een
Puzak's proposed house and the sewer line. Franklin staled in his view there appears to be some
confusion regarding the granting of an easement over his property for a sewer line. Franklin indicated
he would be agreeable to granting the easement as well us shiu^ing in the cost of extending the sew er
line.
Franklin stated they have discussed the possibility of him either selling this property to another
individual or to PuzaL Franklin sUted in either case he would give his consent to a sewer easement
across the property. Franklin stated should his property ever be developed, he would also need to have a
sewer connection to the two lots.
Wliite commented that City sewer would be a benefit given the close proximity of the lakesborc in this
area.
Franklin indicated he was unaware of the fact that Puzak wanted to construct a private septic syatem on
his property.
Puzak noted there was a public hearing held on this matter on October IT*, at which time
Mr. Franklin was not present. Puzak commented he has been anempiing to meet the City's
requirements regarding sewer. Puzak requested the Council address the issues relating to setback and
hardcover tonight, with the sewer issue being deferred.
Franklin stated tliey have discussed the sewer issue within the past month and a half, w itlt Mr. Puzak
not informing him that he was considering building a new septic system.
PAGE 17
t
MINITTESOFTHE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday, October 22,2001
7:00 o*clock p.in.
((12640/41 Duabar Dcvelopmcat, Coaiiaucd)
Flint staled the signiFicant issue before the Council tonight is the sewer, with the majority of the Council
expressing a desire for City sewer in this area. Flint stated he is unsure how the Council can approve a
resolution relating to this application until all the details of the septic issue are resoKed. Flint suggested
Mr. Puzak and Mr. Franklin work together to resolve the details of extending the sewer line and the
costs involved w ith that.
Puzak stated he would like to proceed with his application, and in the meantime tr> to resolve the sewer
issues and redesigning the house.
Nygard stated he has a concern that this house may be out of character with the neighborhood, noting
the proposed house is considerably larger than the other homes in the area. Nygard stated he does not
want to see a neighborhood with a number of larger houses built on small lots.
Franklin stated there are a number of large homes liKatcd across the lake. Franklin stated Mr. Puzak’s
house is somewhat secluded and would not be readily noticed.
Flint inquired what Stoddard meant by his comment that the Planning Commission would have been
harder on him if he w as going to put in sewer.
Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviewed what was presented to them, and at that time had
the understanding that this properly would accommodate a five bedroom house. The Planning
Commission did approve this application on a vote of 7 to 0 based on the information presented to them.
Stoddard stated hod they kitown about the situation with the septic only being able to accommodate a
three bedroom residence, they might have directed the Applicant to reduce the size of the house and
come back before the Planning Commission with a revised plan.
Puzak stated the deck and stairwell could be redesigned. Puzak indicated this plan was intended to be
conceptual. Puzak staled he would request approval for a four bedroom design subject to the sewer
issue being resolved.
Franklin slated in his opinion a septic system is out of the question given the close proximity of the lake
and in light of a connection to City sewer being possible.
Weinberger stated in his opinion the best option would be to have Mr. Puzak connect to City sewer.
W'einberger pointed out should a new plan be submitted, a new variance application would be needed
since the plan is different from what was originally approved.
Flint noted Puzak has indicated he has been working on this project for quite some time and he would
like to have the Council's views on the hardcover and setback issues.
Puzak stated he understands that any major changes to his plan would require a separate variance
application. Puzak stated his architect had suggested to him that he find out what the City would
approve as it relates to hardcover and setback, and then revise his plan accordingly. Puzak indicated he
has been designing this house for several years, and in his opinion if he is required to resolve the septic
issue prior to approval, that would delay his project even longer.
PAGE II
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO Cn r COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday, October 22,2001
7:00 o’clock p.ai.
(02640/41 Donbar De«elopmciit,CoBtlnued)
Franklin commented he has only learned \%ithin tlie past week that Puzak was considering constructing a
septic system rather than hook up to City sewer. Fr^lin suted he can understand the reasons why the
Council would condition approval upon resolution of the septic issue, but questioned w hether a private
septic system would be appropriate in this area since it is located on the lakeshore.
Flint inquired whether Franklin was wilting to grant the easement at no cost to Puzak or whether he
would be charging him for the easement.
Franklin staled he is agreeable to granting the easement to Pu/ak at no cost.
White stated in his opinion the sewer issue should be resolved prior to approval. W'hiie pointed out the
Applicant probably will not be starting his project until the springtime, which would give him time to
resolve il is issue.
Flint indicated he is not w illing to give approval to this application without the septic being icsolved.
Nygard stated he is more likely to approve this application subject to the septic since Franklin is in
attendance at this meeting and is indicating he is agreeable to granting an easement.
Franklin stated he would like to develop his property as well, noting he also is in need of sewer.
Franklin stated it would make sense to share the cost of extending the sewer line.
Flint suggested the Council approve this plan conceptually tonight as it relates to hardcover and
setback, subject to the plan being revised showing four bedrooms and subject to the sewer issues being
resolved. Flint inquired what the proper procedure would be for the Applicant if his plan is
conceptually approved tonight.
Franklin commented the design of the house doesn’t really impact the sewer issue if it is connected to
City sewer.
Flint stated the Council needs to know definitively whether there will be a connection to City sewer
before approving the size of the house.
Puzak stated currently he has five-bedrooms in two dwelling units. Puzak stated the house originally
was built as a duple.x prior to the current zoning. Puzak stated he is w illing to give up one building unit
in order to constnict a new residence as well as relocate the structure off of the lot line.
Flint noted the Applicant is increasing the footprint by SO percent.
Weinberger stated the Council could approve the plan before them tonight or they could allow the
Applicant to make some minor changes to the plan that is before them. Weinberger commented that
many times Applicants will make minor modifications to their house plan after approval is received.
Weinberger stated that does give Puzak some flexibility to redesign his plan, but Staff w ould prefer
some level of assurance bv given that the house plan will not be significantly modified.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mo«day. October 22.2MI
7:Mo*dockp.ni.
(#2640/41 Doobor Dcvriopmciit. Cooliaucd)
Puzrk stated there would be some modiHcations to the footprint within the building envelope to
accommodate the septic design for a four-bedroom house. Puzok stated there also were some other
minor modifications that he would like to make.
Sansevere commented in his view the Council should probably wait until there is some t>pe of
agreement reached on the septic. Sansevere staled he is somewhat confused, noting it was his
understanding that Puzak was attempting to obtain an easement from Franklin for the post fewr years
and was unsuccessful. Sansevere stated Franklin has indicated he is more than willing to grant an
easement. Sansevere commented there appears to be some gaps in what has occurred over the years,
which may not be germane to tonight's meeting. Sansevere questioned whether this application
should be sent back to the Planning Commission once the septic is resolved.
Flint stated the granting of an easement would need to be in writing.
Stoddard suggested the Council consider approving X number of square feel for the residence subject to
the septic being resolved.
Moorsc recommended the Council approve the variances for this specific plan subject to City
sewer being available. Moorse slated had the Applicant known the septic could only handle a three
bedroom house, it is unlikely it would have been designed as a five bedroom house. Moorse staled if
the Applicant would like additional bedrooms, he would be required to hook up to City sewer.
Puzak stated he would like the variances approved tonight so he can proceed with his design process.
White staled the Council w ill probably approve the plan as presented tonight w ith Ciiy sewer or they
will approve a smaller house with private sewer.
Moorse stated the Applicant wouid like to know whether there is an agreement on the Council's part as
to the hardcover amount and the setbacks. Moorsc commented nonrully at this stage of the process the
Council is looking at a final plan w ith all the issues being resolved.
Franklin stated their conversations for the past two years have always related to e.xtending tne sewer
line, with no mention ever being made of installing a private septic system. Franklin stated it was his
understanding that a private septic system would not be allowed in this area.
Sansevere inquired why on easement has not already been granted.
Franklin staled he was told by Puzak that the cost to extend the sewer line and hookup was too high and
that in his opinion he could construct a private septic system for less money.
Puzak stated originally Franklin had wanted $50,000 for a utility easement.
Franklin suted he has never asked for S50,0(H) for an easement.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF TIIK
ORONO cm' COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
<02640/41 Dunbar Development, Continued)
Flint commented lliis t>pe of conversation is non-productive, and recommended the Council set on this
matter.
Flint moved, ^'hite seconded, to approve turdcover in the amount of 1,675 square feet within
75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of tbe lake; to approve hardcover in the amount
of 2,885 square fret in the 75-250’ setback area; to approve the setback variance to allow the
house to be located approximately 47 feet from the lake at lu closest point; and to approve a
variance to lot area, inbject to Staff review and approval of the final house design; and further
subject to extension of City sewer to the property located at 1340 Baldur Park Road.
Pu/ok inquired what would happen if Franklin decides not to give him an easement at no cost.
Flint stated then the Applicant would need to revise his plan to meet the septic available.
Sansevere stated that is one of the reasons why he would piefer this application be sent back to the
Plaiuiing Commission. Sansevere stated he would prefer all these issues be resolved prior to this
application coming before the Council
Puzak stated h's application has been dcla>ed for a number of years because of Uie septic issue,
and that he is attempting to proceed fonsard by obtaining the septic testing. Pu/ak stated the Planning
Commission did recommend approval of his application subject to a connection to City sewer or that a
suitable septic site be shown. Puzak stated he has demonstrated that a suitable septic site is available,
but that his house plan would need to he modified if he utilizes private septic.
Franklii. commented that it is his belief the Planning Commission was led to believe that he would not
grant Puzak an easement for the sewer, which is not the case.
Puzak stated if Franklin does not grant an easement w ithin the nc.xt two weeks, he would like to
continue with his proposal to redesign his house based on the variances granted tonight.
Sansevere staled he would oe required to come back before the Council if he decides not to hook up to
City sewer.
Flint noted Franklin has indicated a couple of times on the record that he is w illing to grant an easement
at no cost to Pu/ak.
Puzak commentc ' that Franklin has indicated he would like to construct townhomes on his property.
Franklin stated he heS spoken with Weinberger on what his property could accommodate. Franklin
stated he has been informed he can construct two houses on these lots, which would require two sewer
connections. Franklin staled the sewer would be divided three wayx.
Tom Barrett. City Attorney, recommended if the motion is approved, that City Staff provide findings to
support the conclusion, w ith the Council voting on the findings at the next City Council meeting.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moa^ay, October 22.2001
7:00 o*dock p.ai.
((12640/41 DaBbarDoriopoMaLCooliaacd)
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 3. Nays 1. Saoscverc Opposed.
Pu/ak staled as far as the design of the house is concerned. Item No. 3 in StafTs Report indicates
that any changes to the approved plan would require a new variance application. Puzak requested that
Item 3 be clarified to read as follows: **any major amendment to the site sketch which would increase
hardcover or increase lakeshore setback shall require a new variance application*'.
Weinberger staled the language included in the motion subject to Staff review and approval would
give Staff llie opportunity to do that. Weinberger staled if StafT feels the revised house plan is bevorid
Council's approval, they would bring that application back before the Council.
Flint suggested the Applicant work with Staff on drafting a resolution for Council approval.
Puzxik inquired what would happen if an easement is not obtained from Franklin.
Saiisevcrc staled he would then need to come back to the Council with his house design and a workable
septic system design.
Nygard stated this application would not be finally approved until the next Council meeting, so if there
are changes that have occurred, the Applicant can address them at tlic ne.xi meeting.
Flint slated the application was not in a form that could be finalized and approved tonight.
Franklin inquired what steps he would need to follow in order to grant an casement.
Weinberger slated they would need to determine the appropriate location where the sewer line would
enter the property and a legal description, along with Franklin's signature prosiding an casement to the
public.
Gaffron stated Staff does have standard language for an casement, but someone will need to develop an
easement description, which is the most time-consuming and difficult part of granting an easement.
Fuzak inquired how long that process would take.
Gaffron stated that really is not up to the City to determine.
Tom Kellogg. City Engineer, commented that things might have changed from when the feasibility
report was completed on this area. Kellogg indicated at the time the feasibility report was done, it was
assumed the alignment would follow the driveway, which may not be the case currently. Kellogg stated
to his recollection the driveway was located on thie higher side of the peninsula, with the most logical
place for the sewer line being on the low side. Kellogg recommended someone review the property to
determine where the sewer line should go and what type of system will be utilized m this area.
Franklin stated he docs have an architect and builder involved in his project now, and in his view
the location of the easement could be resolved fairly quickly.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.n.
(tt2640/4l Dunbar Development, Continued)
Flint recommended the Applicant rcMilve the septic issues before coming back before the Council with
a new proposal.
White recommended the Applicant speak w ith Staff to answer any questions he may have. White
suited the Council did approve the variances the Applicant was requesting.
(«ll) #01.2718 AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15
RELATING TO FENCE STANDARDS
Flint recommended this item be tabled to the next Council meeting to allowr the Council members to
adequately give input regarding this amendment
Gaffron agreed that perhaps this item should be tabled.
Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to table Application #01>2718. Amendment to Zoning Code Section
10.03, Subdivblon 15 Relating to Fence Sta^ards. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
*(#12) #01-2719 JODI AND DAVID DALVEY, 1520 BOHN'S POINT ROAD - VARIANCE -
HF.SOLUT10N NO. 4708
White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4708, a
Resolutiou granting variances to permit new residential construction on a lot that is
102 feet wide where 140 feet is required and to permit an accessory structure on a lot w ithout a principal
structure for the property locat^ at 1520 Bohn's Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*(#13) #01-2720 CRAIG AND BEV MILLER, 1325 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE -
RESOLUTION NO. 4709
WMte moved. Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4709. a
Resolntion granting variances to permit new residential construction on a lot that te
130 feet wide where 140 feet b required and to permit an accesso ry structnre on a lot without a principal
structure for the property kicat^ at 1325 Shoreline Drive- VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*(#14) #01-2721 WALTER HOLZER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - VARIANCE -
RESOLUTION NO. 4710
While moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLirflON NO. 4710, a
Resolution granting variances to permit new residential construction on a lot that b 100 feel wide where
140 feel b required and to permit two accessory structures on a lot without a principal
structure for the property located at 1130 North Shore Drive West. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MoMlay. October 22,2MI
7:M o'clock p.H.
*(«15) «01-2723 BREWER CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, 3800 SHORELINE DRIVE -
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - RESOLUTION NO. 4711
White moved, Sanaevere aecoaded, to approve aad adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4711, a
Rcsolutioa graatini approval of a commercial site plaa for the property located at
3800 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*(»I6) h0I-272S ROBERT IIOWELI.S. 1423 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO. 4712
While moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4712, a
Resoktlioa grantiaf variances to permit new raideotial comtraction OB a lot that b 101 feet wide at the
shoreline aad 106 feet wide at the 75* setback where 140 Ret b reqaired aad to permit an accessory
stroctare on a lot wilhoat a principal alracturc for the property located at
1423 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nay* 0.
*(«I7) #01.2727 MARY AND JOE KI.NG, 142 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE - VARIANCE-
RESOLUTION NO. 4713
White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4713, a
Resolution granting variances to permit new residential construction on a lot that U
29,250 square feel in area where 43,560 square feel b required for the property located at
142 Chevy Chase. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
•(#18) #01-2728 WILLIAM AND LAURA STODDARD. 4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -
VARIANCF.S AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4714
While amved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLirnON NO. 4714, a
Resolation graaling v ariances to permit an accessory building to remain on the property during the
construction ofa new principal building and to permit hardcover within th.* 9-75’ setback,
and to grant a conditional use permit to permit a "plumbing in accessory buildibf - CUP", aad
variances to permit the CUP for a building 6* from the side lot line and 16* from tlie platted street
properly line for the property located at 4365 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#19) AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL REGULATIONS - ORDINANCE no. 208.2'“ SERlEiT
GafTron staled the Council at :heir last meeting had directed Stuff to draft ordinance amendments
requiring a Kennel License for five or more cats. GafTron staled some minor adjustments have been
made to the existing ordinance to accomplish that purpose.
Gaffion noted the CSO, in conjunction with other members of the Police Department, have indicated a
more comprehensive amendment is needed to thoroughly update the Dog Regulation and Licensing
Section. Staff is anticipating presenting that amendment to the Council sometime in January.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(IV19- Amcodmcnl to Animol Regulations, Continued)
Sansevere moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 208, Second
Series, an Ordinance Amending the Orono Municipal Code, Section 5J6 ‘^Kennels*’ and
Section 9.12, **Dog Regulation and Licensing" to Include Regulations Requiring Kennel
Licensing for Cats.
John Hollander. 200 Hollander Road, staled there are some contradictions within the ordinance.
Hollander stated he is in favor of doing something with the ordinance, but in his view all the changes
should be made at one lime. Hollander stated there are presently no dermitions relating to the cats and
so forth in this ordinance.
Hollander stated he also has some objections to the ordinance. Hollander stated accessory residential
use is mentioned, which is unclear. Hollander stated when Holly Acre Subdivision Third was
completed, there was an c.xisting garage and kennel area, which was approved by the Council in 1987,
for the purpose of housing cats and dogs.
Hollander stated he also has wimc concerns regarding the ordinance if it is intended to refrain him from
keeping any cats, which would be a violation of law. Hollander stated the language in Section 3.
Subdivision 4. which deals w ith kennel licenses, cannot be made retroactive to apply to himself since
that too would be a violation of Slate Statute.
Hollander stated he also has concerns w ith the proposed amendment because of its vagueness,
and recommen ted Stall look at the Animal Companion Welfare Act, which is more specific. I lollandcr
indicated he w ould like the City to consider adopting that ordinance as a part of this, w hich in his view
would be very beneficial. Hollander suggested the amendment to the zoning code be tabled to allow
Staff time to review the State Ordinance. Hollander stated in its present form he would object to the
ordinance.
Flint slated he did review the proposed document very carefully earlier today, and in his opinion the
ordinance will work. Flint stated the proposed ordinance does accomplish what the City wants to
achieve, which is to regulate the number of animals that can be housed on any one properly. Flint
acknowledged that not every situation is completely spelled out in the ordinance, b^use whenever an
animal is brought in. the Police Department works with the person to determine whether that animal is
being appropriately cared for and whether it is a nuisance. Hint commented there are a number of
issues that are taken into account every time an animal is brought in. Flint stated those types of issues
are usuall> not built into the ordinance since it would result in an ordinance that is very restrictive.
Flint pointed out Staff would like to work with the Police Department over the ne.\t couple of months
on developing a more comprehensive ordinance. Flint commented those arc not reasons for the Council
not to approve this amendment.
Hollander noted he did request a copy of the ordinance be sent to him as soon os it was available,
which was never done. Hollander stated the first opportunity he had to review the document was at
tonight ’s meeting. Hollander stated he is entitled under law to have an attorney review the proposed
ordinance, which was denied to him in this case.
PAGE 2S
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moaday* October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.in.
(019 - Ameadmeof to Aoinal Rcfulations, Cootlaocd)
Sanscvcrc pointed out the ofdinance berore the Council tonight is not specifically geared towards
John Hollander. Sansevere staled the ordinance applies to all the residents of Orono.
Flint commented if there are errors in the document, those can be corrected after-the-fact. Flint stated
Hollander is welcome to submit his suggestions concerning this ordinance.
Hollander reiterated he did request that a copy of the ordinance be sent to him prior to tonight’s
meeting, which was not done. Hollander stated he does have a rigtil to review the document prior to ihu
meeting since it docs affect him.
Flint stated the Council is going to vote on the motion now.
Hollander reiterated he is opposed to the amendment since in his view it is directed at him personally.
Sansevere inquired whether people who currently have five or more cats on their property would be
grand-fathered in under this ordinance.
Tom Barrett staled there is no grand-fathering in under this ordinance.
Sansevere stated Hollander would need to come to the City and request a kennel license if he w ishes to
keep five or mure cats on his property.
Hollander stated he is in disagreement witli that and that this ordinance cannot be made retroactive.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ay« 4, Nb >t 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Flint stated the City does need to infonn the residenu of the area that the City of Orono’s position has
been mischaracterized by the Ma>or of Minnetonka Beach regarding the closure of local streets in
Minnetonka Beach serving Orono residents. Flint staled the Mayor of Minnetonka Beach has told
people that the Orono City Council and the Chief of Police do not object to closing off certain roadways
in Minnetonka Beach, which is in error. Flint noted the City has attempted to meet with the Mayor of
Minnetonka Beach on several occasions to discuss the trail issue and was turned down.
Flint recommended a letter be sent to the Mayor along with each individual Council member of
Minnetonka Beach.
Moorse stated Staff and other representatives were ready to meet with the Ma>or of Minnetonka Beach,
who declined their invitation. Moorse noted the Police Chief did send the Ma>t)r of Minnetonka Br sch
a letter clarify ing her position on the closure of the roadways.
PAGE 26
J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MoBday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.Bt.
(Mayor/CoBBcll Report, CoatiBaed)
While Biovcd, Nytard sccoadcd, lo lead the kllcr that has bcea approved prcvioasly to the
Bcwspaper, aad lo scad a foUow-ap Idler to the Mayor aad Coaacil Mcaibcra of Miaacloaka
Beach iadicaling that the City of Oroao has bcea available lo meet with represcalalives of
Miaaetoaka Beach, which did Bot occur. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Nygard noted some citizens of Minnetonka Beach are considering putting a petition together indicating
their support of the Dakota Rail to Trail project. Nygard encouraged the residents of this area to contact
their local City Councils and inform them of ihcir position on this matter.
PUBLIC SERV ICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
•((120) REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT - 2M0 LIFT STATION PROJECT
White moved, Saasevere sccoadcd, to approve Request for Fiaal Paymcol, 2000 Lift Station
Project to Ford Coaslraclioa, lac., in the amoant of Si 5,408J6. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
•(«!) EXTENSION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTRONIC PROPERTY DATABASE
AGREEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 4715
White moved, Sanseverc seconded, lo approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4715, a
Resolution Authorizing the City of Orono to Esecute an Agreement for the Use of
Heanepin County's Property Information Data Base. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#22) SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING STORMWATER ITILITY
Moorse recommended the Council set a stonn water utility fee. which would be included in the notice
going out to the residents.
It was the consensus of the City Council to establish a Sv.OO storm water utility fee per quarter based
upon the recommendation of the City Administrator and City Engineer.
The City Council directed City StalTlo schedule a public hearing on the stormwater utility for
Tuesday. November 13,2001, at 7:00 p.m.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
•(#2J) AMEND PROGRAM FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65
YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER - RESOLUTION NO. 4716
While moved, Saasevere seconded, lo approve aad adopi RESOLUTION NO. 4716, a
Resolnlioa Ameadiag the Program for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons
65 Years of Age or Older, aad to Approve the Update of the Income GaideliBca oa Ibe
Deferral AppUcatioa. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mowlay, October 22,2001
7:00 o*dock p.n.
*(«4) RENEWAL OF THE CITY’S PARTICIPATION IN THE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES
PROGRAM - RESOLUTION NO. 4717
While ■MTved, SoMCvcrc eccoMicd, to approve aad adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4717, a
RciolatioB Ekctiaf to Coatteae PaiUdpottoa la the Local Hoariac laccatlva Accoaat Prograai Uader
the MctropoUtaa livable ConaiBaitice Act VOTE: Aycs4,Nay»0.
*(#25) CERTinCATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES AND GENERAL SERVICE FEES
RESOLUTION NO. 4710
Whiled aM»vcd, Saaecverc eccoaded, to approve aad adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4718, a
Rceolatioa for the ColkctioB of Deliaqoeat 2001 Sewer aad Water Utility Service Cbarfcs,
RccycUag Progra Feet, Aaaaal Service Charges for the Oa^te Sewage Trcatmcat (SEPTIC)
laspectioa Prograai, aad Geaeral Service Feet. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*(N26) REPLACEMENT OF ANALOG TELEPHONE LINES WITH T-1 LINE
White BMivcd, Saaievere eecoaded, to approve the parchase of cc|aipnieat aad lastallatloa of a PRIT-I
liac to provide aioathly telephoae service to the City at a cost of S3,627.07, with a
credit of S3,000 towards moathly service charges; aad to aothortie the City Admlaistrator to
siga a Hve year service agrceaieat with a moathly service charge of S6S2.75.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Barrett requested an Executive Session with the City Council.
•(#27) LICENSES
There were no licenses.
*(#28) BILLS
White BM>ved, Saasevere secoaded, to approve pa3raMat of the All Faads Accoaat
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
;«•
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
hra meeting
MowUy, October 22,2001
CO»f4»ri| »»cptinQ
NOV 1 3 2001
CLLYOFL i**!
ROLL CALL
HRA Conmiission met on the above-mentioned date with the following Commissioners present:
Vice-Chair Richard Flint, Commissioners Bob Sansevere, Jim White, and Jay Nygard. Chair
Barbara Peterson v as absent. Representing City Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse,
City Attorney Tom Barrett, Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger,
City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Vice-Chair Flint called the meeting to order at 11:05 pjn.
CONSENT AGENDA
None
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
(«1) RcaoIntioB Anlboriiing the Eiccntion and Dcthrry of a ffrrrlopmfnt AgrecMeal for
the Dnnbnr Senior Honiinf Development
Sansevere moved, Nyfard seconded, to approve and adopt HRA RESOLUTION NO. 2M1-03, a
Rcsointioa Anthoriiiag the Eiccntioa and Delivery of a Development Agreement,
Including a Ground Lease and a TIF Note. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
ADJOURNMENT
While moved, Nygard sccMdcd, to adjonm the HRA meeting at 11:07 p.i
ATTEST:
Lin Vee, City Clerk Rkhard FUnt, Vice-Chair
i«eenNG
NOV 1 5 2001
CirrOFonuivu '
Minutes of the Council Workscssioo held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1,2001.
Members Present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council members Richard Plint, Jay Nygard, Bob
Sansevcrc. and Jim While, City Administrator Ron Moorsc, Police Chief Stephany Good, and City
Planning Director, Mike GafTron.
Others Present: Gabriel Jabbour and Jim Murphy.
Call to Order: Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.
1 . Gabriel Jabbour and Jim Murphy updated the Council regarding progress on developing a budget
and schematic design for the Long Lake Fire Station.
2. The Council discussed the use of the three acres of the 340 Willow Drive site that will remain
after the Long Lake fire station is constructed. It was the consensus of the Council to preserve the
remaining land for a senior housing use vs. moving the homes acquired by Mn/DOT on Harrington
Drive in Long Lake to the site.
3. Police Chief Stephany Good provided the Council with a Police Department update. ChicfGood
has led the Department through a strategic planning process that has identified strengths and
weaknesses in the Department, as well as action steps to build on the strengths and address the
weaknesses. One of the action steps was to hire a consultant to a.ssist in resolving conflicts in the
department that were getting in the way of the department moving forward. Chief Good is currently
following through on implementing the recommendations of the consultant. Chief Good reported
that both morale and productivity have increased substantially.
4. Moorse recommended that Officer Bruce Anderson, who was in a co.. J position prior to the
Police Department reorganization of mid-2000, be provided with a lump sum payment equivalent
to the 3% corporal differential pay he would have received if he would have continued to serve as
corporal for the remainder of 2000. The Council agreed with the recommendation.
5. Moorse recommended on interim moratorium be put in place regarding telecommunications
facilities and structures to enable a study of options regarding telecommunications facilities and
structures in the city’s residential districts. The Council directed Moorse to place a moratorium
ordinance on the next Council meeting agenda.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
^ 4400 0 4000 Q 3«M"*g 3»0 0 2^ p 2400 Q 2000 j iooo J tibO 400
City of Orono, Minnesota
Street Numbering lixlex Map nhTIS^S. a?
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBF U 13,2001,7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 27S0 KELLEY PARKWAY, OROr-U, MINNESOTA
(*) Astcfiik items an considered to be nwline items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council
under the Consent Item* on the afcnda. Memos rcfardtng each of the Agenda items ate avaibble in the
Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet.
ttepTiNQ
NOV I 5 2001
cn r ur UHONO
•V. imnnM
:r.:r atrr:s:
M»T. r. me
M M.IVM
ROLL CALL
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Appiovc/Amend
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M.
2. Stonnwiter Utility - Resolution
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
* 3. Regular CouiKil Mectuig orOctober 22.2001
* 4. HRA Meeting orOctober 22.2001
* S. Council Work Session ofNovr jber 1.2001
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS • Pal Wolfe. RepresenUlive
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • Jeanne Mabusth. Representative
PUBLIC COMMENTS • (Limit 5 Minuica Per Person)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
* 6. i0l-26S9 Mandeep Sodhi. 40S0 Dahl Road • AAer-ihe«Fact Variances and Conditional Use
Permit • Resolution
7. iOI-2711 Western Steel Erection. 26S7 Wayzata Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit
8. 401-2714 Frederick Puzak. 1340 Baldur Park Road • Variances - Resolution
* 9. 401-2716 Brenshell Development, 2200 Shadywood Road - Variances • Resolution
10. 401-2718 Amendment to Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 13 Relating to Fence
Standards
* II. 401-2726 Erotas Building Corporation. 450 Orono Orchard Road • After-the-Fact Variances •
Resolution
* 12. 401-2736 Loni. Lake Fire Station, 340 Willow Drive North - Conditional Use Permit - Public
Hearing - Continuation to November 26 Meeting
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
13. Demolition of Stiuctures at 340 Willow Drive North and 3770 Shoreline Drive
14. Golf Course Equipment Purchase
15. No Dogs in Parks Where Posted - Ordinance
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 13.2001, 7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 27S0 KELLEY PARKWAY. ORONO, MINNESOTA
CITY ADMLNISTRATOR'S REPORT
16. Purchase of Voting Booths
17. Maintenance Agreement for Tekpbone System
18. 2000 - 2020 Community Managnnent Plu • Final Adoption - Resolution
19. Long Lake Fire Station Contribution
20. Tax Forfeit Parcel, PID 04-117-23 13 0002 • Resolution
21. Moratorium on Telecommunication Antetmas and ToMcrs - Ordinance
22. Funding for Navarre Home Owncrsliip Program
23. 2002 Non-Union Employee Pay Adjustments and Insurance Contributioru - Resolution
24. Request lo Approve “Working Out-of-Class “ Administrative Sergeant AssigranenI
23. PwksOootekM
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
* 26. UCENSES
Special Event
• 27. niM-s
Applkatioo Dale: 7/19/01
Applkation Deadliae: 11/17/01
aaernNO
NOV 1 3 200.
CITY OF OHOIVO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: Novembers.2001
ITEM NO.: 0
Departmeat Approv al:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Admiaiatrafor Reviewed:Afenda Scelioa:
Zoning
Hem DcacriplioD://OI-2689 Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
After the Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit
Ust or Exhibits
A Resolution
B Site Plan
C Planning Report (October 5,2001)
RevieM of Request The propert) owner had hired a contractor to remove and replace a stairway and
retaining wall on the lakcshore side of the property. In addition to the construction of the retaining wall and
stairwav. some trees and undergrowth were removed. All of the work was done without obtaining a permit.
The Shoreland Ordinance docs not permit ‘Intensive Vegetation Removar within 75* of the shoreline, on
steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone. What would be allowed is limited clearing of shrubs and trees
less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size to provide a v iew to the
water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairwa>s and
landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, pros ided
that the screening of structures as viewed from the water is not substantially reduced (assuming summer leaf-
on conditions).
Any vegetation remov al of trees that are w ithin 75 ’ of the lakeshorc or in a bluff impact zone require a permit
from the City. One large tree that was removed from the property was hollowed out and likely would have
qualified to receive a permit. A condition of permit approval may have been the property owners piant new
vegetation in its place.
TheCity did issue a building permit to allow the property owner to complete the stairway and retaining wall
replacement, with a condi..on the property owner apply for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use
permit to permit the retaining wall replacement within 75* of the lakeshorc. It is not clear how much
excavation was done to lower the stainvay since the grading was completed before Staff was able to visit the
site. Crews stated they did not lower the stairway into the hillside, except some c.xcavation was done below
the steps to level the ground.
I
«0l-2689 Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
Page 2 of2____________
Piag«i— CfMnmffI*"* i^tcoaifdatioa
The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vole of6 to 0 to approve the after-the-fact variances
and conditional use permit to permit replacement of the stairway and to approve the grading and landscaping
plan as submi»*ed subject lu tJiC applicant remove the underlying landscaping fabric and add two ^ditional
hardwood trees that arc native to the area, with at least one located on the hillside to add screening to the
suirway.
Siaff Rceommcndallon
Staff is recommending approval the application based on the conditions noted by the Planning Commission
and listed in the an-irhed resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the resolution approving after-the-fact variances and conditional use permit.
i
vv..,.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION I;
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (I); SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8;
AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19
APPLICATION 801-2689
WHEREAS, Mandccp S. Sodhi and Lcisa L. Sodhi (hcrcinalter "the applicants")
are owners of the property located at 4080 Dahl Road within the Cit> of Orono (hereinafter
"the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 14, Block 1. Pirates Cove. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter
"property"); and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accoidance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
ComniisMon held a public hearing on August 20. 2001 at uhich times all persons desiring to
be heard *onceming this application were gi\en the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a v;uiancc to Municipal
Zoning Cxle Section 10.22, SuMivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (I), and
Section 1 ).55, Subdivision 8 to permit structure and hardcover within 75' of the lakeshorc for
a stainvav and retaining wall; a conditional use permit is required per Municipal Code Section
10.03, Subdivision 19 to replace the retaining wall within the 75’ lakeshore setback and
approval of a landscaping plan to restore vegetation removed on a blulT line and within 75' of
the lakeshore where limited removal is allowed; and
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
1.
2.
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile 801-2689.
The Orono Plarming Commission recommended approval of the application on
September 17. 2001 based on the following findings;
Page 1 of7
The Ciiy of Orono \siis niade aware of vegetation removal ami
replacement of a stairway and retaining wall on the lakeshorc side of the
property. The property owner had purchased the property in 2000 and
hired a contractor to replace the stairssay and retaining walls on the
hillside and to remove the vegetation. The applicant had stated the
vegetation removal was done primarily to remove poison ivy. It was also
determined at least two large and several small trees were removed.
The Shorcland Ordinance docs not permit “Intensive Vegetation Removal"
within 75 ’ of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact
zone. What would be allowed is limited clearing of shrubs and trees less
than 6 inehes in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of
any size to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site
and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings
provided that the screening of structures as % icwcd from the water is not
substantially reduced (assuming summer leaf-on conditions).
Any vegetation removal of trees that are within 75 ’ of the lakeshorc or
in a bluff impact zone require a permit from the City. One large tree
tliat was removed from the properly wa.s hollowed out and likely would
have qualified to receive a permit. A condition of permit appro\aI may
have ^en the property owners plant new vegetation in its place
The City did issue a building permit to allow the property owner to
complete the stairway and retaining wnll replacement, with a condition
the property owner apply for an after-the-fact variance and conditional
U.SC permit to permit the retaining wall replacement within 75' of the
lakeshorc.
In addition to approval of the variancc/CUP the property owner has
requested approval of a restoration plan for the \egetation removed from
the bluff line. Ihe revised landscaping plan also includes maple trees
and an apple tree to be planted on the hillside. In addition to the trees
ivy would be planted on the lower retaining wall to ensure the long term
visibility of the wall is diminished, and other plantings are being added
as under growth on the property.
Page 2 of 7
The lot is only 45’ wide which docs not require more than a few trees
to have full canopy cover on a property when the trees mature At
maluiit) the propo^ installation of 4 trees on and above the hillside
would creat-; the full canopy cover.
A permit was issued for the work completed above the top of bluff line.
Staff can issue permits for land alteration outside of the 75' setback. No
conditional use permit is required if the work outside of the 75' setback
and has less than 500 cubic yards of land alteration. I'he retaining walls
and land alteration that occurred above that line was permitted and the
property owner did receive a land alteration p«*rmit on July 31. 2001.
Based on the City of Orono's topographic maps tlie top of bluff line
would be measured at the 960' contour. That measurement would
indicate the putting green would only encroach about 3' into the 20' bluff
impact zone. The bluff impact zone is the 20' setback from the point at
which the lop of bluff is measured. Based on the survey data that was
completed by the Egan field & Nowak the top of bluff is measured at the
961’ contour. The City’s maps arc very accurate, however they arc
interpolated from aerial photography and con have some slight variations
to site elevations.
Based on the new survey data it has determined a variance is required for
the work above the bluff line. The City Engineer has reviewed the land
alteration and has determined the construction of the putting green and
wall have addressed the issues of drainage and ground cover to not
negatively impact the property or adjacent properties.
The City Council finds ih’t the conditions e.xisting on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances and conditional use permit would not adversely atl'ect
traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring
property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Compr.hensivc Plan of the
City.
Page 3 of 7
J
llw Cii> Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staf!*, comments
by the applicants and the cfrect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hercb\
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56.
Subdivision lo (L) (1). and Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 to permit structure and hardcover
within 75* of the lakeshore for a stainvay and retaining wall; a conditional use permit is
required per Municipal Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 to replace the retaining wall within
the 75* lakeshore setback, and approval of a landscaping plan to restore vegetation removed on
a bluff line and within 75* of the lakeshore where limited removal is allowed subject to the
following conditions:
Ihe final site plan and landscaping plan shall be in confomiance wit'.i the
approvals set forth in tliis resolution and with the plans dated September 20,
2001.
The final site plan shall add 2 hardwood trees, one below the stairway and one
above the stairway to the approved plan final tree location shall be staked
prior to planting, subject to City staff approval.
3.A final building pemiit shall be applied for and issued by the City for the
stairway, retaining walls and landscaping, included with the final permit are the
proposed locations for the two additional trees that are required per condition <<2
of this resolution of the City Council.
All landscaping fabric located within 75* of Ihe lakeshore shall be removed
before June 30. 2002 The City is allowing the fabric to remain in place to
provide erosion protection to the properly following the spr ng weatlier
conditions and to allow adequate time for new vegetation to estaolish on the
hillside.
Page 4 of 7
m
Authorities gnmtcd by this variance and conditional use permit run with the
property not with the applicants, but arc permissive only and must be exercised
by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council
approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 13, 2002).
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.
The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title
of the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the IS** day of November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor
Property Owners
Page 5 of 7
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me on this 13ih day of November.
2001 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation
and said instniment 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. 2001 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal
corporation and sold instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Page 6 of 7
STATE OF MINNUSO'l A
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
personally appeared before me.
who is personally knouTi to me
whose identity I proved on the basis of _______
whos • identity 1 proved on the oath/afiirmation of
a credible wtness
and ulio executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/shc/they executed the
same as his/her/their free act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
.personally appeared before me.
who is personally known to me
whose identity 1 proved on the basis of
whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmaiion of
a credible witness
and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/shothey executed the
same as his/her/their free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 7 of?
,s
i)
i
J V’'y4v1^
f^'^K :i
rjm'
/I®
UiinfiaiKol 4 M«|>W lu'ta
® a.,
I '9^ /•■
^ \¥a
^0 J
13 Xmalkr M«pl« TrtaM/
I * SmJkf M»|»l« 4k 0*k Tron
mMim
Hi
w\§
LEGKND
I 1 - Maple T»^cc
2 - Globe Axborviuc
3 • Day Lilies
4 - Hosta
5 - Weigela
6 - Scotch Pine
7. Lilac
8 - Gold l ingers
9 - Juniper
10 • Burnt Bush
11 - Crab Apple Tree
12-Tulips
13 • Snow on the Mountain
14 • Existing Trees
15-Ivy
A5 Fi-irr
Date of Complete Applicatioo: 7/19/01
Application Deadline: 11/!7«‘01
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, Cit>‘ Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: October 10.2001
SUBJECT: :^0U26S9 Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
ARer-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit
Lakeshore Vegetation Restoration Plan Review
List of ExibiU
A Revised Landscaping Plan
B Property Survey/BlufT Determination
C August 15. 2001 SufT Report
Review- of Application
In late Spring the City of Orono was made aware of vegetation removal and replacement of a
stairway and retaining wall on the lakeshore side of the property. The property owner had purchased
the property- the previous year and hired a contractor to replace the stairway and retaining w-alls on
the hillside and to remove the vegetation. The applicant had stated the vegetation removal was done
primarily to remove poison ivy. It was also determined at least two large and several small trees
were remo ’-ed.
The Shorcland Ordinance docs not permit “Intensive Vegetation Removal" within 75* of the
shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone, \\liat would be allowed is limited
clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees
of any size to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate t*ie
placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and wacreraft access
areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures as viewed from the water
is not substantially reduced assuming summer Icaf-on conditions).
Any vegetation removal of trees that are w ithin 75* of the lakeshore or in a bluff impact zone require
a permit from the City. One large tree that was removed from the property was hollowed out and
likely would have qualified to receive a permit. A condition of permit approval may have been the
property owners plant new vegetation in its place.
The City- did issue a building permit to allow the property owner to complete the stairway and
retaining wall replacement, with a condition the property owner apoly for an after-the-fact variance
and conditional use permit to permit the retaining wall replacement within 75' of the lakeshore. It
is not clear how much excavation was done to lower the stairw*ay since the grading was completed
tOI-26l9.NUnk«pSo*i
4010 Oihl Road
KVI5/0I
Paf( I on
before Staff wus able to visit the site. Cre\^’s stated they did not lower the stairway into the hillside,
except some excavation was done below the steps to level the ground.
The Planning Commission last reviewed this application on August 20, 2001. The Commission
tabled the application citing recent grade changes above the slope that were not reflected on the plan.
The application before the Planning Commission requires discussion of the following issues:
Retaining wall constructioa/rcplacement within the 0»75* setback and vegetation removal on a bluff
and bluff impact zone.
1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) - A'o hardcover or
impervious surface shall be placed located or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary
High Hater Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings, and
lockboxes
0-75* Lot Area = 3,523 s.f
Hardcover = 296 s.f (8.4%)
To permit 86 s.f of hardcover for the retaining wall system replacement along the staii^vay.
Section 1 0.55. Subdiv ision 8 - \o hardcover or structures are permitted within 75' of the
lakeshore
A Conditional Use Permit is »equired per Municipal Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 19 to
replace the retaining wall. Conditional Use Permit review shall include landscaping plans
that screen and break up the unnatural appearance of «uch structures. The intent is to
maintain a natural appearance when viewed from the lake. The revised landscaping plan
includes the additional plantings and l\y will be planted that w ill grow on the retaining wall.
The intent, to provide a complete screening of the wall during the summer, leaf on
conditions.
In addition to approval of the variance/CUP the propert}- owner has requested approval of
a restoration plan for the vegetation removed from the bluff line. The revised landscaping
plan also includes existing trees. 1 maple tree has been removed from the original
landscaping plan. The properly owner has stated because the lot is only 45' wide the trees
will mature and be located too close to one another.
Note in the attached site plan, a pennit was issued for the v ork completed above the top of bluffime.
Staff can issue permits for land alteration outside of the 7:' setback. No conditional use permit is
required if the work outside of the 75* setback is less than 500 cubic yards. The retaining walls and
land alteration that occurred above that line was permineJ and the property owner did receive a land
alteration permit on July 31 ,2001.
5. Land Alteration Above the 75* setback
Based on the City of Orono ’s topographic maps the top of bluff line would be measured at the 960'
contour. That measurement would in^cate the putting green would only encroach about 3' into the
20* bluff impact zone. The bluff impact zone is the 20* setback from the point at which the lop of
■01-2619 MM4(«pSodhi
■OlODaMitiMd
lO/ISOI
P<tc2or3 i
bluff is measured. Based on ihe survey data that was completed by the Egan field & Nowak the top
of bluff is measured at the 961' contour. The City’s maps are very accurate, however they arc
interpolated from aerial photography and can have some slight variations to site elevations.
The type of land alteration that occurred on site docs require the property ow-ner to provide a survey
for review with the variance and CUP application. TIic topography provided by ihe sur\c> or docs
indicate the top of bluff line is actually located about 5' fiuthcr back on the lot. This indicates the
putting green encroaches about 8’ into the bluff impact zone. An afllcr-the-faci variance would be
required in this case for Ihe putting green to permit fill to be deposited in Ihe bluff Impact
zone. (Section 10.56 (J)5h). Staffdid issue a land alteration permit that allowed the property owner
to locate the putting green as shown on the site plan.
Issues for Discussion
1.Provide recommendations regarding the landscaping plan, including the number, species and
location.
2.
3.
Recommendation on the retaining wali/screening.
Recommendation on the size on location of the putting green, which encroaches 8* into the
bluff setback.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the property owner add one additional nardwood tree on the lakeside of the
stairway and one additional tree at the top of the bluff in the center of the property. The two
additional trees will provide additional screening of the stairway and putting green as well as provide
a better root system for long term stabilization of the slope.
Options For Action
1. Recommend approval of the requested variances and CUP with appropriate conditions.
2.Recommend partial approval and define what elements of the plan aren’t approved and that
they should be restored.
Table for more infonnatlon. giving direction to applicant.
Other.
•OI-ZSWMMMfccfSodhi
40t0tMRMd
l(VIS4)l
P^3oT3
r.
IBP«W ''■"V
Landscaping Plan
4080 Dahl Road
Orono, Minnesota
October 5,2001
rk^Srfc-gTii i»i
; "1
y.rd^»IA .&■
I 12 Knulkr MipicTm*
At \ •* ISmjlt<t MifU Jk tliii TtM
■
LKCKNP
I 1 - Maple Tree
2 - Globe Arborvilae
3 - Day Lilies
4 • Hosta
5 - Weigcia
6 - Scotch Pine
7. Lilac
8 - Gold Fingers
9- luniper
10- Burnt Bush
II - Crab Apple Tree
12 -Tulips
13 - Snow on the Mountain
14 -Existing Trees
15 - Ivy
451 i;i:t
iAAic"'"---♦ IIOFMlSdb«.l ■ ^OfJe
B
^ A u«0 lm«) «ilh M««<n. ISSi(p«
»4fa»XI0S«J>«)
Ruling Wtll «>J «<r«
(24 Fed Witk. 4« InAo HigR)
\L'/lr~S.\
i
a
Date of Complete Application: 7/19/01
60 Day Deadline: 9/18/01
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. Cii> Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Adminisirator.Planncr
DATE: August IS.2001
SUBJECT: I -2689 Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
Aftcr-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit
Lokeshore Vegetation Restoration Plan Review
Zoning Dbtrict:
List of Exhibits
LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District
A Application
B Plat Map
C Site Photo
D* Section I0.S6, Subdivision 16 (I) • Regulation of V'egctaiion Alterations
E Definition of Intensive Vettctaiion Clearing
F Propertv Survey
G Appro.\imate Bluff Line Deicmiination
II Landscaping Plan
I Planting Schedule
J Hardcover Calculations
K Hardcover Calculation Worksheet (Entire Lot)
L Property Owners Notification List
Background
III late Spring the City of Orono was made aware of vegetation removal and replacement of a
stairway on the lakeshore side of the property. The property owner had purchased the property the
previous year and hired a contractor to replace the stairway and retaining walls on the hillside and
10 remove the vegetation. The applicant had stated the vegetation removal was done primarily to
remove poison ivy U was also determined at least two large and several small trees were removed.
The Shoreland Ordinance does not permit “Intensive V’egctation Removal" within 75 ’ of the
shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone. Wltat would be allowed is limited
clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees
of any size to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the
placemen: of pennitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and w aercrafi access
areas, and permitted lock bo.xes, provided that the screening of structures as viewed from the water
is not substantially reduced (assuming summer leaf-on conditions).
•Ol-^WSUtia-tp Sodhi
4oaooiiua<Md
tistii
PVloT4
a
Date of Complete Application: 7/I9/0I
60 Day Dcadliae: 9/18/01
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning AdministratorTlanner
DATE: August 15,2001
SUBJECT: <101-2689 Mandeep Sodhi
4080 Dahl Road
Aftcr-ihe-Faci Variances and Conditional Use Permit
Lakeshore Vegetation Restoration Plan Review
Zoning District:
List of Exhibits
LR-IB One Familv Lakeshore Residential District
A Application
B Plat Map
C Site Photo
D> Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (1) • Regulation of Vegetation Alterations
t nefinition of Intensive Vegetation Clearing
F Property Survey
G Approximate BlufTLine Determination
II Landscaping Plan
I Planting Schedule
J Hardcover Calculations
V. Hardcover Calculation Worksheet (Entire Lot)
L Property Owners Notification List
Background
III late Spring the City of Orono was made aware of vegetation removal and replacement of a
stairway on the lakeshore side of the property. The property owner had purchased the property the
previous year and hired a contractor to replace the stairway and retaining walls on the hillside and
to remove the vegetation. The applicant had stated the vegetation removal w’as done primarily to
remove poison ivy U was also determined at least two large and several small trees were removed.
The Shoreland Ordinance does not permit “Intensive Vegetation Removal" within 75' of the
shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone. What would be allowed is limited
clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees
of any size to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to acconunodate the
placement of pennitted stainvays and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and w aercrafi access
areas, and permitted lock bo.xes, provided that the screening of suuciures as viewed from the water
is not substantially reduced (assuming summer leaf-on conditions).
•0i:6l9MW-cpSo*i
4010 DM Hoad
ilSvOI
p^ior4
Any vegetation removal of trees that are within 75' of the lakeshore or in a bluffimpacl zone require
a permit from the City. One large tree that was removed from the property \Nas hollowed out and
likely would have qualified to receive a permit. A condition of permit approval may have been the
property owners plant new vegetation in its place.
The City did Issue a building permit to allow the property owner to complete the stairway and
retaining wall replacement, with a condition the property owner apply for an after-the-fact variance
and conditional use permit to permit the retaining wall replacement within 75' of the lakeshore. It
is not clear how much e.xcavation was done to lower the stairway since the grading was completed
before Staff was able to visit the site. Crews stated they did not lower the stairway into the hillside,
except some e.xcavation was done to level the ground. I he concern of lowering the stairvsay into the
hillside is the small retaining walls on each side of the stairway are then raised to accommodate the
lower steps.
An additional retaining wall was replaced along the lakeshore prior to the permit being issued. The
photo attached os E.xhibit C was taken the day Staff was made aware of the work on the lakeshore.
The photo indicates how much work was completed before a Stop Work Order was issued.
The stairway to the lake is designed at an angle lliat will allow it to be screened from the lake views
once natural vegetation has been restored and to follow the path taken by the previous stairway.
The application requires review ’ of the follow ing variances:
1. Section 10.22, Subdivision I and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (I) - Ao fuirJcover or
Impervious surface shall be placed located or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary
High Hater Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairuavs. lifts, latu ngs. and
lockboxes
0-75' Lot Area = 3,523 s.f.
Hardcover = 296 s.f. (8.4%)
To permit 86 s.f of hardcover for the retaining wall rm replacement along the stairway.
2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 - Xo hardcover or structures are permitted within 75' of the
lakeshore
A Conditional Use Permit is required per Municipal Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 19 to replace
the retaining wall. Conditional Use Permit review shall include landscaping plans that screen and
break up the unnatural appearance of such structures. The intent is to maintain a natural appearance
when viewed from the lake.
In addition to approval of the voriance/CUP the property owner has requested approval of a
restoration plan for the vegetation removed from the bluff line. Home Planning Associates, Inc. has
submitted a planting schedule and plan that would include planting of 2 maple trees, 1 scotch pine,
a crabapplc tree and several small bushes and plants.
t0l-26<4M«Kktp Sodhi
40t0 D^l RMd
115/01
P<tc2of4
The overall landscaping plan would have a garden appearance rather than a natural species shoreline.
The plan could be changed to include some undergrowth species such as day lilies and more junipers.
Eventually the trees would mature and provide tree cover. Until mature growth is in place the phmts
and bushes will need to be in place to help prevent erosion and provide a green ground cover.
Natural regrowth will occur over time and eventually restore the natural appearance the lakeshorc
had prior to removal of the vegetation. The natural restoration would allow the property owner to
remove any vegetation classified as “noxious ” including buckthorn and poison ivy.
The land located above the bluff line has a slow, gradual slope up to the house. Recently the
property owner removed a permanent walk to the lake and eventually will sod the property from the
house to the bluff line The grade has not changed and Staff did not identify trees that had been
removed in this area. Only one large tree was removed close to the house. This tree was hollowed
and outside of any part of the property w hcie tree removal would be prohibited.
The total width of the lot where vegetation was removed is 45*. At the time the trees achieve full
growth they will have the ability to cover most of the lot near the lake. Full natural cover may occur
earlier if 2 or 3 trees arc added to the plan or the crabapple tree is replaced with a tree that will
achieve a maximum height taller than what a crabapple would. A crabapple tree may reach a
maximum height of 10-30 ’ a red maple will reach a maximum height of 60-90*.
Discussion Items
• Staff issued a building permit to allow the stairway to be replaced, including replacing the
retaining walls. The primar>‘ reason is the old had already been removed and there were
concerns about erosion along the hillside.
• The proposed landscaping plan does include some species that may be more natural to the
shoreland areas, howev er should more natural green understory vegetation be part of the
plan?
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval to the concept to allow the vegetation to be restored subject to the
following suggestions and conditions.
1. The proposed plantings shall be in place to create green cover for the slope, however
vegetation around the stairway should be allowed to naturally restore itself over time. The
natural vegetation will ultimately fully screen the stairway and walls.
2. Two additional tree plantings shall be provided to allow for additional canopy cover in the
future.
•0l-2U9MwtftcpSodai
4<M0r4WR(wd
S.IV0I
Pi«i)er4
3.The property owner shall be responsible for clean up of all debris left on the property since
the vegetation was removed.
Erosion control, including silt fence, shall continue to be provided on the site until the City
has determined the vcgeuition has been restored, this to prevent sediment from reaching the
lakeshore.
Optioai for Planning Comiisiion Action
1. Recommend approval.
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
3. Table.
4. Other action.
*0l-2M9MMiHpSodU
40t0DiWRMi
h«i4or4
; -
TO ' V'
Application U P.Cngj
Date Rcceh’ed -/f
Amount Paid j>r)C> ^
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address________^O/f^ ^OA',P
Type of Application to be Filed_____
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)Oi- //7-^.3 //no/S
APPLICANT
Name ^0/)//y
Address 4i^o^o City
Phone (home).
Phone (work)
OjCOA/£f
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name _______________________
Phone (home).
Phone (w’ork)_
9X2,.
£'/2
_ Zip_ilSV£^
Address
Date Property Acquired (.
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERiVDIS -
_____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
______S200.00 Duplex Credil/Dldg
______S325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
______S250.00 Land Alteration
_____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
_____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
X* Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
______PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
______SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
_____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
(month/year)
OTHER APPLICATIONS
5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
5300.00 Vacation
5200.00 Easement Vacation
5100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
5350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
5100.00 Appeals
Other - sec Fee Schedule
•>*
4r'>' . ^ . ~-#:xtw«seP ;y i ■te::a
'fi'-f.'-,-!
6^ ' ••'• e'*-.r m:-:'W}m^
- <‘ A- ' . -.?>T '
> - . • V J'- '•'' • />.: •. ^'^1-
mm»Up*mm^
§ 10.56
I. Vegetation Alterations*.
1 • No live tree within 75 feel of the shoreline or within the bluff
impact zone with a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 inchra in circumference or greater) measured
3 feel above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a pennit from the City staff
provided that at least the equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found
acceptable to tte staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals
of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the Council.
Removal of trees that are dead shall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected by City
staff prior to their removal.
2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline, on
steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone vsithin the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited.
Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming
of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwellmg site and to
accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and
watercraft access areas, and permitted lock bo.xes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles
or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not
substantially reduced.
Source: Ordinance No. 127,2nd Series
Adopted: 7-11-94
J. Topographic Alteralions/Grading and Filling.
1. Grading and filling and e.xcavations necessary for the construction
of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits
for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all
grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment
systems, and driveways shall adhe-c to the grading and filling standards of this section.
2. Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is
prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in
Subdivision 7 of this section. Grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less shall require
City suff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of the Zoning Code.
Source: Ordinance No. 171,2nd Series
Adopted: 3-23-9S
ORONOCC 376-14 (2-24-92)
§ 10.56
to be constructed.8. "Dwelling Site" - A designated location where a dwelling unit is intended
^„sj'3
eating, coolang and s^tation for not more than one family, but not including rooms in motels
rooms recreational vehicles, nor lodging
... •'Hie use ofland for surface or subsurface removal of
"Forest Land Conversion"-The clear cutting offorcsted lands to preparefor a new land use other than re- establishment of a subsequent forest stand.
12. "Industrial Use" - The use of land or buildines for the production,
manufacture, warehousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, commodities, or other wholesale
Items.
i|^ , , . . 22:__Intei^ve Vegetation Clearing” • The complete removal of trees or
.. , .. . Jt' High Water Level (OH\VL)-. The boundary of pubUc waters
and wcllan^, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level wWch has been
maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonlv that point
where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For
watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For
reservoirs and Howages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal
summer pool. The designated OHWL has been determined by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources for certain water bodies as shown in Subdivision 7 of this section.
,1, , , • "Pl^ed Unit Development (PUD)" - A iv-pe of development
charactenzed b> a unified site design for a number of residential dwelling units or non-residential
sites on a parcel, whcLher for sale, rent, or lease, often involving clustering of units or sites to provide
areas of common open space or a mixture of strucnire types and land uses. Two tyijes of PUD are
provided for in the zomng code:
ORONOCC 376-3 (2-24-92)
1
L
rhi f. 1^' ts!
'-^ILA.(:. ('PvliJKP
'^^Cs>t>^h. (
W (^ll 4nt^i4!. |<Sfljr<
Juki
-iusUrc^ .,
ipd(-p\'^dc^
AISJUDj^ .a) L.
k
!>>i
Cll>’ of On-no
2750 Kelley P -rkway
P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55323
PboDc: (952) 294-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
ScplcmbcT 14,2001
Chair Ha\%-n and Member of the Planning Commission
Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Revisions to application #01-2711 - Western Steel Erection, Inc.
Conditional Use Permit • Outside Storage__________________
Based on staff comments as well as the need to store equipment indoors, Western Steel has begun
revising their site plan and reviewing future “outside storage” use on the property. They have
indicated they would like to park and store as many of the vehicles inside the existing building as
possible. Stephanie Jochims. President of Western Steel, has indicated the revised site plan w ill be
available prior to Monday night's mceung. Western Steel would like to discuss the plan with the
Planning Commission. Ms. Jochims is concerned that parking of vehicles outdoors ma\ cause
damage to some of the equipment. Parking the vehicles indoors is the preferred alternative.
1 have attached a Staff Report, dated September 5. 2001 that was wriiien assuming the outside
storage and parking would be for all the equipment used by Western Steel. Equipment includes 30
one-toi. company pick-up trucks. 6 cranes, welding equipment and a private fueling point for
company vehicles. Please review, however their will he a plan revision for Planning Commission
review.
The cranes arc stored off-site at construction sites for most of the year. Ms. Jochims has stated the
cranes may be on the property' for a time period of up to 6 weeks per year. Ms. Jochims w ill pot be
present at the meeting Monday night, however a representative of the company will be present with
the proposed plan revisions.
Application Date:
Deadline:
8/20/01
10/19/01
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, Cit>‘ Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
September 5,2001
«0I-27I I Western Steel Erection, Inc.
2687 West Wayzata Boulevard
Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit
ZoDiag District:
ListofEahibiU
I, Industrial
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Application
Letter of Request
Plat Map
Survey
Site Plan
Section lO.SO -1, Industrial District Standards
Property Owners Notification List
Review of Request Western Steel Erection, Inc. has leased the 16,200 s.f. building located at 2687
Wayzata Boulevard. Western Steel has approached the City of Orono because there property in Long
Lake is being acquired by the City of Long Lake for a new public work facility. Western Steel
constructs steel framing beams used for construction projects. They are a permitted use in the
Industrial District. Please review E.\hibit F a list of permitted and conditional uses in the district.
Western Steel is requesting a conditional use permit to permit permanent “outside storage” to permit
parking of 30 company trucks, 6 cranes, welding equipment and construction of a 1,000 gallon above
ground fuel lank. The company cmplo>-ecs approximately 80 people. The parking areas would be
located along the east and northeast sides of the existing building.
Zoniog Requirements
Building Setbacks
Front
Side
Rear
75 feet
A distance equal to one and one-half times the building height • approx. 35 feet
30 feet
•01-3711 Wctinn SucI ErfcUon. Inc.
2617 Waynu Bobl««ard
9»n/0l
p«tior4
Parking
The required setbacks for the parking and outside storage must be a minimum of 75' from the front
property lines and 10' from the side and rear lot lines. Parking stalls are required to be 20' in length
and 9' wide. Parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing
material and be properly drained and landscaped.
All parking areas containing more than six spaces which face a public street shall have a solid wall
or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or
walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious w ith the principal structures on
the lot. A screen planting approved bv the Council mav be substituted for the required wall or fence
This is the approach used by ABC Supply as they have proposed to construct a 6' berm and plant a
number of trees that will screen the outside storage area. The parking areas at ABC will be located
south of the ABC building and • ^t \isible to Highway 12.
Required parking for the property based on the size of the building includes 4 spaces plus one
additional space for each 800 s.f. of building space. (4 + 16,208/800 = 25 required parking spaces).
Outside storage requires one additional space for each 2,500 s.f. devoted to the outside storage. The
proposed plan indicates approximately 25,000 s.f. devoted to outside storage and parking requiring
an additional 10 parking spaces.
Total parking required ° 35 spaces
Outside Storaee Area
The Conditional Use Pcmiil/lndustrial district standards require the applicant provide screening to
buffer the storage area and activity associated with the outside storage area. The lots located aroimd
the site are located in Uie 1, Industrial District.
The screening of the open storage area shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in
height and not less than 50“/i opaque. Lots are also required to be landscaped with trees, shrubs or
planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with a plan acceptable by the City.
The Code does permit motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more
than three-fourths ton capacity be stored within required parking areas.
Zoning Issues Related to Outside Storage and Parking
• The proposed outside storage and parking area is within the required 75' setback to the front
property line. The survey/site plan submitted by Western Steel indicates the parking and
outside storage area to be within the 75* front setback and 10' side setbacks. A total of
approximately 65' X 100' of parking area for company vehicles and equipment would be
located within 75' of the front lot line. There is no room remaining for landscaping and
screening beyond the front property line.
• A portion of the existing gravel parking/storage area east of the building is within the 10' side
setback. At the closest the fence encroaches to within 3' of the side property line.
•010711 Wattm Sit*l Enction. Inc.
26t7Wa>r«a Boulevard
9/17/01
P^2or4
• Tlic existing fence surrounding the property is chain link and docs not provide any visual
screening.
• The areas used for storage of crones and trucks is only surfaced with grass and gravel. All
parking areas are required to be surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free material.
• No screening or landscaping plan is proposed.
Above Ground Fuel Tank
The Fire Marshal has stated if a private refueling tank is installed the plans shall be submitted to
ensure all fire standards are met. The applicants would construct a 1.000 gallon above ground
refueling point for their company vehicles. The location of the refueling point is depicted on the site
plan attached to this report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the outside storage areas meet the minimum setbacks and requirements of the
zoning chapter. At a minimum the following standards should be met.
A. Since the outside storage area will be used for vehicles and equipment that is moved on an
everyday basis the areas shall be located within required parking setbacks. Including a
minimum 75' (or more) from the front property line.
B. The parking and outside storage areas shall be located a minimum of 10* from side property
lines.
C. A screening plan should be provided including fencing and landscaping on site in accordance
with zoning requirements.
D. Parking surfaces shall be paved and striped.
E. A final drainage plan, based on required paving and regrading, shall indicate drainage
patterns and stormwater detention areas or drainage areas to properly manage stormwater
flowing over and leaving the property.
F. The site plan shall indicate all proposed parking areas, paving limits, parking lot suiping.
parking areas for crane equipment and company vehicles, and open drive space for access
and mobility on-site as well as emergency vehicle access.
f010711 WalcniSuclErKtkm.liK.
26S7 Wa)uu Boutevinl
9/17/01
Pv3oT4
Opiionf for Planning Commiasion Aclion
A.
B.
C.
Rtcommend approval. A recommendation of approval shall include conditions that would
protect the surrounding properties and uses from the activities that would be related to
outside storage.
Activity reUted to outside storage shall be limited to the hours specified by Western
Steel Erection, Inc. as their regular business hours.
All parking related to the operation of the business shall be limited to the areas
desisted on the plan and approved by the City of Orono. Parking areas are
required to be a har^ alNweather, durable, dust-free surface material.
3. Light sources must not be visible beyond the property boundries.
4.Conditions shall be placed on the limits of activity that occurs during non-business
hours, including deliveries, transporting materials on site and parking of business
related vehicles.
5.
6.
Screening and fencing site review.
All noise generated by the operation of the business shall not exceed the allowed
noise levels as set by the City of Orono Noise Ordinance.
Any other conditions as the Planning Commission feels necessary to protect the
public safety and health from noise, smoke, toxic or noxious matter, odors, vibration
and glare.
Recommend denial, stating reasons.
Table. If the application is tabled the applicant shall be requested to sign an extension or
waive the 60 day appli*^^ «ion deadline. The City of Orono has until October 19,2001 to
decide on this application. The City docs have the right to extend this deadline an addiuonal
60 days if more information is required for the application review.
Other action.
MI-2711 WesMB Sud EmcUoii. toe.
2M7 WayaaBodmd
»I7/0I
Pap4or4 Jifiy
Application H 0\ * 2^ /1
Dale Rcccivcd~Vy2o/o/ ~
Amount Paid J3Z^
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND LSE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address 'Zta&lhluTy \Z yv> Ajuy>><AvaLAcai
I ^nj »w4sicj UType of Application to be Filed
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3^ - i Ift - t 3^ ftob ^
^ (-^ia~Wth fnj/ S *;jf‘
3. X -frujLeJca «»- V'V-Oc
APPLICANT - Jo t Wor.3 Phone fhomcl <<6t-M-7fa .
Name I 02t.tJhuJvV Jryc Phone (work) ^SZ • W 7 3*4 \/
' ''
Phone (home)_
City PiyiTUtLii-i^ Zip ^
Address Oeury^S S-h.
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name f^C.^ f^i(it<lSuta uuc.
Address M
Date Property Acquired_______________________________________
1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
_____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____$200.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg
M $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
_____$250.00 Land Alteration
_____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
_____PRD/PID • sec Fee Schedule
_____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
_____After-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
Zip
Phone (work) "7fe3 - 00OQ
(month/ycar)
OTHER APPLICATIONS
$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
$300.00 VacaUon
$200.00 Easement Vacation
$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
$350.00 Rezoning (PUD > refer to fee schedule)
$375.00 Compreheruive Plan Amendment
$100.00 App^s
Other - see Fee Schedule
#2711
August 20,2001
Western Steel Erection, Inc. is a specialty contractor who erects structural stecL We provide
labor and equqNneot to the areas major general contractors to build commercial projects, schools,
muki-story bufldings, and federal or state projects. Our business she provides adininistrative, and
maimeoaiice for our fleet of 30 trucks, weldos, and 6 cranes. Western Steel Erection employees
80
ironworkers and crane operators.
Stephanie Jochims, is the owner of the company, the business has been in her family for over 50
years and has always based it operation in the Orono/Long Lake area.
We request outside storage for our construction equipment and a motor foel station.
# p. j j
•'- ■ ;.^»v ■> •“-'^-•.i'•' ! ■ ‘ , ■ ,•• ■ ,^ • ' !
. V-
^ i jL X
.1^I
'; t>OAWp R. JACOBS,^ m -jf^. CHICAGO TITI.E .COMPANY-'
. lM;tl«-S!<y;)>4;KlE1>4.0F^SE6tiQN 33-110-23
• i^ENNEFlN COUNTY, MINNESOTA* i*.r-
3 /Jo. tZ
I ..Hi ^..■■■:.;r,v-->0 r
1-----
i0i 4 f %i H$ i0$ $tm%
iiuu ii$»ipfit« or rwxis)% <iimTi.R;
Oa» r<fl of lOMtbwtl Qu4il*r*tff |h«
Qw4rur of SvtllCM IJ. fuMiklilu
110 »0firi. I«ngt /I Ue»i ul U« Mh Pr(i».
rl|Ml NeriOlM. 0«Kritir«l •» fvllom;
CwMr«clr,f It I ivlni on iht Vkiili iini yf
>lt<f VMitWYlt QwilUf uf lln MM-|lwi%t
^4rur. diiiiNi lOM.j; f#*t (m fnm titt
*MiUiwtl corntr Hurtof; IMnco Mwtii to
« point on tho Norik Miw of ulO Soolliootl
O^ttr or tn« NortNOlIt QMrUr, 01 Hint
lOOi.M Nit Cm rrw iMo NorthHou cornor
^•<raf; Ihtnit Wtlt ilong Mid MrUi lino
W.O/ foot to INO KIMI pout of kooKwim
of INO Imd to bo doKrlbod. iiionco So«tN
• long I lino pirilltl vllli iNo flrU ibo«o
Aurlbod lino f*0.M foot; iNcnco Wilt
poriiui nith tho Sooth lino of Mid South*
Mil Quirlor of tho Nor-lhoiit Qoirttr to
Ul Inuriottion ulth tho iMil liao of tho
fall half of Mid Soulftaoit ^iriir of tho
Ngrthoiit Ouirtir, Ihonco North along laid
Nfll I In* to tho NorthBoil cornor of Mid
Im half of th* Soulhuoit OMfUr of tho
Narthaait Qwarlar; ihtnct fait along tho
•n>rih lino of Mid SMthuoil Qitarior of tho
Mgrthtait Ouortor to tho point of boginning.
•nti art
KCIll
oncroaci. rlgkll-of.uar uhTth affocl^ prooorl, v2 t*.0Ctl/I2r;cf!iI?.?:*J;,!!2-J‘"**‘*-clatnli, otMoonti (at Mid ^ »Ml Ihoro aro no alilMa
». roydi. rlghii-of-oa, or «lilblo ^0?^!.^^ ^i“ iZ SST?? L^*f^ •‘I** • »
.
A . V* rtr ^ 0X1
*UAW R. J«<»5.'l*»ai;m|KM0t!|Ri( CW«A» T.TtR COMPARE.
• ]
• BE n N^IN COUNTY. MIWESOTA .V i*.r-
U 3 tty^y, Ho. tZ
I .
I
I ^ 99 r*0, 9C
------------.“«r '•• ;■" :.:v 1,. ^
■•■r' ■; V-,- • 's-a‘s;i.''*-
4t*4tt» •//#*/<« «w»«
IIGU DMMl'niH tif I'aAX iMn Mm'iMIO;
Hul i*<»l of (Ilf )o«tlik«tl QuAitfr'uT lh«
itiTlti««>i <V«Tl*r of S«(ticM IJ. r««Mtiitp
na IIBMR. ■«»J« n uc»i «l U« nh rrl«-
N«riOI*n. UfUflUxI »\ fallgwi;
CuMHKif^ «l * pYlnl on (h« Wilh I In# ot
VnillMYil QwtiUr at lh« l»iTihri%i
aiu««l lOM.J/ r>tt Citi fru* int
.M<Ui>«tl <«Knor Ihfrcof; Ihrnca Itorib to
• point on ibo Nor lb lino »l Mid Sooirtaotl
Ottirtor of tb# NorlbctU QoorUr. Oliunl
lOaS.lS f«.l Coti froo iMo NOMhMOti <ernor
INrirof; Ihonct M»t Along tolO ibtrUi lino
iW.M foot to Iho ActoAl point of boglrmlng
of Iho Iaio J 10 lio dourlloO. tfionco Soutb
Along * lino porollol oUh (ho flrti oboto
•lourlb^ lino 4(0.14 fool; Ihonct UtU
p*r«IUl oiih (ho Sooth lino of told Sooth*
oo»l Qu«rlor of (ho NorthotU Qoorlor to
Id InioMoclIon «iih tho Ini I lino of Iho
f«U holf of told Soothootl ^Artor of tho
bortHoAit OoArlor. thonco bOYth Along uig
l*U lino (0 (ho Morthooii (ornor of told
Iak holf of Iho SMthooU Ooortor of tho
hwlfioAU QuArltr. thonco Ia K olong tho
North lino of lAld Soothootl I^Arttr of tho
itorthoAU Qoirtor to tho point of boginning.
_______7^-t ;.....( j . .
■■
Uk L
ir'i-------^
I, •/o*^»n»v
o»^.
- 1 M
♦••H »•«•/
iM M
«*»jf 'V
locAtluni of All of tho boundorloi ^ Iho^iNn.'^Stldl it* ‘*** *'"• «INW»l(«nt And
oohli ore (MHn l.i (hicoM Illlo *oo<>on?i^*iii;r^ii eoMnwl» (ot (oiJ ooio*
ACttd. rlghd^f.Mop «^h Of foetid proper oro c^iodl. *!d i!? ••*"» o' P-bHcA^roo<l.tnd. OAtOMhd (01 uid tOtOONririro d tMc«riud fii!!; ^ ~
tlrooti. roAdi. rightof.Mor or ritiblo Iodtotcim ^ ilhirh'lrrLi^^ Conpon, i CenNiuoni No. C ;40Si;s. dotod 8 «.14l.
(hli plot of lorrof o..: tho lur«tr on ithUh It d boimi /*'* Afo "Ol ihoun horoon. ond (hot
*«gulro*ond for W U/«SN (*ng |||?J SuMo.iSolnllt^vdhtithS "1'^ *** Stondonl Ootoll... •>' • “••• * -;5:;"t!ArA.;r.i.?',r.“ rr.rAi: i-.:*; :t«:
Doled (hit /n, d«r of rrnoro iggo j (Off IN I CNOWbC. iv.
0 Iron nortrr «-l
8cO< lrro» tlp/vii 0|P tn AltIMd •'olaeo.
Nork S. Cronhorg, Cl*il (nginoor ONd long S«r«oror
MlrmoMlo tlconio »%^*r ll/S$ ^
':r. •
lUwK «rnd< ■••r«.rMrJkt mutmmJttm, A«n1 »
«*nj ibj. I *• J *.», „ 01 ^ ^
iSr Ihp V(.. .0 «l..<...4t '
f.,4 I I* I i.. Irt* . .'.V - Jl
kCMO
|*'•4d
run
A rr i 1 JL
I.TITLE COMP.W.
• H^NEI^IN county. MIWJESOTA .
» IV-
^ 5 No. !Z
I .
-----------.4.- ...
•?r' v; V:.: hH * r
!v >
/•//«/* t/M./w «•«•
ll&H ll5(ftlPlliH ur fiiiMlMs Mn'iMIO:
ftul I’.'t «*^ Ui* )«>iUiw«tl Quiilfr'ilf Ihv
I4jrtt>c«u Wlrr or }«<tl(M IJ. I umiWiIb
lia OBMH, »*njt /J ttotl •! U« Hh fr|«.
rliwl f<«rii]l«ii. il«u>itM>| •» fultovt:
tuMM<|r,9 •! t Mnt art Ih* Vtiilh I In* ut
%4»J SvulhwKii Qw.iur ul III* r*>r(lv«»t
p«4rl.r. dlltont lOOf.)/ r*tl C«il frut tilt
.M<lli.tU cofntr (htrtor; intiict Mm-iIi to
« point «n iht Moctt lint tf Mid Vlolllnta
*'*1 0^*ntr. dltltnltm.t) r«a :*»t Um U>« MtrilMtti corntr
t^.rol. thtrtCt Uttt 4long Mid l»rtil lint
<00.Oi r*«i 10 lilt 4Clu«l point- --- r«iM% of ttOlfMlOQ
or cut 1^ lo bt dturlbrd. Ihtntt South
ilong t lint ptrtiltl with iht rint iboit
iltur 6^ lint 410.St rttl. thtnct Utit
P«r4ll*i ulth Iht South lint or Mid South*
wit Quirltr ol tho Norlhttit QuMttr to
Itt Inltrititlon ulth tht btit IlM or tJit
^u^ir or Mid Souihutti Outritr or tht
■orlhttit Outritr. thtnct north «|m itid
Wtl lint lo tht Morthutit corwr or Mid
Ult htir or tht Southuttt Qutrttr of tht
tarlhttit Qutrttr; thtnct Itit tiong tht
Worth lint or Mid Soulhwit Qutrttr ol tht
Hirthttit Outritr to tht point or htglnnlng.
^--------------
locttiuni ol til of tht boundtrltl ol tl<t pr^Mr lii ‘*** *'*•• 0»*»rt»lM«» tnd
•tnlj «rt ihoun i.i (hictgo Iltit C<-<itnr'i <*» »tiJ t»M-
KCtU. rlghtl-or.utr uhlch tirtCt^Voutrl, ^ a ?6Jt). itrwti. rotdi. Mtnt of public
t^rotcl«tnt». tlt«Mnlt |tl itld ttlMtSirtrt\h^ ?n *.t no HilHt
llrttli. rotdi. right-..or.utr or tlilbTt loDrotnM^ !hirn wrL? lil! * Comttooni Ho. C ;448S;s, dtttd B ;t-94l
Ujll Pitt or lur.tr*. I Iht Ju^tl i; J^UhTtTTbl td *'•
•tguirtwnti for U tA/Uitt ttnd Iltit Surw.l lolnlli 1. *** "Inio— Sltndtnj Otttllir«’,r.... «“'•••* .r-rAS r::: r.,,
l**l% wf #ir*w»>4 I corrin I CMCMttc.
0 Iron ntrirr
•ftririgi iI./mi «i«. i,..<u v|vn tn titwtd •'rlv..
Mtrk S. Cronbtrg. Ci.ll Inglnttr
llinntiott ilctfilt m*t«r iJ/SS •nd ttnd Sur.t/or
liSSSsaffiiSfSissa'
*v •••if llk^VBt .i '
s___Lzl:l“
V C
ji,4 < I* .:v‘r,• ».*? :,A
HMt
I'.tW
|n» r.«i
•' A ./ '
■' V-* * A*•■> .^ I' 11
» i*.;
I <V 3 l/wy. A/o. !Z
Vm/i Ifl «5—p^-.S^
im* 4tt» i//^« /«• MWt
^e\ti rcNct
IIUI UKKii'fliM or n«Miu% itrttno:
••mi p*fl ot l>if JOuUiMftl Quii(#r'(ff lh«
0«‘M*r of Sc<tlc» JJ. |««»i.ip
(l|Ml M«ri(h44«, (toiidbrj fullcwi:
‘‘*^•“'■9 *l * IMlwl on ih« Vwiih |in* of
v«i< Swulfknrii ^lur of Iho »M|Nr««t
f.*fl,r. dlii«..i IM«.)/ f*,t C«>l frui ino
.OvUMtt Ihtntr UMCMf; IktMCO Norlh 10
4 polal on th« iMUl IlM of Mid SOMlIMOU
V' ‘'*! Ooirur. dlttaollOOS.ij t9im iii« corntf
‘'***<* “f»* »4ld Mm-IA lint
. *'*• ****^' •*'"» •' twolnninoOf th« Und lo bt dticrlbtd, Ihtntt SouUt
4long « lint fMralltl nllA tite flr»t *fto»t
drurlOM lint 443.94 ftoi, ilttnct Htit
Mr4lltl tlih tht Soiiin lint of Mid iouth.
MU Qw4rttr of (lit ilOfllttm Qntrttr lo
‘•*1 "•• o* ‘f*UU A4lf Of t4ld SoutfMtU ^4rltr of Iflt
«rtH«4U (Mrltr; Ihtnct OorU* olon^ Mid
i'?! “*• t»emr of Mid
f ^ SoulfiotU QMrttr of tl«o
«*»» •I«f9 Ih#
•«'UM4U Outritr lo i.it polAi of btflmlng.
] ::;;;r *2 '"it ">'•'»—<«>•lM4tlunt of 4ll of tht houndtrltt of llit Pfootrir^bSiliifoit’*1!.^ tfotcnbtd hcrton; ihtl int lUt. diatntiuu 4nd
^tti rl|0lt.of..4, ohlch 4ffKt Mid prootrt* trt coritdU old
A * *• •• • •
tr ^ g £ X
‘,'WANE R. .ACOflR- CRIM66 TITLE COREAN,
tf 3 t/wy. ^o. tZ
-----------V^y-vs •;■*;■ w/ ;.:r-
t»*4n» ttt MON
tJCvJ rCNCE
lirAl USCkthMOR Of r«i.'<iST% \i»tiriO;
ffwl i««fl ot iii« VOvtiik«ti ilw
*.Vl‘II!‘“ »' WHOM n.
"“•J* “P*‘ «» »»■• >II» fr«»i-cl|Ml f«ndUM. a*%i>ilM-d »% rulicwt:
CiM«»<|r.9 «1 J pwim ^jn (),, v^„„ 1,^
>4 Id StMlh-tftl OiMiUr vf ll« »III*«>4%1
^4rl,r. dlti«.i lOM.)/ I,,i |4,i frui l^,
corner Ikercof; lltenca Neriii to
• pelel on the N d ,U IIm «r ioonw,*!
?^r'fr ?' OMfUr. dIUMC•W ij f..i ^,,1 rrta UK »Mii«Ktt corner
*'**'*‘* »*ld •term lintW W feel to tn« ecuel point •< te^lnnin,
of l^e Ural to be deicrlUd, Uence kraut
«looa t lute pjretlel tiiut ui# futi «bo«e
deicrlbral line 4«0.«4 f,*i. ukoc , w,»t
P4r«|iel •.lilt the Soiiili line of i«ld Soullt*
-Ml Querier of the NoriheiU Quirter to
III Interiecllwt eiiit in beil lute of tite
fell h*|f of u.d Soulhweit Querier of the
wthem Quertcr, ibence aorth elm teid
Wit liM to the Mortiraett corner of teld
Uit helf of UK Soulhueit OtMrter of tlto
wrtheeit Querier. thence leit elong the
2! JIL Wfraeil OtMrter of tnc
Wruteeii (Oerter to tite pout of beoliwtiitQ.
Fuil^ Pupp
uerwri'M hMej,---------,
locellunt of ell of the bouoderlet of uk prxtperJr^bl^ld^ng!’ «i ^ik I
rn..*'* 1' -«<«"»•» Coe-.iLti !o duei i 1 “ ‘••d eet«.
thet there ere no tiiiMe
RA. Eii, i,.-u"»;'r:;,;r;rrr!;:’,.rr.‘:s\rKrjrj:lr rtr
eral l«. Uiereiii. tna inclutMt ell iimt ,.i j ^ j ,
Oiled Util />■» lie/ uf er/urri IMd |COffia » CHOatmc. isi
o Iron nerter «-i
ate. I.Rfl ,1..-^ r.R - A . I mon en eiiwKd .<<|w...
*"9'"*er end lend Sur*e/or
enJihnleeiedMt #r»Uh2icrd7l)L2t
•»> Ihr V. .e MR«^-«4a
•«r VMrfnt II.H
IC«Ur*dw*
§ lO.SO
SEC. lOJO.1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Application. Ail applications for a building permit in any "1" Industrial
District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for
review.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any T District, no structure or land shall be used
except for one or more of the following uses:
A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing
or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed h« •« after:
/ \
5.
6.
7.
8.
1. Apparel.
2. Artificial limbs.
3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender
work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The
storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots
shall be subject to a conditional use permit.
4. Bakery, commercial.
Bicycles and toys.
Boats and marine products.
Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards.
Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks,
electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop.
9. Camera and photography.
10. Canvas and cloth products.
11. Ceramic and cloth products.
12. Ceramic products.
13. Cork products.
14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toiletries.
Electric motors, generators, electric products.
Engraving and printing.
Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works.
Laundries, commercial.
Machine shops.
Metal polishing and plating.
21. Musical instruments.
22. Novelties.
23. Paper products.
24. Pharmaceutical products.
25. Products made of glass, ceIlophane,Ieather, plastic, wood.
26. Shoes and footwear.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
ORONO CC (4-1-84)
§ lO.SO
27. Sporting equipment.
28. Television, radio and ^)pliances.
29. Tools, hardware and si^l metal products.
30. Warehousing.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses.
A. Within any ”1 ” District, no structure or land be used for one or more
of the following uses except by conditional use permit:
1. Accessory structures.
2. Form equipment sales, repair and storage.
3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property.
4. Motor fuel stations.
5. Open sales lots.
6. Outside storage.
7. Public service structures.
8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or freight houses.
9. Research laboratories.
10. Residence necessary for security and safety in relation to a
permitted use or conditional use.
11 . Restaurants (Class I) which are located in and mainly servicing
the personnel employed in that structure.
12. Platmed Industrud District as regulated by Section 10.51.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date; M-75
D. Antenna Stnicture. One independent antenna stmeture, with antenna or
eombination of antenna attached theieto, subordinate to and setvieing the principal use or stnieture
on the same let and customarily incidental thereto that b not awaehed t6 another stiueture provided
the height of the antenna stmeture does not excee d 6 5 feet and the antenna stnietufc is set beck from
any lot line a distance at least equal to the total hei^t of the antenna stfucture.
(Source? Ordinance No. 177;
Effective Date: 6-5-75)
Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series
Adopted: 5-27-97
ORONOCC (4-1-84)
• . .
§ lO.SO
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "1" Industrial District, the following uses shall
be permitted accessory uses:
A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-P' District.
Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements.
A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres.
B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not
including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less
than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants.
C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or
parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more
than 45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be
covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is
contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and
berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60%
will be permitted.
D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in
height except as provided in Section 10.75.
E. Building Setback and Yards.
1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structmes must be set back at
least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated os limited
access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated os thoroughfares, collectors, minor
or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building
setback from that street of not less than 75 feet.
2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by
any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer
than 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and
the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be construct^ to within 10 feet of a rear
property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property Ime than a
distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or
adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than
too feet.
ORONOCC (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
F. Building Design and Construction. 7^]ji addition to other restrictions of
this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the
district shall meet the following standards:
I. All exterior wall fmishes on any building shall be:
(a) Face brick; or,
(b) Natural stone; or,
(c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces
have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; or,
(d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel
construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, glass,
prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wall of the
building or structure faces a street or abuts an ”R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-third
of its surface of materials other than prefuiisbed metal and the remaining w*alls shall have at least
one-flflh of their surfaces of materials other than prefmished metal; or,
(e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council.
Combinations of such materials shall be permitted.
2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the
erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those
used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original
architectural design and general appearance.
3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement,
tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and
during the construction of permanent buildings.
G. Off-Street Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter,
off-street parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors
and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall be surfaced with
a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and
landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. No parkini: area shall
occupy any required setback except on lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages.
On lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages, 50% of the required setback fix)m one
of the streets, designated os a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or secondary street and not adjoining
a residential district, may be occupied for parking purposes only; provided, however, that parking
shall not be located within the required setback area in front of the building. No parking shall be
located closer than ten feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer than ten feet to any buildinf Each
parking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty feet
exclusive of aisles and maneuvering space. All parking areas containing more thra six spaces which
1
ORONO CC (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
face either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less
than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or avails shall be so
designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen
planting approv^ by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence.
H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all
loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity or railroad cars,
shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities,
hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations:
1. Amount Required. Loading facilities of sufficient number to provide
for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory
use. The exact number required will depend on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the
type of transport service used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading
facility for e^ 50,000 square feet of building floor area or major fraction thereof.
2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock to or from which the
transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded
or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle into or out of its berth. All
docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and
they shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the
time it is standing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property’s street
frontages by a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height. Such walls shall be so designed that Uicy
are architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than
50% of the requM number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feet in length.
14 feet in width and 15 feet in height. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be
surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and
maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition.
3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage
unless located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where
located on a street frontage, they shall be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located within the
required side or rear yards. All berths shall lx physically separated from areas used for off-street
parking except for connecting driveways or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten
feel of a side or rear property line.
I. Storage. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials,
supplies. Finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely
enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less
than 50% opaque; provided, however, th^ motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal
use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permined parking areas.
ORONO CC (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
J. Landscaping. All open areas of any site. lot« tract or pared shall be graded
to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be
landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the
planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the
owners' responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept
condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained.
K. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that
results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage
plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans
shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council
for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course,
ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff
whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water
Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions
and subject to the approval of other agenci^ having jurisdiction over the area affected by the
drainage.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: l>l-75
SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The puroose of this Section is to establish provisions for the
granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an
over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures
as provided hereafter.
Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of any tract of land within an *T
District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such a tract
of land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within
which the land is located by making on application for a conditional use permit authorizing
completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall
conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended.
Subd. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and
a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres.
Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the City water and sewer
system when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approved by the Fire
Chief as to type and location.
ORONOCC (4-1-84)
i
RUN MTt ••/14/H
■ATCN BCl
HEMKrXN COUNTY rOOfCRTV INTORHATION SVSTCN
rtOftRTt OWNm LIST KPOtT M. PlOlMn
rm 1 '
ff»f ABIW
OMNCR NMC
TAXTAVCR
NMi/ABM
Si ss-iii>2s 11 eats
•aasi ADDNcss iMAssiemo
OiONO PLAZA
OiONO PLAZA
C/e Kicueom lam orpxci
ASM AATN ST W
nPLS tM SSAZA
Si SS*lli-2S IZ iiiZ
aZ7A5 RCLLIV PKWV
CITY OP OMNO
CITY OP OMNO
P 0 MX M
CRYSTAL RAY MN SSSZS
Si ss>lli-ts IS SIM
•Z7AS RILLtY PRWV
RILLOW PROPfRTlES
WILLON PROPERTIIS
C/e ALMRT B VNOV^
AfSS ite RSCt LARI DR M I
RCnCR MN SAA72 i
PROP ADM
OMNCR NANS
TAXPAYCR
NAMC/AODR
Si SS-lli-2S IS SMS
SZM7 MAYZATA BLVO M
ACC PROPCRTICS LLC
ACC PROPCRTICS LLC
SSM AMDCRSON CSTAHS RO
NAPLC PLAIN HN 5SSSA
Si SS-lli-2S IS Mil
t27AS HAYZATA DLVO W
VtOA INC CTAL
VCOA INC
PO RON 871
LONG LARC NN IfSM
Si SS-lli*2S IS'MIA
•Z72S MAYZATA DLVD M
VCDA ZNC
VCBA me
PO BOX STS
LONO LARC m StSSi
•• 1
A /
PROP AOM
OMNCR NANi
TAXPAYCR
NANC/AOOR
Si SS-lli>ZS IS MIS
I2M5 MAYZATA BLVO N
BOB Si LLC
ORB ii LLC
C/0 BUSCN/PRCMICRSON/BVRON
AM 2ND AVC S IIBB INTRNL CT
NPLS HN SBAI2
TOTAL DATCN sai MasT
n
* . i
)
1 CCRTlPY THAT TNC PACTS RCPKSCNTCD ARC AN ACCURATt AND TRUC
RCPKSCNTATIM OP INPOiNATlON AS XT APPCARS THIS DATI ON TNC ■fCMBt'
S h Tr USSS m STmlICP**’***^ TAXATION. TO TNC OCST
DATC
i-#3'^ II
)
)
)
D
rk
Appikatioa Date: 8/22/01
Applicalioa Deadline: 12/20/01
REQUEST FOR COITSXIL ACTION
CO>iti/«if iierrtNQ
NOV 1 3 2001
CITy ur- UnufvQ
DATE: October 25. 2001
ITEM NO.: ^
DepartnMal Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Tide Zoning Administralor
Admiabtralor Reviewed:Ageada Section:
Zoning
Item Description:itOl-2714 l.cdcrick Puiuik
1340 Ratdur Park Rtxid
Variances
Zoning District:
List of Esbibits
LR-IC. '/i acre. One Family Lakevhorc Residential
A
B
C
D
E
Resolution
Site Plan
Notice of Council Action
Council Report (October 17. 2001)
Draft City Council Minutes (October 22.2001)
Application Review
Council voted 3 to I to direct staff to draft findings made by the Council to approse variances for
construction of the new residence on the property Please review altai Council Report of October 17.
2001 for background on variances requested. Approval was subject t> . requirement the new house be
connected to sanitary sewer service. The adjacent pri>pcrt> owner was present at the October 22. 2001
Council meeting and verbally agreed to grant the public an ea A’lnent for utility purposes to the new house
Attached is a resolution approv ing variances subject to the conditions the Council had placed on the approval
of the application. Those conditions are as follows:
1.The existing non-compliunt septic system is required to be abandoned per state and local
requirements and a new residence shall be connected to sanitary sewer. If it is determined
connection to sanitary sewer is not possible additional review of the variances by the Council is
required.
Any amendments to the individual site and building plans shall require Building and Zoning
Department Staff approval. Staff findings shall be made that the final site and building plans are
consistent with the approved plans. The Building and Zoning Staff shall refer any plans to the City
Council that are found to not be consistent with the variance approvals.
•1
MI.27I4 Frederick Puzak
1340 Daldur Park Road
Page 2 of2
pigjgjgl rftMkatoa RecoiiireBdatloa
The Planning Commission reviewed ihe application on September 1 7.2001 and had recommended
approval by a vote of 7 to 0 for variances subject to the condition that the property owner verify
cither conforming septic sites be identified on the property or connection to sewer be completed.
Staff Rccommeadattoa
Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution approving variances, which requires connection
to municipal sewer based on the adjacent property owners commitment to provide an casement and share in
costs to insull the sewer service.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the resolution approv ing variances to permit construction of a new rcsidenwc on the property.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22,
SUBDIVISIONS I AND 2; SECTION 10.56,
SUBDIVISIONS 16 AND (L) I AND 2; AND
SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8
FILE NO. 801-2714
WHEREAS, Frederick Puzak and Julie Thometz (hereinafter "the applicants")
are ov^Tters of the property located at 1340 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono
(hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 30. Block 1. Baldur Park, Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter
"property"); and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance Nsiili
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on September 17. 2001 at which limes all pciions dcsiiing
to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunii) to speak tlicrcon; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56. SuWivision 16 (L) (1) to permit
1.675 s.f (9.8"o) hardcover within 75’ of the OHWL of the lake where 2.113 s.f (l2.4®/o) exists
and no hardcover is allowed; Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16
(L) (2) to pcniiit 2,885 s.f (63.6%) hardcover where 3.219 s.f (70.9®/o) exists and 1.135 s.f
(25®o) is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 to allow construction on a lot of 0.495 acas
where 0.5 acres is required; and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit replacement of structure
within 75’ of the lakeshore for construction of a new residence on the property.
Minnesota:
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the C-'y Council of Orono.
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 801-2714.
2. The properly is located in the LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District where 0.5 acre is the minimum lot area requirement. The property has
a lot area of O.S acre.
Page 1 of9
llic Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17.
20CI and recommended approval on a vote of 7 to 0 to approve variances as
requested based on the following findings:
A. Properly owners propose to remove the existing residence and construct
a new residence The properly is located at the end of the Baldur Park
peninsula. Because the lot is located at the end of the peninsula most
of the lot arca (79®/o of the lot) is located within 75* of the lakeshore.
B. Only a small portion of the property is located outside of the 75* setback.
Due to setback requirements, most of the 75' - 250’ setback arca is not
buildable due to street setback and side setback requirements.
C. The property is located in the MUSA area.
D. The applicant's house is the only house on Baldur Park not cotmected to
sanitar)' sewer. The property is not served wiili sewer because the sewer
serv ice stops at the end of the public maintained Baldur Park Road. The
existing residence is not coimected to sewer because an easement for
utility or sewer purposes would be required across the adjacent properties
to Baldur Park Road. The property has an easement for driveway
purposes only.
E. The Council approved a preliminary plat subdivision approval in 1982 for
two lots between the subject property and the end of the maintained
Baldur Park Road. Using the preliminary subdivision approval from
1982, the City can assume there is a possibility that there arc two
building sites south of the property. Based on this assumption, a total
of 3 lots will ultimately require sewer connection.
F. The property also has an casement over Lot 31 for private septic
purposes. There is one system located on Lot 31 that is listed as
compliaiii because it is more than 3' above the seasonal water uible. The
system is aS2l compliant with all regulations because the entire drainfield
site is located within 75' of the lakeshore. Occupancy of a new house
requires the septic to be replaced.
Page 2 of9
8.
G. The proposed structure docs not exceed I5^i of die lot area.
The property is located within the Metropolitan Council defined Metropolitan
Urban Scr\iccs Area (MUSA). Only properties within the Ml’S.X are permitted
to have sewer connection.
The Baldur Park peninsula was part of the 1965 l,S <<1 sewer project. The
house is located on I.ot 30, Baldur Park ohout 500' to the existing municipal
sewer line in the Baldur Park Road right of way. Completing the connection to
the muniupal sewer line requires a public utility casement over the adjacent
properties to the cast
All of Lots 21 through 33. Baldur Park were in common ownership at the time
sewer was installed in Baldur Park Road. The house located on Lot 30 was
required to connect to sewer following final installation of the sewer.
In 1974 Lots 21 through 29 and Lot 33 were sold separately from Lots 30 and
31. Lot 31 was later sold separately. Before Lot 31 was sold separately an
easement was granted in benefit of Lot 30 for a private sewage disposal sy.>teni.
The existing private sewage disposal system located on Lot 31 for the house on
Lot 30 is non*compliant due to the system being located within 75' of the
lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka.
The properties cast (Lots 21 through 29 and 31 ihrougli 33) are under common
ownership, although separate ownership from Lot 30. At the October 8. 2001
City Council meeting the property owTter of Lots 21 through 29 and 31 through
33 has ofTered to grant a public utility casement to allow connection for Lot 30
to municipal sewer, and a willingness to share in the expense for sewer
construction.
The City of Orono has adopted a sewer policy as part of the 2000*2020
Comprehensive Plan. The sewer policy states the following as it relates to areas
in Orono that arc within the MUSA:
A.The primary method of sewage treatment and disposal within the Urban
Area will be municipal sewer.
Page 3 of9
J
8.
O. The proposed structure docs not exceed I5^i> of the lot area.
The property is located within the Metropolitan Council defined Metropolitan
Urban Scixiccs Area (MUSA). Only properties within the MUSA are permitted
to have sewer connection.
The Baldur Park peninsula part of the 1965 LS «l sewer project. The
house is located on Lot 30. Baldur Park about 500* to the existing municipal
sewer line in the Baldur Park Road right of uny. Completing the connection to
the municipal sewer line requires a public utility easement o\cr the adjacent
properties to the east.
All of Lots 21 through 33. Baldur Park were in common ownership at the time
sewer w^as installed in Baldur Park Road. The house located on Lot 30 was
required to connect to sewer following final installation of the sewer.
In 1974 Lots 21 througli 29 and Lot 33 were sold separately from Lots 30 and
31. Lot 31 was later sold separately. Before Lot 31 was sold separately on
easement was granted in benefit of Lot 30 for a private sewage disposal system.
The existing private sewage disposal system located on Lot 31 for the house on
Lot 30 is non-compliant due to the system being located within 75' of the
lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka.
The properties cast (Lots 21 through 29 and 31 through 33) are under common
ownership, although separate ownership from Lot 30. At the October 8, 2001
City Council meeting the property owner of Lots 21 through 29 and 31 through
33 has offered to grant a public utility easement to allow connection for Lot 30
to municipal sewer, and a willingness to share In the expense for sewer
construction.
The City of Orono has adopted a sew-er policy as part of the 2000-2020
Comprehensive Plan. The sewer policy states the following as it relates to areas
in Orono that are within the MUSA:
A. The primary method of sewage treatment and disposal within the Urban
Area will be municipal sewer.
Page 3 of9
II.
U. Orono will provide municipal sewer lo lakeshure areas and nondakcshorc
areas within ihe MUSA when it is delemiined that municipal sewer is
preferable to long-term use of on-site sewage treatment areas.
C. All sewer-serviced properties must be connected Consistent with the
regulations of the Minnesota Health Department and the MCtS. cver>
building intended for human habitation, occupaticy or use shall be
provided with suitable sanitary facilities artd shall be connected to the
municipal sewer sv'stem whenever a sewer lateral serves the property or
is within a reasonable distance of the property.
Municipal Code Section 12.30 regulates individual sewage treatment s> stems for
the City of Orono. This section requires that building pennit applications for
new residences require Code Systems. Ihe c.xisting system is not u Code
System because it is located within 75* of the OIIWL of l ake Minnetonka.
It i the position of the City of Orono lliat a new residence should connect to
municipal sewer service following extension ci the sewer line Irom Balder Park
Road. The existing house was required to connect to municipal sewei lollowing
the l%5 I.S 1 project and did not.
Tlic prop-.-rty is liKaied within the MUSA and in the ShorelanJ Overlay District.
In the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan (CMP Part 4 (C)) a principal goal ol
Orono’s planning program is the protection of natural resources and
env ironmental amenities, particularly the water quality of l.ake Minnetonka, fhe
major pollutants affecting Lake Minnetonka arc contained in sewage eilluent and
stormwater runolT. Orono's sewage treatment policies arc directed at minimising
or eliminating pollutant sources.
Ihe Council finds that connection to municipal sewer is the only viable long
term solution to protecting the water quality of Lake Mirmetonka. A private
sewage treatment system, on the point of the Boldur Park peninsula would have
lakcshore on three sides of the system.
Page 4 of9
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely alTcct traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
scr\’e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Ihc City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by Cii> siafT. comments
b> the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision I and Section 10.56,
Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 1,675 s.f. (9.8%) hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of the
lake where 2,113 s.f. (12.4%) exists and no hardcover is allowed; Section 10.22. Subdivision
2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 2.885 s.f. (63.6%) hardcover where 3.219
sf. (70.9*/i) exists and 1,135 s.f. (25*'o) is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 to allow
construction on a lot of 0.495 acres where 0.5 acres is required; and Section 10.55. Subdivision
8 »o permit replacement of structure within 75* of the lakeshore for construction of a new
residence on the property subject to the following conditions:
The existing non-compliant septic system is required to be abandoned per stale
and local requirements and a new residence shall be connected to sanitary sewer.
If it is determined connection to sanitar> sewer is not possible additional review
of the variances by the Council is required.
Page 5 of 9
3.
Any amendments to the individual site and building plans shall require Building
and Zoning Department SlafT approval. Staff findings shall be made that the
final site and building plans arc consistent uith the approved plans. Ihc
Building and Zoning Staff shiil refer any plans to the City Council that arc
found to not be consistent 'vith the variance approvals.
Authorities granted by th.s variance run wth the property not with the
applicants, but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a
building permit within one >-ear of the date of Council approval, or this variance
will expire on that date (November 13. 2002).
Violation of or non*compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, siiall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
1 he undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title
of the property.
Page 6 of9
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 13* day of November. 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vcc. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor
Property Owners
STATE OF MINNESOIA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing insfrument was acknowledged before me on this I3lh day of November.
2001 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. 2001 by Linda S. Vec. City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Miimesota municipal
corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City
Notary Public
Page 7 of 9
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
jsersonally appeared before me.
who is personally known to me
whose identity I proved nn the basis of
whose identity I proved on the oath^alTirmation of
credible witness____________ . a crcaiDic wuncss
and who executed the foregoing iitstrumenu and acknowledged that hc/she/they executed the
some as his/her/their free act and deed.
Notary' Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
_personally appeared before me.
who is personally known to me
whose identity I proved on the basis of
whose identity 1 proved on the oath'afTirmation of
credible witness
and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that ht/she/they executed the
same as his'her'iheir free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 8 of9
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
FRED PUZAK
OF LOT 30, BLOCK 1. BALDUR PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. . ^
ppofwcD «cHl5ir A
LAKE
Minnetonka
LEGAL ocsciwlON or racuscs, T»TTi ^ - ,
lot 30. BtocL I. ^orL. lofothor o<l*> tn oo»*««>«»l te>
prnott »*••» i»*«*«* p*#co»»» o»*» lo* 3«. Pee* ». rork".
ot contour ki De< Mo MOOM* riot ot ■o^tl'o* o* t>n»t.
Hvnoo<« Co»0«l|r l*>«rotOlt
p«i^««eja s.TcA~i*^ao
OK«ir« A»*o lAAct-s ,ytfc*r^a&
CHAiAiCTT iy><C»afctO CO.
^mmamm^mmmmt^=^=saBsmmBaBKS
Ff ccr ^ iao\
o tft««lo« •O" r«o»ki*
Ifrti) d^<*t o»f««^ toot o^>oi>«^ ixoor* too W»«t «ttio"
.tt4«« - do^tot ot<tl«<g coMiotA w«o. moot tot >t<ot dot«on NOTE
0o«*>«t oro boood l^ ifonCWn dlT;^-------------------
Tttrf COflOlA «to»"^i-o*» «t
*ft~l Hf om*»o« dotod tt-t-$t
THt «ir«oy Mondt Id iT<o« tho dotrdtoioo ot IAo oko«o dotcfftod ptOdoMf.
ttw locolien ot on onilino >«owto. »<d U>o lecotion ot 01 tit'Vo '^ordcoto'* ttio<oon
II doot (Wl Oidpofl lo tKom 9if oinor ono>o«o>nonlt or oncfoochmoMo
CITY OF ORONO
P.O.Box 66
CiytUlBoy.MN 55323
249-4600
APPLICATION NO. 01-2714
NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Date of Notice: October 23,2001
TO: Frederick Puzak
1340 Baldur Park Road
Wayzata, MN SS391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances
DATE OF MEETING: October 22,2001 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST
COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:
To conceptually approve the development plans. The approval was subject to the follovsing
conditions:
1.The existing non-compliant septic system is required to be abandoned per state and local
requirements and a new residence shall be connected to sanitary sewer. If it is determined
connection to sanitary sewer is not possible additional review of the variances by the Council
is required.
Any amendments to the individual site and building plans shall require Building and Zoning
Department Staff approval. Staff findings shall be made that the final site and building plans
are consistent with the approved plans. The Building and Zoning Staff shall refer any plans
to the City Council that are found to not be consistent with the variance approvals.
A draft resolution approving variances will be mailed to you prior to the Council meeting. Your next
scheduled meeting v\ith the City Council is scheduled for Tuesday. November 13.2001 beginning
at 7:00 D.m.
If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk
after review and approval by the City Council.
1
AppllcatioB Date: 8/22/01
Appticadoa Deadline: 12/20/01
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: October 17.2001
ITEM NO.: / 0
Departnent Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:|i<0l-27l4 Frederick Puzak
1340 Baldur Park Road
Variances
Zoning District:
List orEshibiU
LR'IC, Vx acre. One Family Lakeshore Residential
A
B
C
D
Resolution
Sue Plan
Memo • Septic Review (October 17,2001)
Planning Report (August 13, 2001)
Rev iew of Request The applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on the propertv.
Proposed is to tear down the existing residence and construct a new residence. The property is located at
the end of the Baldur Park peninsula. Because the lot is located at the end of the Baldur Park peninsula most
of the lot area (79*/# of the lot) is located within 75' of the lakeshore. The proposed building plan requires
variances for the follow ing:
I.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Sectior. 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) (I) - Ab hardcover or
impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High
Hater Level of any lake
0-75' Lot Area - 17,021 s.f.
Existing Hardcover - 2,113 s.f. (12.4%)
Proposed Hardcover ■ 1,675 s.f. (9.8%)
2.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)-Hardcover shall not exceed
25% in the 75-250' setback.
75-25(r Lot Area - 4,538 s.f.
Existing Hardcover - 3,219 s.f (70.9%)
Proposed Hardcover - 2,885 s.f (63.6%)
Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - To permit new structure within 75* of the lakeshore. The proposed
house would be located 48* from the lakeshore, within the 75* required setback. The existing
residence is approximately 47 from the lake at its closest point
J
L
«0I-27I4 Frederick Puzak
October 17.2001
Paffc 2 of 2__________
4. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 - Minimum lot area required - 0.5 acre. The lot is 0.495 acre.
PUiminy CommiiiioB ReeommeBdatioii
The Planning Conunission recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 for variances subject to the
condition that the property owner verify either conforming septic sites be identified on the property
or coruiection to sewer be completed. Please review the attached Planning Report for background
information on sewer and septic bsues on the property.
The property owner hired Robert Koch, of Koch’s Soil Testing - Loretto, MN. to complete soil
testing and design for a septic system. The tests and design work show that the property can support
a ma.ximum three bedroom system. The proposed house was proposed to be a five bedroom home.
Matt Bolterman. On-Site Systems Manager, has approved the design, but for a house with three
bedrooms or less. Mr. Bolterman’s memo is attach^
State Code requires that the number of bedrooms in a single family residence be used to determine
the required system capacity.
Staff Rceommendation
To approve the variance application subject to the property owner submining final architectural plans
converting two of the five proposed bedrooms into another use. The existing non-compliant septic system
would be required to be abandoned per state and local requirements and the new three bedroom system
installed prior to occupancy of the new house.
Any change to the layout of the house or exterior plan would require a new variance application.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the resolution approving variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property.
L»OLO
w^ovjeD
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22,
SUBDIVISIONS I AND 2; SECTION 10.56,
SUBDIVISIONS 16 AND (L) I AND 2; AND
SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8
FILE NO. MU-2714
WHEREAS, Frederick Puzak and Julie Thometz (hereinafter "the applicants")
arc ou-ncrs of the property located at 1340 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono
(hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 30, Block 1, Baldur Park, Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter
"property"); 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 September 17, 2001 at which times all persons desiring
to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a vanance to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (I) to permit
1,675 s.f. (9.8%) hardcover within 75’ of the OHWL of the lake where 2.113 s.f. (12.4“ i) exists
and no hardcover is allowed; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16
(L) (2) to permit 2,885 s.f. (63.6%) hardcover where 3.219 s.f. (70.9%) exists and 1.135 s f
(25%) is allowed; Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 to allow construction on a lot of 0.495 acres
where 0.5 acres is required; and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit replacement of siruciure
within 75’ of the lakeshore for construction of a new residence on the property; and
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono.
1.
2.
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File liOl-2714.
The property is located in the LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District where 0.5 acre is the minimum lot area requirement. The property has
a lot area of 0.5 acre.
Page 1 of 7
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17.
2001 and recommended approv'al on a vote of 7 to 0 to approve variances as
requested based on the following findings:
A.Property owners propose to remove the existing residence and construct
a new residence. The property is located at the end of the Baldur Park
peninsula. Because the lot is located at the end of the peninsula most
of the lot area (79% of the lot) is located within 75* of the lakeshore.
Only a small portion of the property is located outside of the 75' setback.
Due to setback requirements, most of the 75’ - 250’ setback area is not
buildable due to street setback and side setback requirements.
The property is located in the MUSA area.
The applicant's house is the only house on Baldur Park not connected to
sanitary sewer. The property is not served with sewer because the sewer
serv ice stops at the end of the public maintained Baldur Park Road. The
existing residence is not connected to sewci because an easement for
utility or sewer purposes would be required across the adjacent properties
to Baldur Parx Road. The property has an easement for driveway
purposes only.
The Council approved a preliminary plat subdiv ision approval in 1982 for
two lots between the subject property and the end of the maintained
Baldur Park Road. Using the preliminary subdivision approval from
1982 the City can asstune there is a possibility that there are two
buildings sites south of the property. Based on this assumption, a total
of 3 lots will ultimately require sewer connection.
The property also has an easement over Lot 31 for private septic
purposes. There is one system located on Lot 31 that is listed as
compliant because it is more than 3' above the seasonal water table. The
system is not compliant with all regulations because the entire drainfield
site is located within 75' of the lakeshore. Ckcupancy of e new house
requires the septic to be replaced.
Page 2 of 7
G. The proposed structure does not exceed 15% of the lot area.
5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propert>’ are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this -roning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard ir other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants, and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
6. The City Council b'- considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicar < and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare ol ne community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10 56.
Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 1.675 s.f. (9.8%) hardcover within 75* of the OHWL of the
lake where 2,113 s.f (12.4%) exists and no hardcover is allowed; Section 10.22, Subdivision
2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 2,885 s.f (63.6%) hardcover where 3.219
s.f (70.9®/o) exists and 1,135 s.f (25%) is allowed: Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 to allow
construction on a lot of 0.495 acres where 0.5 acres is required; and Section 10.55, Subdivision
8 to permit replacement of structure within 75’ of the lakeshore lor construction of a new
residence on the property subject to the following conditions:
1. Property owner shall submit final architectural plans converting two of the five
proposed bedrooms into another use due to the maximum capacity system is for
a three bedroom residence. The residence shall remain as a 3-bedroom home
until such future date that it is connected to municipal sewer.
2. The existing non-compliant septic sy’stem is required to be abandoned per state
and local requirements and tite new three bedroom system installed prior to
occupancy of the new house.
Page 3 of 7
3.Any amendments to the approved site plan “Attached Exhibit A“ shall require
a new variance application.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the properly not with the
applicants, but are permissi*/e only and must be exercised by application for a
building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance
will expire on that date (October 22, 2002).
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 sliall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title
of the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Oiono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 22nd day of October, 2(X)1.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Property Owners
Page 4 of7
1
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument u-as acknowledged before me on this 22"^ day of October,
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.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of .. 20„_.
j)crsonally appeared before me.
who is personally known to me
whose identity I proved on the basis of.
whose identity I pr< ved on the oath^afflrmation
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
Pages of?
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
jjcrsonally appeared before me.
who is personally known to me
whose identity I proved on the basis of _____
whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmalion
a credible witness
and wlio executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the
same as his/her/their act and deed.
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
FRED PUZAK
OF LOT 30; BLOCK 1. BALDUR PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
......
LAKE
Exhibit A
(trail tftl fr*9> Mt iti«) octhTi
_ . . M<*«l«t caMtk/ Ir*. <r>«oi tt« •*.# Mtun. tCTC Th« c«<tM MtaffPet-an «
r««.
T>I.» ti^»t» «i«nd» to tf^« u»t Mwrtfv «t a« iNt 0b««« emr««a proeartt.
tr« lacobM •) en anttina orK tna itcaiiaii af oi *heraia««r'* inaraa'i
a cs«a %»i p>n*'t to i«o- — —• —..........
Page 7 of 7
GITYoT ORONO
Monkipal Olllccs
Strett IMrfti:
2750 MIty P«ffcway
Orono. Ml 5535$
HMaglMnss:
P.O B<a 6$
Ciyslal Bay. Ml 5532340$$
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Paul Weinberger
Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager
October 17,2001
SUBJECT: Sepuc Review for 1340 Baldur Park Rd (Puzak)
The proposed tear down and rebuild of 1340 Baldur Park Rd must have approved septic sites that
meet all Orono and State septic requirements. Soil tests and design w ork show that a three bedroom
primao ’ and alternate septic site can be located on the propert>'. The sites are on an easement on the
neighboring lot to the SW of the proposed house. The primary site will be an in-ground seepage bed
and the replacement site is an in-ground trench system. There is a well that must be moved when
the replacement site is used to meet the 50 foot setback. The existing septic system shall be pumped
and backfilled when the existing house is demolished.
Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of a new three bedroom house in
regards to septic.
lUeplieaefPSDZaMMQ • fai (952) 24M<li
wvwALorooojnajn
Date of Complclv Applicalioo:
60 Day Deadline
8/22/01
10/21/01
jQ. Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ro i Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Adminislralor/Planner
DATE: Au^-sl 13,2001
SUBJECT: 1-2714 Frederick Puzak
1340 Baldur Park Road
Variances - Public Hearing
Zoning District:
LUt orEahibIts
LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District
A Application
B Application Letter (8/22/01)
C Sewer Map
D Floor Plans
E Elevation Views
F Proposed Site Plan including Septic Sites
G Existing Survey
H 0-75' Hardcover - Proposed
I 75-250’ Hardcover • Proposed
J 0-75' Hardcover - Existing
K 75-250’ Hardcover - Existing
L Plat Map
M Property Owners Notification List
Application Review
The applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on the property. Proposed is to tear
down the existing residence and construct a new residence. The property is located at the end of the
Baldur Park peninsula. Because the lot is located at the end of the peninsula most of the lot area
(79®/o of the lot) is located w ithin 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The proposed building plan requires v ariances
for the follow ing:
I. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.56, Subdiv ision 16 (L) (1) - A'o hardcover or
impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 7S feet of the Ordinary
High fVater Level of any lake
0-75 ’ Lot Area » 17,021 s.f.
Existing Hardcover « 2.113 s.f. (12.4%) - Including Non-conforming rock and plastic
1,638 s.f (9 6%) excluding rock and plastic
Proposed Hardcover* 1,675 s.f (9.8%)
•0I-:7|4 Frcikttck Punk
l)40Bal(iiirPifklliMd
9nim
Pat* tors
Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) - Hardcover shall
not exceed 2S% in the 75-250' setback.
75-250' Lot Area - 4.538 s.f.
E.xisting Hardcover - 3,219 s.f. (70.9%) - Including rock and plastic
3,206 s.f (70.6%) Excluding rock and plastic
Proposed Hardcover » 2,885 s.f. (63.6%)
Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 • S'o hardcover or structures are permitted uithin 75' of the
lakeshore.
The proposed house would be located 48’ from the lakeshore, within the 75* required
setback.
Sewcr/Scpiic Issues
The property is located in the MUSA area. The applicant ’s house is the only house on Baldur Park
not connected to sanitary sewer. The property is not served with sewer because the sewer service
stops at the end of the public maintained Baldur Park Road. The Council approved a preliminary
plat subdiv ision approval in 1982 for two lots between Mr. Puzak ’s property and the end of the
maintained Baldur Park Road. Using the preliminary subdiv ision approval from 1982 the City can
assume there is a possibility that there are two buildings sites south of the Puzak property. Based
on this assumption, a total of 3 lots w ill ultimately require sewer connection. Mr. Puzak ’s residence
is not connected to sewer because he does not have an easement for utility or sewer purposes, out
to Baldur Park Road. He has an easement for driveway purposes onlv.
Mr. Puzak s property also has an easement over Lot 31 for private septic purposes. There is one
system located on Lot 31 that is listed as compliant because it is more than 3' above the seasonal
water table. The system is H2i compliant with all regulations because the entire drainfield site is
located within 75' of the lakeshore. In order for the City of Orono to permit construction c‘‘a new
home on this site, it must comply with one of the following:
The new house must be connected to sanitary sew er serv ice; 77»e City Council reviewed
a request by Mr Puzak for sewer connection in 1999 The City determined they would study
the extension of sewer service to the applicant s property The City would have had to
proceed with a condemnation process to acquire a public easement that would allow the
extension of municipal sewer to the applicant s property The 1999 estimate for the cost of
the sewer extension was around S60.000 to be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Mr, Puzak had inquired about using the easement to construct a private sew er connection
for his house. The City took the position that they would not proceed with the condemnation
unless it was for an extension to the public sewer to serve his residence as well as the
adjacent properties. A City can not condemn easements without a public purpose The City-
had concluded an easement for private service was not the best alternative in this case and
did not proceed with the condemnation
•01-2714 FrcOcnck Puzik
l}40BiMur
'M7/OI
2. The new house must be connected to t conforming septic system meeting nil the Local
and State standards. The existing system is located within 75* of the lakeshore. A new
house could not be connected to the existing system and is therefore not conforming. T-:
property owner must provide designs for two conforming septic systems on the individual
lot on which the house is being constructed (This lot would include the area where the
ea :ment exists for septic construction). The survey submitted shows one drainjield site but
no design work has been completed It is not known if the property would have n»o
co/forming sites available, but it appears unlikely. The only way to determine ifthe property
has tw o sites is for the applicant to have testing and design for tw o sites completed by a
licensed evaluator.
Mr. Puzak has tried unsuccessfully to acquire an easement for municipal sewer connection purposes
from the adjacent property owner
Zoning Resiew and Hardcover
Setbacks Required Proposed
Front 30*30*
Side 10’10* •
Lakeshore 75 ’48' * Requires variance
The existing house is located 2.4 feet from the side property line. The new house would be located
to meet the minimum side setback requirement of 10'. The primary issue is how much hardcover
is proposed and where new structure is located. The propos^ house is 3,230 s.f. which is exactly
15% lot co\ erage by structure. In his hardship statement Mr. Puzak has stated his desire to design
a home that meets the 15% allowed lot coverage. The size of the house combined with the very
limited land area within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback results in the request for hardcover variances.
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area;
LR-IC Lot Area
Required 1/2 acre
Actual 21,559 s.f. (0.49 acre)
iOI-}7l4Ff««tffckru*
iMoa«M«rakitMd
9/17/01
fttSotS
Structural Coverage;
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
21,559 s.f Allowed: 3,234 s f (15%)
E.xisting; 2,221 s.f (10.3%)
Proposed: 3,230 s.f (15%)
Hardcover Calculation:
Distance from
shoreline
Total area
in setback
Allowed
hardcover
E.xisting
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
0-75*17,021 s.f 0 s.f (0%)1,638 s.f
(9.6%)
1,675 s.f
(98»i)
75-250*4.538 s.f 1,134 s.f (25%)3.206 s.f
(70.6»/o)
2.885 s.f
(63.5%)
21.559 s.f 4.844 s f 4,560 s.f
The total hardcov er is in fact being reduced on the property. Much of the reduction is drivevvav ,
landscape plastic and ground level patios. The total hardcover that is devoted to structure would
increase from 620 s.f. of c.xisting house/garage in the 0-75’ setback to 1,125 s.f. an increase of 505
s.f. llie total h^udeover devoted to structure in the 75-250* setback would Increase from 1.601 s.f.
to 2,105 s.f an increase of 504 s.f The total sunctural increase on the propcrt>- is 1,009 s.f
Options for Planning Commission Action
1.Recommend approval of the variances. A recommendation of approval of the zoning
variances, subject to;
A.
B
C.
D.
Septic Testing determining two conforming sites are located on the property, or
within the easement prior to issuance of a building permit,
or. sewer extension acceptable to the City is provided to the property and a utility
easement is granted to the public to allow the sewer e.xtension to be complete.
No building jxrmit will be issued for the new house until the sewer/septic is
approved and installed per the requirements of the City.
A final ^ding plan must be provided with the final plan set and must be approved
by the City Engineer prior to Council review.
•0I-27U Frtdcridi Puzak
1)40 BUtePirii Road
S/I7/0I
P^dof)i
Recommend denial.
A.
C.
Table.
A.
B.
Based on no conforming septic system is located on the propeit> and no testing
information has been received by the Cit>*.
No new house can be constructed unless the house is connected to sanitaiy sewer or
twx) conforming drainfield sites and complete s>'stem designs have been prov ided for
installation. Septic design requirements include full design for a 5 bedroom house.
The Planning Commission and Council can nd grant variances to septic standards.
Other findings related to the zoning variances on the site plan.
Require additional information regarding the status of the propert>* in relation to
sewage disposal, whether sewer or septic.
Applicant should agree to waive the 60 day application deadline and sign a letter
confirming the application deadline has been officially waived.
4. Other action.
Staff Recommendation
Staff would recommend Alternative 3 to table the application and require the property owner and
City work towards completing the sanitary sewer extension to the property and complete rev iew of
the application following resolution of the sewer extension.
•01-2714 Fretfcrkk ^lafc
1)40 Bate Pifk aotd
9/17/01
P^SoTS
AppUcmdon n O t ‘ Dh ^
Date Received~~?/A?/r /
Amount Paid c«
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00
After-'Jie-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORALATION
Site Address \MO f^ALPUR. PARK
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OR-il*"? >-Z.^ — £)C)l ^
Attach legal description to applicadon if not included on required sur\ ey.
Date ProDcrty Acquired 6{9APropcctv___________________________
I (do) ^on^) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: ^^residential other (specify)
Zoning District:
_(month/year)
APPLICANT
Name
Address:
Phone (home) 95? 1 -
Phone (work)^r2^
City:Z‘p:j££5il
OWIVER (if different than ^licant)
NameName _
Address:City:.
Phone (home).
Phone (uoik)_
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: __
Estimated Construction Cost S A^.CCO_____
(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 difllculty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:
l\
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
M. tQ; -1 /]
rr tO ^ JL
1.
2.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
AU.flL!hc fgflQwing InformatlQn nunr he submi»#H hy the agnUf^Hon dMi»in>
order for vour aPDlIcatlon to hg roii«trf#ry^ .....
Completed Application Form
Certified Propc^ Ovmers List of owners within 1 50 ’. labels and plat map (you
must ‘‘s** labels and map fiom Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
Certificate of Sur\'ey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/s’* x IT for
reproduction.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are projwsed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/j** x 1 1 “ for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor Sc elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11").
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest iri
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other
persons you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
3. __
4. __
5.
6.
8.
The Applicant ai^ Property Owner must.sign this application. Please remember that vour
varianct applk ltion la not complete if information hr.< nor
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Adrninistrator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covered bv original fee pavmeni)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied ts true and correct to the best of hisher knowledge.
Applicant's Signature_____X Date 8|^/ol
OWERS SIC.NATURE lO.'Po^flVC.
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owner's Signature Date A/2tW
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 23 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled revlesv meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
I jL
B
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
1340 Baldur Park Rd.. Orono. NIN 55391
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail:
Applicant respectfully requests lakeshorc setback and hardcover variances required to
replace a nonconforming t>%'o-&mily residence with a confonning single-family residence
on a acre lot (21,559 sq. ft.) zoned LR-IC. The new construction will reduce
^ "" iiai4£pver iiUhe 0 - 75 ’ zone by^lB ft. and will reduce hardcover in the 75 - 250 ’
The new home will be DO closer to the lake than the existing
^1 C 9T structure, which is 48 ’ back from elevation 929.4. The proposed structure meets side-
yard setback, fr’ont-yard setback and 15% ma.ximum structural coverage requirements,
while curing an existing lot line/side-yard encroachment.
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical diflScuhy or unusual property conditions
preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:
A hardship e.xists in the feet that 79% of the lot area (17,021 sq. ft.) falls within the 0 -
75 ’ lakeshore setback zone, leaving only a long and very narrow building envelope of 26 ’
tapering to 12’ in width. The applicant's arclutect has worked with diligence and
sensitivity to the site to provide a responsible solution to satisfy very challenging zoning
requirements. The plan preserves existing trees and topography, while substantially
reducing hardcover.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT THINKS APPROPRIATE
On several occasions, applicant has met with cit>* staff for guidance in approaching this
hardship; staff's courteous and professional advice has been greatly appreciated. At
staff s direction, the proposed structure has been located to eliminate the side-yard
encroachment, and the originally proposed garage was rotated 90 degrees to eliminate
need for a fi-ont-yard setback variance and to help reduce access hardcover in the 0 - 75 ’
zone. Staff*s suggestion that hardcover be reduced Hn< been accomplished.
a'
; *'t (?n t
Ml 3
Lor 30 ?w4v/iT> Mess
» . r»|.*»^. |...v »*vf/*.!
\
-l4-y|3tl
— <V
\
I
-V
L/ivn»,
l‘>y’t>
\,
!SS?rSf i
V ^
'V
••
y
—ptzii2f^r«=—-|-
■!/>•.•• - I 1^ /»'i»0^ A» ^ ^ <i<n A /«^ ••A
lii^ li--' t "f'jf"
------
.wf rt}£6^K^.
F-^r. w^vt^
-------------------------------- .
_l..!'j=-.l.ft.!.. ............... Fv^r.
F=^ f------------
^ .......if/.2^/.^o\ Ar^ 0--------
11
--------------------------------------------------------------
—......-. ----------.........................................
' *
f=^
"W ri V'■*=7 j! y
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
FRED PUZAK
OF LOT 30. BLOCK 1. BALDUR PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LAKE
Minnetonka
PRINTED
Ku : 2 7 ^OOt
SHARR.ATT Sc MACDONALD
DESIGN COMPANY
ttc*L cc<c«»tcN cr
Lot 30. I. lesCbT Pork. lOftV^ on for
fr>»<to Moor irotom p^pooot o>*r Lot 3i. Bock i. Porh*.
M ew*t*r<«4 r> c«< **o 144034 •. o' Rofiver of r.c««.
K«r««pM COkTl/. MnnoMla
• ■ e«r'«l4« irsn rrcrkcr
A-WfcTib-lsoif«cP4cu 2!«-o*-s
0^»~B Ar-2 SAkce/^ KTS-'aC
.&-r WiMUixrr oi0‘««3»..jo C9.
Fea >^Ar-CS VSkfuTTK.
(•fai) 4oao<m oo.oio«f 0901 i«osn o«« ior« «etvr"
.M4-- > ■ «ono«M corrtOk/ Ii««. niMO ooo io<0 4ohm *CrC ' TKa conloi^ m
•oor^i iPoon ero ee»od «o«a •* •■■■i ifm-i —■■
TM« OhOOr inlonoo to *t«m tM 6eu^er«o of V« efeooo «oocr*o4 preparty.
locatieA of #• oa.01^ f>M«. and ina lacaiion af ««*ia ~f<cr«ea*ar* »araon
R doaa not pt^parl ta ana* any anar ■avra.omanu ar awcraacMwanta
!tad M-B-B1
ooprulifcOsoHenc. me
I—If 4— MR MCRB1M—
oa UMdOOl 4i04C.tMUM.M4UM
ii:.o7>-4ui
I «a wra V 04 MR «I
i--t»
iy.2p.pt
-xTS-
HA ka JCOVER calculation WORKo.iEET
SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) /fo^TS^ 75-250’ 250-500’H
500-1000*
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) Q-TS* 250-500*SOO-1000*
OBI
Houm
B. Garagi
C. Drivcwiy
D. Sidcwdk
E. PatJo/Deck
F. Ludscape
Uoderlain
By Plastic
printed
AMfi Z ?. ^UUl
SHARR a TT 1; MACDOHALD
^ design company
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ B X 100
PROPOSED HARDrnVER IN 7nvr
A. House 4*
LcatUi «1CU|
B. Garage
C. Driveway ’
D. Sidewalk
E. Pa»ie/Deck-hfi&RfififcLBlRtH
F. Landscape
Uaderlaio
By Plastic
0. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S-F.
S.F.
_S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
ST.
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.
ST.
X
ST.
ST.
%. .A;
rr rO /cf 2.>f ^
H/*"DCOVER CALCULATION WOR
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250'
rXICTINC HARnCOVER IN 7.nNr
A. Houm ______________ X
-HEEl
2S0-SQ0* SOO-1000'
- 6ZO S.F. • House
*a
a
at
a
S F.
S.F.
a m S.F.-6ovLOC0<r
B CarJ|«a m S.F.
c Driveway X m fliz S p.-6CAs/et^ K.
' D
a s S.F. **"
Sidewalk X m I6Z S.F.-CO nc ,w^
,X a 2.7 3 » 1 19 A *
-■./ E.Pailo/peck X m S.F.•.X m S.F.
F*LiAdKipe X m
Uodertain '- 1By Plastic X S.F • o^
'< . 0.Other X a 3 S.p-'^J v/macv.
•TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
•2;' V S.F. A•t... n.ozi f S.F. BA+ B X ICO =/ 5 ^ /5;
pROPn^rn hardcover in znvr
A.House X m S.F.
•;
•VkiUih
X m S.F.-•a m S.F.
a m S.F.
• B.Carafe X m S.F.
C.Driveway a m S.F.a m S.F. . *
D.Sidewalk X m S.F.
■ -X m S.F.
E.Pa:io/Deck X m S.F. *
F.
X S.F.
LaiKlsca^e X m S.F.Underlain X “9 S.F.
By Plastic X m S.F. t:. y
0.Other X m
•• • * •*
S.F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •• - ,
S.F. '
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •S.F. .B •
-fi.A ♦ B X ICO -$
AuZ/fK
h. IDCOVER CALCULATION WOl iHLEi /.
^7r-ar0 eyvmwc,
in.'tA/iA* * *SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7y (7^' -„o.50o ‘
EXISTING HARDCnVTR IN
A. House
Ui4A
SOO-1000*
\60{S.F. 'HOuSt
B.
C.
Cerate
Driveway
‘ ‘ “ D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. OOier MS uf.
total hardcover in zone
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
------------------- ♦ B 453g»X ICO
House
HARDCOVFR ty t^<yrsi
W4ih
B.
C.
Carafe
Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Paiio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By PlasUe
O. Other fl.fc
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
--------------------♦ B X 100
S.F.-«»»<. API
S.F.-^vsl fc
__ S.F.-fl^UcOft
1134-
-112^ S.F.-^®'''-
S p.CPA^, (3^,
S.F. I-BftA/c
S.F.
S.F.'^^o WA»
52^
^53-9 r
S.F.
S.F.
A
B
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.-.2
:JrL-
S F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
%
£v
L
Of-//7-.a3-5/L
r r f«>. -• * *• * • '•. »
Um. y.
• »*‘S
RUN >ATC Rl/lVtl
MTCN SIS
WIMriN COUNfY fROrCRTT INrORNATigN STSILHruorcRTv owai» list RCroCT NO.
rACC 14
rtoR urn
mma mm
TMMVIR
Nim/MM
M M-117*2S 31 M12
•MS« AMRtSS UNASSICNCB
nuiMi j n riRMaiN
NIUIRN FtRIOaiN
17SR NCH MIBNTON M.VQ
NTLS IW SMIS
3« M-117-23 31 M13
•RB30 MOttSS UNASS1GNI0
WlLilAN J n riUNKLIN
HIUIM FRANKLIN
173t NCU M16NI0N SLVO
NPLS NN SSA13
30 M-117>23 31 RRIA
•••M AfiORfSS UNASSIGNO
nLLIAN J N FRAMILIN
MILLIAN FRANKLIN
173* NfW BRIGHION SLVO
NPLS HN SM13
PROP AROR
OMNiR NAM
TAKPATtR
M M-117-23 31 MIS
•IMO BALRUR PARK RB
FRCBtRin N PUCAK
FRtBtRXCK N PUCAK
PO MR IM
SPRING PARK m SB3R4
SR M-117-23 31 M14
■••3R ARRRtSS UNASSlGNtB
MILLIAN FRAMLIN
MILLIAN FRAMLIN
173R NM RRIGNTON SiVB
NPLS NN SM13
SR M-117-23 31 RR17
•0G3R ARORfSS UNASSICNCB
MILLIAN FRAMLIN
MILLIAN FRAMLIN
173* NCM MICNTON M.VB
NPLS NN IMIS
BHNIR HRHi
TAKPAVCR
NAMi/ABBR
IR M-117-23 31 MIR
MGSR ARBRiSS UNASSICHU
MILLIAN J N FRAMLIN
MILLIAN FRAMLIN
173G NCM MIRNTGN RLVO
NPLS HN S341S
TOTAL BATCH SOS 00007
1 *-
. /
1 CCRTIFY THAT TNI FACTS RCPRCSCNTCB ARC AN ACCURATC ANB TRUC
RCPRUCNTATIGN BP INFORNAHON AS H APPCARS THIS BATC ON TMC RfCOMS
OF TNi NCNNCPIN COUNTY OCPARTMNT OF PROPIRTV TAXATION, TO TNC 0C»
BATC
f. n
minutes OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
' Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
White moved. Sansevere lecoodcd. to approve the Development Asreement and to approve and
adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Approving Issuance of Senior Housing Revenue
Bonds and Autborizing Execution of Bond Documents and Development Agreement
VOTE: Ayi.4,NaysO.
*(08) 001-2707 ROB EDDINGTON AND MARK LARSON, HILL STREET - VACATION -
RESOLUTION NO.
White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and auopt RESOLUTION NO. , a
Resolution Vacating a Portion of an Unimproved Street Within the Plat of Bayside Additioo to
Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin County, Minnesota, for Rob Eddington and Mark Larson,
285 and 315 Crcstvieiv Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*(#9) 801-2710 DONALD AND JOAN'N'E DAVIDSON, 568 KEENE AVENUE - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO.
While moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a
Resolution granting variances to permit the construction of a new rcsMcacc on a vacant lot
for the property located at 568 Keene Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(810) 801-2714 FREDERICK PUZAK, 1340 BALDUR PARK ROAD - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO.
Fred Puzak Applicant, was present
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit new construction on the property
located at 1340 Baldur Park Road, which is located at the end of the Baldur Park peninsula. The
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
' Moaday» October 22,2001
7:00 o’clock p.m.
Applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence. Because the lot
is located at the end of the Baldur Park peninsula, 79 percent of the lot is located within 75 feet of the
lakeshore.
Variances are required to allow the new building to encroach within 48 feet of the lakeshore. which is
approximately the same setback as the existing structure, and to allow hardcover within 75 feel of the
lakeshore. A variance to lot area is also required. This property consists of 0.495 acre, with the
minimum lot area being 0.5 acre.
The Planning Commission had recommended approval of this application by a vote of 7 to 0 for the
variances subject to the condition that the property oxvner verify either conforming septic sites or
connection to City sewer be completed. The lot is not immediately adjacent to City sewer and the
property owner would be required to extend the sewer line to his property as well as obtain an easement
from the adjoining property owner.
The Applicant did hire Koch’s Soil Testing to complete soil testing and design for a septic system. The
tests and design work show tha* the property can support a nuLximum three bedroom system. The
proposed house was proposed to be a five bedroom home. Man Bolterman. On-site Systems Manager,
has approved the design, but for a house w ith three bedrooms or less. State Code requires that the
number of bedrooms in a single family residence be used to determine the required system capacity.
Weinberger stated back in 1970, the lots adjacent to Mr. Puzak's property were commonly owned up
until the early 1970s. The City at that time required that the lots be connected to City sewer. The
property owner did not agree to connect the house or to prov ide sewer connections to any of the vacant
lots. Eventually the property sold, with Lot 30 being sold to Mr. Puzak and the other remaining lots
being purchased by Mr. Franklin,
PAGE 23
.iriaiaMillkA i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o*clock p.m.
Weinberger staled the issue before the Council is whether the sewer line should be connected to the
Puzak property. Weinberger stated at the time the lou were sold, an easement for sewer was granted
over Lot 31 to Mr. Puzak that provided for private septic and drainfleld use.
At the time the Planning Commission reviewed this application, a plan show ing a Hve-bedroom
rcsMSence was before them. Since then it has been determined that there are not ^vo suitable septic sites
to support a nve-bedroom house and that the ma.ximum would be for a three-bedroom system.
Staff recommends approval of the variance application subject to the property owner submitting final
architectural plans converting two of the five proposed bedrooms into another use. The existing non*
compliant septic system would be required to be abandoned per state and local requirements and the
new three-bedroom system installed prior to occupancy of the new house. Weinberger noted any
change to the layout of the house or e.xterior plan would require a new vari Ke application.
Puzak Slated he does have the documentation show ing two alternate septic sites for his property, with a
possibility for extending the primary site to accommodate a four-bedroom house. Puzak stated it is not
his primary goal to build a septic system noting he has attempted In the past to obtain an easement from
the adjoining property owuer. Puzak stated in his view the house plan that he has developed is
reasonable, and requested the Council approve his plan subject to the sewer issue being deferred. Puzak
requested he be given time to resolve the sewer Issue.
Puzak staled even though the new house is larger than the existing house, the hardcover is being reduced
due to reductions being made to the driveway in the 0-75’ setback.
Sansevere staled in his view sute law should require that septic systems be based on the size of the
house rather than the number of bedrooms. Sansevere commented the Applicant would not need to
change his design if he simply choose to call one room a den and the other a library.
PAGE 24
I
I i
y
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
' Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
GafTron Mated state law deHoes a bedroom as a room with a closet GafTroii stated once the closet is
removed from a room, it is no longer considered a bedroom. Gaffiron stated the property o\^ncr would
be required to obtain a building permit if he decides laur on to add a closest
Puzak stated he has submitted this conceptual design so they could address the hardcover and setback
issues, and that the new design would reflect three or four bedrooms. Puzak stated he would be revising
his plan.
Stoddard stated the new plan is an improvement over what currently exists, noting the Planning
Commission reviewed a plan that depicted five bedrooms. Stoddard stated the plan before the Council
could conceivably be for a seven-bedroom house with some minor alterations. Stoddard stated the main
isstie before the Planning Commisskm was the septic.
William Franklin, 1730 New Brighton Boulevard, stated he is the owner of the property between
Puzak's proposed house and the sewer line. Franklin suted in his view there appears to be some
confusion regarding the granting of an easement over his property for a sewer line. Franklin indicated
he would be agreeable to granting the easement as well as sharing in the cost of e.xtending the sewer
line.
Franklin stated they have discussed the possibility of him either selling this property to another
individual or to Puzak. Franklin stated in either case he would give his consent to a sewer easement
across the property. Franklin stated should his property ever be developed, he would also need to have a
sewer connection to the two lots.
White commented that City sewer would be a benefit given the close proximity of the lakeshore in this
area.
Franklin indicated he was unaware of the fKt that Puzak wanted to construct a private septic system on
his property.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG
' Moodiy, October 22.2001
7:00 o'clock p.a.
Puzak noted there was a public hearing held on this matter on October 17^. at which time
Mr. Franklin was not present. Puzak commented he has been attempting to meet the City ’s
requirements regarding sewer. Puzak requested the Council address the issues relating to setback and
hardcover tonight, with the sewer issue being deferred.
Franklin stated they have discussed the sewer issue within the past month and a half, with Mr. Puzak
not informing him that he was considering building a new septic system.
Flint stated the significant issue before the Council tonight is the sewer, with the majority of the Council
expressing a desire for City sewer in this area. Flint stated he is unsure how the Council can approve a
resolution relating to this application until all the details of the septic issue are resolved. Flint suggested
Mr. Puzak and Mr. Franklin work together to resolve the details of extending the sewer line and the
costs involved with that.
Puzak stated he would like to proceed with his application, and in the meantime try to resolve the sewer
issues and redesigning the house.
Nygard stated he has a concern that this house may be out of character w ith the neighborhood, noting
the proposed house is considerably larger than the other homes in the area. Nygard stated he docs not
want to see a neighborhood with a number of larger houses built on small lots.
Franklin stated there are a number of large homes located across the lake. Franklin stated Mr. Puzak’s
house is somewhat secluded and would not be readily noticed.
FI *t inquired what Stoddard meant by his comment that the Planning Commission would have been
harder on him if he was going to put in sewer.
Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviewed what was presented to them, and at that time had
the understanding that this property would accommodate a five bedroom house. The Planning
Commission did approve this application on a vote of 7 to 0 based on the information presented to them.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Stoddard stated had they knoMn about the situation with the septic only being able to accommodate a
three bedroom residence, they might have directed the Applicant to reduce the size of the house and
come back before tlie Planning Commission with a revised plan.
Puzak staled the deck and stairwell cou.d be redesigned. Puzak indicated Ais plan was intended to be
conceptual. Puzak stated he would request approval for a four bedroom design subject to the sewer
issue being resolved.
Franklin stated in his opinion a septic s>stem is out of the question given the close proximity of the lake
and in light of a connection to City sewer being possible.
Weinberger stated in his opinion the best option would be to have Mr. Puzak connect to City sewer.
Weinberger pointed out should a new plan be submined, a new variance application would be needed
since the plan is difTerent from what was originally approved.
Flint noted Puzak has indicated he has been working on this project for quite some time and he would
like to have the Council’s views on the hardcover and setback issues.
Puzak stated he understands that any major changes to his plan would require a separate variance
application. Puzak stated his architect had suggested to him that he find out what the City would
approve as it relates to hardcover and setback, and then revise his plan accordingly. Puzak indicated he
has been designing this house for several years, and in his opinion if he is required to resolve the septic
issue prior to approval, that would delay his project even longer.
Franklin commented he has only learned within the past week that Puzak was considering constructing a
septic system rather than hook up to City sewer. Franklin suted he can understand the reasons why the
Council would condition approval upon resolution of the septic issue, but questioned whether a private
septic system would be appropriate in this area since it is located on the lakeshore.
Flint inquired whether Franklin was willing to grant the easement at no cost to Puzak or whether he
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o*clock p.aL
would be charging him Tor the easement.
Franklin stated he is agreeable to granting the easement to Puzak at no cost
White stated in his opinion the sewer issue should be resolved prior to approval. White pointed out the
Applicant probably will not be storting his project until the springtime, which would give him time to
resolve this issue.
Flint indicated he is not w illing to give approval to this application without the septic being resolved.
Nygard stated he is more likely to approve this application subject to the septic since Franklin is in
attendance at this meeting and is indicating he is agreeable to granting an easement.
Franklin stated he would like to develop his property as well, noting he also is in need of sew er.
Franklin stated it would make sense to share the cost of extending the sew er line.
Flint suggested the Council approve this plan conceptually tonight as it relates to hardcover and
setback, subject to the plan being revised show ing four bedrooms and subject to the sewer issues being
resolved. Flint inquired what the proper procedure would be for the Applicant if his plan is
conceptually approved tonight.
Franklin commented the design of the house doesn’t really impact the sewer issue If it is connected to
City sewer.
Flint stated the Council needs to know definitively whether there will be a connection to City sewer
before approving the size of the house.
Puzak stated currently he has five-bedrooms in two dwelling units. Puzak stated the house originally
was built as a duplex prior to the current zoning. Puzak stated he is willing to give up one building unit
in order to construct a new residence as well as relocate the structure off of the lot line.
Flint noted the Applicant is increasing the footprint by 50 percent.
PAGE 21
[
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO cmr council meeting
Monday, October 22,2001
7:00 o*clock p.m.
Weinberger stated the Council could approve the plan before thetn tonight or they could allow the
Applicant to make some minor changes to the plan that is before them. Weinberger commented that
many times Applicants will make minor modifications to their house plan after approval is received.
Weinberger stated that does give Puzak some flexibility to redesign his plan, but Suff would prefer
some level of assurance be given that the house plan will not be signiflcantly modified.
Puzak stated there would be some modifications to the footprint within the building envelope to
accommodate the septic design for a four bedroom house. Puzak stated there also w ere some other
minor modifications that he would like to make.
Sansevere commented in his view the Council should probably wait until there is some type of
agreement reached on the septic. Sansevere suted he is somewhat confused, noting it was his
understanding that Puzak was attempting to obtain an easement from Franklin for the past few* >ears
and was unsuccessful. Sansevere stated Franklin has indicated he is more than willing to grant an
easement. Sansevere commented there appears to be some gaps in what has occurred over the >-ears,
which may not be germane to tonight's meeting. Sansevere questioned whether dils applintioa
should be sent back to the Planning Commission once the septic is resolved.
Flint stated the granting of an easement would need to be in w riting.
Stoddard suggested the Council consider approving X number of square feet for the residence subject to
the septic being resolved.
Moorse recommended the Council approve the variances for this specific plan subject to City
sewer being available. Moorse stated had the Applicant known the septic could only handle a three
bedroom house, it is unlikely it would have been designed as a five bedroom house. Moorse stated if
the Applicant would like additional bedrooms, he would be required to hook up to City sewer.
Puzak stated he would like the variances approved tonight so he can proceed with his design process.
PAGE 29
ii
i
MINITTESOFTHE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
' MoDday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
While stated the Crouncil will probably approve the plan as presented tonight with City sewer or they
will approve a smaller house with private sewer.
Moorse stated the Applicant would like to know whether there is an agreement on the Council's part as
to the hardcover amount and the setbacks. Moorse commented normally at this suge of the process the
Council is looking at a final plan with all the issues being resolved.
Franklin stated their conversations for the past two >'ears have always related to extending the sewer
line, with no mention ever being made of installing a private septic system. Franklin stated it was his
understanding that a private septic system would not be allowed in this area.
Sanseverc inquired why an easement has not already been granted.
Franklin stated he was told by Puzak that the cost to extend the sewer line and hookup was too high and
that in his opinion he could construct a private septic system for less money.
Puzak stated originally Franklin had wanted $50,000 for a utility easement
Franklin staled he has never asked for S50.C0O for an easement.
Flint commented this type of conversation is non-productive, and recommended the Council act on this
matter.
Flint moved. White seconded, to approve hardcover in the amount of 1,675 square feet within
75 feel of the Ordinary High Water Level of the lake; to approve hardcover in the amount
of 2,885 square feet in the 75-250' setback area; to approve the setback variance to allow the
bouse to be located approximately 47 feet from the lake at iu closest point; and to approve a
variance to lot area, subject to Staff review and approval of the final house design; and further
subject to extension of City sewer to the property located at 1340 Baldur Park Road.
Puzak inquired what would happen if Franklin decides not to give him an easement at no cost.
Flint stated then the Applicant would need to revise his plan to meet the septic available.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MoDday, October 22,2001
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Sansevere stated that is one of the reasons why he would prefer thU application be sent back to the
Planning Commission. Sansevere stated he would prefer all these issues be resolved prior to this
application coming before the Council.
Puzak stated his application has been delayed for a number of years because of the septic issue,
and that he is nttempting to proceed forward by obtaining the septic testing. Puzak stated the Planning
Coamissioo did recommend approval of his application subject to a connection to City sewer or that a
suitable septic site be shown. Puzak stated he has demonstrated that a suitable septic site is available,
but that his bouse plan would need to be modified if he utilizes private septic.
Franklin commented that it is his belief the Planning Commission was led to believe that he would not
grant Puzak an easement for the sewer, which is not the case.
Puzak stated if Franklin does not grant an easement within the next two weeks, he would like to
continue with his proposal to redesign his house based on the variances granted tonight.
Sansevere stated he would be required to come back before the Council if be decides not to hook up to
City sewer.
Flint noted Franklin has indicated a couple of times on the record that he is willing to grant an easement
at no cost to Puzak.
Puzak commented that Franklin has indicated he would like to construct townhomes on his property.
Franklin stated he has spoken with Weinberger on what his property could accommodate. Franklin
stated he has been informed he can construct two houses on these lots, which would require two sewer
connections. Franklin stated the sewer would be divided three ways.
Tom Barrett, City Attorney, recommended if the motion is approved, that City Staff provide findings to
support the conclusion, with the Council voting on the findings at the ncM City Council meeting.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Sansevere Opposed.
PAGE 31
minutes OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Moadaj, October 22.2001
7:00 o'clock p.n.
PuMk stated as far as the design of the house is concerned. Item No. 3 in Staffs Report indicates
that any changes to the approved plan would require a new variance application. Puzak requested that
Item 3 be clarified to read as follows: “any major amendment to the site sketch which would increase
hardcover or increase lakeshore setback shall require a new variance application".
Weinberger stated the language included in the motion subject to Staff review and appro\'al would
give Staff the opportunity to do that. Weinberger stated If Staff feels the revised house plan is beyond
Council’s approval, they would bring that application back before the Council.
Flint suggested the Applicant work with Staff on drafting a resolution for Council approval.
Puzak inquired what would happen if an easement is not obtained from Franklin.
Sansevere stated he would then need to come back to the Council with his house design and a workable
septic system design.
Nygard stated this application would not be finally approved until the next Council meeting, so if there
are changes that have occurred, the Applicant can address them at the next meeting.
Flint stated the application was not in a form that could be finalized and approved tonight,
Franklin inquired what steps he would need to follow in order to grant an easement.
Weinberger stated they would need to determine the appropriate location where the sewer line would
enter the property and a legal description, along with Franklin ’s signature providing an easement to the
public.
Gaffron stated Staff does have standard language for an easement, but someone will need to develop an
easement description, which is the most time-consuming and difficult part of granting an easement
Puzak inquired how long that process would take.
Gaffron stated that really is not up to the City to determine.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
M*iday, October 22,2001
7:00 o ’clock p.m.
Tom Kellogg, City Engineer, commented that things might have changed from when the feasibility
report was completed on this area. Kellogg indicated at the time the feasibility report was done, it was
assumed the alignment would follow the driveway, which may not be the case currently. Kellogg stated
to his recollection the driveway was located on the higher side of (he peninsula, with the most logical
place for the sewer line being on the low side. Kellogg recommended someone review the property to
determine where the sewer line should go and what type of system will be utilited in this area.
Franklin stated he does have an architect and builder involved in his project now, and in his view
the location of the easement could be resolved fairly quickly.
Flint recommended the Applicant resolve the septic issues before coming back before the Council with
a new proposal.
White recommended the Applicant speak with Staff to answer any questions he may have. White
stated the Council did approve the variances the Applicant was requesting.
(#11) #01-2718 A.MENDMENT TO ZO.NCS'G CODE SECTION 10.03. SUBDIVISION 15
RELATING TO FENCE STANDARDS
Flint recommended this item be tabled to the ne.xt Council meeting to allow the Council members to
adequately give input regarding this amendment
Gaffiron agreed that perhaps this item should be tabled.
Flint moved, Sansevcrc seconded, to table Application #01-2718, Amendment to Zoning Code
Section 10.03, Subdivtoion 15 Relating to Fence Standards. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 33
ApplicatioB Dale:
60 Day Deadline:
Extended Date:
8/22/01
10/19/01
12/18/01
MpETiflo
W 13200,
ciryoFoRo^»o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Departmeat Approval:
Name Wendy Bottenberg
Title Assistant Zoning Adminstrator/Planncr
DATE: 1005/01
ITEM NO.: 9
Agenda Section: Zoning
Item Deflcriptlon:Mll-2716 Brenshell Development
2200 Shadyvvood Road
Variances
LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Rcsidcnlial District (.5 acre)
16.863 s.f. (.38 acre)
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
List of Exhibits:
A Resolution
B SlafTReport and Exhibits of 10/15/2001
Application Summary: The applicant has purchased the subject property' and is requesting
variances for lot width, lot area and hardcover in 75-250’ setback area to construct a new single
family residence on the lot. The proposal is for a two story ’ residence with an attached garage.
The existing residence and detached garage will be demolished.
1. Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B): Lot Area: The lot is 16.863 s.f. where 21.780 s.f. is the minimum
lot area for the LR-IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced with public sanitary
sewer and planed prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter arc only required to meet 80*/q of the
lot area requirement (17.424 s.f.).
2. Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: The lot is 52’ wide where 100’ is the minimum lot area
for the LR-IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced with public sanitary sewer and
platted prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 805'o of the lot width
requirement (80’).
3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (LX2): Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75-
250’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25" o hardcover. To permit 2,641 s.f (27.8%)
hardcover where 2,375 s.f (25"/o) is allowed.
PLAN.NING COMMISSION:
The Plorming Commission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to
To approve application as presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To approve the enclosed resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution.
fr n TT«n 1 1
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 1022, SUBDIVISION 2,
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION I6(LK2) AND
SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B)
FILE NO. 01-2716
WHEREAS, Stc\e Behnkc on behalf of Brenshcll Homes (hereinafter "the
applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2200 Shadywood Road within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described os follows:
Lot 13. Block I, Wiley’s Park Minnetonka. Hennepin County. Minnesota
(hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2. Section I0.S6. Subdivision 16(L)(2) am' Section
10.25. Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence on a lot
of O.S acre area and 52’ width where a 0.5 acre area and 100* width are normally required; and
to allow 2.641 s.f. (27.8%) hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area where 2.375 s.f. (25®o) is
allowed.
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 15. 2001, at which time all persons desiring to
be heard concerning this application were given the opport'mity to speak thereon.
Minnesota:
1.
2.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\TD by the City Council of Orono.
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #01-2716.
The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where 21.780 s.f. or 1/2
acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately
Page 1 of 6
16.941 s.f. or .38 acres.
The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15. 2001
and on a vote of 6 to 0 recontmended approval of the proposed variances based
upon the following findings:
The property has been developed with a residential use since at least
1965.
B.
C.
The lot size is consistent with that of other developed properties in the
neighborhood.
The existing residence and detached accessory building will be
demolished.
The adjacent properties on either side of applicant ’s property are
develop^ with existing single family residences, hence no additional land
is available to make the lot larger.
E.The site plan indicates the proposed setbacks 10’ to the side property
lines and the house would be outside of the 75* lakeshore setback. The
entire house would be located approximately 180’ from the lakeshore.
which meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new structures.
Massing occurs on the back portion of the 75-250’ setback area. The
additional hardcoser in the 75-250* setback area keeps the location of the
residence in character with other residences in the neighborhood and the
attached garage negates a variance for additional hardcover in the 250-
500’ setback area.
The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safely and
welfare of the community.
Page 2 of 6
The City Council finds that ihc conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely afTcct traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
scr\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B). Section 10.22. Subdivision 2.
Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(L)(2) and Section I0.2S. Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the
construction of a new single family residence on a lot of 0.5 acre area and 52' width where a
0.5 acre area and 100' width ore normally required; and to allow 2.641 s.f. (27.8°b) hardcover
in the 75«250' setback area where 2.375 s.f. (2S?b) is allowed, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by tlie applicant attached
to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant,
but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
expire on that date (November 13. 2002).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority' granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution a^ on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns.
Page 3 of 6
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the
property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 13th day of November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE 01 MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of November,
2001 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation
and said instrument was e.\ecuted on behalf of the City.
Notary’ Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing insmiment was acknowledged before me on this __________day of
November. 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.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 6
STATE OI MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
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
credible witness
and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/she/they executed the
some as his/her/their free act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOIA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
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 hc/she/they executed the
same as hislier/their free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 6
•MAOOOVOI OAT*
XTOAOt not 0m 0-TS TV MO /-
i«uac
CAAACC s mt / .•
■AUkS
HCXt
0 ' 0
Npoe
OMwe
0 0
M3
tOTM 9 0 M3
AAIA M t0€MIO 3553
AUO«a B 0 / *•30
0 MAII^TBS M3V/I5.IS
PtKPoao ouAftta *m> ututt casucmts
TtC NOHIMWtSttRLY 5 rUT > v
* V 4
I
I
1
. I
SCALE
m CUSTMC SPOT aCVATOH
X(»9».0) - PWOPOSCO SPOT ClCVAtCH
^ . o«cnoN suVAa orawaci :
legal OeSCRFTlON
lot 13. BLOCK 1.
WILEY'S PARK MWNETONKA
HENNEPW COUNTY. MN.
tot APIA - iea«3 V/ 0 J79 AC
CERTIFICATE
OF SURVEY _ Land
Frmok fi CardaraJIa Surveyor
BRENSHELL HOMES 6440 FLYWe CLOUD tWVE EOCN PRARC.
Page 6 of 6
iU!C‘c* iCil'JlCI
Iff I
Description of Request:
The applicant has requested variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property:
The new proposal still requires variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover in 75-250'
setback area. The plw moves the residence back on the property, reduces the size of the structure,
and attaches the garage. Eliminating variances for average lakeshore setback, hardcover in 250-500'
setback area and structural lot coverage.
• Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area: Proposed to be 2,641 s.f (27.8%). The proposal
e.xcecds the 25% hardcover allowed by Orono ordinance for new construction by 266 s.f.
(2.8%). The entire structure (house, garage, walkway, deck and porch) is located w ithin the
75-250' setback area.
Discussion:
The proposed plan locates the new residence behind the average lakeshore setback. All of the
structure is located w ithin the 75-250' setback area. Massing occurs to the back portion of the
setback area. The structure is 1,947 s.f (11.5?'o) which is well below the allowed 15%. The
residence is not over built for the lot.
If the applicant were to move the residence even further back on the property to meet hardcover
requirements in the 75-250' setback area a couple things would happen:
• The average lakeshore setback would change for the adjacent properties. If adjacent
properties decide to redevelop they would need to be located further back on the property
than currently exist. A domino w ould occur, w ith each new residence being required to locate
further back on the lot and closer to Shady wood Road. Do we want residences to be located
closer to Shadywood Road? The proposed location keeps the new residence in character
w ith the neighborhood and minimizes the domino effecL
• Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is over the allowed 25®o. To reduce this to the
required 25%. approximately 260 s.f of hardcover would need to be placed in the 250-500'
setback area. By doing this, it would increase the hardcover amount in that area to about
3 l*/o, above the allowed amount and therefore requiring a variance. Because the 250’ line
bisects the driveway apron, moving the house back 8.6 ’ would reduce the 75-250' hardcover
by 260 s.f but this docs not eliminate the need to have driveway to serve all 3 stalls, and
driveway is already minimized.
. -2/ /tf BrentheU Homts
2200 Shafywood Road
Vvianct
10/12/01
Page 2
Drainage: The applicant did submit a drainage plan with the application. It has been submitted
to the City engineer. As of this writing comments had not been received. A drainage plan needs to
be approved by city staff prior to City Council review of this application.
The applicant is proposing to gutter the entire structure to control water runoff.
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues for Consideration:
1. Parking is not allowed along Shadywood Road. Ample space is needed on the property for
parking.
2. The lot has an existing residence on the property.
3. The properties surrounding the applicant’s lot are also undersized and most do not meet the
required area in the zoning district. Most neighboring lots are 50* wide. Most neighboring
lots to the northwest are larger, however (see plat map).
4. The proposed development does conform to yard setback requirements.
5. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer.
6. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal?
Staff RccommcndatioD:
Staff recommends approval of the variances with the following condition:
Prior to going forward to City Council the drainage/grading plan mui*. be approved by city staff.
Ki-2716 Brenshtfl Homes
2200 Shadywood Road
Variance
10/12/01
Pages
Structural Coverage
ANALYSIS
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage
16.863 s.f.Existing: I.8S4s.f.
Proposed: 1,947 s.f.
11.0%
11.5%
Hardcover
Distance from
Shoreline
Total Area in
Setback
Existing
Hardcover
Allowed
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75*3,810 s.f 236 s.f
(6.19%)
0s.f
(0%)
Os.f
(0%)
75-25(y 9500 s.f 1,563.5 s.f
(16.45%)
2,375.47 s.f
(25%)
2,641 s.f
(27.%%)
250-500*3,553 s.f 2,156 s.f
(60.74%)
1,066 s.f
(30%)
893 s.f
(25.1%)
"B
Application # Of- ^7/6?
I>ale Rccrivcd ClD.c/
CITY OF ORONO - VARI.ANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00
Aficr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION . ^
Site Address.
>er (P.nD.)
Amount Paid
Property Identification Number (P.fD.)
Attach legal description ^^pHcation if not included on required survey.
Dale Property Acquired______.___________
I (do) also ov\Ti the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of properly: y'residential ___^oiher (specify)
Zoning District:___________________________
_(monih/year)
APPLICANT . ^
Address: f *0. oov 1 ^
Phone
Phone (work) ----------------------
Citv:l6b>Kyi^lU Zip:
OWTVER
Name
Address:i Chv: ___________ Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated
Describe request in detail: MdW
Estimate^ Construction Cost S _____
r^wJP
VAW.>NCES REQUIRE
Area
RIANCES
X 101 Ar
Setback:
7
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
Lot Width ^ Hardcover A Lot Coverage
— Front ^e^Sidc __Rear .___ Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)________^ th/'
flARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual prm^y conditions prewnting
copiipliance Zonipg Code re9uircments:_ficf*S*H
/]>DvK. n . 0
i^nach additional shi
C{rtK ^ ^
ich additional sheets if necessary)
HARDCOVER DATA
SCTOACK FROM OMW
HOUSE
garage
WALKS
DECKS
PORCHS
DRIVE
TOTAL SF
AREA N ZONE
AUOWED X
PROPOSED
j.
^ . \
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS^
GARAGE FL00R=942.0
TOP OF FOUNDATION =942.5
LOWEST FLOOR=934.5
FFE = 943.5
= EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION.
X(998.0) - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
^ = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 13, BLOCK 1.
WILEY' S PARK MINNETONKA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.
LOT AREA - 16863 SF/ 0.379 AC
SURVEY WFO PER EFN SURVEY DATED 9/20/2000
NO TITLE NFO WAS PROVOED FOR THB SURVEY
HARDCOVER DATA
SETBACK FROM OMW 0-75
/
75-250 !
1899 !
0 /
2504>
HOUSE 0 0
GARAGE 0 0
WALKS
DECKS
0
0
100 /
230/
0
0
PORCHS 0 0
DRIVE 0 893
TOTAL SF 0 2^1 893
AREA N ZOrC 3810 91500 3553
ALLOWED X 0 / ”30
PROPOSED 0 2641S^27.BX 893SF/25.1X
TOTAL
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
GARAGE FLOOR=942.0
TOP OF FOUNDATION =942.5
LOWEST FLOOR=934.5
FFE = 943.5
SCALE IN FEET
- EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION.
X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
^ = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAWAGE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 13, BLOCK 1.
WILEY‘ S PARK MINNETONKA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.
LOT AREA - 16863 SF/ 0.379 AC
SURVEY NFO PER EFN SURVEY DATED 9/20/2000
NO TITLE WFO WAS PROVOCD FOR THB SURVEY
imtct MO.OOON
AUG 22. 2001 PACC
OCT 1. 01
VMJC^ IlAlAwS STAT
CERTIFICATE
OF SURVEY
BRENSHELL HOMES
Land
Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor
6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Mooday, ScpUmbcr 17,2001
6:30 o*clock p.m.
(W) Ml-2716 BRENSilELL DEVELOPMENT. 2200 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES,
7:54 p.m -8:16 p.m.
Steve Behnke, Applicant, wu present
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a new two-stoiy, three bedroom residence
and detached garage on the lot. The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a house and
detached garage on it.
Variances arc required for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 75-250’, hardcover in the 250-500’, and
lot coverage.
Bottenberg stated Staff is recommending denial of this proposal. Bottenberg indicated the Applicant
has revised the plan, which Staff currently does not have, with hardcover and structural coverage being
reduced. Bottenberg stated tlie revised plan is not before the Planning Commission tonight
Behnke stated he revised the plan and did attempt to fax it to the City last week.
Hawn stated Staff really needs to review the plan prior to the meeting.
Behnke stated what he previously submitted was reviewed by Staff, with various variance Items being
added based on what was being proposed. Behnke stated this is a substandard lot, with the request for
the lot area and lot width variances still being required. The hardcover in the 75-250* setback area is
not required under the revised plan. Behnke stated the hardcover in the 250-500* setback area has
been reduced.
Lindquist inquired whether a variance is still required in the 250-500* setback area.
Behnke stated a variance would still be required
Mabusth inquired whether the hardcover was reduced in that area by reducing the size of the garage
and the driveway.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Moaday, Scptcaibcr 17» 2001
0:30 e*dock p.n.
B«hnke sUted that is correct The size of the structure has been reduced in the 7S-2S0* area, with the
paving and the size of the structure being reduced in the 2S0-S00’ area. Behnke »t>t^ there is an
existing driveway entrance at the extreme south edge of the property as it abuts Shadywood Road,
which is not proposed to be changed. The site plan creates an auto port, which allows the car to turn
around and avoid backing onto Shadywood. Behnke stated in his view there are four elements of
hardship in this case consisting of, one, the existing driveway entrance and the fact that Shadywood is
a very busy street, two, the need for a turnaround space to avoid backing out onto Shadywood Road;
three, a need for a triple car garage to provide ample storage; and four, retaining the existing
vegetation along Shadywood, which currently consists of a dense hedge. Behnke noted the structural
coverage has been reduced to 16.2 percent.
Hawn indicated the Planning Commission typically does not grant variances to structural coverage on
new construction.
Stoddard inquired what the hardcover would be in the 2SO-SOO* area.
Behnke staled hardcover has been reduced to 58.5 percent.
Hawn commented in her view the Planning Commission and Staff will still need to review the plan
prior to voung on it Hawn suggested the Applicant consider eliminating the third sull of the garage.
Behnke stated the only way in his view that it will be possible to meet the hardcover requirements in
the 250*500' area is to reduce the garage to a two-stall garage, locate it on the setback, and have a
16 fool driveway with no turnaround. Behnke stated in his view that creates a traffic hazard.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission does sometimes allow additional hardcover in order to address
certain safety issues.
Behnke stated it appears the water goes to the right of the p «>perty and they arc looking at their
options for drainage.
PAGE 17
i
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, ScptcMbcr 17,2001
6:30 o'clock p.in.
Barry Bennett, 2209 Shadywood Road, indicated he welcomes new development to the area which
will add value to the neighborhood. Bennett requested the Planning Commission require the
Applicant comply with the standards of the neighborhood, noting this home is slgniflcanuy la^er than
the homes in the area.
Bennett staled he would like a string test from the adjacent property to the north and his property, U*’
home docs not conform with the standard. Bennett stated the revised proposal has the house S’f sc
even closer to the lake, which definitely does not conform with the standard for the area. Bennett
stated he would like the residence moved back closer to Shadywood Road.
In addition, Bennett indicated he does have water concerns since his property handles much of the
water runoff for this area. Bennett stated in his view the hardcover standards should also be adhered
to as well as asbestos removal standards due to the fact that the current siding on the home contains
asbestos.
Ronald Potos, 2190 Shadywood Road, stated he has the s«ime concerns as expressed by Bennett. Potas
stated the proposed house is located 13 feet closer to the lake than the other boma in the
neighborhood.
Hawn noted the revised plan does have the house located further back towards the rood. Hawn stated
she would like Staff to work with the Applicant in order to have the residence conform more to the
neighborhood.
Timothy Hulst, 220S Shadywood Road, stated he would like the house to conform to the standards in
order to help preserve his view of the lake os well. HuUt stated he has concerns regarding the width of
the proposed structure, noting this is a narrow lot
Hawn noted the Applicant is not requesting any setback variances.
Richard Schiitgen, 2213 Shadywood Road, stated in his view the size of the house is loo large for the
property and should be reduced and built within the standards of the neighborhood.
PAGE IS
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Run Moorse. Cit>’ Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottcnberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: Scpicrnbcr 14, 2001
SUBJECT: #01-2716 Brenshetl Development
2200 Shady^ood Road
Variance - Public Hearing
Actual Lot Area: 16.863 s.f. (.38 acres)Zoning District: LR-IC
List ofFshibits
A Analysis
Application
Site Plan/ Survey
Floor Plans
Elevations
Grading Plan
Summary of Adjacent Property Owner Concerns
Photo of Property
Location Map
Plat Map
Property Owner’s List
Pertinent C ode Sections
1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot .Area: The lot is 16.941 s.f. where 21,780 s.f is the minimum
lot a:ea for the LR-IC zoning district. Lots cf one acre or less serviced with public sanitary sewer
and plan .*d prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80®/o of the lot a»^ea
reqi irement (17,424 s.f).
2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Width* The lot is 52' wide where 100' is the minimum lot area
for tre LR-IC zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serv iced with public sanitary sewer and
plan« d prior tc .he adoption of the zoning chapter arc only required to meet 80®/o •:( the lot width
requ remciit (80').
3 Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250'- Within 75-
250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. To permit 2,424 s.f (25.5®/o)
hardcover where 2,375 s.f (25%) is allowed.
4 Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover In 750-500': Within 250-
500' of the shoreline there shali be no greater than 30®/o hardcover. To permit 2,106 s.f (59.3 ®/o)
hardcover where i,066 s.f (30®/o) is allowed.
5. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre
in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not
e.xceed 15®o of the lot area. To permit 2,789 s.f (16.5®/o) structural lot coverage where 2,529.46 s.f
(15®/o) is allowed.
*0I~2TI6 Brenshell Homes
2200 Shat^i* ood Road ,
yar:siKe
9 /-• 2001
Pag^l
Application Summan ’: The applicant is proposing to construct a two story, 3 bedroom
residence and detached garage on the lot The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a
house and detached garage on it.
This property was granted lot area and lot width variances for new construction by City Council on
November 13, 2000. That owner has sold the propert>* to the applicant and the applicant has a
slightly different site plan for the property.
Dcscriptioo of Request:
The applicant has requested variances to permit construction of a new residence and detached garace
oil the property:
Structural lot coverage: Proposed to be 2,789 s.f. (l6.5®/o). The proposal exceed the 15%
allowed by Orono ordinance for new construction by 260 s.f.
Residence - 1743 s.f. Garage-750 s f. Covered porchcs-296 s.f.
Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area: Proposed to be 2,424 s.f. (25.5%). The proposal
exceeds the 25% hardcover allowed by Orono ordinance for new const/uction by 49s.f.
Residence, porches-2.039 s.f. Deck - 200 s.f. Sidewalk-1 85 s.f.
Hardcover in the 250-500' setback area: Proposed to be 2,106 s.f. (59.3%). The proposal
exceeds the 30% hardcover allow ed by Orono ordinance for new construction by 1,040 s»r»
Detached garage-750 s.f. Sidcwalk-60 s.f. Driveway-1.296 s.f.
Total c.xccssivc liardcovcr proposed is 1.089 s.f.
Average lakeshore setback; Two scenarios for defining the average setback line: Both
encroach into the average lakeshore setback.
I. Using the front of the adjacent residence to the north and the deck on the adjacent
residence to the south. The proposed residence encroaches 12’ into the average lakeshore
setback in this scenario. (Sec E.xhibit C)
2. Using the 8 privacy fence on the deck of the adjacent residence to the north and fhe deck
on the adjacent residence to the south. The proposed residence encroaches 6’ into the average
lakeshore setback in this scenario. (<^cc Exhibit C)
»0l-27l6Brtnshtll Homes
2200 Shadywood Road
Variance
9U'200l
Page!
i
Detached Garage: The detached garage is proposed to be 750 s.f. It will be located 10.4' from the
side lot line on the east, 12.4’ and 13’ from the side lot line on the west and 30’ from the rear (street)
lot line. The doors will face the street and meet the 30' setback requirement for street facing doors.
'V'hile this proposal provides substantial off-street parking and a backup apron, the 3-stall garage
seems e.xcessive given the hardcover limitation of the site....
Drainage: The applicant did submit a drainage plan with the application. The applicant has stated
a more detailed plan is being prepared. Once completed and submitted the City engineer will re\ iew
it and submit comments. A drainage plan needs to be approved prior to Cit>' Council review of this
application.
Neighborhood Issues: An adjacent neighbor did speak with staff regarding tliis proposal. The
concerns were discussed an! a summary is provided in E.\hibit F.
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Discussion: The City in recent years has held steadfast to the hardcover and structural coverag
limits for new construction. Because the proposed sidewalk is only 2 ’ wide, moving the house back
to meet the average setback will not have a significant impact of reducing hardcover. If the house
was moved back, reduced in size, and the garage reduced to 2 stalls with a commensurate red xtion
in driveway apron area, perhaps a modest 250-500' hardcover variance would he justifiable.
Issues for Consideration:
1. The detached garage meets all side yard and rear yard setbacks.
2. The lot has an existing residence on the property.
The properties surrounding the applicant’s lot are also undersized and most do not meet the
required area in the zoning district. Most neighboring lots ore 50' wide. Most neighboring
lots to the northwest are U :ger, however (see plat map).
The applicant’s proposal docs not meet City ordinances for new construction regarding
structural lot coverage, hardcover and average lakeshore setback.
The proposed development would conform to yard setback requirements.
»0l-27I6 BrtftsMl Homes
2200 Shodfyweod Road
iananct
9/W200!
Pagei
6. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer.
7. The existing garage doors do not fhce the street. The proposed garage door face the street
Should the ga^e be rotated to reduce the hardcover in the 250-500' setback zone? Would
this result in inadequate back-up apron space, or too li.tic useful ofT-strcct parking? Or,
should the garage be reduced in size?
8. Docs Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal?
Staff Recommendation:
Based on city regulations staff recommends denial of this application for the following reasons:
1. The residence does not meet 15% structural *ot coverage requiremet *. for new construction.
2. The residence does not meet 25% hardcovci requirement for new construction in the 75-250*
setback zone.
3. For this proposed new construction, there is no hardship demonstrated that justifies the hardcover
and structural coverage variances. The lot can be developed mcfting all city standards.
Options for Action:
1. Recommend approval of variances.
2. Rerommend denial of variances, stating reasons.
3. Table, giving applicant direction.
4. Other action.
901^2716 Brtnshtli Homu
2200 Shadywood Road
Varianct
9fl4/200l
Ragt*
ANALYSIS
Sinictural Coverage
Total Lot size Total Structural Coverage Percentage
16.863 s.f.Existing: 1,854 s.f.
Proposed: 2.789s f.
11.0%
16.5%
Hardcover
Distance from
Shoreline
Total Area in
Setback
Existing
Hardcover
Allowed
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75 ’3.810 s.f.236 s.f
(6.19®/o)
Os.f
(0%)
Os.f
(O^o)
75-250*9500 s.f.1,563.5 s.f
(16.45%)
2,375.47 s.f
(25%)
2.424 s.f
(25.5%)
250-500*3.553 s.f.2,156 s.f
(60.74%)
1,066 s.f
(30%)
2,106 s.f
(59.3%)
AppBcatioo 0/-:>l/ic
Dale Receh-ed
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-lhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Amount Paid
PROPERTY INTORMATION . „ ^
Site Address *2-^»
ycT (P.rb3Property Identification Number (P.rb.)_ __
.Attach legal description to aoplication if not included on required survey.
Date Prop^’ Acquired C^(^ f ^ j
I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property: V^resldential ___other (specify)
Zoning District:_________________________
_(month.'year)
APPLIC^T , . Phone nwme)i^2--8?0-f2^7
Name Phone (work) '
Address: 1 CaU^ ^ ® Ciivl^KVt Uj
0\MSER^different than ap^ant) / / Phone (home)^^2>^4-^r^OOl
Name Phone (vserk)' — __________
Addres^^ *City:.Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST _Estimat^ Construction Cost $ _____
Describe request in detail:
Hardcovor
(attach additional sheets if necessary )
RIANCES REQUIRED , ly-
X Lot Area Lot Width K
yC Setback: __Front
__Other (specify)_____
Lot Coverage
bide __Rear ,__ Average Lakeshore
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficu^ or unusual property condUions pre^nting
compliance Zonipg Code retirements:
uh additional sheets if necessary)Qutach additional she
«
<•4
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
iplcfc:
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
r"’'Vl - »"<• plat map (you
Lht if ?h‘’\’’T * elcvaiion views (provide one (I) copy g/,- x n")
List of the Icgrf names (include mar.ial slams) of all persons with an inieresi in
anTi? 1^’ “ppl'"m(s) if not currtnl owner(s)
nerson. ii "PP'*""'’"- pl<mse onach a separate list of any otherpersons vou wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour
munce implicaiinn Ilh.i tomnlfir if ihe ahme in7oen..,.in„ h..
APPLICANT S SIGNATURErsxx" :sr,7?s^
Applicant’s Signalurcj Date S/2.2./0/
OWTSER’S SIGNATURE
ilir'’' PSf«» '0 ‘I'is application and fimher authorizes reasonable
memb«rr^ pmperty by City SUIT, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purpos^mve^ion ®d verillcation of this request. )
DaieS(:4:2l/!!^Owner’s Signature
C^mSoTr f D," Ci'.v offices 25 days befote the Planning
mo^ Tnnilr T Tti"* «« h'W »n Ihe third Monday of each
M c% ^
.J j
f iTbo
/
/■* .
HMOCS«OI OAT*
«To*oi not OMt 0-n n-ao
/-
TOTM,
WK 0 •TO •m
oaaacc
■*msecots
0
0
«iS/*«/M
79C
0
WKHS 0 **!0 >M
TOTM. 9
0 0
l^A lie*
0
ITtt
AAU M IOC Jite asi MMl
AUOACD S 0 i «M IS
0
t -
PROPOStO ELEVAfONS
GARAGE n OOP-94 3 0
TOP CP FOUWATION -9400
LOWEST rLOOR-932.0
. CnSTfiC SPOT OCVATiOK
X(9980) . PPOPOSCO SPOT CLCVATCN
^ - OPCCT«N SCMT a CC OPAAaCt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 13. BLOCK 1.
WIEY’S PARK MWNETOraCA
rtNNEPW COUNTY. MN.
LOT APCA - IU63 V/ 0J79 AC
9URVCY t#0 PCP CFN SUIVtY OAttO •{*0/»00
NO mic *#o «As PNOvoco roR ths s^r
AUC 22. 2001
S0>T IOlOI
•^1»
CERTIFICATE
OF SURVEY
BRENSHELL HOMES
\ LonO
Frank R. CardaraUa Strvayof
6440 FLYWC aOUO OmVC EOCN PRAMC.
'Tved;l
•#c;l
' i b
“ r
1
dvi -----1 V*«t foem
*9-0 m l9-« II i3 * • n-o
__r
s11
1
•^1' 1—LT al^-i ^ '- h—rar-n —1
»»« 1
1
1
a
1
I« 1 I »r>. /I II it-i 11 a,
If
/--------------\
(0
q:I
o'
tt
>
Application ^01-2716
Brenshell Homes
Site: 2200 Shady^^•ood Road
Barry Bennett. 2208 Shad>’wood Road, an adjacent neighbor stopped by cit>’ ofTices on
Thursday, September 1 2*** and talked with city staff regarding issues and concerns uith the
proposed project. They are as follows:
I. He is pleased and happy a new residence \sill be built. The existing structure has burned and
is deteriorating
2. The new residence and garage should meet standards for neighborhood zoning regulations.
3. The siding on the existing residence has asbestos siding and removal should be done
according to state guidelines.
4. The placement of the new residence should be behind the average lakeshore setback, not
obstructing lake vieu*s of neighbors.
5. Drainage is a concern with the property. The lake side drains to the adjacent properties and
pools of water collect on other properties. Does understand that grading within 75* of the
lakeshore is not allowed and this problem is minor. However, the back portion of the lot drains
into his basement during rains. He suggested swales or cathc basins be part of the dr^mage plan
and maybe a gutter system be installed on the house because of the pitch and height of the new
roof.
Ifel
1^
wm
t‘-.'. -■, ’ V ■;*. ..-,'
^ii-
I«Tf401i¥*lflUr-INCM
Wfm
: • - ■/■‘ '. ■',‘-
■ ■■-•..■■■';U-
.^. .:•;v;v : ; - ■ :V-rv ;-
»?■ s .; -■• ’■••■’ i' '' :
• :•.; . ' ■ ->
v;.'
:'-'; •,; ;x ■' v,; :v . -'; ■; *: ^ ;;.^ >;::: •■: •..;
•■;\. ^v■vU ■:;-■.■■■■-
•*■ /'^- . /..• ’ '■■■
'' - >:••,•■ ;^ : >-V;
i-V ,:,;.'«i
wm-
. :f.\ ■ ___l..
vr •-/ .-■•.A \ f ■ :-^V.-y.V- ;'- H
■■•i> ■ - A/ \\v-'---^
•'* _•• '•■•'•*.* “vX*-' • ■ J
Skogsberg Point g * •-.
ORONO
" Arm
?/oorf
/
.GOOSE
= t:^s1SLAND
- t'l SHAHV
^SPfl.Y
;isuh
I
''^.y '‘SasT-^
Smooth Feed Sheets^*^Use template for S160®
38 17 117 23 42 0002
Richard Lee Kokesh
2232 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
3S 17 117 23 42 0005
Batry L. & Mary Ellen Bennett
2208 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 42 0008
Georgina L. Hackney
2184 Shadyv^'ood Rd.
Wayzata. MN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0133
Timothy D. & Denise D. Hulst
2205 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata. MN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0143
Georgia J. Spaulding
P.O.Box 31
Spring Park, MN 55384
38 17 117 23 42 0003
S. Griffin & T. Ferguson
2224 Shady^\'ood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 42 0006
Roger A. Anderson
2200 Shad>-wood Rd.
Wayzata, \IN 55391
38 17 117 23 42 0009
Curtis Anderson
2178 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, \IN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0134
Collin F. Reese
2199 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0144
P.A. Doneland & S. R. Merz
2229 Shadvwood Rd.
Wayzata. \IN 55391
38 17 117 23 42 0004
S. A. Keefe &W.R. Keefe
2216 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 117 23 42 0007
Ronald F. Potas
2190 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata. MN 55391
38 17 117 23 43 0132
Richard & Meredith Schiltgen
2213 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
38 17 11723 430135
John H. Anderson
2195 Shadywood Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
f? 1 O
AVERY9 Address Labels Lacar ^960
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MC^NQ
NOV I 3 2001
DATE: October 11,2001
ITEM NO.: /O
Department Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:
List of Esbibits
iiOI-2718 Zoning Code Amendment
Section 10.03, Subdivision IS Relating to Fence Standards
A Draft Ordinance
B Standard Fence Regulations
C Sample Illustrations
D Planning Report (September 10,2001)
Review of Request
Council had requested an opportunit) to review the City Ordinances as they relate to fence construction and
design. The Planning Commission h?ld a public hearing on September 17, 2001 and a Work Session on
October 4,2001 to discuss amendmems to the existing ordinance. The Planning Commission concluded the
ordinance should reflect amendments that would include standards on fence construction, maintenance and
changing the permitted height of‘*split rail" fences.
Fences have been regul.^'ed under the section of ordinance titled ‘’non-Encroachments" (Section 10.03,
Subdivision IS). Non-Encroachments are items, such as fences, that are allowed to be located within
required front, side and rear yard setbacks. Council has indicated that the current ordinance may need
revision to fence regulations pertaining to fence construction and to review whether a permit should be
required for fence construction.
The existing ordinance does not require a permit, or regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of
fences. One primary issue noted by Council is whether the City should require propert> ow ners constructing
fences to locate the “finished” side of a fence towards neighboring properties. The finished side of a fence
assumes the structural supports face the fence owners propert>.
EiUting Ordinance: Underlined are the notations within the existing ordinance that the City uses for
regulation of fences.
Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The follow ing shall not be considered to be encroachments
on yard requirements:
A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features,
mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet,
off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated.
B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas,
loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from
the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line.
oxaiWijMnr-mztjmi
5-. • 5L . • • .'I
#01-2718 Zoning Code Amendmeni
October 11,2001
Page 2 of 3
Also discussed were the options of ordinance revisions to require swimming pools to be fenced.
Their was no consensus on the Planning Commission whether to require fences on pools or to
continue to not require. The primar>’ reason fences were discussed were for safety and securit)'
purposes.
The use of privacy fencing in front yards was also discussed without a consensus on how fence
standards could be amended to allow higher fences in front and side yards.
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff regarding amendments fence regulations, and direct staff to draft a final ordinance
for adoption on November 13,2001. The draft ordinance amendment is attached.
NON-ENCROACHAIENTS SECTION: Revisions to Fence Provisions
Subd. 15. Non-Encroachmcnls. The following shall not be considered to be
encroachments on yard requirements:
A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more
than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated.
B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking
areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is
not visible finrn the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five
feet of the front lot line.
C. wluwli do iiot j-\l^ feet in height, fences iiot'over6 feet ui
height along tlu street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fHHs
required; the total combined heiglu of botli fence and fi» shall net excee d 6 feet afacn-e the heiglit of
the erewn of the road; tj[errices, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do
not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a
distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line.
D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to
contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and
walls not to exceed tt faei^t of 6 feet above migiital grade and open off-street parking ex cept for
lakcshorc lots, no fcricc or wall 42 inches but not ui excess of 72 inches in hcigiit above original
g«aJw iuay Ik. located closer to the shoiclme tiuui tlie average distance from the shoreline of e.xisting
ivStdciKC buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constiuctcd within 75 feet of tiie
shordtne*
Course. Orduiancc 9,'2nd Senes
Adopted; 1»2 8»85
E. Rear >’ard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters
and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter, no accessory structure shall be closer
than 5 feet from a rear lot line norshall a fence or w all constructed within a rear yard e.icecd a htiglit
of fi feet abov^ oiigiiial giade.
F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any
side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructLd within a side }‘ard ex c A a height of 6 feet above
oiigmal grade.
:. OidinjLiice 0,2nd Sene^WVUl
Adopted: I'JS ’eS
G. Fences. Fences erected in all 2oniny districts are considered as a nt^p-
encroachment when they conform to the following
1 ■ Non-Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not
exceed a heiaht of 42 inches above original yrade.
b. Fences and walls within a required rear or side yard shall not exceed g
height of 6 feet above original grade.
2. Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences w.nthin the required street frear^ vard or side street \*ard of a
lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above original grade. Exception: A fence not exceediiK^ 6
feet in height mav be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major
thoroughfare, A ma|or thoroughfare for purposes of this ordinance means anv Hennepir Countv road
or State highway. If such fence involves fill or berming. the total combined height of both fence and
fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crowTi of the major thoroughfare.
b. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 6
feet \n height, and anv portion located lakeward of the *-avgrage lakeshore fence setback line” shall
not exceed 42 inches in height. The “average lakeshore fence setback line” is a line dravv-n between
Me 17 jst lakeNN'ard protection of the fence ovviier ’s principal residence structure and the most
»ux^\vard projection of the adjacent affected orincinal residence structure.
C- Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a
lakeshore lot, i.e. shall not be located u-ithin 75 feet of the shoreline for General Development Lakes.
100 feet for Recreational Lakes, or ISO feet for Natural Environment Lakes.
3. Special Provisions: Split rail fences of no more than 3 rails within a reoiured
front, street or side street vard mav have a maximum ton rail height of 48 inches above original
grade. Board rail fences within a front, street or side street v^ard for the specific purpose of enclosing
inav have a top rail height of 60” and shall be no more than 50% opaouc.
P^riVVil^d cVvuvVvUs
4, Intersection Sightline Obstruction Prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to
obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required bv Section 10.03. Subd. 16 of the
Municipal Code.
5. Fence Construction and Maintenance
a. The o\%~ner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair
and appearance and shall not allow it to become or remain in disrepair of in a dangerous condition,
b. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring
properties or the street (finished side is that side having no visible structural supports^
B
CITY OF ORONO
Fence Regulations
Genera l:
1. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit.
2. Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback Is required.
The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property
owners are advised to check with their insurance company.
The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
Fence Heieht/Location Standards
Ma.ximum Fence HeightLocation
Standard:
From Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Lakeshore Lot:
Lake Yard
Side Yard
3 V6*
6 ’
6*
3 W
Street Yard
Comer Lot:
30’ Sight Triangle
Front Yard
Side Street Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3 W
y
3 W
3 W
6*
6*
Ahead of "average lakeshore setback
line", except dq fence is allowed
within 75 ’ of the shoreline
Behind "average lakeshore setback
line"
(6’ along County & MSA Funded
Roads)
If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning
Department at 249-4600.
X:VAPPS\W7WlN60VWPtXX:S\FORMS\FENCE
STANDARD LOT
I
I
F=-------!i
ROAD
THROUGH LOT
LAKESHORELOT
* Noce no fence over 42" in height may be
located into the average lakeshore setback.
CORNER LOT
TO;Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: September 10,2001
SUBJECT: <t0l-27l8
Zoning Code Amendment to Section 10.03. Subdivision 15
Relating to Fence Regulations
Lbt of Exhibits:
A. Draft Ordinance - Proposed Revisions to Non-Encroachments Section: Revisions to fence
Provisions
B. Current City Handout and Illustrations - Describing e.xisting ordinance
C. Ordinances From 5 metro area cities
Summary of Request: Fences have been regulated under the section of ordinance titled “non-
Encroachments ” (Section 10.03, Subdivision 15). Non-Encroachments are items, such as fences,
that arc allowed to be located within required front, side and rear yard setbacks. Council has
indicated that the current ordinance may need revision to fence regulations pertaining to fence
construction and to review whether a permit should be required for fence construction.
The e.xisting ordinance does not require a permit, or regulate fencing materials or visual appearance
of fences. One primary issue noted by Council is whether the City should require property owners
constructing fences to locate the “finished” side of a fence towards neighboring properties. The
finished side of a fence assumes the structural supports face the fence owners property.
Existing Ordinance; Underlined arc the notations w ithin the existing ordinance that the City uses
for regulation of fences.
Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be
encroachments on yard requirements:
A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses. leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more
than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated.
B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings: lights for illuminating parking
areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is
not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five
feet of the front lot line.
C. Fences which do not exceed 3»l/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in
height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a maior thoroughfare, if fill is
required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of
the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not
extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance
of not less than 2 feet from any lot line.
D. In side or rear yards only , bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to
contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a vs idth of 3 feet, fences and
walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open ofT- street parking except for
lakcshore lots, no fence or wall over 42 inches but not in excess of 72 inches in height above original
grade mav be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing
residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the
shoreline
E. Rear yard onlv: balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters
and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafler; no accessor)’ structure shall be closer
than 5 feel from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a rear vard exceed a heig ht
of 6 feet above original grade.
F. Side yards only; no accessor)' structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any
side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side vard exceed a heiuht of 6 feet above
original grade.
What the Existing Orono Ordinance Poes Not Regulate; (This is a list of items that some Cities
do regulate or require when constructing a fence.)
1.
2.
3.
Fences do not require permits.
The City does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
The City does not require the finished side of the fence to be towards the exterior of the
property, or towards a neighboring property.
4.
5.
Fences are not required around sw’imming pools.
The height of a fence or wall meeting required building setbacks is not regulated. The
language in the existing and proposed ordinance only pertains to fences within required
setbacks. Should there be a maximum height for fences and walls meeting required building
setbacks?
Some Cities prohibit certain types of fences (i.c. electric and barbed wire fences -
Shorewood, for example allows these types of fences but only when issued with a horse
permit.) Orono does not prohibit electric and barbed wire fences.
Proposed Ordinance Language;
Exhibit A is the proposed new ordinance for review and comment by the Planning Commission. The
primary intent of the ordinance revision is to require “finished” sides of fences to face the neighbors
house. Many Cities do require the finished side of the fence to be faced either towards the neighbor
and/or towards the public right of way.
The new ordinance allows a maximum fence height of 42" within the averaae lakeshore setback.
This is the current standard. Only the definition of “average lakeshore setback) for fences would be
noted in the revised ordinance.
The proposed ordinance does not change the existing requirements for height and location of a fence.
The only proposed revision would change the “average lakeshore setback” for fences to be defined
as the average setback between the fence owners residence and the closest adiaceni neighbors
residence rather than the average setback between the two adjacent residences.
(Proposed Ordinance Follows - Section 10.03, Subdivision 15)
Issues for Discussion - Proposed Ordinance Changes
1.The proposed ordinance for review and discussion would allow split rail fences to exceed the
existing standards of 3 '/i feet in required front or street yards. The proposed ordinance
wculd allow fences of no more than three rails to have a maximum height of 48" and rail
fences may be 60" above grade when used for the keeping of horses. In all cases a split rail
fence could not be mere than 50% opaque.
The new orr'*nancc would include language that would require fence owners to keep a fence
in a reasonable and safe condition.
Fences would also be required to be installed with the “finished” side facing a neighboring
property or a public/private roadway. The finished side of a fence is the side of the fence
having no structural supports.
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff regarding amending fence regulations.
Options for Action
I.Make a recommendation on the ordinance amendment and forward review of the amendment
to the Council for review at the meeting scheduled October 8, 2001.
2.Table and review at either the meeting of October 15, 2001 or fonvard to a Planning
Commission Work Session.
NON-ENCROACHMENTS SECTION: Revisions to Fence Provisioiis
Subd. IS. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be
encroachments on yard requirements:
A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental
features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more
than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated.
B. Naine plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illumiiuiting parking
areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is
not visible from the public right-o f-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five
feet of the front lot line.
C. Ftnccs wluch do not c.xcccd 3*!/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in
hei^t along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is
required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the hcigltt of
the crown of the road; tjcrraccs, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do
not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a
distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line.
D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to
contain on area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and
walls not-to exceed a hei^t of 6 feet aboit miginal grade and open off-street parking except for
lakeshore lots, no fenceorwall over 4 2 inches but not iiM rof ?2 tnchcatn height above original
gtadt be located closer to tlic shoreline tliaii tlie averagediSiaiiwC fiotu tlic shoreline of existing
ibSidcucc buildings on adjacent lots, suwh fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the
shoreline.
Gouicc. Oidiiuncc 9, 2nd Senes
Adoptedri08»85'
E. Rear yard only, balconies, brcczeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters
and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory* structure shall be closer
than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fimee or w all constructed within a rear yard exceed a height
of 6 feet abo^ c orrgiiud grade.
F. Side yards only, no accessory* structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any
side lot ime nor shall a fence or wall coiLStructed within a side yard exceed a heiglit of 6 feet above
ongmaf^rade.
Sooree: Ordinance 9,2nd Scric.<
Adopted; 1 ■28*85
G. Fences. Fences erected in all zoning districts are considered as a non-
encroachment when they conform to the following standards:
I ■ Non-Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not
exceed a height of 42 inches above original grade.
b. Fences and u’alls within a required rear or side vard shall not exceed a
height of 6 feet above original grade.
2. Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences within the required street frear) vard or side street vard of a
lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above original grade. Exception: A fence not exceeding 6
feet in height mav be located alone the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a maior
thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this ordinance means anv Hennepin Count\* road
or State highway. If such fence involves fillorbemiing. (he total combined height of both fence and
fill shall not e.xceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the maior thoroughfare.
b. Fences w ithin the reouired side vard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 6
feet in height, and anv portion located lakeward of the “average lakeshore fence setback line” shall
not exceed 42 inches in height. The “average lakeshore fence setback line” is a line drawTi between
(he most lakeward projection of the fence owTier’s principal residence structure and the most
lakeward projection of the adjacent affected principal residence structure.
c. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore vard of a
lakeshore lot, i.e. shall not be located w ithin 75 feet of the shoreline for General Development Lakes.
100 feet for Recreational Lakes, or 1 50 feet for Natural Environment Lakes.
3. Special Provisions: Split rail fences of no more than 3 rails within a required
front, street or side street vard mav have a maximum top rail height of 48 Inches above original
grade. Board rail fences within a front, street or side street yard for the specific purpose of enclosing
ll<^l "If I lirT’’ have a too rail height of 60 ” and shall he no more than 50% opaoue.andITI c CVV\ I vVl cut
d. Intersection Sightline Obstruction Prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to
obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required bv Section 10.03. Subd. 16 of the
Municipal Code
5. Fence Construction and Maintenance.
a The owner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair
and appearance and shall not allow- it to become or remain in disrepair of in a dangerous condition.
b. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring
properties or the street (finished side is that side having no visible structural supports).
Mil
CITY OF ORONO
Fence Regulations
General:
1. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit.
Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required.2.
3.
4.
The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property
owners are advised to check with their insurance company.
The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
Fence Height/Location Standards
Maximum Fence HeightLocation
Standard:
Front Yard 3 W
Side Yard 6’
Rear Yard 6*
ore Lot:
Lake Yard 3 W Ahead of "average lakeshore setback
line", except jjQ fence is allowed
within 75 ’ of the shoreline
Side Yard 6’Behind "average lakeshore setback
line"
Street Yard 3 W (6' along County & MSA Funded
Roads)
Comer Lot:
30 ’ Sight Triangle
Front Yard
Side Street Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3 ’
3 W
3 W
6’
6*
If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning
Department at 249-4600.
X:VAPPS\WPWlN60VWPOOCS\FORStSU=lNCE
STANDARD LOT LAKESHORE LOT
THROUGH LOT
* Note no fence over 42” in height may be
located into the average lakeshore setback.
CORNER LOT
ROAD
TTiMiimuinrwigM
I
I. ___
!f ______
ROAD
G. Fences. Fences erected in all zoning districts are considered as a non-
gneroaghmgnt when they conform to the foll9%.\.-ing
I Non-Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences and u’alls within a required front yard or side street yard shall net
exceed a height of 42 inches above original yrade.
b. Fences and walls within a required rear or side vard shall not exceed a
height of 6 fcc( above original grade.
2. Lakeshore Lots:
a. Fences within the required street frear) yard or side street yard of a
lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above original grade. Exception: A fence not exceeding 6
feet in height mav be located alone the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major
thoroughfare. A maior thoroughfare forpuroosesof this ordinance means anv Hennepin Countv road
or State highway. If such fence involves fill or berming. the total combined height of both fence and
fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crovsn of the maior thoroughfare.
b. Fences within the required side vard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 6
feet in height, and anv portion located lakeward of the "‘average lakcsiiore fence setback line” shall
not exceed 42 inches in height. The “average lakeshore fence setback line” is a line draxsii between
the most lakeward projection of the fence owner’s principal residence structure and the most
lakeward projection of the adjacent affected principal residence structure.
c. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a
lakeshore lot, i.e. shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for General Development Lakes.
100 feet for Recreational Lakes, or 1 50 feet for Natural Fnvironment Lakes.
3. Special Provisions: Split rail fences of no more than 3 rails within a required
front, street or side street yard mav have a maximum top rail height of 48 inches above original
grade. Board rail fences ^ ithin a front, street or side street vard for the specific purpose of enclosing
|iM> I l|i~T Im' ^ top ta 1 height of 60* and shall be no more than 50% opaque.Imi |i I ||iT.‘ nave a top ra i ncignt ot ou and
4. Intersection Sightline Obstruction Prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to
obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required bv Section 10.03. Subd. 16 of the
Municipal Code.
5. Fence Construction and Maintenance.
a The ouner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair
and appearance and shall niM allow it to become or remain in disrepair of in a danyerous condition.
b. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring
properties or the street (finished side is that side having no visible structural supports!.
CITY OF ORONO
Fence Repilatiom
General:
1. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit.
2. Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required.
The City of Orono does not require fences around swimming pools; however, property
owners are advised to check with their insurance company.
The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
Fence Height/Location Standards
Maximum Fence Height^Location
Standard:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3
6 ’
6 ’
Lakeshorc Lot:
Lake Yard 3 W Ahead of "average lakeshore setback
line", except na fence is allowed
within 75* of the shoreline
Side Yard Behind "average lakeshore setback
line"
Street Yard 3 'A*(6* along County &. MSA Funded
Roads)
Comer Lot:
30* Sight Triangle
Front Yard
Side Street Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3*
3
3 W
6 ’
6*
If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning
Department at 249-4600.
X:\AfrS\WrWIMSOVWpDOCS\FOILMS\FEflCS
STANDARD LOT
W TrimSnumhftgfir'
|jj
ROAD
THROUGH LOT
ROAD
I 4riMrffnMitelGM
!f__________
ROAD
LAKESHORE LOT
* Note no fence over 42” In height may be
located into the average laiceshore setback.
CORNER LOT
City of Edina, Minnesota
^ *" ***' Districts. Fences erected in the R-l District and R-2 Districtshall conform to the following;
Fences exceeding four feet in height shall not be erected evithin a required front street
^•tback or side street setback, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2. of Subd
7 of Subsection 850.11,
No fence shall exceed eight feet in height.
Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties.
No fence shall be installed so as to obstruct a required clear view at street
intersections as requited by SecUon 1405 of this Code.
Subd. 6 Exceptions to Setback Requirements. The following shall not be considered as
encroachments into required setbacks:
Overhtmging eaves not supported by posts or pillars, and bay windows .tot extending
to the floor, which do not project more than three feet into the required setback
and which are not within three feet of a lot line.
Sidewalks and driveways, but not patios.
Fences which do not exceed the height limitations imposed by this Subsection 850.07.
Awnings and canopies attached to the principal building and not supported by posts or
pillars, which do not project more than three feet into the required setback and
which are not within three feet of a lot line.
Flagpoles, light poles and flxtures.
Cloth'*sIines and outdoor fireplaces in the rear yard only.
Bus shelters which have been approved by the Engineer.
Unenclosed steps or stoops not exceeding 50 square feel in area.
Fireplaces projecting not more than mo feel into the required setback and not
exceeding ten square feel in horizontal area.
Underground storage tanks, conduits and utilities.
Portions of principal and accessory buildings or structures which are located
completely underground, which are not visible from the surface of the ground and
which do not encroach more than one-half of the distance into that part of the
required setback nearest the principal or accessory building.
Trees, shrubs and other vegetation.
Retaining walls.
Freestanding basketball posts, backboards and goals adjacent to a driveway.
Zoning Code • Section 520 Page I of 3
520.13. Fence?. Subdivision!. No person may construct, or cause to be constructed or erected
within the City, any fence without first making application for and securing a permit therefor from the
zoning administrator. (Amended Ord. 95-777 [1-3-96])
Subd. 2. Location. Boundary line fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the
person constructing or causing the construction of such fence unless the owner of the property
adjoining agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on the division line of the respectise
properties. The zoning administrator may require the owner of the property upon which a fence now
exists, or may require any applicant for a fence permit to cause to establish the boundary lines of his
property by a survey thereof to be made by any registered land surveyor. (Ord. 97-797 (4-15-97))
Subd. 3. Construction and maintenance. A fence shall be constructed in a substantial,
workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably suitable for the purpose for which the
fence is proposed t ' be used. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and
shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a
nuisance, public or private. Link fences, wherever permitted, shall be consuucted in such manner the
barbed end is at the bottom of the fence and the knuckle end is at the top thereof.
Subd. 4. Nuisances. Any fence which is. or has become dangerous to the public safety, health or
welfare, is a public nuisance. The Zoning Administrator may commence proper proceedings for the
abatement thereof. (Amended Ord. No. 87-601)
Subd. 5. Barbed wire. Barbed wire fences are permitted only in industrial districts as provided in
this code.
Subd. 6. Residential district fences. In an R district no boundary line fence shall be erected or
maintained more than four feet in height e.xcept iliat: (Amended Ord. 613)
q) fences on any comer lot erected within 30 feet of the intersecting curb line are subject to
subsection 520.11;
b) fences on side property lines shall not be more than six feet in height for the distance
commencing from a point on such side property line located at the rear lot line and proceeding
thence along such side property line to a point therein which would be intersected by the rear
wall line of the then existing principal building on that lot on either side of such fence, which
building line intersecting such fence line is closest to the rear lot line from which such fence
commences provided that if such principal building ts located more than 50 feet away from
such fence line and is owiied by someone other than the fence owner or erector, then such six
foot side yard fence may be constructed to a point of such side >-ard which would be
intersected by the rear w all of the principal building on the lot thus fenced;
c) fences along any rear propert>’ line, which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot
shall not exceed six feet in hei^t;
d) fences along a rear property line which line constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot
may not exceed six feet in height for a distance calculated as in clause b) and may not exceed
four feet in height thereafter. All fences in any residential district shall be constructed in such
maimer that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open, and
in calculating such percentage, distances of 50 feet may be averaged beginning at the
permitted point opposite the principal building;
e) fences on side street lot lines shall not be more than six feet in height for the distance
http7/www.hopkinsmn.com/Emp_homepage/Sections/Section%20520ZC.htm 9/6/2001
Zoning Code • Section 520 Page 2 of 3
commencing from a point on such side street lot line located at the rear lot line and
proceeding thence along such side lot line to a point thereon which is 40 feet distant from the
front lot line, but in no case shall the fence extend forw'ard of the front line of the house;
0 property line fences abutting R districts shall conform to those conditions appl>ing to the
R districts.
g) fences enclosing swimming pools must have a minimum height of 4 feet and shall not
exceed 6 feet subject to the provisions of 520.13 Subd. 6. (Added Ord. 88-613)
h) the side/s of residentially zoned properties abutting a State or County road may have an
opaque fence. (Added Ord. 95-777 (I -3-96])
i) The side of the fence facing the public right-of-way shall not contain the structure and/or
support of the fence. (Added Ord. 95-777 (1-3-96J)
Subd. 7. Business district fences. Property line fences in a B district shall not e.xceed six feet in
height. The council may grant a conditional use permit for a fence up to eight feet in height provided:
a) that applicant has an approved open sales lot;
b) open sales lot classified as a non-conforming use;
c) has a commercial or industrial operation which requires the storage of equipment outside
the building;
d) the premise or use may be dangerous to the public;
e) the use is an attractive nuisance and the applicant can show that for security reasons a
fence of six feet will not be adequate.
Subd. 8. Industrial district fences. Properly line fences in an I district shall not exceed eight feet
in height except that:
a) fences in industrial districts which are primarily erected as a security measure may have
arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened
commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground, and
b) a fence located in the front yard of premises in an industrial district abutting a right-of-
way containing 50 feet or more in width shall conform to setback requirements for buildings
in said district. Said area consisting of the setback shall be landscaped in accordance w ith a
plan approved by the City. Ornamental fences utilized for landscaping purposes are excluded
from the provisions of this ordinance.
Subd. 9. Special purpose ferices. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in
construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city ’ by the issuance of a
conditional use permit and by the council upon proof and reasons submitted by the applicant and
upon the signing by said bodies that such special purpose is necessary to protect, bulTer or improve
the premises for which such fence is intended. The special fence permit, if issued, may stipulate and
provide for tht height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby permitted.
Subd. 10. Instilutionaldistrict fences. In an Institutional district no boundary line fence shall
be erected or maintained more than four feet in height except that
a) Fences along any property tine that abuts a parking lot may exceed four feet but
not exceed six feet in height. (Added Ord. No. 2000-833)
http://www.hopkinsmn.eom/Erap_homcpage/Sections/Section%20520ZC.htm 9/6/2001
SMo,2^C^O: ji
f. Fences - Genenl Requifcsncatt:
(1) Pennii Rftjuixtd; No persoo, finn oc cocpeiHioo shall eoo- struct or erecl say fcace without first tecoriaf a
buildtnt permit I.
(2) Locations: All fences shall be located eatirely upon the property of the fence owner ualcss the owner of the
adjolnii'i property agrees, in wiitiaf, that such fence may be erected on the property line of the respective prapcnics. No
boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet (3*) to an existing parallel boundary line fence.
(3) Surveys: The Building Official may require an applicant for a fence permit to - .blish his true boundary line by
a survey thereof uj be made by a registered land surveyor.
(4) Constructioo and Maintenance: Every fence shall be constructed in a substan;.a!. workmanlike mai^ and of
material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence U proposed to be used. Every fence shall be mainta^ ta
such condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore or public or private nuisance. All fences shall be so construct^ that tte
finished side faces away from the fence owner's lot. Any fence which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall
be considered a public nuisance and abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper City omcW if within fifteen
(IS) days after notificatioti the ownerofsuch fence has not ursdertaken the necessary repairs hinuelf to abate the nuisance.
Link fences, where permitted, shall be constructed in such a manner that no barbed ends shall be at the lop. (Ord. 168.
6-24-85)
(5) Nonconforming Fences: All fences existing on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance, but not conforming
herewith, except as to height restrictions, shall conform and be subject to the terms of this Ordinance If at any lime a
nonconforming fence shall be damaged to the extent of more than twenty five percent (23%) in any plane, then wu^ut
ftinher action by the Council, the fence shall, fiom and after the date of uid damage, be subject to all the regulauons
specified by these zoning regulations. Any fence which is damaged to an extent of less than twenty five percent (25%) may
be restored to iu former extent It u the inienl of thU SecUon that sll nonconforming fences shall be eventually brought into
conformity. (Ord. 227,6-11-90)
(6) Prohibited Fences: Electric fences shall not be permitted except in conjunction with the Issuance of a horse
permit pursuant to Chapter 702 of this Code, and shall be removed upon expiration or revocation of a horse permit. Barbed
wire fences shall not be permined except as hereinafter provided. Fences of the picket, rail or slat types shall be so con
structed that the spaces between the pickets, rails or slau shall be greater than twelve inches (12") or leu than six inches
(6-) (amd. Ord. 289.3-28-94)
Wire fences which are not readily visible shall be prohibited except where attached to a wooden or other fence of opaque
material which is itself plainly visible, (amd. Ord. 289,3-28-94)
(7) Required Fences: Swimming Pools: Outdoor swimming pools with a capacity of one thousand five hundred
(1 ,500) gallons or with a depth of three feet (3') or mote of water shall be adequately fenced to prevent uncontrolled acceu
from the sueet or sdjoming property, Such pools shall be completely enclosed by a nonclimbable fence at least four feet (4’)
in height (Ord. 168,6-24-85)
(8) Shoreline Fences. No fence shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area u specified in Section 1201 26
Subd. 5a(3) of this Ordinance. In addition, fences on or adjacent to the shoreline of any navigable lake, channel or stream,
or on or along that portion of a lot line extending from a navigable lake, channel or stream to the near side of the avenge
building construction line, shall not exceed four feet (4*) in height (Ord. 227,6-11-90)
(9) Residential District Fences:
(a) Boundary Line Fences: In all parts of Shorewood which are zoned residential, no bow'dary tine fences shall
exceed four feet (40 in height except that
i. Fences on all comer lots erected within thirty feet (300 of the intmerting ptopetty line shall be
subject to subdivision 2h of thb Section.
ii. Fences along any rear property line which Is also the rear property line of an abuttirtg lot shall not
exceed six feet (60 in height; and
iiL Fences along a rear property line, which line constitutes the side lot line of an abuitiag lot shall
not exceed six feet (60 in bei^ for a distaoce u calculated in iv below and shaU not exceed (bur feet (40 in height
when abuitiiig a ftoot yard line. (Old. 168,6-2445)
hr. Subject to other lesirktioQS wtihia this Section, fences may be eonstiucted to a height of six feet
(60 on or along Ibe side yaid ptoperty line fiom the rear lot line to the wquirod fioni yard setback line. (Old. 227,
6-11-90)
V. In Ih^ iMUnces where a fence exists as an enclosure which restricts acceu from the front to the
rear yard, a gate, ideotifiable coll^1>le section, or other such means of recognizable ingress shall be provided for
em^ency vehicles. Such ingrw shall be unobstructed and a roinimuro often feet (l(0 in width. The location of
swh^gress points shall be positioned at any point paralleling the front lot line, between the side lot property line
(aa) The fence shall be located no closer than eight feet (S') to the property line.
(cc) The fence shall not obstruct trafTic visibility. (Ord. 227,6-I1-90)
(b) Interior Yard Fences:
tn height *'* purposes snail not exceed ten feet (10")
,.«p. i!i“’ f“«> i" •« Comroreul DUWcu ihall »k «c,rt ,|g|,, r«, (r) ta h,i,hl
(•) Bpuml.n, to ro.ee. .buWn, R Dillricu Ui.II conrora, lo 0,o« .eguLuon. .ppUcble u Ac R Diuriet
(b) Security Fctkcs:
wbipioed u 1« »« b«u.rfoy line miu. be nuj, by ■ eejiKeml Ind w„eyor and
ri,bMf..»,. •" ■■’“"“8 « ««ee m PnWie
bepe^.Vn'ii'ij^Sid'rrirs:?^^;^.^.^^
Pi-7 Page I of 3
21130.01. FENCEAVALL REGULATIONS:
Subd. 1. Permit Required. Except as othen^ise provided herein, no person shall erect, alter or
relocate any fence or wall within the City without first having been issued a permit therefor.
Subd. 2. Permit Fee. A fee as set forth in the City Code shall be charged for a permit issued under
this section for new fences or w'alls, as well as the replacement of fences or walls in the same
location.
Subd. 3. Application Procedures.
(a) Agricultural Developments and Residential, Single and Two Family. Each application
for a permit under this section shall be submitted to the Building Official on forms
provided by the City. Each application shall include a site plan drawn to scale showing
the location of the house(s), garage(s), and other improvements on the lot and the
location of the fencing or wall to be erected, altered or relocated.
(b) Residential, Other Than Single and Two Family, Commercial, and Industrial Uses.
Request for fencing or walls shall be processed as part of and according to the
procedures of the site plan review, as stipulated in Section 21045 of this Chapter.
Subd. 4. General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided herein, ail fences and walls within the
City shall be subject to the following general provisions:
(a) No fences or walls shall be placed on or extend into public rights-of-way.
(b) All fences (hedges and plantings excluded) and walls constructed shall require a
permit under this section. Permits may be issued by the Building Official or designee, if
all requirements of this Chapter have been met.
(c) That side of any fence or wall considered to be its "face" (i.e., the finished side having
no strucmral supports) shall face abutting property or street right-of-way.
(d) Both sides of any fence or wall shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair
and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a
condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private.
(e) No physical damage of any kind shall occur to abutting property during installation
unless it is allowed under agreement with the adjacent property owner.
(f) A certificate of survey may be required by the Building Official for all fences (eveent
hedges and plantings) or walls to be constructed on or within six (6) feet fr ai.*
property line, unless comer property stakes are in place and marked and a survey is filed
with the City.
a. A fence shall be required on the top of a retaining wall that exceeds four (4) feet in
height and that is located adjacent to a public right-of-way or pedestrian walkway. The
Zoning Administrator may grant exceptions to thb requirement if the retaining t^l does
http://www.ci.plymomhmn.us/cgi-b..721130-FENCINO_SCREENINO_LANDSCAPING.ht 9/6/2001
Page 2 of 3
not pose a public safety concern.
(Amended by Ord A/b. 2000-06. 02/29/00)
Subd. 5. Specific Fence Standards. Except as otherwise provided herein, fences may be allowed
subject to the following specific standards:
(a) Man-made fences not exceeding sLx (6) feel in height may be permitted at or behind
the front building line as established by the principal slrticture. Said fence may be
allowed within a front yard which qualifies as an equivalent rear or side yard as defined
by this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. So 2000-06. 02/29/00) (Amended by Ord. So 2001-
06. 02/13/01}
(b) Fences not exceeding thirty-six (36) inches in may be permitted in the required front
yard.
(c) Fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height, for uses other than one and two family
dwellings, may be permitted in front of the front building line as established by the
primary structure on the lot, when required for screening of adjacent property. In such
cases, the required front setback for the fence shall be the same as for the use which it is
intended to buffer.
(d) On comer lots or lots adjacent to railroad rights-of-way, no fence shall be located in a
sight visibility triangle unless it is in compliance with the sight clearance requirements
for such lots as set forth in Section 21105.05 of this Chapter.
(e) There ore no height restrictions on natural hedges or plantings utilized as fences in
any residential zoning district, except that no such hedges or plantings shall be located
within a sight visibility triangle as set forth in Section 21105.05 of this Chapter.
(0 Should the rear lot line of a lot in a residential district be common with the side lot
line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard
setback of the abutting lot shall be fenced in accordance with the provisions of Section
21130.01, Subd. 5.b.
(g) Fences up to ten (10) feet in height may be permitted to enclose tennis courts
provided all other requirements of *his subdivision arc met, and shall not require a
conditional use permit or interim use permit where a tennis court is a permitted or
accessory use.
(h) Fences which include a security gate at a point where access is provided to the
property and principal building may be approved if necessary and appropriate as part of
the site plan review.
Subd. 6. Fences Allowed by Conditional Use Permit and Interim Use Permit In accordance with
requirements set forth in Section 21015 or 21020 of this Chapter as applicable, the following special
fencing arrangements may be approved as a conditional use peimit or interim use pomit by the City:
http://www.ci plymouth-mn.us/cgi-b..721 130-FENCINO_SCREENING_LANDSCAPINOJit 9/6/2001
Page 3 of 3
(a) Fences allowed by conditional use permit ore as follows:
(I) Fences exceeding six (6) feet in height provided that:
a. The fence is in a location where fences up to six (6) feet are
permitted.
b. The fence not exceed eight (8) feet in height.
c. The fence is not within a side or rear >*ard of a required
lakeshore setback area.
(b) Fences allowed by interim use permit are os follows:
(1 ) Barbed wire and electrically charged fences. Agricultural uses located in
the FRD District and essential service structures in all Districts shall,
however, be exempt from the interim use permit requirements.
(2) Razor wire fences.
(c) Standards for evaluating fences allowed by conditional use permits or interim use
permits shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) The fence placement, height or design does not create a safety hazard
with regard to, from or on a public street or roadway.
(2) The fence placement, height or design docs not create a safety problem
or negatively affect adjoining properties or use.
Subd. 7. Non-Conforming Fences. It is the intent of this Chapter to allow the continuation of such
non-conforming fences until they arc discontinued as provided herein. However, it is not the intent of
this Chapter to encourage the surv ival of non-conforming fences and such fences that are declared to
be incompatible with pcm.*tted fences within the City. Such fences shall be regulated by the
following provisions:
(a) An existing fence not allowed by this Chapter in the district within which it is
located, except when required by law or ordinance, shall not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, or structurdly altered unless such fence is changed to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter. Maintenance of a non-conforming fence will be allowed
when this includes necessary repair and incidental alterations which do not expand or
intensify the non-conforming fence.
(Amended by Ord S’o. 99^5. 01/19/99)
http://www.cLplymouth.iim.iis/cgi-b..721130-FENCING_SCREENING_LANDSCAPING.ht 9/6/2001
Reference Page I of I
(C) ResideiUiat fencing and walls.
(1) Fences or walls which detain or inhibit the uow of surface water drainage to and from
abutting properties is prohibited.
(2) Setbacks.
(a) Front. Fences and walls more than 30 inches in height must be setback 15 feet from
the property line. Multiple family dwelling developments or townhouse developments may have
wrought iron (or similarly designed) fences construct^ up to the front property line with the approval
of the City Manager.
(b) Interior side or rear. No setback.
(c) Side or rear abutting public right-of-way. Fences and walls must be setback IS feet
from the property line and restricted for tralTic visibility unless they qualify for one of the following
exemptions. Fences may be allowed up to the property line if:
stop lights).
1. Propertius ore located on comers with controlled intersections, (i.e. stop signs or
2. Fence or wall does not encroach into the clear view triangle as defined and
regulated in §§ 152.22G through 152.226.
(3) Access required.
(a) Detached single- and attached two-family dwellings. Where any fence connects to a
building at least one gate with a minimum width of two feet, six inches is required to allow access
around the building.
(b) All other uses. Plans for fences and gates controlling access to the property must be
approved by the Police and Fire Departments before construction begins.
^4) Fence height. No fence may exceed eight feet, six inches os measured from the top of
the fence or supports to grade. Exceptions to this height may be made for fences enclosing tennis
courts and other similar recreational uses or as may be required elsewhere in the City Code.
http://209.48.87.250/brooklyn_jNiricjDin/Ip..y4bec?Hemplatesftfit*documeat-frameJitm&2. 9/6/2001
I
Application Date:
60 Day Dcadliae:
9/19/01
11/I8A11
mpeTINO
NOV 1 3 2001
CllYUh ORONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 5. 2001
ITEM NO.: / /
Department Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:<t0l-2726 Kevin Garnett
450 Orono Orchard Road
Variances
Zoning District:
List or Exhibits
RR-IB, 2 acre. One Family Rural Residential
A Resolution
B Site Plan
C Planning Report (October 5, 2001)
Review of Request On behalfof the property owner. Erotas BuildingCorporation has submitted an after
the fact variance to permit a 6’ fence to be located within the 50' street >ard setback where fences are
permitted to be 3 '/i in height. The fences would be located along Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson
Street. Orono Orchard Road is the west boundar> and Dickenson Street is the south property boundary .
Fences have been regulated under the section of ordinance titled “non-encroachments’* (Section 10.03,
Subdivision 15). Non-Encroachments are items, such as fences, that arc allowed to be located within
required front, side and rear yard setbacks. In front yards and side street yards fences are permitted to have
a ma.vimum height of 3 ‘/j*.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0 for variances to permit a 6* fence to
be located w ithin the 50' setback to Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street based on the finding that the
owner has installed a vegetative buffer along the street property lines. A dense row arborv itae trees range
in height from 13' to 16* have created a nearly complete screening for the fence.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based on the hardship that the fence would be
securing a large property of 14.7 acres in the RR-IB zoning district. The property is in an area where the
general development is consistent with other properties in the locality. Generally the City has required
screening to eliminate the v isual impact of oversize fences. The screening provided does minimize the visual
impact of the fence
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the resolution approv mg after-the-fact variances for permit a 6' fence on the property w ithin
5C of the street property lines.
.1
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03,
SUBDIVISION 15 (C)
FILE NO. IW1.2726
WHEREAS, Kevin Gamctl (hereinafter -ihe owTicr") is ouTicr of the property
located at 450 Orchard Park Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally
described as follows:
Attached “Exhibit A” (hereinafter "the property"); 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 15, 2001 at which times all persons desiring to
be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the owner has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 to permit a 6 foot fence to be constructed within
the 50' front and 50' side yard adjacent to the street setback where a fence height of 3 '/> feel
is allowed; and
Minnesota:
1.
2.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono.
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File <(01-2726.
The property is located in the RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District wliere 2 acres is the minimum lot area requirement. The property has
a lot area of 14.5 acres.
The Orono Planning Commission re\'icwed this application on September 17.
2001 and recommended approv'd! on a vote of 6 to 0 to approve the variances
as requested based on the followii^ findings:
A. The relationship of the property is unique because of the property being
a comer lot and is 14.7 acres in size. The lot also has extensive
vegetation that would be available to screen most of the fence.
Page I of 6
B. The property is in character with the ItKality. It is a 14.7 acre lol
located in the RR-IB district re^uiring a minimum lot si/c of two acres
The site would be completely enclosed with a privacy fence and is a
black colored chain link style fence. The actual fence, because it is
chain link, is transparent and would not have the appearance of a
**wailed ” property Most of the fence will not be visible due to the
extensive “dense ” vegetation surrounding the property.
C. Along the Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street property lines a
vegetative buffer has been installed by the property owner. The new
trees range in height from 13* to 16*. The landscaping has consisted of
planting a dense row arborvitae trees. The trees are planted leaving no
view of the property from the street. The fence has bcx*n installed
between the trees and the house. The row of arborvitae trees has
eliminated view of the fence along the property lines.
D. Along the driveway olT Orono Orchard road 9 pin oak trees witJt a trunk
size of 6" to T have been planted. The full plan includes the following
new trees (many have been installed including 81 arborv itae trees 13* to
16* in height. 9 pin oak 6 ‘* to 7** in diameter, and 8 spruce trees 20* in
heiglit.
E. There are 8 preexisting maple trees between the road and newly planted
arborvitae. Ihe maples have trunk sizes ranging front 18" to 26". and
numerous mature trees along Dickenson Street and west of the house.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar
10 it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate s
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Page 2 of 6
The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City stafT. comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 15 to permit a 6 foot
fence to be constructed within the 50' front and 50' side yard adjacent to the street setback
where a fence height of 3 '/j feet is allowed subject to the following conditions:
3.
4.
The plantings are completed in compliance with the landscaping plan completed
by Dean Bailey and Associates. Inc. most revised on 7-23-01 on file with the
City of Orono.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant,
but arc permissive only and must be c.xercised by completion of all required
landscaping within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance
will e.xpire on that date (November 13. 2002).
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.
The undersigned applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the
property.
Page 3 of 6
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 13* day of November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor
Property Owncr(s)
STATE 01 MINNESOTA
COUNTY OE HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13lh day of November,
2001 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. 2001 by Linda S. Vce. City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal
corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 6
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of
jwrsonally appeared before me.
____ who is personally known to me
____ whose identity I proved on the basis of _________________________________
____ whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmaiion of _________________________
________________. a credible witness
and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the
same as his/her/their free act and deed.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this___day of ______________, 20__
___________personally appeared before me.
____ who is personally known to me
____ whose identity 1 proved on the basis of _________________________________
____ whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of _________________________
_________________. a credible witness
and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the
same as his/her/their free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit A
Lots 5 and 6 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 307 and Lot 15, Block 12. Minnetonka BlufTs.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Page 6 of 6
•■mart rmtm
*V
^ ^ ^ ^ 0(ck«ns4n 4tu«tt^ 7^ * ^
The new portion of the fence was installed in August, 2001. Staff issued a stop work order for the
new fence along Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street. The builder contacted Staff shortly
after the order and requested to finish the final few posts since nearly the entire fence had been
constructed.
Landscaping: Along the Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street property lines a vegetative
buffer has been installed by the property owTier. The new trees range in height from 13 ’ to 16'. The
landscaping has consisted of planting a dense row arborvitae trees. The trees are planted leaving no
view of the property from the street. The fence has been installed betw een the trees and the house.
The row of arborvitae trees has eliminated view of the fence along the property lines.
Along the driveway off Orono Orchard road 9 pin oak trees with a trunk size of 6*’ to 7" have been
planted. The full plan includes the following new trees (many have been installed);
81 arborvitae trees 13' to 16' in height
9 pin oak 6" to 7" in diameter
8 spruce trees 20' in height
(additional arborvitae to be planted on northwest side
of property • number and location has not been
determined)
Pree.xisting trees include 8 mature maple trees between the road and newly planted arborvitae. The
maples ha\ trunk sizes ranging from 18" to 26", and numerous mature trees along Dickenson Street
and west of the house.
Landscaping Plan is attached.
STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP
Applicant's hardship is included with Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their
testimony regarding this issue.
Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls.
The property is being put to a reasonable use because in contains a single family residence.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The relationship of the property is unique because of the property being a corner lot and is
14.7 acres in size. The lot also has extensive vegetation that would be available to screen
most of the fence.
«01 -2726 Erout Buildint CorporatkM
4 SO OroM Orchard Road
9/17/01
r^2ofS
8.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The property b in character with the locality It b a N.7 acre lot located In the RR-IB
district requiring a minimum lot size of two acres. The site would be completely enclosed
with a privacy fence and is a black colored chain link style fence The actual fence, because
it is chain link, is transparent and would not have the appearance of a "walled" property
Most ofthe fence will not be visible due to the extensive "dense " vegetation surrounding the
property
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter.
Economic factors are not a consideration with this application
I 'ndue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
Solar access is not a consideration
The Board of Appeals and Adjusunents or the Council may not permit as a variance
for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where
the affected person's land is located.
The use of the property would remain residential w hich b a permitted use in the zoning
district The construction of the fence dues not alter the use of the property.
The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
The applicant will not be changing the dwelling status of the property.
The special conditions appl>ing to the structure or land in question are peculiar
to such property or immediately adjoining property.
The lot is a corner property with 14.7 acres. The fence would not be closer than 12 ‘ to the
west property line and not closer than 6'to the south property ’ line The last ± 500feet and
along the south property line and in the northwest corner of the property would not be
screened with the dense vegetation The fence would provide security to the property for the
owner of the property
The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district
in wdiich said land is located.
Only a limited number of lots in the RR-IB dbtrict are ofa sbe (14.7 acres) and dimension
(double frontage on two public roads) as the subject property. Trees have been planted
dense enough to provide adequate screening for the fence.
•01*2726 EfOCM BwildiMg Coipoiaiioa
450OraaoOrcte6R<Md
9^17/01
PaetJoTS
1
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The applicant has staled the fence would be necessary for security on the property. The
proposed fence would provide security and not change the character of the property.
Neighboring residents had addressed the City Council recently about the number and breeds
ofdogs on the property as part ofthe Residential Kennel License review. The 6 fence would
also provide fencing to keep the dogs on the property.
11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.
The fence would not impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be
contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code limits the height on fences in
street yards for a variety ofreasons includinf visual impact and not to negatively impact and
create public safety issue by restricting adequate site distances to a road
There would be minimal Impact on the aesthetics of the fence because most of the fence is
s ..reened by the trees The fence is located between 12'and 45 'from the property lines along
Orono Orchard Road and would be setback 6'to 13 ’from the property line along Dickenson
Street. Both Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street are paved with an additional 15*
to 20* of distance between the traveled portion of the roads and property line".
The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
The variance wilt provide added security to the property which is a concern based on the
relatively large size of the lot Other public safety issues to consider are the fact a large
pond is located in the center of the property and the use of the property for dogs. The
Council had recently approved a Residential Kennel License for the property
Staff RccommendatioB
Staff IS recommending approval of the variance request based on the hardship that the fence would
be securing a large property of 14.7 acres m the RR-IB zoning district. The property is in an area
where the general development is consistent with other properties in the locality. Generally the City
has required scrce.ning to eliminate the visual impact of oversize fences. The screening provided
does minimize the visual impact of the fence.
*01-2726 Erout B«i>l4iag CotpgrMn
450 Orono Ordur* Rood
«/l7/0l
ri«t4ors
OptioBi far PUnning Commisiton Action
A. Recommend approval.
B. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
C. Table.
D. Other action.
«0l-2726 EretM BuUding Coipontfon
450 Orano Orchard Road
9/17/01
P^SofS
w..Mu.-
CITY OF ORONO - V/UUANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Application H 01-^27 2.
Date Rccch’cdT 9li^Jbl~~
Amount Paid 2.S-Q
PROPERTY' INFORMATION ^
Site Address VgO
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired ______________________________________
I (do). ^____ jalso own the adjacent parcels of land.
Presenluse ot property: ^ residential ____^other (specify)_
Zoning District:_______________________________________
_(month/year)
APPLICANT ^ ^ ^ Phone (home)74p3-&SZ>
Name ^f^ST/CS. Phone (work) y O > ^ 0O
Address:^! ^ 30 7^ fiui^itv: Zip:
OW'NER (if different than applicant)
Nam. jr/LUM
Phone (home)_
_________________________ ______ Phone (work) -"*7*^/
AddressT"QfL^*JO f\|LU^<QA^ l^flCitv:" Zip:__________
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST f
Describe request in detail: ^ ^ O
Estimated Construction Cost $_______________
>C<^o>ou.
(attach additional sheets if necessaiy)
'M
r'sA'
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area
Setback:
___Lot Width
From Side
Hardcover
Rear
_Lol Coverage
Average Lakeshore
/C Other (specify)/ ' cv'*
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventingDescribe undue nardsnip or practical dinicuiw or unusual property cond
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:
^ f?JT 7^ r ^1 ■
(attach additional sheets if neri^«>rv^
#2726
U-i
•SSEMSTVSWr-
Ti*n ■«ve «, i '» *
trnr t»cw^ er fu.
MH4MIU fSlW- ormfT »To iwA
t)o4P 9C^<».
USA* *'i‘awi r*w>*-‘
~f<gra< prv*>i* >««a < gne»
l»Ai» A*- «n*wt^
4 3«wgTia»» ^ imw » At#'
Dteinnsin w««t^ # *
.^A
ib.
N88*4V20"W 957.25
Lim. •/* foundVll
monumtnH
puoptH<f foEonf 1
SEE DETA
:
rfr*^
so' T 3'4' An*tf4<t
DICKENSON ■■ STfiEET
S 88*48' 30** £ 960.02
N
100 200 300 400
E
CITYOFORONO
Fence Regulations
OCMOll
1. Fences meeting height and location regulations do not require a permit.
2. Fences must be within property boundaries, but no setback is required.
3. The City of Orono docs not require fences around swimming pools; however, property
owners are advised to check with their insurance company.
4. The City of Orono does not regulate fencing materials or visual appearance of fences.
Fence Heiyht/Locatton Standards
Maximum Fence HeightLocation
Standard:
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Lakeshore Lot:
Lake Yard
Side Yard
3 W
6’
6’
3 W
Street Yard
Cortw^^^
"^■^n^ight Triangle
Front Yard
Side Street Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
3 W
y
3 W
3 W
6’
6*
Ahead of "average lakeshore setback
line", except ns fence is allowed
within 75' of the shoreline
Behind "average lakeshore setback
line"
(6’ along County & MSA Funded
Roads)
If you have further questions regarding fences, please contact the Building and Zoning
Department at 249-4600.
X;\APM\WPWIN6(nWPOOCSUX>a.MS\FENCE
■UH DAie •n/17/91
•ATCII StS
ftor ADOR
OUMR NAM
TAXfAVER
NAHE/AOOR
SR Rz-nT-n IS •••«
•ISIS tlOOOHILL RO
W M MCOUIRE • M H MCCUIRI
« N nCCUlRf I M M WCCUIR*
BIS WOOONILL RO
WAVZATA IW SSSIl
NCNNCPIN COUMTV WOflRTY WOWUTIOM SYSTEM
rROTEKTY OIMCRS LIST
SS RZ-llT-ZS Z5 IMS
••S«7 ORONO ORCHARD ID S
0 0 A R H HACHIUAN
DAVID 0 HACNILLAH
R 0 DOR SARD
MftS m SSAAI-512*
RCrODT NO. mSMIi
PA6C IS
SI I2-U7-2S 21 III*
•ISII ODONO ORCHARD RO S
SIN OSMNM
STKELf R OSDODN
S4I ODONO ODCNADO RO
MAVZATA MN SSSIl
SI IZ-IW ZS 21 III*
RROf AOOR 11555 VOOOMXLL RO
MR ^ T I HCNILLIS I D J NCNIILIS
TARfAriR THOHAS E NCNfUIS
MAMC/AOOR 555 VOOOHUL RO
VAVZATA MM 55511
SD 12-117-25 51 1112
•1251 DICKENSON ST
M W HCCUIRE INN MCGUItE
W N MCGUIRE A N M MCCOIRC
1251 DICKENSON ST
MAVZATA MN S55I1
51 12-117-25 51 IMS
■•III RUSSELL AVE
JOSEPHINE I CARPENTER
JOSEPHINE D CARPENTER
DOH ISI <m RUSSELL AVE I
MAVZATA MN 55511
PROP AOOR
OMNER NAME
TAMPAVER
NAME/AOOR
SD 12-117-25 51 nil
■1521 NANLON AVE
C P CURLER I ■ CURLER
CHARLES P CURLER
S21 HANLON AVE
MAVZATA MN 55591
51 12-117-25 51 1127
11255 DICKENSON ST
tURlON J OCTTLOrr
MARION J OETTLOrr
1255 DICKINSON ST
MAVZATA MN 55591
SD 12-117-25 51 1159
•1295 DICKENSON ST
R S MILLER/K E STENSO HILLER
RICK S MILLER
1955 PERKINSVXLLE RO
maple plain MN 55559
PROP AOOR
OMNER NAME
TAKPAVER
NAME/AOOR
SD 12-117-25 51 1117
•MSI ORONO ORCHARD RO S
KEVIN OARNETT
KEVIN OARNETT
IS! ORONO ORCIURO RO S
MAVZATA MM 55591
SI I2-117-2S SI HID
11225 DICKENSON ST
D M YOUNG TRUSTEE M/L EST
lAYE LXLKE
1225 DICKENSON ST
MAVZATA MN 55591
5D 12-117-25 51 1119
•I5IR ORONO ORCNARO >0 S
S S • J E MEDSTER
STEVEN 5 I JO ELLEN MEDSTER
SIR ORONO ORCHARD RO S
MAVZATA MN SSS91
PROP AOOR
OMNER NAME
TAKPAVER
NAME/AOOR
SI 12-117-25 51 II5I
■I29I MOOONXLL RO
JOHN C I LOIS A 0‘MALLEV
join C I LOIS A O'MALLEY
291 MOODIIILL RO
MAVZATA MM 55591
SI 12-117-25 51 1151
•I5II HANLON AVE
P A I N H UmiTT
PAUL A I MEGAN M DEIR«TT
511 HANLON AVE
MAVZATA MN 55591
SI 12-117-25 52 Mil
••IDS ORONO ORCNARO RO S
EOMARO N HAm TRUSTEE
EOMARO H NANI
IID ST PETER ST DISl
ST PAUL MN 55112
SI 12-117-25 12 MU
PROP AOOR IMSD ADDRESS IMASSICNEO
OMNER MANE CITY OP ORONO
TAKPAVER CITY Of ORONO
NAME/ADOR P 0 10/ II
CRYSTAL RAV MN 55525
TOTAL DATCH 515 IMU
#2 (H) /TP ■n
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Mp£jif4Q
NOV 1 3 2001
u^OftO^O
Dale: Novembers,2001
IlcmNo.: I2^
DcpartBCBt Approval:
NaBM: Michael P. Gaflron
THIc: Planning Director
Ad^iitliitralor Approval:Afcada Sccttoa:
Zoning
llcm OcscriplioB: ^2736 Long Lake Fire Station, 340 North Willow Drive - CUP -
Public Hearing - Continuation to November 26 Meeting
An initial phase of the Tire station construction project will be soil correction. A Land Alteration
Conditional Use Permit is required due to the amount of earth movement involved, and also because
it will occur prior to issuance of the building permit Project Manager Ron Kirk had indicated a hope
to get started on the soil correction in late Fall, to allow for construction to begin in the spring. Note
that staff is intending that Council hold the public hearing and waive review by the Planning
Conunission, os allowed by code, to expedite ^e process.
Staff had published for a public hearing to be held on November 13, in anticipation of receiving the
CUP application submittals prior to the hearing. However, plans were just received on the 7th, and
an ^plication has not bee * received in time for mailing 10-days notice to the neighboring property
owners, hence the hearing &. aid be continued to your November 26 meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to continue the Public Hearing on the Long Lake Fire Station Land Alteration CUP to the
November 26.2001 Council meeting.
i
•»*»irnigo
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MOV 1 J 20Q\
DATe?NMrw«tor,,iP. 2001
ITEM NO.: ' 3
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Tilk Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Public Services Directors’s Report
Item Description: Demolition of Buildings Willow and Shoreline Drive Properties
We have obtained quotations for the demolition of struetures on the City owned properties at 340
Willow Drive North and 3370 Shoreline Drive. A hazardous materials survey was completed for
both properties by Peer Environmental Services, ilte quotations include the removal and proper
disposal of the hazardous asbestos materials in the structures. The Willow Drive property structures
had a large amount of asbestos materials, fhe lowest quotations are listed below.
340 Willow Drive North Kevitt Excavating, Crystal
3370 Shoreline Drive Kevitt Excavating, Crystal
$19,600
$13,410
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to accept quotation from Kevitt Excavating, Crystal in the amount of S1 3,4 10 for demolition
of structures at 3370 Shoreline Drive to be funded from the General Fund. Special Projects and
Contingencies.
Motion to accept quotation from Kevitt Excavating. Crystal in the amount of $ 1 9.600 for demolition
of structures at 340 Willow Drive North to be funded from the General Fund, Special Projects and
Contingencies.
1
i
••epTINO
WOV I 3 2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
cirrohOflONo
DATE: November 13. 2001
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
N jubc Grcgofy A. Gappa
Tkk Dixtctor of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:
Pt#m Description: Approve Purchase of Golf Course Rough MowerGolf Cour
Agenda Section:
Public Services Dircclors’s Report
The year 2001 Golf Course Budget included S20.000 for a rcplaccmem rough mower with a
bucket and sprayer as the existing equipment is in poor condition. The existing mower is 10
years old and the sprayer is 20 years o.*d.
We have obtarned quotations for this equipment. The lowest quotations are listed below.
Scharber and Sons. Long Lake
John Deere Model 455 Tractor with 60" mower and 48" bucket
Price includes $1,000 trade in value for the old tractor.
Cost $12,537
MTl Distributing. Plymouth
Toro Model 41440 Sprayer Cost $5,495
COUNCIL ACI ION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve purchase of the following equipment to be funded from the year 2001 Golf
Course Fund, Capital Equipment Budget.
Scharber and Sons. Long Lake
John Deere Model 455 Tractor with 60" mower and 48" bucket
Price includes $1,000 trade in value for the old tractor.
Cost $12,537
MTl Distributing. Plymouth
Toro Model 41440 Sprayer Cost $5,495
A
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV | 3 2001
DATE: Nfiil!i8fi-C|99®0D1
15ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Cappa
Tkle Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:
Item Diixiription: Revised Dog and Cat Regulations for City ParksRfegulatio
Agenda Section:
Public Services Directors's Report
The Park Commission is recommending revising the Orono City Code to prohibit Dogs Or Cats
in parks where posted by signs. The commission is concerned about disturbance to wildlife and
waterfowl in some parks as the existing leash requirements, for dogs and cats in parks, arc not
always adequate to protect wildlife.
The Park Commission is recommending that the Council authorize the installation of signs
prohibiting Dogs or Cats in French Creek Preserve Park to protect the waterfowl in this park.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to adopt ordinance revision prohibiting Dogs or Cals in parks where posted by signs.
Motion to approve the installation of signs prohibiting Dogs or Cats in French Creek Preserve
Park.
\*
ORDINANCE NO., SECOND serie:s
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO CITY
CODE TO PROHIBIT DOGS OR CATS IN
PARKS WHERE POSTED BY SIGNS
THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION I. The following underlined language is hereby added lo ihe Orono Cify Code.
Section 9.31, Subd. 3. G. Bring or keep a dog or cat owned or under his control into or upon a park unless
such dog or cat is cfTeclively restrained by means of a leash or chain and is kept from disturbing persons, wild
animals and wild fowl: or briny a dog or cat owned or under his control into or upon a park where prohibited by
signs.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall be cITcctive
upon publication.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at its regular meeting held the
1 3*’' day November 200 1 .
ATFEST:
Linda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Mi___I
rniikir'H urETtNC^
NOV 1 3 200t
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY UH OHONO
DATE: November 5,2001
ITEM NO:lu
DepartncDt Approval:
Nanc Lin Vee
THIe Chy Clerk
Adroinistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrator's
Report
Hem Description: Purchase of Voting Booths
Background
Since the number of voters has increased over the years, the precinct judges have requested
additional voting booths to accommodate more voters at the polls. The City currently has six voting
booths for each precinct. It would be reasonable to increase the number of booths to eight or nine
per precinct, depending on the available space at the precinct location.
The voting booths the City currently uses are no longer available. The new Model VI booths are
very similar and would cost $175 per booth, plus tax and shipping charges. The 2001 budget
included an amount of $5,070 to conduct a special election if both the cities of Orono and Long Lake
had voted for a consolidation. Staffis requesting the reallocation of $1,770 from the election judge
salaries budget to the small tool and minor equipment budget for the purchase of nine additional
voting booths. This would allow one precinct to use all new booths that have the same design, with
six booths being redistributed between the remaining three precincts.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the reallocation of $1,770 from the election judge salaries budget to the small
tools and minor equipment budget, within the Election DepartmenL for the purchase of nine
additional voting booths.
NOV 1 3 2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION y OflONO
DATE: November 6,200 1
ITEM NO: / 7
Dcpartinciil Approval:
Naa« Lin Wet
TMk City Ckrk
Adminblrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administraioc's
Report
Item Description: Maintenance Agreement for Telephone System
Attachments: Inter-Tel Axxess Telephone System Price List
S Year Equipment Maintenance Agreement
Background
The current telephone system was upgraded in February of 1999 with installation and equipment
provided by McLeod USA. The original equipment warranty has expired and McLeod has offered
a maintenance agreement with 1,3 and S year coverage options. 1lie agreement provides coverage
of the Inter-Tel Axxess Telephone System with 46 phones and 4 port Axxessory Talk Voice Mail
and includes the following:
• 100% coverage on ports and labor in the event of equipment failure
• Discounted labor rate on moves, adds and changes to the system (1 0%)
• Free ovcr-lhc-phone assistance from Tech Support (S40 per call without)
• Two-hour response at equipment failure/prompt system restoration to full operation
• I'oster up time/parts are replaced more readily
• Budget protection against large unexpected costs
There have been several scr\ ice calls and phones replaced over the last year. As the system ages,
we con anticipate the continued need for ser\ice colls, to replace phones, and the possible
re. .ment of other pieces of equipment.
Cost of Equipment Maintenance Agreement
McLeod USA has proposed the following coverage options:
I year agreement: $2,300.00
3 year agreement: $2,070.00 per year (1 0% savings)
5 year agreement: $ 1840.00 per year (20% savings)
Attached is a listing of irutial and replacement equipment costs. As the price list indicates, the cost
to replace several phones and/or a major piece of equipment could offset the cost of a mainteruuice
agreement.
Request for Council Action continued
Page 2
November 6,2001
Maintenance Agreement for Telephone System
SUIT RccomncndatioB
Staff recommends approval of a 5 Year Maintenance Agreement (copy attached) at a cost of
SI,840.00 per year, (or a total cost of S9,200.00. The payment schedule calls for a payment of
$3,200.00 within the first 12 months of the agreement, with the balance payable over the final 4
years ($1,500.00 per year) of the agreement. Since the costs for 2001 will be minimal ($267), a
budget adjustment for 2001 will not be required; however, the 2002 expense ol $2,933 may require
a 2002 budget adjustment.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve a 5 Year Rquipment Maintenance Agreement with McLeod USA to cover the
Inter-Tel Axxess Telephone .svc’.am with 46 phones and 4 port A.xxessory Talk Voice Mail at a cost
of $1,840.00 per year for a total cost of $9,200.00, with a payment of $3,200.00 due within the first
12 months of the agreement ind the balance payable over the final 4 years ($ 1,500.00 per year) of
the agreement, to be funded from the Office Equipment Maintenance budget of the General Fund
Central Services Department and to authorize the City Administrator to sign the 5 Year Equipment
Maintenance Agreement for the per jd December 1,2001 through November 30,2006.
■ tv v.f.. , .i,
r
Request for Council Action continued
Page 2
November 6,2001
Maintenance Agreement for Telephone System
Staff RcconacMialkNi
Staff recommends approval of a S Year Maintenance Agreement (copy attached) at a cost of
S1,840.(X) per year, for a total cost of $9^00.00. The payment schedule calb for a payment of
$3^00.00 within the first 12 months of the agreement, with the balance payable over the final 4
years (SI,500.00 per year) of the agreement Since the costs for 2001 will be minimal (S267), a
budget adjustment for 2001 will not be required; however, the 2002 expense of S2.933 may require
a 2002 budget adjustment.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve a S Yeai Equipment Maintenance Agreement with McLeod USA to cover the
Inter-Tel Axxess Telephone .<vctem with 46 phones and 4 port Axxessory Talk Voice Mail at a cost
of $ 1,840.00 per year for a total cost of $9,200.00, with a payment of $3,200.00 due within the first
12 months of the agreement ind the balance payable over tlie final 4 years ($ 1.500.00 per year) of
the agreement, to be funded from the Office Equipment Maintenance budget of the General Fund
Central Scr\ ices Department and to authorize the City Administrator to sign the 5 Year Equipment
Maintenance Agreement for the per jd December 1,2001 through November 30.2006.
08/2./01 15:41 FAX li^OD_0)002
City of Orono
Inter-Tel Axxess Telephone System Price List
PART
KUMBER
INlXXilL
equipment
COST
replacement
COST
rKTER-TEL AXXESS CARD CABINET _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
308.00 413.00
X
Kun ni'a nCTER-TEL AXXESS POWER SUPPLY 9-AMP- - - - - - --SB9.60 790.00
ail 1 Card Cabinat Srpanaion Cabla - - - - - - ,22.00 30.00
X
aan 0Q17 a««aai CPU 25€ - - - - - - - --2.464.00 2.635.00
627 6421 MT Ratad 50 Unit PAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1.232.00 1,652.00
9995 TNTER-TEL AXXESS DKSC16+ DCTL 8TA 16CKT CARD_ _
827.20 1,250.00
aan 9908 C »rd. Aaotaaa Analoa Kavaat Card- - - - --- -_680.00 1,180.00
t 550.2300 INTER-TEL AXXESS LSC CO LS 4CKT CARD_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __308.00 415.00
A
1 550.2301 1 INTER-TEL AXXESS LSC DGHTR CO LS 4CKT CARD_ _ _ _
255.20 315.00
1 550.2600 INTER-TEL axxess OPC option card W/l-DSP_ _ _ _ _
462.00 550.00
827.1020 DSP Softwar* Kay (PAL) 4 DSP on OPC 422.40 565.00
1 634.2566 Dioltal Sional Procaaaor DSP 88.00 93.00
X
1 550.2116 ISTEB-TEL axxess SLC16 8L STA 16CKT CARD_ _ _ _ _ _
1.626.00 1,850.00
1 550.0116 264.00 262.00
A
1 550 2500 INTER-TEL AXXESS SLA 2-SL/OPX OR 2-DID CARD 408.00 675.00
1 550.4400 INTER-TEL AXXEfiS STD 32CHAR DISPLAY PHONE W/SPKS 0.00 330.00
X
t 550.4500 INTER-TEL AXXESS EXEC DISPLAY 6X16 PHONE M/SPKR 374.00 515.00*
1 660.7600 Phon*. 52-Button Elactronic Diaplay Tarainal 325.00 450.00
*
1 520.4300 INTER-TEL AXXESS BASIC DGTL PHONE W/SPKR_ _ _ _ _
170.00 200.00
1 550.5166 INTER-TEL AX8RY TALK 082 4-PORT 165_HR VM 5,104.00 6.844.00
1 HSTG HANDSET Cord 9.001 12.00
1 900.0663 1.999.0G1 2.00
1 550.3026 INTER-TEL axxess modem KIT 300.001 429.Ol
1 828.1275 Inaida Track Softwar* £ Uaar Cuida 600.OC) 1,060.00
1 550.2300 INTER-TEL AXXESS LSC CO LS 4CKT CAW)306.0() 450.00
1 550.4500 374.0() 515.00
Current Labor Rat* to Sorvica your Int*r-T*l syst*a ia 8150.00
labor coat for th* inatallation of your waa 87040.00
p«r hour. Th* total
\
2
o
9 ilJSA
Phone: 952-9304400
Fax: 952-9304459
Date: November 7,2001
Cuftomer 4970
Saletperson: Andrea GouM
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
0
m
S1
a
I **
M
o
McLeodUSA Integrated Business Services
5959 Baker Road, Suiti 475
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Company: City of Orono
Contact: Lynn Vee
Address: 2750 Keiiy Parkway
Crystai Bay, MN 55323
Equipment Covered: /nfer-fe/ Axxesa Teiwphotm Syttm with 48 phones and 4 portAjonaaoty Talk Voica Mi//
Coverage Start Date: 12/01/01
This agreement covers all Common Key or PBX telephone equipment and all station equipment on site sold by and/or serviced by McLeodUSA Integrated
Business Systems including voice mail systems if appticabte. It also entitles you to a discounted labor rate for all service calls not covered. This
agreement does not cover call accounting, fox machines, headsets, paging or other peripheral equipment
$1,600.00 VHin be due in thirty days. $1,600.00 will be due by 430/02. The balance of $6,000.00 wl be bled in mnual instMments of $1,500.00
per year over the next four years of coverage beginning 12/01/02. Where appicabie. sales tax wl be added to the total price. If paid wifoin the net 30
terms of the agieemenL coverage wl be eftective on the dale feted above. If not paid during net 30 terms, coverage wl be effective the dale payment b
received. Thirty days prior to the expiration of your agreement, you wl receive an invoice for its continuation on an annual basb, which you may cml in
writing within 30 days of the invoice date.
Coverage Options:
□ 5 Year Agreement: $ 9.200.00 ($1,840.00 per year)
CItvof Orerw
By:_______
Date:
Nm and Tat
PiMM intM Twto a Condim and Ralurn «W) Contract
o
oa
TERMS AND CONDmONS
25J5i« 3 MbSJlnVSlci irt. l^«i«Aultog^
hdfiw ilwl b# dry liM ol duM. *»d Custeffw itui pfowJe necBaanf eievaJw scMca. he«L B b M and sanHify hc»e*
M »lwft b bW on IM Eq«ptT*nt V!ftedute • ne« cft«9* trt M oorvu^ >0 t*U r» acaxjnldww^ a>ri ol Mfvtaig aivl
ioonMtudichx9««topptca&it WM>ow»k »martenjncBboywdibemrrartyperiodbcorsdersd• renwala«aionindfc^to
SyRenb (i»r. al » obOon temwaj# M Atnuaa* by jivinj Cuilomw ton (tO) days «rtton ncbo* I Ciabimef dtteiS in b ptyment to MdeodUSA Magntod Buwiess Sytoerra. OtoT}« ■***! m not ptod
»ften A* 5/uJ tw lutioct to a iar«» eh»g» oil 5% p*» rier?i or a! Ihe maiJnum rate pemSed by La*. B k «loaaer.
M^^duSwMfitodBuMto»Sy»teffbV*:•^rtl^enJMtolut»trt*ato«»ttiearb«^tm«rtofianci»0l1lea•«lte Mowibf. MdwxWSA Wagratod Businau Syi«b ittol not M
iMIbamada llnoa9«aiiiartc»nbaieael>adont»toaaa*Bdooi(,.'tljodUS*WagfatodBusne»Sytotonia**io(boninaytonanatatobAgreemant
Curtomar way not toaigntbAgtaiwant —wultoaatoBw cowant c<k-leodJSAInbot«BdBibiP»»SytoBibr. ____ .... . - ^TM prottoiow otaitetod to too ittonl««B Afliawnart oofjfcMB fia araamant beaaeen MctaoilBA lr*Bg«Bd ftatow* SyttBW and ft# CiMBBtof and any iitoiloB
EwrpwtotedWa!i»3wtblnCTtlMitotowyMi3gtvWdtoi^
ua dtottiaiaaa Kbutattoout toialbM ngtiaiamatBwopiDWtowriaiala.
« am Han m (1) Cuatowar b naaad to M Agiwwant. (to laMb of aadi aM ba )oM aid aavaoi
TM toaa ol Mtmaotiitial geaam M Agmnanl
City of Orono
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION N(W \ 5 200\
Date:
llcm No.: f o
Dcpartncol Approval:
Name: Michael P. GafTron
Title: Planning Director
Administrator Approval:Agenda Sctlion:
Zoning
Item Description: 2000*2020 Community Management Flan (CMP) • Final Adoption •
Resolution
List of Exhibits
A - Resolution
D - Met Council Approval Letter & Attachments
On October 24, 2001 the Metropolitan Council granted final approval of the 2000-2020 Orono
Community Management Plan (CMP). The approved plan includes the following changes which
were made by the City after the October 30,2000 original submittal date:
• Inclusion in Part 4C (Sewer Plan) of a list and copies of all Sanitary Sewer Agreements
between Orono and adjacent municipalities.
• Inclusion in Part 4C of 2 pages of additional text regarding Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
management.
• Revision of Port 4D (Water Supply Plan) to reflect updated water supply data for 1 996-2000.
• Revisions/additions to text in Part 3C (Housing Plan) as approved by City Council on
September 24.2001.
• Re-guiding of Dunbar senior housing site from Commercial to Residential in Part 3D (Land
Use Plan).
Met CounciLs approval noted that the City can put the Plan into etTect os revised, and no further
modifications arc required. That approval also included the following recommendations or
requirements:
1. Before Orono constructs any additions or extensions to the sewer system, a Tier II
Comprehensive Sewer Plan must be submitted for Met Council approval {Tkr II Plan is
simply a slightly more lietaileil review of the City seu er system; CMP Part 4C already
contains most of the Tier II info we would need to submit).
2. Orono must submit annual updates to Met Council regarding progress in meeting I/I goals.
3. Orono should continue to work with Met Council to meet housing goals.
2000-2020 CMP Final Adoption
November 8,2001
Page 2
Met Council is changing northwest Orono's 'Urban Reserve’ designation to 'Permanent
Rural’, reflecting previous negotiations for limited sewer capacity, actual development
patterns, and environmental constraints. This is an acknowledgment that Orono is not going
to redevelop its 2-ocrc and 5-acrc zones into urban densities, and no lands arc required to be
preserved at low density for future high-density development.
Upon final adoption by the City Council (attached resolution), staff will incorporate the revisions
into the Plan and distribute copies of the complete CMP to the various parties and agencies as noted
in the Plan, including the local libraries.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the attached Resolution Approving the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan.
4
i >
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
THE 2000*2020 CITY OF ORONO
COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, ihc City ofOrono is a municipal corporation located witliin Hcruicpin
County and within the planning jurisdiction of Uic Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 and
with Minnesota Statutes Chapters 462 and 473, the City of Orono in November 1981 adopted a
comprehensive municipal plan known as the 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan
(also referred to as the 1980 CMP) to provide for the orderly development of the City; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the 1995 amendments to the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act, the City of Orono has prepared a revised, expanded and updated version of the 1980
Community ’ Management Plan to be known as the 2000-2020 CMP, which has been reviewed by the
public. City commissions and officials, adjacent municipalities and other affected Jurisdictions, and
by the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS,on September 11,2000 the Orono City Council adopted Resolution No.
4520 granting preliminary approval of the 2000-2020 City of Orono Community Management Plan
subject to Metropolium Council review and approval; and
WHERE AS, during review by the Metropolitan Council minor revisions were made
to the 2000-2020 CMF at the City's behest or in response to requests by the Metropolitan Council,
such revisions including:
1.Inclusion in Part 4C (Sewer Plan) ofa list of all Sanitary Sewer Agi cements between
Orono and adjacent municipalities.
Inclusion in Part 4C of 2 pages of additional text regarding Inrillration/innow (I/I)
management.
3.Revision of Part 4D (Water Supply Plan) to reflect updated water supply data for
1996-2000.
Page 1 of 3
1
. t
f
Revisions/additions to text in Port 3C (Housing Plan) as approved by City Council
on September 24, 2001.
Re-guiding of Brovin Road/flighway 1 2 senior housing site from Commercial to
Residential in Part 3B (Land Use Plan); and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2001 the MeUopolitan Council formally granted
approval of the 2000-2020 CMP as revised, making the following findings and conclusions:
1.TheCity of Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act
requirements for 1 998 plan updates.
The Plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. However, due to
previou.s negotiations with the City tliat established limited sewer capacity, urban
development is not expected to occur in the area designated in the Regional Growth
Strategy as Urban Reser>'e, and therefore it is not a system departure.
The Plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans for Aviation, Recreation
Open Space, Transportation and Wastewater Services.
The housing element of Orono's Comprehensive Plan is consistent with regional
housing policy.
Orono*s Comprehensive Plan is generally compatible with the plans of adjacent
governmental units and the school districts; and
WHEREAS, on October 3 1,2001 the Metropolitan Council indicated to the City via
letter that the 2000-2020 CMP as revised may be placed into effect upon formal adoption by the City
Council.
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED lhat the City Council of the City of
Orono hereby formally adopts the 2000-2020 City of Ororo Community Management Plan with the
above noted revisions as the City’s official comprehensive municipal plan pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 462.355. This Plan shall also be cited as the Community Management Plan or
CMP. The intents, purposes and policies of the CMP shall be implemented by the ordinances of the
City, which ordinances shall hereaAer be amended as necessary to be in conformance \%ith the
objectives of this Plan. The CMP may from time to time be amended by resolution of the City
Council, following a public hearing and in accordance mth the procedures outlined in Port 5 of the
Plan. Any amendments shall be subject to review by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 13th day of November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson. Mayor
Page 3 of 3
Metropolitan Council
Buttdtng communities that work
October 31.2001
The Honorable Barbara Peterson, Mayor
CityofOrono
POB0X66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 ■ ^ I
Re; Orono Comprehensive Plan Review * ' ^ ^ •’it.-i
Metropolitan Council District 3 (Mary H. Smith. 952-475-1388) , ,..
Refcn5^Fil,18W2.I UoO,Vo
Dear Mayor Peterson:
At its meeting on October 24.2001. the Metropoliirn Council completed its review of the City of
Orono Comprehensive Plan, an update of the city’s P JO comprehensive plan. The Council
based its review on llic staffs executive summary and review record. A copy of the Council ’s
review document is enclosed for your records.
The Council found tliat Orono ’s comprehensive plan is generally consistent with the Council ’s
h()uscholu forecasts and that it is in conformity with the regional system plaits for aviation,
recreation ‘ *.xn space, transportation and wastewater service. The city's plan is consistent with
regional housing policy md compatible with the plans of adjacent communities and school
districts.
The Council found that Orono's comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth
Strategy. However, previous negotiations between the Council and the city rcstncled the amount
of sewer capacity available to serve this area, resulting in larger lot developments supported by
Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. Natural features and public/semi-public facilities further
restrict the number of lots still available for feasible future subdivision into urban lots. Therefore,
urban development is not expected to occur in the area designated in the Regional Growth
Stralegv' as Urban Reserve, and therefore is not a system departure.
The Council adopted the following recommendations:
I. That the city of Orono can put its Comprehensive Plan into effect and no plan
modifications arc required.
That the Metropolitan Council change the Urban Reserve designation to Permanent
Rural as indicated on Figure 7 to reflect previous negotiations for limited sewer
capacity in the city, actual development patterns, and environmental constraints.
Upon ‘he approval of the Mty's comprehensive plan and prior to the construction of
any extensions or additions to its disposal system the city must submit a
Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Tier II Plan) to the Council for final approval. The
comprehensive sewer plan shall be consistent with the city’s approved
comprehensive plan and reflect any modifications recommended by the Council
That the city provide the Council with an annual update of its progre.ss in meeting its
1/1 goals.
That the city continue to work with the Council to meet its housing goals.
MOctrocouncU org Metro Info Line 602' IB88
230 Em( FirUi Succt S4 Paul. MinnnouSSIOI-IOaS
AnAiuitannrt
• 16511003 1000 • rojl602-isa0 • nY2«l-0004
The Honorable Beibtra Peterson. Mayor
October 31.2001
Pa«e2
Minnesota Statutes 473.864, Subdivision 1, requires local governments to adopt their
comprehensive plans within nine months following a final decision by the Council. Once it u
revised to inclu^ all the siqiplemental information that was submitted, we request two copies of
the plan be sent to the Council for our records. One copy will be placed in the Council library
and the other will be placed in the working file for Plaiining and Technical Assistance. In
addition, please send us documentation (a city council resolution) indicating the city adopted or
amended any official controls to implement the comprehensive plan.
We congratulate you. the city council and your staff for preparing a thoughtful plan that protects
Lake Miruietonka. takes advantage of the opportunities presented with the Highway 12 re*
alignment, and provides life-cycle housing in the city of Orono. City staff was especially helpful
in providing a(Mtional information and assisting in the analysis of land use in the rural areas of
cc:Ronald Moorse. City Administrator. City of Orono
Mike Oaffron. Planning Director, City of Orono
Sherry Nanisiewicz, MN/DOT Metro Division
Mary H. Smith. Metropolitan Council District 3
Robin Caufinan. Principal Reviewer. Planning and Growth Management Department
Donald Bluhm. Manager. Municipal Systems, Environmental Services Division
CONSENT
Meeting date: October 24,2001
Executive Summery
Agenda Kern: 2001-443
.-.r •*-- f'
Date:
Subject
Oislr1c((8). Mefnber(s):
PoUcy/Legal Reference:
Staff Prepared/Presented:
October 16.2001
City of Orooo Coaprehcesivc PUe - Referral File No. 18392-1
MetropoUtae Cbaadl District 3 (Mary HUl Sahh, 952-475-1388)
Mioa. StaL § 473M. *'-abd. 2 aad § 473.175, Sobd. 1
Robia Canfraan, Priadpal Reviewer (651-602-1457);
Eli Cooper, Dirt *or, Planniog aad Growth MaaageaieBt Dept (651-602-1521);
Carea Dewar, L- ector, Commaaity Developmeat Divisloa (651-602-1306)
Pivision/Department: Community Dcvelopmeat/Plaaaiag aad Growth Maaagemeat_____________
Overview
Orono*s plan is consistent with Council forecasts, in conformance with the regional system plans for aviation,
recreation open space, transportation ano wastewater services, consistent with regional housing policy, and
compatible with the plans of adjacent communities and school districts. The plan, though it is reasonable given
past practice, is not technically consistent with the current Regional Growth Strategy because it is net proposing
to plan for Urban Reserve. The issue of future urban reserve th the area was addressed in the late I970 ’s when
the (Council agreed to size the interceptor serving Orono for very limited urban growth. Consequently, the
interoeplor does not have the capacity to serve as much expanded urban area in the city. Therefore, the Urban
Reserve designation is inappropriate. Additionally, it is not feasible for the city to meet the Regional Growth
Strategy's permanent rural density guidelines because the city has been committed to "small lot” permanent
rural since the I970*s and has developed accordingly.
Proposed Action/Motion
That the Metropolitan Council adqit the attached Review Record and the following reconuncndations:
1. That the city of Orono can pul its Comprehensive Plan into effect and no plan modifications are
required.
2. That the Council change the Urban Reserve designation to Permanent Rural as indicated on Figiuc 7
to reflect previous negotiations for limited sewer capacity in the city, actual development panems,
and environmental constraints.
3. Upon the approval of (he city’s comprehensive plan and prior to the construction of any extensions
or additio.' s its disjH a] system the city must submit a Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Tier 11 Plan)
to ihe Cou;. :il for final approval. The comprehensive sewer plan shall be consistent with the city's
approved comprchcmivc plan and reflect any modifications recommended by the Council.
4. That the city provide Ihe CouikiI with an annual update of its progress m mecung its 1/1 goa'.i.
5. That the city contuiue to work with the Council to meet its housing goals.
BACKGROUND
Orono IS ranked 54"* in anticipated growth to 2020. based on Council foreca^. According to the 2000 census,
Orono had 7,538 residents in 2.766 households, and had an estimated 1,200jobs. Orono is a Livable
Communities Act (LCA) panicipant The Council’s Regional Blueprint desigrutes the area of Orono closest to
Lake Minnetonka as Urban Area (2.894 acres within the existing MUSA), surrounded by Urban Reserve (7306
acres outside current MUSA).
According to Council forecasts, Orono should plan to accommodate 9.5S0 people in 4,000 households and 1,350
jobs by 2020. The city's plan indicates that the city will be slightly under Council forecasts for households by
2020. Two major fteton that the city considered in the drafting of its comprehensive plan are the protection of
Lake Minnetonka water quality and the realigument of Highway 12.
MNKA(iE TO COUN'Cll STRATFGlES
B1 Infrastructure: There are adequa te capacities to accommodate the planned growth in Orono through 2020.
G9 Quality of life: The plan preserves the rural character of the city and protects Lake Minnetonka water
quality and other natural resources.
B CommunlcaUonlconstituency bulkftng: The city has many service agreements and works closely with
adjacent municipalities and other local governments.
B Alignmant: The city is committed to providing for higher density life-cycle and affordable housing in urban
service areas in addition to the larger lot single family homes that support individual septic treatment systems.
ATTACHMENTS
Comprdiensive Plan Policy Matrix
Review Record - Review of the city Of Orono 2000-2020 Draft Community Management Plan
Figure 1 • Location Map, City of Orono
Figure 2 • Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas. City of Orono
Figure 3 • Regional Systems, City of Orono
Figure 4 • Existing Land Use, 1997 City of Orono
Figure S - Future Land Use »
Figure 6 - Future DeveloproetU Potential
Figure 7 - Urban Service Area (existing and planned) and Rural Area
%
fl- i n -
->i;r
CITY OF ORONO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY MATRIX
2020 Households
2020 Employment
Rogioiial .i V
4,000 households
1,350 jobs
3,760 households
USOjobs
Staff Comments
City and Council forecasts for population and
households have decreased over time as
concern for water quality and environmental
protection has become a key factor and less
dense development is anticipated. Limited
sewer capacity also limits the number of
households that can be supported in the city.
Urban Density 3 units/acre • Existing urban development
is 1 unit per 1.24 acres (0.81
units per acre)
• 2-6 units per acre allowed in
new development along
Highway 12
• RPUD process allows for
higher densities
The City has identified several locations where
higher density, multi-family residential
development would fulfill the Regional
Blueprint requirements within the city of
Orono. The proposed senior housing project
provides 62 new units on 4.5 acres, for density
of 14 units per acre. Overall, the goal for new
development in urban service areas is an
average density of 4.4 units per acre.
Urban Reserve
Density
1 unit per 40
acres
• Minimum lot size of 2 acres
• Overall rural density of one
unit per 7 acres to support
individual septic systems
Previous negotiations with the city restricted
the amount of sewer capacity available to
serve this area; therefore lots must be large
enough to support ISTS. Additionally,
previou.s development patterns, natural
features and public/semi-public facilities
restrict the number of lots still available for
feasible future subdivision into urban lots.
L
Housing
1
Provide for
affordable and
lifecycle housing
and achieve LCA
goals
• Wider range of housing will
be allowed at lower
densities consistent with the
existing neighborhoods and
environmental protection
objectives
• Rural residential
development will retain the
single family character of
the community
The city is committed to continuing to work
with the Metropolitan Council to identify
parcels for the provision of affordable and life-
cycle housing.
Water Resource
Management
Consistent with the Water
Resources Management Poiicy
Plan.
No issues.
Regional Systems
• Aviation Conforms to the Aviation
Policy Plan.
No issues.
• Recreation Open
. Space
Conforms to the Regional
Recreation Open Space System.
No issues.
• Transportation Conforms to the
Transportation Policy Plan.
No issues.
• Wastewater
Services
Conforms to the Wastewater
Service Poiicy Plan.
No issues.
FINDINGS &
CONCLUSIONS
1. The city of Orono's Comprehensive Plan meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements
for 1998 plan updates.
2. The plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. However, due to previous
negotiations with the city that established limited sewer capacity, urban development is not
expected to occur in the area designated in the Regional Growth Strategy as Urban Reserve, and
therefore it is not a system departure.
3. The plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open
Space, Transportation and Wastewater Services.
4. The housing element of Orono’s comprehensive plan is consistent with regional housing policy.
5. Orono*s Comprehensive Plan is generally compatible with the plans of adjacent governmental
units and the school districts.
REVIEW RECORD
REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ORONO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BACKGROUND
The city of Orono is a primarily residential lakeshore community located in western Hennepin County (see
Figure 1). The city has over 30% of Lake Minnetonka’s shoreline within its borders. Orono shares boundaries
with many of the other Lake Minnetonka communities, including Wayzata, Plymouth. Long Lake. Medina,
Independence, Minnetrista, Momd, Spnng Park, Minnetonka Beach, Tonka Bay, Shorewood. Gr^wood,
Dee^ven, and Woodland, all in Hennepin County. The city is 24.1 square miles in area, with nearly 11 square
miles in lakes and wetlands. According to the 2000 census. Orono had 7.538 residents in 2,766 households, and
an estimated 1,200jobs. According to Council forecasts, Orono should plan to accormnodate 9,550 people in
4,000 households and 1,350 jobs by 2020. It ranks 54* among communities in the region in forecasted
household growth for the period 2000 to 2020. The significant factors that the city considered in drafting the
Orono Community Management Plan are the city’s commitment to preservation of Lake Minnetonka and
MnDOT’s realignment of U.S Highway 12. The city's 2000-2020 Draft Community Management Plan
establishes policies to guide growth to the year 2020 and replaces the former comprehensive plan, adopted in
AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and
plan amendments to the Council for review and comment (MN. Stat. § 473.864, Subd. 2). The Council reviews
the plans to detennine its conformity with metropolitan system plans, apparent consistency with other adopted
plans of the Council, and compatibility with the plans of other local juri^ictions in the Metropolitan Area. The
Council may require a local govenunental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof, which may
have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial deiMiture from metropolitan sy stem plans (Minn. Stat. 6
473.175, Subd. I).
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The Council reviewed the former comprehensive plan in 1980 and since that time has reviewed seven plan
amendments. Orono is a Livable Conununities Act (LCA) participant Orono received a planning
grant from the Council in the amount of SI 1,830 to assist in the updating of its conqirehensive plan (SG97-167).
The Council has also provided a S32.000 grant in the Spring 2000 from the Local Housing Incentive Account to
the Navarre AfTordable Housing Ownership Program for the construction of 29 affordable homes.
ANALYSIS
SfaflTreviewed the comprehenriw plan update for conformity' with regional syatem plans fut avialiuu, icucaliuii
open space, transportation and wastewater resources management, for consistency with the Regional Blueprint
and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent
govenunental units and school districts. Materials received for review included:
• The City of Orono Commut^ Management Plan, draft 2000
• City of Orono Zoning Map, August 30,2000
• Documents related to the proposed senior housing project
• Other supplementary materials lelated to housing. ISTS, land use, sewers and stormwater management
• City of Orono 200 1 Budget
• Sanitary sewers agreements with adjacent ciUcs
• Resolution regarding the status of Orono Surface Water Management Plan
• City of Orono Future Development Potential Map
A-1
REGIONAL BLUEPRINT (Robin Caufman, Planning & Technical Assistance, 6S1-602-I4S7)
The Metropolitan Council ’s Regional Blueprint (see Figure 2) designates the developed area of Orono
closest to 1 Jkc Minnetonka as Urban Area (2,894 acres within the existing MUSA), surrounded by
Urban Reserve (7,306 acres outside current MUSA). The older sections of the city designated as Urban
have developed at higher densities and include a variety of uses including commercial, industrial,
public, opci' space and higher density residential development. The non-urban part of Orono is
tnappropnat* «y designated Urban Reserve given the following circumstances. The issue of future urban
in the area was addressed in the late I970's when the Council agreed to size the interceptor serving
Orono for very limiled urban growth. As a result, the interceptor does not have the capacity to serve as
much expanded urban area m the city, therefore the Urban Reserve desigrution is inappropriate.
Additionally, because the city has been committed to ’’small lot” permanent rural since the I970’s and
has developed accordingly, it is not feasible for the city to meet the Regional Growth Strategy’s
permanent rural density guidelines. While the city is inconsistent with the current Regional Growth
Strategy because it is not proposing to plan for Urban Reserve, its plan is reasonable given past practice
and previous agreements. Thmfore, the Coimcil should; .low the city of Orono to put its
Comprehensive Plan into cffcci. The Council ’s Rural Issues Work Group is studying the issue of rural
density and will be adopting r:w p ':cies in 2002 that wnll address communities like Orono that are
inconsistent with both Urban Reserve and Permanent Rural policies.
The City will continue to work towards meeting the Council's forecasts by increasing densities where
appropriate and where regional system capacity exists. Orono’s comprehensive plan proposes to meet
the Council ’s housing goals and works towards meeting Council ’s forecasts. The plan indicates that the
city will work with neighboring communities to meet the regional housing needs.
Land Use and Local Urban Service Area and Development Staging
Generally, the city accepts the Council employment forecasts for 2020. However, the population and household
forecasts are slightly less (2.6% and 6%) Uon the Council forecasts. The city calculated household and
population forecasts by looking at the number of future homes that each parcel could support based on zoning
and natural development constraints, such a.« wetlands and soil suitability. The result was a lower household
forecast than the Council.
Comparison of City and Connell Forecasts
Orono 7,285 7,800 9.050 9,300
Council 7.285 7,750*8.450 9,550
Orono 2,613 2.826 3,400 3,762
Council 2,613 2.900* •3,400 4,000
J O 13;.,* Sit
Orono 1,220 1,350 1,350
Council 980 1,200 1,350 1,350
•• CouiKil forecast was 2,900 households; actual U. S. Census count was 2,766. This is 4.6% less than forecasted
The city provided a map that analyzes the development potential based on lot size, current land use and
environmental constraints, such as wetlands (see Figure 6). The map shows that there is only one remaining
parcel larger than 40 acres in developable land in the Urban Reserve area of Orotx). There are 8 lots betiveen 20
and 40 acres in size and 30 parcels that are 10 to 20 acres in size. Several of these parcels arc near existing
urban development and urban services, providing limited potential for future infill development. The remaining
962 parcels designated as urban reserve are less than 10 acres, with over 90% being less than 5 acres. This
analysis shows that previous development patterns, supported by the limited sewer capacity to the city, has
already divided potential urban reserve areas of Orono into smaller lot sizes than those that would facilitate
future urban subdivision. Therefore, it is recommended that the area outside of existing or planned MUSA
expansions should be redesignated to more accurately reflect current land use and future development potential.
Lot Size Analysis in Urban Reserve
Lot size
>40 acres
20-40 acres
iO-20 acres
S-iO acres
<5 acres
Wniaberoffart*.b
1
868
Percentage of Parcels
0%
87%
TolMI Acreage
81 acres
206aaes
390 acres
667 acres
1 739 acres
The city recognizes the need for affordable and life-cycle housing and is working to provide a variety of housing
options, including higher density housing, and thereby accommodating more households. Senior housing
project being reviewed as supplemental information to this Comprehensive Plan Update, is to guide 4.S acres for
the construction of a 62-unit senior housing complex. Since the site was not originally designated for housing
and therefore nut included in the calculation of the household forecasts, development of the 4.5 acre parcel as
housing will increase the number of households in the city by 62. The Council encourages the city to continue
its efforts to work with developers and attract higher density and life-cycle housing projects in order to
accommodate additional households and strive to meet Council forecasts.
The city's land use plan indicates that the city is 89 percent developed with 1 ,099 acres identified as vacant. Of
the existing vacant land, 1,000 acres are designated as rural residential, 62 acres as urban residential, 30 acres as
commercial and industrial, and only 7 acres as public and semi-public land. By 2020, it is anticipate that only
105 acres of single family residential land will be vacant to accommodate future residential development at rural
densities.
; and 2020 Land Use
Single-Family Residential outside MUSA 4,317 42%4,592 45%
Multiple-family Residential within MUSA 25 0%138 1%
Multiple-family Residential outside MUSA 0 0%0 3%
Subtotal - Developed Residential 6,647 65%8,024 79%
Commercial 62 1%81 1%
Industrial 33 0%44 0%
Public/Scmi-Public 209 2%216 2%
Agricultural and Green Acres 597 6%100 1%
Parks and Recreation 1,553 15%1,630 16%
Subtotal - Developed Non-Resideatial 2,454 24%2,071 20%
Total - Developed 9,101 89%10,095 99%
Vacant Single-Family Residential within MUSA 49 0%5 0%
Vacant Single-Family Residential outside MUSA 1,000 10%100 1%
Vacant Multiple-family Residential within MUSA 13 0%0 0%
Vacant Multiple-family Residential outside MUSA 0 0%0 0%
Subtotal - Vacant Residential 1.062 10%105 1%
Vacant Commercial 19 0%0 0%
Vacant Industrial 11 0%0 0%
Vacant Public/Semi-Public 7 0%0 0%
ToUl - Vacant 1,099 11%105 1%
Total Land 10,200 100%10,200 100%
Based on ihe 1990 census data, over ninety-seven percent of the city's existing residential units are single-family
detached homes. Multiple-family residential uses, including duplexes, twinhomes. apartments and mobile
homes, provide only 2.7% of Ihe city’s existing housing supply and occupy approximately 1% of Ihe land in the
community. Based on the existing land use acreage and household numbers, Orono's single-family residential
density is 1 unit per 2.44 acres and 2.80 units per acre for multiple-family. City-wide, little change is
anticipated in density of single family residents through 2020 due to the 1975 rezoning that established a
minimum lot size of 2 acres for 80% of Orono's land area in order to support ISTS in these areas. However, Ihe
city has identified land near existing more intense land use with urban sewer service for the provision of higher
density residential development. The city has indicated that 280 of the new 409 housing units (68%) anticipated
to be built between now and 2010 in the urban service area will be multifamily residential. New multi-family
construction in areas with urban services is expected to develop at up to an average density of 7.8 units per acre.
The Council encourages the city to continue to consider the potential for infill and redevelopment in the city,
especially those areas currently served by transit, retail and job opportunities. These figures are consistent unth
Ihe policies contained in the Regional Blueprint for communities hiccd with limited sewer capacity and
environmental protection issues. The plan and continued efforts to provide affordable and life-cycle housing
will enable the city to meet Council household forecasts.
Eiisting and Proposed Plan to 2010; Housing Mix and Deusity
Hoitsliig Mix
Single-family
Multiple-family*
Density
Single-family
Muldple-family
Vv... .:.'v .'CilstiM
97 J percent
2.7 percent
0.41 units/acrc
2.8 units^acre
\»:i' . n.f ProposedTIaii
89 per cent
II percent
0.42 unils/acre
S.8 unils/acre
Snb-Rcfloaal Aaaiysb
Orono is part of the Lake Minnetonka subregion that includes much of western Hennepin County, includiztg the ‘
cities of Myrnouth, Long Lake, Medina, and Independence and the Lake Minnetonka communities of Wayzata,
Minnetrista, Mound, Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, and Tonka Day, Excelsior, Shorewood, Greenwood,
Deephaven, and Woodland.
In the regional context, Orono is a rclabvely low-growth residential community. Based on Council forecasts,
due to is low rate of growth, Orono will change from the 19* largest city in Hennepin County in 1990 to 20*
place by 2020.
Historically. Orono was a rtiral residential and seasonal vacauon community. The city continues to be
predominantly residential with many of the vacation homes converted to year-round residents. The Navarre area
provides retail and job opportunities for residents and is served by transit. Orono completely surrounds the city
of Long Lake, which also provides retail, services and jobs for area residents. Smart growth practices would
encourage higher density residential development adjacent to the Navarre area and Long Lake's commercial and
industrial district. The Council will continue to work closely with the city and its neighbors to ensure that smart
growth planning goals and policies arc embraced and carried out.
Sand, Gravel and Dolostonc Deposits
There arc no deposits identified in the Council’s study within the city of Orono.
Historic Site Preservation; Solar Access Protection
The Orono plan encourages the preservation of historic sites and structures but docs not include a formal historic
preservation plan. However, the city states that it is considering the development of a historic preservation plan
in order to preserve and protect sites, buildings, place names and corridors that reflect the history of the city.
The plan also recognizes solar access protection as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Ptan Implementation
The city will review all city ordirunces and evaluate and update its zoning ordinances and subdivision
regulations to eliminate inconsistencies and to implement the comprehensive plan. In 2000, the city updated and
revised its On-Site Sewage Treatment Code to be in compliance with Mmnesota Rules Chapter 7080. The city
provides for a full-time employee whose responsibilities include education and enforcement of on-site sewage
treatment system operation. The city proposes to make revisions to the Shoreland Management, Wetland and
Floodplain and Lake Use Ordinances to comply with new regulations.
The plan includes a capital improvenKnt program (CIP), but does not include the capital improvement budget.
It meets the requirements of MN Stat. 473.859, Subd. 4 for a five-year CIP by e.xtcndmg from 2000 to 2004.
The plan also outlines coordination efTorts and intergovernmental relationships with other agencies.
REGIONAL SYSTEMS
Avtation (Chauncey Case, Transportation and Transit Development, 65 1 -602-1724)
The city of Orono ’s comprehensive plan includes an aviation element that adequately addresses the protection of
the region's general airspace. The plan is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan.
Recreation Open Space (Michael McDonough, Planning and Growth Maiugement Department, 651-602-1054)
The park, open space and trail element of the Orono plan is in conformance with the Regional Recreation Open
Space fystem Plan. The plan identifies the regional trails and open space, both existing and future
opportunities. The plan also inventories the community's natural resources and includes significant
environment protection goals. However, the city should consider the following suggestions to make these
policies even stronger, especially as the city goes through the process of implementing the plan and updating its
oedinanoes.
• Encourage the reestablishment of natural vegetation and protection of aquatic vegetation adjacent to the
numerous natural resources, including shoreland and wetlands.
• Provide public education program for residents. The book "Lakescape for Wildlife and Water Quality” by
the MN-DNR is a good iriformation source for private lakcshore residents.
• Review natural hcritage/natural resource maps for possible protection of certain plant communities.
• Strengthen shoreland zoning by increasing protection of shoreline and other vegetation on new
developments or expansions.
• Evaluate both the quality and quantity of natural resource of existing public open spaces.
• Reduce or limit the use of chemicals, such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
The plan also provides an excellent inventory of existing public shoreline. To maintain this level of access, the
city may consider adopting a ”no net ” loss of public shoreline policy, upgrading the existing sites for better
shore access, or adding public accesses for fishing or observation where public road right of ways parallel the
shore or cross the water at bndges.
Transportation (Don Koski, Transportation and Transit Development, 65 1 -602-1721)
The transportation element of the city of Orono Community Management Plan is in conformity with the regional
Transportation Policy Plan and addresses all the applicable transporution and transit requirements of a
comprehensive plan. The plan has no unanticipated impacts on the metropolitan transportation system.
Orono is served by segments of one principal metropolitan highway. TH 12. which runs east-west through the
northern part of the city and through the city of Long Lake, which is enclosed by the city of Orono. In its plan
the city of Orono recognizes the planned realignment of TH 12 to a limited-access facility located parallel and to
..
the south of the current alignment, from the eastern border of the city to the intersection with County Road 6.
This improvement is planned to begin in 2002 and be conflicted in 2006-07.
Limited population, household, and employment groi^ih by 2020 wilt cause rclaUvcIy minor increases in the use
of street and highway facilities. The plan includes policies favoring the maintenance of the existing street and
highway system, scenic parkways, access management, alternative transportation routes directing commuter
traffic away from Lake Minnetonka, and improvements for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
Transit service in Orono consists pnmarily of peak-hour, commuter express bus service provided by Metro
Transit, including service to and from a p^ and ride location in the Navarre neighborhi^ of Orono. The plan
recommends coordination with Metro Transit for extended bus service to County Road 6 and Highway 1 2 and
the possible development of a park and nde facility near the intersecuon of TIi 12 and CR 6.
Wastewater Services (Donald Bluhm, Manager. Municipal Services. MCES, 65I-602-1116)
The sewer plan element of the Orono plan is in conformance with the It'or/euio/er Services Policy Plan of the
Council. The Metrtfxilitan Council Environmental Services provides sanitary sewer service to the city of Orono
via interceptor MSD-7113. Waslcwaicr ireatrrient is at the Blue Lake WWTP in Shakopee. The city of Orono
has projected a 2020 flow of .94 MOD. The Metropolitan disposal System has adequate capacity to provide for
the needs of the city as shown in its plan. Council staff and consultants, as port of a metro-wide master planning
process, are rurrently studying how much capacity exists that may be available to provide additional sewer
service that would allow future growth.
The city’s plan acknowledges that the Council has set an l/I goal for the city. The city has outlined its proposed
cfTorts to r^uce its 1/1 to reach this goal. The city has five years to reduce the 1/1 within its system to meet this
goal. Afler the five-year period, the Council may institute an I/l surcharge rate to recover the true costs for the
collection and treatment of any 1/1 above the established goal.
OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUn>E CHAPTERS
HovilAg (Guy Peterson, Livable Communities Department, 651 -602-1418)
The housing element of Orono's comprehensive plan is consistent with Council housing policy and meets the
housing planning requirements of the Land Planning AcL
The plan's housing data and inv'.t.t jr> includes an examination of the city’s housing stock by unit type, tenure
(owner/renter) age, condition value and monthly rent. Of note is the plan's more detailed examination of
bousing age, condition, cc:,a and household composition in the city's Navarre neighborhood on Lake
Minnetonka. A far greater incidence of housing rehaoilitation needs, particularly for senior citizens is prevalent
in this area of the city than is present in the balance of the community'.
The housing element conlauis a number of goals including the improvement of homes m substandard condition;
the provision of a mix of housing types, locations and costs to meet the needs of all ages, families, lifestyles, and
incomes; and the provision of programs to help Orono residents with affordable housing needs.
The plan includes several policies and policy discussions. Among them arc the provision of alternative housing
types to the detached single family home through use of its recently adopted Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning, and urban density de\xIopment in the MUSA and where existing mfrastrurture is
already in place or accessible.
The plan's affordable and life-cycle housing goals submitted during the review includes goals consistent with the
benchmarks for communities in its plannmg sector and at the same stage of development (see below).
In terms of implementation tools, the plan does not acknowledge the specific federal, state, regional or county
resources and programs available to advance affordable housing development or rehabilitation, which it is
encouraged to re-examine and include in the plan as appropriate. However. Orono's residential densities permit
medium density development at six units per acre and high-density development at 10 units per acre, though a
recently approved senior citizen development will be built at 15 units per acre.
The city has satisfactorily identiHed its intent to use the RPUD process to increase the permitted residential
density as necessary to facilitate the construction of new housing that will help the city its alTordable and life
cycle housing goals. However, the plan comes up slightly short of identifying the number of acres at densities
necessary to achieve its housing goals-threc acres short for affordable ownership and about four acres short for
rental housing.
ORONO CITY
INDEX
BENCH
MARK
GOAL
AfIbrdablUty Ownershipfl)30%60-69%160 Affordable Townhomes
Rental(2)18%35-37%120 Affordable Rental Units
Life Cycle Type (non-single
Family detached)
2%35-37%280/409 = 68%
Owner/renter mix 91/9%(67-75)/
(25-33)%
289/120 «= 71%/29%
Density Single-family detached 0.9/acre 1.8-1.9/acre 2.1 units/acre
Multifamily 6/acre 10-14/acre Rental: 10 units/acre
Ownership: 6 units/acre
Water Rcsoarccs Maugemeat (Jack Frost, Environmental Planning & Evaluation Dept. 651-602-1078 -
SurCme Water Management and Wastewater - Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS); Chris Elvrum,
Environmental Planning & Evaluation Dept. 651-602-1066 - Water Supply)
Surface Water Management
The city's surftce water management plan meets all of the Council's requirements. The city prepared its local
water management plan and the Council has provided comments on it to the Minnehaha Creek watershed
district
Wastewater - Individual SeMvge Treatment Systems (ISTS)
The Orono On-Site Sewage Treatment Code was revised in 2000 to be in compliance with changes in Minnesota
Rules Chapter 7080. The city’s ISTS program assures that all ISTS are operated properly and prevent pollution.
Water Supply
The city has submitted a revised Water Supply Plan that provides a very thorough update to the previously
submitted Water Supply Plan. The plan sufficiently addrasses the city’s system and its needs through the
current plaiuiing period, however the city should strive to lower per capita use through a more aggressive
conservation program The city’s Conservation Plan meets the minimum requirements but lacks a progressive
program and strategy to lower the residential and overall per capita use. The Highway 12 System rcsidennal per
capitt use, averaging 176 gned from 1995 to 2000, is among the highest in the Twin Cities area. The overall per
capita use 804 gped is the highest in the Metro area due to the high ratio of commercial to residential use. The
city should pursue water conservation programs to reduce the per capita use, with an emphasis on commercial
users, the largest consumers of water in this system.
(1) Affordable ownership defined as owoer-oceupied town home units developed at density of at least 6 units per acre.
(2) Aflordable renul defused as atuched MF renul uniu developed at a density of at least 10 units per acre.
COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions, Hennepin County and Independent School Districts 276
(Minnetonka). 277 (Westonka), 278 (Orono), and 284 (Wayzala) for review. The city's plan appears to be
compatible with the plans of adjacent local governments. However, the city of the Village of Minnetonka Beach
raised concern over the city's transportation plan related to Country Road IS and the regional trail in the Dakou
Rail Corridor. Minnetonka Beach is especially concerned about the proximity of the trail to several residents'
homes. The city’s transportation plan and ^ional trail has been found to be in conformance with the Council’s
plans. Therefore, these issues will be considered with the review of Minnetonka Beach's comprehensive plan
update.
ORONO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1 . The chy of Orono's Comprehensive Plan meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998
plan updates.
2. The plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. However, due to previous negotiations with the
city that established limited sewer capaciQr, urban development is not expected to occur in the area
designated in the Regional Growth Strategy as Urban Reserve, and thetefore it is not a system departure.
3. The plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space,
Transportation and Wastewater Services.
4. The housing element of Orono’s comprehensive plan is consistent with regional housing policy.
5. Orono's Comprehensive Plan is generally compatible with the plans of adjacent govemmenul units and the
school districts.
VAlJbrir/CoRiOtva9Utcpeiti2(IOIV>atioCPU 11320-iaoc
: (Coimir^ii tfcmiMQ
NOV 1 3 2001
ciryuHOflojwo
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 9.2001
ITEM NO: /9
Department Approval:
Nine RonMoone
Title City Administrator
Adminiatrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administnuof's
Re^rt
Item Description: Long Lake Fire Station Contribution
As part of the Long Lake Fire Station Settlement Agreement, the Council has agreed to contribute
$680,000 to on account held jointly by the cities of Orono and Long Lake at the time the Mn/DOT
fire station settlement payment is received. The Mn/DOT settlement payment has now been
received, and has been deposited into a joint account. The joint account is an investment account
through the League of Minnesota Cities.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to authorize the deposit of $680,000 into an account held jointly by the cities of Orono and
Long Lake, and to amend the Community Investment Fund budget to reflect the expenditure.
/.
Miaulct of the Coancil Workscssion held at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 1,2001.
Members Prescnl: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council members Richard Flint, Jay Nygard, Bob
Sansevere, and Jim White, City Administrator Ron Moorse. Police Chief Stephany Good, and City
Planning Director, Mike GafTron.
Others Present: Gabriel Jabbour and Jim Murphy.
Call to Order: Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at S: 1S p.m.
1. Gabriel Jabbour and Jim Murphy updated the Council regarding progress on developing a budget
and schematic design for the Long Lake Fire Station.
2. The Council discussed the use of the three acres of the 340 Willow Drive site that will remain
aBer the Long Lake fire station is constructed. It was the conscasus of the Council to preserve the
remaining land for a senior housing ase vs. moving the homes acquired by Mn/DOT on Harrington
Drive in Long Lake to the site.
3. Police Chief Stephany Good provided the Council with a Police Department update. Chief Good
has led the Department through a strategic planning process that has identified strengths and
weaknesses in the Department, as well as action steps to build on the strengths and address the
weaknesses. One of the action steps was to hire a consultant to assist in resolving conflicts in the
department that were getting in the way of the department moving forward. Chief Good is currently
follow ing through on implementing the recommendations of the consultant. Chief Good reported
that both morale and productivity have increased substantially.
4. Moorse recommended that OtTicer Bruce Anderson, who was in a corporal position prior to the
Police Department reorganization of mid-2000, be provided with a lump sum payment equivalent
to the 3% corporal differential pay he would have received if he would have continued to sen e as
corporal for the remainder of 2000. The Council agreed with the recommendation.
5. Moorse recommended an interim moratorium be put in place regarding telecommunications
facilities and structures to enable a study of options regarding telecommunications facilities and
structures in the city’s residential districts. The Council directed Moorse to place a moratorium
ordinance on the ne.xt Council meeting agenda.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
r<^mirn niPETtNQ
NOV 1 3 2001
OilYurOHONOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7* 2001
ITEMNO:
Dcpartnenl Approval:
Name RonMoone
TMc City Administrator
Adninistrator Reviewed:
elated to t
Agenda Section:
City Administratof's
Repoft
Item Description:Interim Moratorium Related to the Siting of Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities and Structures - Ordinance
The City has facilitated the extension of wireless communication service in the City through the
lease of space for telecommunications antennas on its two water towers. The water towers are
located to provide optimum coverage as they are located in the northerly and southerly portions of
the City, along the two major roadways in the City, adjacent to the two commercial areas in the City,
and in the two highest density residential areas in the City.
The City has not reviewed its telecommunications regulations in-depth since they were initially put
in place. To ensure the City's regulations continue to be adequate, it is recommended an interim
moratorium be put in place regarding telecommunications facilities and structures to enable a study
of regulations and options regarding telecommunications facilities and striictures. An ordinance
adopting an interim moratorium is attached.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion regarding the adoption of on ordinance adopting an interim moratorium related to the siting
of wireless telecommunication facilities and structures.
ordinance no .SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE GRANTING
OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISIONS, REZONING APPLICATIONS,
CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES
OR OTHER AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE SITING OF
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND STRUCTURE
IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF ORONO
The City Council of Orono does ordain:
SECTION 1. Statement of Policy. The purpose of Orono Municipal Code Chapter 10 is to provide
for the orderly development of commercial and mdustrial activity so as not to unreasonably conllict
with the primary residential and agricultural character of the City.
SECTION 2. Interim Moratorium. To facilitate the purpose stated in Section 1, the City Council
finds it necessary to impose a 120 day moratorium, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 469.355,
Subdivision 4, granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditional
or special use permits, variances or other authority relating to the siting of wireless
telecommunication facilities and structures in all zoning districts in the City of Orono.
SECTION 3. Study of Telecommunication Facilities. For the purposes of this Section, the words
used herein shall have the following meaning:
1 . Telecommunication - the wireless transmission, emission or reception of energy or
communication impulses by cable, microwave, satellite or radio signals afTecting
radio, telephone, telegraph or television communication or medical or industrial
energy transmissions.
2. Facility - any antenna, tow^r, or structure associated with the transmission, emission
or reception of telecommunication signals.
SECTION 4. Eflective Date. This ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE
LAKER newspapers and shall be effective upon approval and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 1 3th day of November, 2001, by a
vote of____ayes and_____nays.
ATTEST:
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Lindas. Vee.City Clerk
Page 1 ofl
NOV 1 ^ 200t
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^
DATE: November 7.2001
ITEM NO: ^
DcpartMCBt Approval:
Naac RonMoone
Titk City Administrator
Admiabtrator Reviewed:Apeada Scctkia:
City Administrator's
Rqwrt
Ileal DescriplioB: Fundiiig for Navarre Home Ouitership Program
The City has received funding from CDBG. MHFA, and the Melropolilon Council Livable
Communities program to moke four of the townhouse units in the l^c Minnetonka Woods
development in Navarre affordable to households with incomes of less than 80% of the metro area’s
median income. The funding is being used both to provide down payment assistance and to buy
down the mortgage. The first two units involve down payment assistance grants of S4,500 and
$4,800. and deferred loans of $20,500 and $20,200. Per the terms of the funding received by the
City, the City is providing the up front funding and is then rcimb^irscd with the grant funds. The up
front funding is provided by a temporary transfer of $50,000 from the General Fund to the
Affordable I lousing Grant/Loan Fund. As the transfer is a temporary loan, no budget adjustments
ore required.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve funding in the amount of $50,000 to assist two eligible households in nurchasing
townhomc units in the Lake Minnetonka Woods development, such funding to be a temporary loan
from the General Fund to the Affordable Housing Grant/l.oan Revenue Fund and to be repaid
through grants to the City.
yiL
1
MCfTTiNG
NOV 1 3 2001
CilYUKOnONOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 7.2001
ITEM NO: ^3
Departvcnt Approval:
Name RofiMoonc
Title City Administrator
Admiabtrator Reviewed:Ageoda ScctioB:
City Administrator's
Report
llcRi Dctcriplion: Year 2002 Non-Unioa Compensation Adjustments - Resolution
The following wage and insurance adjustments for non-union staff are proposed for 2002:
1. Pay: Increase pay ranges by 3.75%
2. Insurance Contribution: SSO.OO per month increase to a ma.ximum contribution of
$460.00 per month
Compensation Adjustment Criteria
An outline of the criteria on which pay and insurance adjustments are generally based is as follows:
A. Pay Adjustment Criteria
1. Cost of living inercase
a. U.S. Consumer Price Inde.x: annualized increase from October 2000
to October 2001 is 2.6%.
b. Minneapolis/St. Paul Consumer Price Index: annualized increase
from the first half of 2000 to the first half of 2001 (July 2000 to July
2001) is 4.2%.
2. Market comparison.
0. Comparable cities in the lake area and throughout the metro area are
considering pay adjustments for 2002 of 3.0% to 3.75%.
As additional background, the Police Offreer bargaining unit is working under a 2 year agreement
for 2001/2002 that provides for the equivalent of a 3.75% increase for 2002.
Insurance Contribution Adjustment
The proposed increase in the insurance contribution is based on twt> factors. One is to catch up with
large increases in insurance premiums in recent years; and the other is to keep the City's msuiance
contribution consistent across all employee grotqis.
Request for Council Action continued
P«ge2
November 7.2001
Year 2002 Non-Union Compensation Adjustroenls
The year 2000 budget included a $25.00 per month insurance contribution increase. After the budget
and levy were adopted, the City received the 2000 health insurance rates. These rates reflected an
increase of S120 per month in the premium for the high option family coverage. Although other plan
changes were made that provided additional lower cost options, a significant number of employees
were not abie to take advantage of these options. For these employees, the $25.00 per month
increase covered only a small portion of the premium increase.
Because the 2001 health insurance rates increased by approximately 12%, the City was not able to
increase its insurance contribution sufficiently to catch up for the large rate increase in 2000.
The percentage increase in health insurance rates tor 2002 was originally projected to be in the mid
teens. Based on this projection, the amount budgeted for health insurance was increased by 122%.
The 2002 budget reflects a 12.2% increase in the City’s contribution toward health insurance. The
insurance contribution is proposed to increase from $410.00 per month to $460.00 per month. The
2002 Police Officer contract reflects the same increase.
In late October, the Cit>' received information that the insurance rate increase wll be substantially
lower than initially projected. The insurance rates have increased 8.4%. An 8.4% increase in the
City’s insurance contribution would raise the City’s contribution from $410.00 per month to $445.00
per month. The additional $15.00 per month provided by the proposed $460.00 per month
contribution enables the City to catch up with recent years’ higher premium increases.
COUNCIL action REQUESTED:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving pay plan adjustments for non-union employees
for 2002. which reflects a 3.75% adjustment to pay schedules and an increase in the City's insurance
contribution to $460.00 per month.
RESOLirriON APPROVING PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS FOR
NON-UNION CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 2002
WHEREAS, the City Administrator is responsible for annually presenting pay plan
adjustments for City employees, with the exception of employees covered ^ collective braining
agreements: and
WHEREAS, sufficient fiinds have been appropriated in the proposed 2002 Annual Budget
to flmd 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 2002 employee pay schedule; reflecting a 3.75% pay adjustment effective
1-1-2002, is approved.
That the City's contribution toward the cost of employee group insurance increase to
a maximum of $460.00 per month.
That City employees using their own vehicles for approved work related business
shall be compensated at a rate of $.345 per mile.
Adopted by the Council this 13th day of November, 2001.
ATTEST:
Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Page 1 of 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION HOV ^ 5
Date:
Item No: ZM
Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Name:
Title:
Slcphany Good
Chief of Police
Item Description: Request to Assign “Working-out-of-class” Sergeant Position
Exhibits: None
DISCUSSION
There are currently three positions of police sergeant in the Orono Police Department.
One of those positions is currently assigned as a sergeant on the day shift with
administrative duties (Duties include operations, logistics, financc/administration,
planning, and command).
The individual currently in the position is being reassigned to a patrol shift with limited
supervisory duties.
The police department seeks to assign a temporary “working-out-of-class” sergeant. This
position will be assigned to administration for up to one calendar year commencing
January 1,2002. This assignment will be made from the current Orono patrol officers.
Officers interested in the assignment w ill submit a written application response to
questions and participate in an oral interview.
This change will provide a patrol oflicer with an opportunity to develop supcr\ isory,
managerial, and administrative skills, and assist the current administration in providing
better serv ice to citizens and the police department.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve a working-out-of-class temporary assignment as sergeant assl^cd to
administration at the 2002 entry level sergeant rate, or a rate 5% above the assigned
officer’s current rate, whichever is greater.
L
Memo
Department
From:
Date:
Subject:
Giicf Good
11/12/01
Career Development - Working Out of Class Assignment
An opportunity for a patrol officer to assist in the implementation of the department ’s mission
and goals as an acting sergeant assigned to administration is being offered at this time.
This decision is the result of a thorough assessment of the needs and the priorities of the
department as voiced through inter\ iews, surveys, and job performance during the past six
months.
This position is an “at-will" assignment for a period of time up to one year. Pay rate will be
adjusted to be commensurate with the City of Orono sergeants pay scale. Pay will revert to the
patrol officer's original pay scale at the end of the assignment.
Primar>’ job duties: Work cooperatively with the communities we serve and the members of the
police department to achieve the mission of fairness. scr\ ice, pride and quality. Seek
coHaboration and biiiid consensus in reaching the fotlowing objectives:
Planning: Assist the department in updating policy, procedure, and standards by researching
Constitutional Law. state statutes, POST requirements, city rules and ordinances.
• Work with chief and other members of the department in the development of an
appropriate organizational structure.
• Design a fair process by which to recruit and fill the desired organizational structure with
the best qualified personnel.
• Develop work assignments so that officers have a clear understanding of performance
expectations.
• Establish protocol for effective performance evaluations for patrol, investigations, and
sergeants.
• Assist in planning and preparation for the management of critical incidents.
Operations: Support department in daily operations.
• Maintain patrol and investigative coverage through scheduling. Ensure that our
scheduling meets community public safety requirements, satisfies contract city
agreements, labor agreements, and meets all minimum staffing needs. Assist patrol,
sergeants and investigator in ensuring complete, accurate and timely police reports.
(Working Out of Class Assignment, Continued)
• Provide structure, identify and procure resources to facilitate internal communication via
“roll call" briefings and training.
• Fill in gaps in scheduling when necessary.
Logblics:
• Provide oversight on the purchase and procurement of supplies, equipment, uniforms.
• Maintain a safe, clean, functional work environment.
• Provide resources necessary during emergency situations to ensure appropriate safety and
control, resolve problems as quickly as possible.
Command:
• Maintain conlacl with patrol officers to provide assistance and support when needed.
• Assist first responding officers with command and coordination of incidents w hen
needed. Assume command and coordination of persons, equipment, traffic,
communications, etc. w hen necessary or requested.
Finance/Administralion:
• Assist the department in achieving its goals while staying within the 2002 budget.
Identify priorities and assist in the preparation of the 2003 budget. Identify opportunities
by which the department can achieve its objectives through the most efficient and
conservative use of the taxpayers resources.
• Manage special projects, attend meetings, and perform other duties as assigned.
Hours: Days 5/2, and other hours as necessary.
Please submit your letter of interest and all attachments to Chief Good by OSOOhrs. Monday
December 26, 2001 The selection process w ill be:
1) Evaluation of w ritten response to the attached questions
2) Oral interview November 28,29
3) Notification of assignment
4) Begin Jan 1.2002
Selection criteria:
Experience, honesty, effective communication skills (both inside and outside the department,
written and verbal), positive attitude as evidenced by positive working relationships within the
department and outside the department (including citizens, other members of our city staffs),
m^cs sound decisions based on knowledge of all factors involved, strives to maintain or
increase level of knowledge, uses expertise in training others, doesn’t over react to situations, is a
person w horn others trust, is willing to take orders from supervisor in a team effort, good listener,
coaches and encourages others, prepares accurate, timely records/documents, is trustworthy w ith
personal/confidential matters, a^its mistakes and goes on to correct them, holds self to high
standards in any endeavor, professional appearance, strong ethical behavior.
4
comi^'n McrnNQ
NOV 1 3 2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY Or unufMO
DATE: November 9.2001
ITEM NO: 2.5
DepartnicBt Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
THk City Administralor
Adminblralor Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Adminutraior's
Repoft
Item Description: Parks Donation
As the Council is awzire, James Andersi, owner of the Narrows Saloon, sponsored a golf tournament
this past summer, the proceeds of which were to be donated to the City for parks purposes. The City
has now received a check in the amount of $3,600.00 from Mr, Anderst as a donation to the City.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to accept the donation in the amount of $3,600.00 from Mr. James Anderst, and to express
the City ’s appreciation to Mr. Anderst for his generosity.
nrrTlNQ
NOV 1 3 2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY Oh UHONO
DATE: November 8.2001
ITEM NO:
Dcpartnciit Approval:
Name Lin Vee
THIc City Clerk
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Licenses
Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval
SPECIAL EVENT
I. Applicant:
Event:
Location:
Date:
Time:
JMS Homes
Spring Preview of Homes
I ISO Lyman Avenue
February 9 - March 3,2002, Thursdays through Sundays
12:00 p.m. Noon - 6 p.m.
The above-noted applicant has submitted a special event application for the Spring Preview of
Homes for the property located at I ISO Lyman Avenue. In June of 2001, a special event permit
was approved for this same property for the Lu.xury Lifestyle Home Tour. A copy of the permit
is attached, which lists the restrictions placed on the event.
Staff Recommendation
Staff has reviewed the current application and recommends denial of the special event permit. A
memo is attached from Sgt. Morowezynski indicating the issues and concerns of the Police
Department. If Council approves the application, staff would recommend adding the following
conditions:
• Off-site parking with shuttle service must be provided.
• Notification of neighbors must be made prior to issuance of the permit.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve or deny the special event permit for JMS Homes for the Spring Preview of
Homes to be held at 1150 Lyman Avenue.
Memo
To: Lin Vcc
Front Jim Morowczynski
Date: II •08*01
Subject: Special Event Permit- Spring Preview of Homes
The Chief did not recommend the approval of the Spring Preview of Homes due in part to the
complaints and issues raised during the last event. These include the issue of parking on Smith
and Lyman Ave. and the added trafEc on these roadways. In addition there are public safety
concerns regarding traffic and parking even if the permit was approved with the conditions
indicated on the prior permit.
According to the permit application the event is to be held during the month of Februarv' 200.*!.
There is concern that the parking may not be available on Orono Orchard Rd.. This roadway
would be snoNvpacked and/or icy with limited visibility due snow plowing. The added traffic,
with the addition of a shuttle starting an stopping along the route would cause additional trafllc
hazards.
There were other zoning issues raised by the neighbors, conducting a public event over private
property w ithout permission of the homeowners.
f
tCt ern.0 OfehnrJ (U ^
IL
CITY OF ORONO
ClMck Detail Register
..rpTINO
'«»' I J200I
ClI y omi
Novtfittwr 00. 3001
PagtIoMt
Chack Amt lnvo4c« Commant
10100 Primary C«ah
Paid Caw 072260 11/13/01 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES
E 101-41000-201 Offica suppOas S132 00 6013-214016Coflae-CH
E 101-42110-201 Officasupphes S134 96 6013-214017 Coflaa. Cream Sugar
E 101-41900-201 OffioaMpphas S7192 6013-214010 CoHae. Cream. Sugar
Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES S338 68
Pa«l Olka 072267 11/13/01 ARCH1NIRELESS
E 101-42110-321 Talapliona $480 90 K3755971K Pokce Pagers
Total ARCHWMELESS $480^
PaidChkd 07226S 11/I3A)1 AT&T-
E 101-41000-321 Talepliona $14 99 9524717766 LD A Mmmum Charges
Total ATST-$14 99
Paid CNtd 072269 1I/13A)1 AT A T WIRELESS SERVICES
E 601-49400-321 Talaphona $12 62 3419397 Can Phones
E 602-49450-321 Telaphona $12 63 3419397 Can Phones
E 101-41900-321 Talaphona $26 63 3419397 Cell Phones
Total AT A T WIRELESS SERVICES $54 28
Paid Chha 072270 11 /13A)1 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO.
E 601 -49400-405 Rapaira/Mamt • Watermaini/planl $306 40 12663S Check We* 3 Controls
ToUl AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO.$306 40
Paid Chka 072271 11/13AJ1 BERETTA USA
E 101-42110-228 Training Supplies $153 52 241117 Replaoemant Parts
E 101-42110-228 Training Supplies ($19 20) 242331 Repiacemeni Parts
E 101-42110-228 Training Supplies $22 40 243662 Repiacamcnt Parts
Total BERETTA USA $156 72
Paid Chka 072272 11/13/01 BIFFS INC.
E 101-45200-415 Other Equa>mant Raniala $67/5 W144615 Portable • Bklanaood
E 101 -45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals ($5 02) W144616 Portable • Sumrm
E 101-45200415 Other Equpment Rentals ($5 02) W144617 Portable • Hackberry
E 61349630415 Other Equpment Rentals ($17 33) W144618 Portable-CC
E 10145200415 Other Equpment Rentals ($2 51) W144619 Portable • Navarre
Total BIFFS INC.$37 87
Paid Chka 072273 11/13A}1 BOB21EN. SUE
E 10142110437 Training A Oavakipment $10 35 1000/01 Maeage-Oeta Pnv Trnirrg
Total BOBZIEN.SUE $10 35
Paid Chka 072274 I1/13K)1 BONEATROO ROSENE A ASSOC.
E 10143170-303 Engoaennq-Ratainer $10000 81696 Councd Migs Aug
E 10143170-304 Engetaanng-Consufcng $8100 81698 Ebiwood Draatage
E 10143170-304 Engatatnng-Cormifcrtg $8100 81696 Inapacbon Orono Larte/OoaOan
E 10143280-304 Engmaahrtg-CortsuNng $2.120 11 81696 Appicabene Aug 2001
E 60149400-304 Engaiaanttg4:onsuNng $264 00 81696 Venzon Anisntta Rainew
E 40646704-304 Engataaflng^rortsuNttg $319 90 61696 Storm Water Mgml Plan
E 10143170-304 En9naar«ig<k)na«iNng $14000 81696 TOPO NE Qlr Sec UFEd Bei
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
FfxJay. November 09, 2001
Page 2 oM 1
Checfc Ami invoice Comment
E 602-49450-304 Engmeermg Consulting S162 00 81699
E 602-t9452-304 Engif»eeftf>g Con»uRing S243 0O 81700
E 22S-45219-304 Ertgmeermg-Consulting $284 00 81701
E 602-49450-304 Engineermg-Con»ulljng $1.364 00 81702
E 406-48704-304 Ertgmeenrtg-Consuiting $461 50 82244
E 101-43170-304 Ertgineenog-ContuNing $1.998 50 82244
E 101-43170-304 Enqirreermg-ContuRirrg $140 00 82244
E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer $100 00 82244
E10M3280-304 Engineermg-Conaulting $4.375 15 82244
E60M9400-304 Engineering-Consulting $88 00 82244
E 101^3170-304 Engineering-Consulting $40 50 82244
E 602-49452-304 Engineering-Consulting $264 00 82245
E 602-49450-304 Engineering-Consulting $1.548 00 82246
Total BONESTROO R08ENE 6 ASSOC. $14.174 26
Heiilage Or Sier
Ferndale LS 8/2001
Nav Parti Impr 8/2001
I/I 2000 Pro| 8/2001
Storm Water Mgmt Plan
Higtiwood Drainage Coat Rev«w
TOPO 2245/2265 N Sh-AdwAurve
Council Mtgs OepI
Appbcations Sepi 2001
Veruon Antennas
Insp Windjammer Lane
Ferndale LS 9/2001
t/l 2000 Proi - 9/2001
Paid Chk# 072276 11/13A)1 CARGILL SALT
E 601-49400-216 Chenwrals and Chem Products $2.208 51 21817852
Tout CARGILL SALT $2,208 51
SoUrSaK
Paid Chke 072277 11/13/01 CHAMPION AUTO STORES
E 602-49450-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts $39 39
Total CHAMPION AUTO STORES $39 39
D114601 Ventvisor
Pad Chk# 072278 11/13rt)1 CITY OF WAV2ATA
E 101-42260-318 Fire Services $6 464 50 4lh Qtr 2001 4lh Qtr Fire Protection
Tout CITY OF WAYZATA $6 464 50
PadChka 072279 11/13A)1
E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Mamt-Bldgsi'Grounds
Total CITYVIEW PLUMBING A HEATING
CITYVIEW PLUMBING S HEATING
$217 37 20013
$217 37
Repairs - PD Unnal
PadChka 072230 11/13A)1 CORRPRO COMPANIES
E 601-49400-405 Repairs/Mamt-Watermains/plant $1,641 60 JI0770S3
Tout CORRPRO COMPANIES $1.64160
Cathodic Protection Repairs
PadChka 072281 11/13d)1 CRYSTEEL
E 101-43000-222 Vehcic Equ-pment & Parts $64 92 FI03341
Total CRYSTEEL $64 92
Pins
PadChKS 072282 11/13A)1 DEMBOUSKI. JAY
E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $404
E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $1382
Tola! DEMBOUSKI. JAY $17 86
10/19/01
10/19/01
3 nng Binder
Meals - Training
Pad Chka 072283 11/13A)1 DISCOUNT STEEL INC.
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $430 13 1085715
ToUl DISCOUNT STEEL INC. $43013
Misc Steel
Pad Chk# 072284 11/13«1 E-Z RECYCLING
E 101-43270-316 Contract Recyckng PIcfcup
Total E-ZRECYCUNG
$5,820 12
$5.820 12
2962 Recycling. 10/2001
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
Fnday, Novefntoer 09 2001
Page 3 oM 1
Chech Amt Invoice Comment
PaidChUI 072285 ll/13rt)1 EGAN-MCKAVELECTRICALCONTRCTR
E 101-4300CM08 Contracted Street Mainl $371 42 JC30058S1
Tout EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL 'TONTRCTR $371 42
Repair Street Lights
PaidChhA 072286 11/13/01
E 227-45500-570 Office Equip and Furnshings
Total EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES
EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES
$7.242 02 90388638
$7,242 02
Office XP • 17 Licenses
Paid Chh# 072287 11/13rt)1 ERICKSON, KURT
E 101-42110-437 Training & Development
Total ERICKSON, KURT
$379 37 10X)8X)1
$379 37
MNSCIA Seminar.Mileage.Meals
Pad ChkS 072288 1t/13A)1 EXPRESS MESSENGER
E 101-41900-321 Telephone $25 58 8-298132
E 101-41900-322 Postage $22 88 8-298742
Tout EXPRESS MESSENGER $48 46
Del to Mot Council
Delivery to Hinshaw
Pad Chha 072269 11/13X)1 FORTIS BENEFITS
G 101-21712 Other Deductions
ToUl FORTIS BENEFITS
$887 51 4019825-1
$887 51
LTD -11/01
Pad ChhP 072290 1t/13A}1 G 6 K SERVICES
E 101-43000-221
E 101-43000-226
E 613-49830-226
E 601-49400-226
E 101-43000-226
E 613-49830-226
E 601-49400-226
E 101-43000-226
E 101-43000-221
E 613-49830-226
E6C.-49450-226
E 101-43000-226
E 613-49830 226
E 601-49400-226
E 101-41900-404
Equipment Parts & Accessones
Clothing & personal equipment
Clothing 6 personal equipment
Clothing 6 personal equip<nenl
Clothing 6 personal equipment
Clothing 6 personal equipment
Clothing 6 personal equipment
Clothing & personal equipment
Equipment Parts & Accessories
Clothing & personal equpment
Clothing & personal equipment
Clothing 6 personal equipmerd
Clothing & personal equipment
Clothing 6 personal equipment
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grourds
Tout G6KSERVICES
$43 99
$88 09
$1546
$2182
$84 14
$1546
$2162
$90 71
$40 90
$15 46
$21 82
$84 14
$15 46
$21 82
$100 33
$68142
797989
797989
797990
797991
805157
805158
805159
812268
812268
812269
812270
819322
819323
819324
819325
Shop Towels
Uniforms
Uniform • Steffenhagen
Uniform • Rathtxin
Uniforms
Uniform • Steffenhagen
Uniform • Rathbun
Uniforms
Shop Towels
Uniform • Sleffhagen
Uniform • Rathbon
Unifomis
Unifomi • Steffenhagen
Unifbnn • Rathbun
Mat Service • PW
PadChke 072292 11/13A)I GENUINE PARTS CO.
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Paris & Accessones
E 101-43000-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessones
Tout GENUINE PARTS CO.
$17 eO 654510
$15 85 654512
$15 85 657704
$4 85 658202
$54 35
Signal Lamp. Grease
Headlight
Misc Part
Mask
PadChkf 072293 11/13rt)1 GOLF CAR MiOtNEST
E 613-49830-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip
Tout GOLF CAR MIDWEST
$643 40 102493
$643 40
Golf Cart Repairs
Pad ChMt 072294 11/13rt)1 GR MECHANICAL INC
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
Friday. November 09.2001
Page 4 on 1
Check Ami Invoice Comment
R 601-39610 Misceltaneoui Revenue S240 00 Refund Water Meter Return
Total CR MECHANICAL INC S240 00
PatdChk# 072295 11'13A)1 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE
E 101-4300a221Equipment PaXa A Accestones S13 31 59504 20# Propane
Total HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE S13 31
Paid Chk# 072296 11/13r01 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 2
E 101-42110-437Training A Development S30 00 10-22-01 Training - Fainiok. Dembouski
Total HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 2 S30 00
Paid Chk« 072297 11/13AH HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN
E 101-41600-309Jail Charges $827 00 248 Room A Board - 9/2001
E 101-41900-201Office supphes $25 00 Wlntemhevner Record Signahire-WIntemhermer
Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN $852 00
PaKl Chkd 072298 11/13X11 H1NSHAW A CULBERTSON
E 101-43280-307Legal-ConsuKmg $1.205 46 10181862 Dunbar-Sr Citizen Hslng
E 101-43280-307Legat-Consultmg $11200 10181683 Applic Res Filn>g Fees
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $59100 10181683 Purch 3770 Shoreline
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $44 36 10181883 General Lega
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuXing $605 00 10181663 PCS Towers Denial
E 101-41600-305Legal-Retainer $1.10018 10181884 Counol Migs Aug
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $950 00 10181869 PCS Tower Denial
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRmg $12100 10181865 Access Road Issues
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $12100 10181666 Orono vs Luzaich
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $132 00 10187621 Long Lake Fire Issue
E 101-43280-307Legal-Consulting $546 00 10187621 AppI #2596 WHdhurst Woods
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consuibng $22 00 10187621 Haz Bldg 200 HoOander Rd
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $165 00 10187622 Haz BWg 200 Hooander Rd
E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $876 38 10187622
Gordon Nelson Easement
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $715 00 10187622 PCS Towers Denial
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $232 00 10187622 Purch 3770 Shoreline
E 101-43280-307Legal-ConsuHing $50 00 10187622
Review Recorded Resolutions
E 101-41600-305Legal-Retainer $1.100 00 10187623 Council Mtg Sept
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $600 00 10167624 PCS Tower Denial
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $468 46 10187624 PCS Tower Denial
E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $299 86 10187624 Research Lake Access Vacate
Total HIN8HAW A CULBERTSON $10,056 72
PaldChkf 072300 11/13X11 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE
E 613-49630-404RepauaMaint-Bidgs/Grouixts $24 05 363269 Mat Service-GC
ToUl HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE $24 05
PaldChkf 072301 11/13XM kvORO SUPPLY CO.
E 601-49400-227UUkty System Maint Supplies $411.17 19942 1 1/2 Inch Meter - resale
Total HYDRO SUPPLY CO.$41117
PaKl Chkf 072302 11/13X11 lALEFI
E 101-42110-433Memberships A Subscriptions $50 00 BJohnson Membership - B Johnson
Total lALEFI $5000
CITY OF ORONO
CKeck Detail Register
Fhdjy Novemtoer 09.2001
PageSoMI
Check Air.l Invoice Comment
PadChki 072303 H/13A)1 KOI COMPANY
E 101-43000-489 Other Maceltaneous Charges
Total KDS COMPANY
$25 00 2571
$25 00
Concrete w/Rebar
PaidChka 072304 11/13/01 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA
E 101-41600-306 Legal-Prosecution
Total KENNETH N. POTTS. PA
$2.39166 10/2001
$2.39166
Prosecutions • 10/2001
PaidChka 072305 11/13^)1 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessones
Total KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
$3163 98207
$3163
Key Fori Lock
Paid Chka 072306 11/13A)1 LASER LABS
E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services
Total LASER LABS
$43 00 3651
$43 00
Recertify Tint Meier
P sk J Chk* 072307 11/13/01 LMCIT-BERKLEY AOMIN
E 703-49960-379 Insurance Deductibles
Total LMCIT-BERKLEY ADMIN
$1.000 00 11035496
$1.000 00
Schueier/Wolfe Swr Backup
Paid Chka 0723C8 11/13X)1 MAP UTILITIES INC.
E 60! -49400-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges
Total M S P UTILITIES INC.
$47 50 55542
$47 50
Underground Locates
Paid Chkfl 072309 11/13/01 MASUNE COMPANY
E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessones
Total MASUNE COMPANY
$62 45 636771
$62 45
First Aid Supplies
Pant Chk« 072310 11/13A)1 M€T COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL 8ER
R 101-39610 Misceltaneoui Revenue (S34 SO) 10/2001
0 101-20609 SAC Chargee due to MWee S3.4SOOO 10/2301
Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL 8ER S3.415 50
Adm Fee - 10/2001
SAC Charge* - 10/2001
PaidChka or?’!! 11/Ut)1 MIDWEST ASPHALT
E 601-49400-227 UtAly System Mamt Supplies $26 63 18915MB Tack - Hwy 12 Wtr Main
E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $1.224 61 6966SMB Hand Patch
E 101-43000-224 Street Main! Matenals/Supply $13128 69698MB Hand Patch
E 101-43000-224 Street Mamt Matenals/Supply $416 60 69733MB Hand Patch
E 101-43000-224 Street Main! Matenals/Supply $256 68 69766MB Hand Patch
Total MIDWEST ASPHALT $2,057 80
PaidChka 072312 11/13/01
E 101-41600-306 Legal-Prosecution
ToUl MILLER. STEINER S CURTISS. P.A
MILLER. STEINER S CURTISS, PJt
S214S0 10/19/01
$21450
Conflict Prosecution
PaidChka 072313 11/13/01 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY
E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentals $29 76 RI10010929
E 101-42110-223 Bidg/Grounds Mamt Supplies $14.86 RI10010930
Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $44 64
CyOnder Rental
Medical Oxygen
PaM Chfci 072314 11/13fl)1 MN CHIEF OFPOUCEASSN
CITY OF ORONO
Check Oetiil Register
Friday. Noveinber 09. 2001
Page 6 ofl 1
Ctiecfc Amt Invoke Conwrient
E 101-42110-433 Memberships & Subscriplions
ToUl MN CHIEF OF POUCE ASSN
S75 00 Morowczynshi 2001 Membership • Ski
S7S00
PaidChk* 072315 11/13A)1
E 101-41110-433 ktomberships & Subscriptions
ToUl MN COMMERCE OEPARTMEHT
MN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
$40 00 Wlntemheimef Notary - Wioternheimef
$4000
PaidChka 072316 11/13/01
E 602-49450-437 Training & Development
Total MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY-2
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCV-2
$23 00 Rathbun
$23 00
Wastewater Oper-Ralhbun
Paid Chk» 072317 11/13rt)1
E 101-43000-402 Repairs«Uint-Aulo Equip
Total MOBILE RADIO ENOINEERINO INC.
MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC.
$154 18 109421
$154 18
Install Antenna - 0425
Paid Chk« 072318 11/13/01 MOROWCZYNSKI, JIM
E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $111 77 10/26/01
ToUl MOROWCZYNSKI, JIM $111 77
Mileage/Meals - Training
Paid ChMI 072319 11/13/01 MTIDISTCO.
E 613-49830-404Repairs/Maml -Bldgs/Grounds $475 00 107954-00 Blow Out Irrigation
E 613-49830-223Bldg/Grounds Mair.i Suppfaes $17 25 111652 00 Wire Connectors/Nuts
Tout MTIDISTCO.$492 25
PaidChkO 072320 11/13/01 NASRO
E 101-42110-433Memberships & Subscriptions $30 00 2370MI NASRO Mbrship-Schoenhoff
ToUl NASRO $30 00
Paid Chki 072321 11/13A)1 NAVARRE HARDWARE
E 101-43000-222Vehicle Equipment & Parts $63 84 63 84 Locks
E 101-43000-224Street Main! Materials/Suppiy $25 55 89674 Landscape Fabric
E 101-42110-201Office supplies $14 89 89701 Surge Protector
E 101-42110-201Office supplies $10 64 89738 Surge ProUctor
E 101-43000-224Street Mairtt Malerials/Supply $28 88 89962 Concrete Mn
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt Malertals/Supply $14 29 90083 Tarp, Strap
E 101-43000-222Vehicle Equipment & Parts $5 26 90064 Conduit
E 101-43000-224Street Matni Matenals/Supply $10 83 90086 Conaete Mu
E 101-43000-224Street Mainl Matenals/Supply $7 22 90092 Concrete Mu
E 613-49830-223Bldg/Grounds Man! Suppiws $22 83 90104 Ancliors.Glue Lght Bubs
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt MaUnals/Supply $7 22 90116 MortorMu
E 601-49400-227UlMy System Mamt Suppkes $2 97 90153 GahrNippU
E 101-43000-222Vehicle Equipment & Parts $47 14 90165 Tape. Mouse Poisen
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt Materats/Supply $6 17 90327 Mason Line
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt Matenals/Supply $9 99 90332 Wood
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt Materials/Suppiy $1 86 90334 Nads
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt Malerials/Supply $36 19 90353 Tarp. Tape
E 101-43000-224Street Mamt MaUriala/Supply $5 31 90355 SUpUs.Nads
E 101-43000-224Street Maint. MaUriala/Supply $43 59 90439 Ceuk,Oun
E 601-49400-223BldgA3rounds Mamt Suppkes $3 16 90482 PUstic Pail
E 101-43000-222Vehicle Equipment & Parts $2 56 90492 BubBoRs
E 101-43000-221Equipment Paru & Accessones $5.07 90630 Ebow.NippU
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
Friday. NovemiMr 09.2001
Page 7 oM1
Chack Amt Invoica Commanl
E 602-49450-227 Ut44y Systam Maml Supplies S6 38 90662 Marking Paint
E 602-49450-227 Uri4y System Maml Supplies 52S 51 90730 Union, ERxm. Valve
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Orounds MainI Supplies $23 20 90864 Bulk Chain
E 101-45200-223 eidg/GroundsMaint Supplies $24 46 90972 Bracket Trash Bags
E 101-43000-2?2 Vehicle Equipment & Parts $8 51 91064 Enamel
E 101-43000-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $33 45 91090 Primer. Paint
E 601-49400-227 Utdity System Maim Suppkas $60 22 91242 Anbtreeaa
E 101-43000-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $25 27 91253 Concrete Mix
E 601-49400-227 UMy System Maim Supplies $2 85 91255 Coupling. Nipple
E 601-49400-227 Utity System Maint Supplies $17 03 91256 Hose
E 101-43000-469 Other Mocellaneous Charges $2166 91257 Concrete Mix
E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $851 91291 VelaoTape
Total NAVARRE HARDWARE $635 53
Paid Chka 072324 11/13A)1 NCPER8 GROUP UFE INS
0 101-21710 Life Insurance $156 00 67321101
Total NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS $156 00
PERA Life 1172001
Paid Chka 072325 11/13/01
E 101-42110-321 Telephone
Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
$488 31 2819346-4
$488 31
Police Cell Phones
Paid Chka 072326 11/13/01 NORTHERN
E 601-49400-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $197 54 19331056
E 601-49400-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip ($0 53) 19331096
Tout NORTHERN $197 01
Water Pump. Hose
Hose Exchange
Paid Chka 072327 11/13/01 NORTHWEST BITUMINOUS. INC
E 406-48727-590Street Construction $7,495 00 9740 Repair Crystal Creek Road
Total NORTHWEST BITUMINOUS. INC $7 495 00
Paid Chka 072328 11/13/01 OFFICE DEPOT
E 101-41900-201Office supplies $61 31 141825192-00 Office Supplies
E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts S Accessories $258 72 141825192-00Printer/Scanner
E 101-42110-201Office supplies $50 17 141825192-00 Office Supplies
E 101-42110-201Office supplies $350 52 142758022 Office Suppbes/Caiendars
E 101-41900-201Office supplies $42841 142758022 Office Suppkes/Calendars
ToUl OFFICE DEPOT $1.14913
Paid Chka 072329 11/13A)1 ONE STOP AUTO SERVICE
E 101-42110-402 Repaui/Maim-Auto Equip $258 45 9070 04. Trans Serv ai88
E 101-42110-402Repaui/Mamt-Auto Equip $24969 9079 Ban Joint. Abgn f 183
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $107 34 9092 Od.CooUnI Fish *185
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $520 03 9093 04. Brakes. Align 9191
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maim-Auto Equip $96 66 9129 Radiator Clean ai91
E 101-42110402Repairs/Maint-Aulo Equfi $15525 9222 04. Battery §189
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Msinl-Auto Equip $962 96 9288 Brakes. Axels 9184
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maim-Auto Equip $673 13 9296 Brakes. Headtght Assy 9187
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Mant-Auto Equip $36 57 9303 04. Lube 9183
E 101-42110-402Repairs/Mainl-Auto Equip $35 53 9308 04. Lube 9190
E 101-42110402Repairs/Msinl-Auto Equip $5193 9326 Flasher Relay 9189
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
Chflck Ami Invoic*
Friday. NovwTtef 09 2001
PagaSoMi
Comment
E 101-42110-402 RaoaifiMainl-Auto Equ9 S240 09 9337
E 101-42110-402 Repan/Maiftl-Auto Equip $31 IS 9339
E 101-42110-402 Rap«n4Mainl-Auto Eqwp $60 72 9369
E 101-42110402 RapauiMaim-Aulo Equip $66 52 9394
E 10142110-402 RapairsMaml-Auto Equq> $31 15 9397
E 10142110402 RapaimMainl-Auto Equqi $80 86 9409
E 10142110-402 RapairWMaiiil-AutoEquip $159 94 9417
E 10142110-402 RapairaMainl-Auto Equip $50 52 9469
Total ONE STOP AUTO SERVICE $3,896 79
Walar Pump 8188
Flasher Relay 8189
04. Mount Titm 8188
04. Align 8192
Tee Change
04. Electrical 8189
04. Scan, SeipBeK 8191
04. TIra 8184
PaidChh8 072331 llM3rt)1 OTTENBROTHER
E 10143000-224 Street Maim Matenala/Suppiy ($25 24) 1011/01 Return Sod
E 10143000-224 Street Mamt Matenals/Supply $84 14 10/1/01 Sod Caroline Protect
E 10143000-224 Slieel Mamt Matenals/Supply $4 21 10/19/01 Sod-Carolme Protect
Total OTTEN BROTHERS $6311
Paid Chk8 072332 11/13rt)1 PIONEER
E 10141900-352 Printing & Publishing
E 10141900-352 Printing & Publishing
E 10142400-340 General Advertising
E 1014190a352 Printing & PubliBhing
E 10142400-340 Oneral Advertising
ToUl PIONEER
$21 26 785
$94 70 801
$7924 828
$11982 629
$27 06 830
$342 08
Notice-Coffee Channet
Ordinance 8206
Appbcalions
Ordinance 8208
Appheabons
PaidChJUi 072333 11/13/01 POMERCLEAN COMPANY INC.
E 10142110407 Janitorial Services $809 14 8419
E 10141900407 JandorialServices $988 94 8419
ToUl POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. $1.798 06
Janitorial Service • 10/0t
Jandorial Service • 10/01
PadChlia 072334 11/13/01
E 10145200404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Giounds
Total PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC.
$105 74 8177
$105 74
Spray • French Creeh Park
Paid Chke 0/2335 11/134)1
E 10141900401 Repaus/Maint-Office Equip
ToUl PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS
PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS
$381 85 134684
$381 85
Fax Machine - Maim
PaidChMI 072336 11/134)1 PRUDENTIAL UFE INSURANCE
E 10141500-134 Employer Pad Life $5 85
E 10142110-134 Employer Pad Life $40 95
E 10143000-134 Employef Pad Life $15 60
0 101-21710 Life Insurance $54150
E 60149400-134 Employer Pad Life $3 90
E 61349630-134 Employer Pad Life $195
O 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins $1 65
E 10142400-134 Employer Pad Lite $13 65
E 10141300-134 Employer Pad Life $780
ToUl PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE $632 85
Life Insurance -
Life Insurance •
Life Insurance •
Ufelnaurance•
tie Insurance •
Lie Insurance •
Lie InsuraiKS ‘
Lie Insurance •
Ue Insurance
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
11/2001
PadChkS 072337 11/134)1
E 60149400-321 Telephone $53 25 6124717766 Phone-WaUrPUm
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
Friday. Novecnber 09.2001
PageOof 11
Clwck Amt Invoke Comment
E 602-49450-321 Teleptione S40 79 6124719037 Alarm Dialer-LS
E 613-49830-321 Telephone S58 66 6124739904 Phone-GC
E 613-49830-340 General Advertising S22980 6124739904 Dir Advertismg
E 601-49400-321 Telephone $103 00 612E440016 Comm Une-WT to PW
Total QWEST $485 50
PaidChke 072338 11/13rt>1 RELIANT ENERGY
E 601-49400-381 Gas 8 Electric
E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric
E 602-49450-381 Gas & Electric
E 101-42110-381 Gas & Electric
E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric
ToUl RELIANT ENERGY
$102 86 060006750600 Gas Service
($30 81) 060006750600 Gas Service
$880 060006750600 Gas Service
$26 60 060006750600 Gas Service
$32 50 060006750600 Gas Service
$139 95
Paid Chk# 072339 11/13rt)1 RELIANT ENERGY • OC
E 613-49830-381 Gas & Electric
ToUl RELIANT ENERGY • OC
$30 67 539004161700 Gas Jervica-GC
$30 67
Paid Chki 072340 11/I3rt>l RUMPCA CO, INC
E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maml-Btdgs/Grounds $375 00 10/2001
Tout RUMPCA CO. INC $375 00
Brush Disposal
Paid Chki 072341 11/13/01 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN
E 101-42110-437 Training & Oevelopmeni $56 62 10/22rt)1
E 101-42110-437 Training & Oevelopmeni $15768 10/22/01
Total SCHOENHOFF, JOHN $214 30
Meats • Training
Lodging - Seminar
Paid ChKa 072342 11/l3rt)1
E 101-41800-490 Contnbulions to Civic Org's
Total SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
$3.793 50 4th Qlr
$3,793 50
Senior Services • 4th Qtr
Paid Chk« 072343 11/l3rt)1 SEVERSON. MM
G 602-11501 Accounts Receivable-w/s $59 92 Re'jnd
ToUl SEVERSON, KIM $59 92
Refund - 1530 N Arm Final
Paid ChM 072344 11/13rt)1 SHAUGHNESSY, COLIN
E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Malnl-BldgsJGrounds $2.464 26 10D1/01
E 101-45200-404 RepairsrtMaint-Bldgs/Grounds $2.464 29 1001/01
ToUl SHAUGHNESSY. COUN $4 928 55
Mowing -100001
Mowmg • 90001
Paid Chka 072345 11/1301 SIGNS OF THE SEASON
E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $67 10 191
Total SIGNS OF THE SEASON $67 10
Parking Lot Signs
PaidChki 072346 11/1301
E 101-42110-340 (3eneral Advertising
Total SPOTLIGHT ADVERTISING PRODUCTS
SPOTUGHT advertising PRODUCTS
$45369 2898
$453 69
Mouse Pads-On Line Safety
Pavl Chke 072347 11/1301 STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH
E 101-41900-201 Offlee supplies $54 32 11711
ToUl STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH $54 32
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
FrK}ay. November 09. 2001
Page lOoMI
Cheek Ami Invoice Comment
Pad Chka 072348 11/134)1 STATE O^ nbf^StilTA •BCA
E 101-42110-414 EOP/Communications Equp Rant
ToUl STATE OF MINNESOTA - BCA
$510 00 2715002c
$510 00
CJON - 3rd Qlr 2001
Pad Chka 072349 11/134)1 STEFFENHAGEN. RON
E 613-49830-226 Ctolhtng & personal equipment
Tout STEFFENHAGEN. RON
$100 00 11/24)1
$100 00
Safety BooU
Pad Chka 072350 11/134)1 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
E 101-41110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions
Tout SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
$400 00 2nd Hlf 2001
$400 00
2nd Half 2001 Membershp
SUTHERLANDSPatdChk* 072351 11/13J01
E 101-42110-404 Repaira/Mamt-BUgs/Grounda
E 101-41900-404 Repai(s<’Ma>nt-Bldgs/Grounde
Total SUTHERLANDS
S81000 KV17/01
S990 00 10/17/01
si.eoooo
Prurw City HaU Shrubs
Prui>e City Hall Shrubs
PaidChka 072252 11/134)1 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI
E 101-41600-306 Legal-Prosecution
Total TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI
$67 88 10/2001
$67 88
Conflict Prosecutions 10/2001
Pam Chkf 072353 11/13/01 THE HOME DEPOT
E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories
Total THE HOME DEPOT
$63 84 9/264)1
$63 84
Respirator
PaidChMI 072354 11/13/01
E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentals
ToUl TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY
TOLL GAS A WELDING SUPPLY
$6 05 47648
$6 05
CyimOar Rental
Paid Chka 072355 11/134)1 TRACY TRIPP FUELS
O 101-14101 Oasokne Inventory
ToUl TRACY TRIPP FUELS
$2,456 13 00390
$2,456 13
2158 Gals Unleaded
Paid Chka 072356 11/134)1 TRI STATE PUMP
E 602-49450-227 UtMy System Maint Supplies
ToUl TRI STATE PUMP
$1.554 43 20506
$1.554 43
Pump - LS 432
US FILTERPaid Chk# 072357 11/134)1
E 601-49400-227 UMity System Maml Supplies
ToUl US FILTER
$337 04 7862023
$337.04
Rebuild Valve-Hwy 12
Paid Chka 072358 11/134)1 VERIZON DIRECTORIES
E 101-41900-321 Telephone
ToUl VERIZON DIRECTORIES
$396 44 10035922058
$396 44
Celt Phones
Pad Chka 072359 11/134)1 ' VeRIZON WIRELESS
E 601-49400-321 Telephone
E 602-49450-321 Telephone
ToUl VERIZON WIRELESS
$1410 10034585141
$14.10 10034585141
$2820
Utility Cell Phone
Utility Cea Phone
Pad Chka 072360 11/134)1 VtNKINO LAND TREE CARE
E 101-43000-408 ContracUd Street Maint $47925 2302 Tree Removal
CiTY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register
Friday. NowMiterW. 3001
Pigrillofll
CNadiAaN mvelea Comment
Total VmraNO LAND TNCE CARE $47925
Paid CNiO 072361 1l/13ri)1 W.W. GRAMaQI MC.
E 101-43000-221 Eqinpmani Paris 6 Aooaaaoriaa $6 72 495-281259-4 DriBBrts
E 101-43000-221 Eqiripinant Paris 6 Aootsaoriat $132 87 496-522427-6 DnBSel
E 101-43000-221 Equipmant Paris 6 Aeotssonas $124 61 073-911942-0 Safety Tape
Total W.W. GRAINGER INC $266 20
Paaj ChW 072362 11/13«1 WEST SIDE RE01 MU INC.
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Giounds MaM Suppias $205 55 55272 Concrele-7 Nations Park
Total WEST SOEREOI MIX INC.$205 55
Paid CMiO 072363 11/13ri)1 MRIONT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
E 602-40450-361 GasS Elactnc $22 54 3113000200 Electrical Service
E 101-43000-361OasSEIactfic $8 05 3413366600 Electrical Service
E 101-43000-361OaaSElactrtc $8 05 5014799900 Electrical Servico
E 101-43000-361Oat 6 Elactnc $8 05 5014867100 Electrical Servico
Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $46 69
Paid ChM 072364 11/13A)1 XCEL ENERGY
E 101-41900-361Gas 6 Electric $6 52 340 NWM Electricily-340 N W JloMT
E 601-49400-361Gas 6 Electric $2.866 96 Anocatton Electrical Servtca
E 101-42110-361Gas 6 Electric $9 42 ABocabon Electrical Service
E 101-45200-361Gas 6 Electric $1517 ABocabon Electrical Service
E 101-43000-361Gas 6 Electric $141.72 ABocabon Electrical Service
E 613-49630-361Gas 6 Electric $399 51 ABocabon Electrical Service
E 101-42110-361Gas 6 Electric $474 27 ABocabon Elecirical Service
E 101-41900-361Gas 6 Electric $1.218 82 ABocabon Electrical Service
E 602-49450-361 GasS Electric $1.246 98 ABoobon Electrical Service
E 101-43000-361GasSEiectric $120 78 Hwy12 Signal - Hwy 12/VMBow
E 101-43000-366Street Liphlmg $1.368 39 Street Lighl Sireel LigMino • 10/2001
Total XCELEWRGY $7.872 54
10100 Pfimwy Cash S109.258 35
information
ITEMS
COUNCIL MEETING
OF
NOV 1 3 2001
CiTYOFOnONO
■
Ms. Lada O’Coiutor
PafcTWo
Tlie City of Sprioj Pa^ ts supportive of the cooperative effon between HexmepiD County
and Hensqno Parks for the acquisition of Use 0akoU Rail nefat-of-way for the purpose of
teserviog the nil conidor as a'Xgional/bicycle trail or future lijlxt rail transit route.
Spring Park views the prescrvaiioa of this tnnspon 4. jq cooidor as a positive regioiul
amenny that may produce local ecasomic devcfopniist tbrou^ the gtrahHthwii^t
Ufa trail bead and/or transh stop in Spring Park. Spring Park would opposed the
turnback of this regioaai conidor local coimnimBiea pnycatiog a regional trail system.
Stomwaier Drainage/Water QoaHty. Tbc Mnmetonki Beach Plan devotes significam
attention to in-fill residcniial developtxieot and the renovadon of gpting hotnes. Wtib tbc
smaller cottages and humes being ton down and repUced whh larger homes come
stormwater drainage uues (resulting from increased ingrervious ground cover).
Considering that sioniiHater ultiinately drains into Lake Minnetonka, attention should be
given to various environmental rsoceros resulting from an increase in impervious surface
area.
The Mmnetooka Beach Plan states that untreated stormwater rtmoff into Lake
Mizmeionka should be minimized and suggests imposing a mrnmmin 70 percent pervious
(or 30 percent impervious) requiremem on private lots. While the pervious surface
requirement is considered posit^e, the ability to meet such standard is questioned
i The Mionetonlu Beach Plan establisbcs.a poGey if bignoving the chpmlcal and physical
quality of the luifoce water of Lake Mnnetonka and suggests several jmpi*™rDtatioii
strategies including the reduction of clindnation of phosphorus fenilizen on established
lawns.
AfTordablc ffousing/Support Seryicca. The Mumetanka Beach Plan states that it will
work with the Lake Mmnetooka Cooperating Cities to provide affordable bousing in
appropriate locations where misponaiioa and services are anilabic. More specifically,
the Flu encourages the City of Spring Park to provide areas in or near its "town center”
for affordable housing.
The Chy of Spring Park should be aware that it has been specifically referenced in the
Mionetooka ^ch Plan in this regard. Mianetonka Beach's support for affordable
housing at tontioos udtere trao^rortitioa and services are available runs comrary to tbmr
stated posickmofthc future classificatioD of Cbunty Road 15 and future use of the Dakota
Rail iigbt-i)r*way as a regional trail or transit corridor. In Spring Park’s optnion. these
tiansponation elements are miegral to providing bousing and related services that will
benefit the entire Lake Minoetooka area.
L