Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-14-2000 Council Packet
Public A ttendance Meeting D ate 0 /^- cv SI□□□ C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other INFORMATION i REQUEOTD BELOW FOR bUR CITY RECORDS. :-v;- , 7 ■ :■ - , v ;: w/;: i-JX. ^ vw: 4N-\i. . , • ;■: V, - O.'x .-t ,■ •. -viW:. •;. :•■ vx.X, NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 3.. 4. 5.. 6.. 7. 8.. 9. 10. 11. 12.. 13. 14. 15. 991395.4 . — i». tMm >w.. ^J_TT.r ^ ^ V . TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator February 11,2000 SUBJECT: Long Lake Fire Station Planning Committee Update 00^/c;/ McpTiMQ Feb 1 4 2000 The Long Lake Fire Station Planning Committee; which includes the Long Lake City Administrator, a Long Lake City Council Member, the Long Lake Fire Chief and other Fire Department representatives, the Orono City Administrator, and Orono Council Members Charlie Kelley and Barbara Peterson; interviewed three firms for the provision of architectural services regarding the design and siting of the new fire station. The three firms were SEH, TKDA, and BKPV. The Committee is recommending the firm of BKPV (Boorman, Kroos, Pfister, Vogel) be selected. The reconunendation is based on the firm’s extensive experience in the design of fire stations and positive feedback from cities with new fire stations designed by BKPV. The key staff responsible for the project will be David Kroos and Paul Mickelberg. Council Members Kelley and Peterson can update the Council regarding the Committee ’s recommendation at the February 14 Council meeting. 1 ORONO CITY COUNaL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24,2000 1 4 20uu ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members Charles Kelley, Richard Flint, Bob Sansevere, and Barbara Peterson. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, City* Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items 3, 5, 8, and 9 were added to the Consent Agenda. Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *(2) Regular Council Meeting of January 10, 2000 Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of January 10, 2000, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS None LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVA TION DISTRICT - LILI MCMILLAN, REPRESENTATIVE McMillan addressed the City Council regarding the LMCD's plans regarding boat traffic through the channel near Big Island. McMillan stated the LMCD will be placing 38 moderate-sized buoys containing no parking signs 50 feet apart outlining the channel. The LMCD will possibly be receiving some funding from the DNR to purcha.se the buoys Kelley expressed some concern that the local residents may utilize the buo> s for Page 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24. 2000 (Lake Mirihetoiica Conservation District, Continued)! purposes outside of the intent of the LMCD. Mayor Jabbour stated the City has been made aware of complaints regarding the boat traffic problems being experienced in the channel due to a large number of boats being docked in that area. McMillan stated several of the restaurants located on Lake Minnetonka have also been experiencing some problems resulting from the disorderly conduct on Big Island. McMillan stated the LMCD is also looking at a Planned Unit Development at Cochrane's Marina, with a redevelopment of the marina being proposed as well as construction of townhomes. McMillan stated the LMCD Code at this time docs not really take into account PUD's and the different densities allowed b> the cities located on the lake, which needs to jC taken into consideration when redevelopment occurs along the lake. McMillan noted the LMCD will be discussing this issue further at their next meeting. Mayer Jabbour stated he has suggested to the LMCD in the past to adopt a conversion ordinance to help deal with redevelopment along Lake Minnetonka. Kelley expressed a concern that Orono appears to be losing marina space, with the number of boat slips on the decline. Kelley stated he hopes the LMCD realizes the importance of the local marinas. Mayor Jabbour stated the LMCD's 100' dock rule makes the marinas nonconforming and allows for fewer docks. McMillan commented a number of the local marinas are located in residential areas, with improvements to the marinas being dictated more by the local economy. McMillan stated the LMCD needs to look at providing more dock space at the marinas. Mayor Jabbour stated the LMCD started licensing dry docks in approximately 1986, with a moratorium being established at that time. Jabbour commented in his view the LMCD should review the drv dock situation in the area as well. McMillan stated the LMCD has been approached by the Department of Agriculture to review the use of phosphorus in this area. The Department of Agriculture is recommending and encouraging the local nurscncs to stock phosphorus-free fertilizer McMillan stated it appear.s the Department of Agriculture is going to pursue legislation in this regard and is looking for support from the LMCD. McMillan reported the Minnehaha Power Squadron who has started a midde school boat education program w hich consists of a four week course. Upon completion of the course and passing of a test, the participants will become certified in operating watercraft. Page 2 \i -I t ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24. 2000 (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, Continued) Kelley inquired whether people over the age of 17 need a permit to operate a boat on the lake. McMillan stated the course is designed for children age 12 to 17. According to state statutes, a permit is required or adult supervision for children under the age of 17 in order for them to legally operate a watercraft. McMillan stated people over the age of 18 do not at the present time need a permit to operate a watercraft. Mayor labbour stated the City is looking at pursuing licensing for people over 18 as well. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS Kurt Rakos, 2175 Shevlin Drive, e.vpressed concerns regarding the amount and speed of the traffic in the area of the Webber Hills Development and along Willow Drive. Rakos stated the neighborhood is experiencing more young ftunilies, with the local residents becoming more aware of the safety concerns that exist for the young children in the area. Rakos inquit .‘d whether a three-way stop sign could possibly be installed at the intersection of Shevlin and Willow. Moorse stated he will have the Police Chief and City Engineer review this situation to arrive at the best possible solution. Mayor Jabbour stated the first step would be to have the Police Chief and City Engineer review this situation, followed by public input. Jabbour requested City Staff notify Rakos of the findings and recommendations of the Police Chief and Cit>' Engineer. Moorse stated the area will need to be looked at regarding how safetv* will be affected, whether the location is a logical place for a stopsign or stoplight, and whether stacking of cars will occur. Rakos inquired whether a children at play sign could be installed in the meantime to make the drivers in the area aware that young children are in the area. Moorse stated he is unsure what the criteria is for placement of a children at play sign. Rakos inquired Aether a speed bump would be <me possible option. Mayor Jabbour stated speed bumps tend to be dangerous and do not belong on public streets. Jabbour stated City Staff w ill review this situation and report back to the Cit> Page 3 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24, 2000 (Public CouunenL Continued) Council with their recommendation and findings. Kellogg stated they will need at least tN%o weeks to review this situation. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *(3) #2450 GLEN AND SANDRA GRONBERG, 325 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT - RESOLUTION NO. 4414 Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4414, a Resolution Granting an Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for a Plat Proposed at 325 Willow Drive North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (4) #2539 JOHN AND BECKl SUNDET, 684 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4415 Tom Barrett, City Attorney, recommended the following language be incorporated into the resolution between Paragraphs 6 and 7: "The Applicant has not demonstrated a hardship sufficient to allow the requirements for the variance to be waived". Mayor Jabbour suggested that language be included in ever\' resolution for denial. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4415, a Resolution Denying Variances to Permit an Addition to the Existing Residence Located at 684 Tonkawa Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(5) #2557 DANIEL AND JUDITH MCATHIE, 1449 BAY RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 4416 Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4416, a Resolution Granting Variances to Permit the Addition of a Garage and Living Space to the Existing Residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Jabbour stated as it relates to the new Highway 12 corridor, the Attorney General has decided that Long Lake's approval, because it was conditional, is not an approval but rather a denial. Jabbour stated he has been working with the Mayor of Long Lake to get it approved. Page 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24.2000 (Mayor/Council Report, Continued) Jabbour stated he has been meeting with Mn/DOT to help find replacement housing for the approximately 100 families who will be displaced due to the new Highway 12 corridor. Jabbour stated he would like to see this issue resolved in the near future. Jabbour stated as it relates to the Dakota Rail to Trail project, the City Council for the City of Minnetrista has given its approval to this project. Jabbour stated the City of Orono has been asked by the City of Minnetonka and the DNR to testify at the State Legislature regarding funding for a public access. Peterson stated the Fire Department will be interviewing three architectural firms February 9th regarding the new building. Kelley suggested the two cities look at acquiring enough land to provide room for expansion as well as land for the Fire Department to hold drills. Kelley stated the hardest issue to address regarding the new fire department will be the location. Flint inquired whether a decision has been reached regarding the St. Boni/Minnetrista consolidation. Moorse stated it is his impression there is some significant opposition to the consolidation. Moorse commented he is unsure whether the two Cit>' Councils will approve it for a referendum. Moorse stated the report indicates the Municipal Board feels the merger should occur. Mayor Jabbour conunentcd on the loss of WSI being experienced by the City of Orono and the City of Long Lake. Jabbour indicated Long Lake Ford Tractor has also made the decision to close its doors. Jabbour stated he has expressed to the owners of Long lake Ford Tractor the support of the City and the loss that the two communities will experience without this business. Sansevere stated he has received some E-mail regarding the heavy two-way traffic being experienced along the road into Woodhill Golf Course. Sansevere requested City Staff review the situation. Moorse stated he will have Citv Staff check on it. Sansevere inquired whether any progress has been made on finding a new police chief Moorse indicated he would like to talk with a number of different consultants to determine the best process to follow in finding a replacement. Moorse stated he will report back to the City Council regarding this item. Page 5 1 1 •f- 3 1 L 'hit/I. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24. 2000 ENGINEER REPORT (6) POLICY ON CONNECTION TO SANITARY SEWER Moorse reviewed Gappa's January 24, 2000 memorandum regarding the Cit>' of Orono's policy on the time frame for connection to sanitary sewer. Currently the City's Septic Code requires coiuiection to sanitary sewer within sixteen months from the date sewer is available. The projects being completed now are the result of recent changes to the State Septic Regulations regarding non-compliant systems and a more stringent interpretation of the three foot separation rule. This has resulted in approximately 400 septic systems being non-compliant throughout the City. Although these systems have been functioning adequately for many years and are not an imminent threat to public health and safety, the new State Codes consider such systems as failing. The City is proposing to allow the property owner three to ten years to replace their non-compliant septic system or connect to sewer. Kelley stated he is in agreement with the recommendations contained in the memorandum. Flint and Peterson stated they also arc in agreement with the recommendations Sansevere expressed some concern that the residents who are forced to hook up to City sewer may experience some financial difficulties as a result. Mayor Jabbour stated the property owner would have up to ten years to connect to City sewer. Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the above described revisions to the City's Septic Code regarding time frames for connection to sanitary sewer, with any code changes included in the upcoming Septic Code revisions, as contained in the Public Works Director's Memorandum of January 24,200( VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (7) FOX RIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT A. Order Preparation of Feasibility Report - Resolution No. 4417 Moorse reviewed Gappa's memorandum of January 24, 2000, regarding the scheduling of a public hearing for the Fo.\ Ridge Sanitaiy' Sewer Project Moorse indicated a letter has been mailed to the affected property owners notifying tlicm of a neighborhood informational meeting that has been scheduled for Tuesday, February’ 8 at 7:00 p m. City Staff is recommending another public hearing regarding this project be scheduled for the February 28th City Council meeting. Page 6 i ' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24, 2000 Flint indicated he will not be present at the February 28th City Council meeting. Kelley stated he also will not be in attendance at this meeting. (Fox Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project, Continued) Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4417, a Resolution Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report for the Installation of Municipal Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Fox Ridge Area. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. B. Receive Feasibility Report and Call Hearing on Improvement - Resolution No. 4418 Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4418, a Resolution Receiving Report and Calling Hearing on Fox Ridge Sanitary Sewer Improvement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(8) FINAL PAY REQUEST - NAVARRE WELL NO. 1 Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Final Payment, Navarre Well #1, Maintenance and Pump Repairs Project to Alberg Water Services, Inc., in the amount of S20,571.80. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *(9) HIRING OF FULL-TIME POLICE RECORDS CLERK Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the hiring of Stacie Budig as Full-time Police Record Specialist with a salary rate of SI 3.03 per hour, plus benefits, effective January 31,2000. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (10) AFFORDABLE HOUSING GRANT APPLICATION RELATED TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS TOWNHOMES - RESOLUTION NO. 4419 Moorsc reviewed his January 21, 2000 memorandum regarding affordable housing grant application related to the Lake Minnetonka Woods Townhomes Resolution. Moorse stated he has met with the Metropolitan Council, who has toured the Cit>'. The Metropolitan Council has suggested the City apply for grants to buy down the cost of several of the townhomes to an affordable level. The grant application requires a Council resolution indicating the housing to be assisted with the grant is consistent with the housing element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Page 7 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24. 2000 (Affordable Housing Grant Application. Continued) Flint inquired whether the resolution should ov specific as to the number of townhomes to be bought down. Flint suggested up to four units be bought down. Moorse stated it was his understanding three to four units would be bought down. Flint stated the City needs diversity of people and income ranges, and if all the units are designated affordable housing, you would lose that diversity. Moorse stated the resolution is needed as part of the grant application. Mayor Jabbour suggested the City Council pass the resolution, with City Staff being directed to limit the amount of townhomes to be bought down to five. Moorse stated in his discussions with Guy Peterson, they have discussed four units. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4419. a Resolution to Verify that the Lake Minnetonka Woods Townhome Development is Consistent with the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint stated under the buy-down program, the people who live in the development are not aware of which units have been bought down. (11) SCHEDULE COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS Moorse stated February 9th at 6;00 p.m., has been scheduled for the interviews with the architects on the new Fire Department building. City Council directed City Staff to schedule a work session on February 14th at 5:00 p.m. City Council directed City Staff to schedule a work session for March 2nd at 7:30 a.m. (12) SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE LONG LAKE CITY COUNCIL Moorse stated Citv Staff is attempting to schedule a joint meeting with the Long Lake City Council for February 22nd to discuss the consolidation review process. Mayor Jabbour encouraged the members of the City Council to read the minutes of the Consolidation Committee's meetings and to review the financial information supplied b> the consultant from Ehler's & Associates The Council members indicated 5:30 p.m., on February 22 would work. Flint indicated he will be out of town on the 22nd. Pag* 8 ^ ■ ,Vt km *-T m ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24,2000 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Tom Barrett requested to meet in Executive Session with the City Council. •(13) LICENSES Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the following licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1. Charles Cudd Company Spring Preview of Homes 100 Crystal Creek Road February 26 - March 19,2000 Noon - 7:00 p.m., Thursday - Sunday RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1. Wa^.-iK: E. and Gayle D. Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive 2. Kenneth B. and Karen S. Rolland 4119 Oak Street CIGARETTE LICENSE 1. Richard Bloomquist Rick's Super Valu 3333 Shoreline Drive 2. Steven Corl Navarre Liquors, Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive 3. Kenneth Galloway Wayzata Countiy Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard 4 Timothy Ivory Spring Hill Golf Club 725 Sixth Avenue North 7. John O'Sullivan O'Sullivans I (Convenience Store) 2420 Shadywood Road 8. John O'Sullivan O'Sullivans II (Convenience Store-Culvers) 3340 Shoreline Drive 9. Don Scherven Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive 10. William Wear 12-Hi Liquor, Inc. 2160 W. Wavzata Boulevard Page 9 --—ri ■r.rrt nrm • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24.2000 5. LeRoy Koehnen Navarre Amoco 3360 Shoreline Drive 11. Grant Wenkstem Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc. 40S North Arm Drive 6. Troy Krahenbuhl Western Convenience 2160 Wayzata Boulevard *(14) BILLS Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Payment of the All Funds AccounL VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (IS) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 10 p. Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 9/21/99 9/21/99 Waived by Applicant REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MFET'^'l FEB 1 4 M Cn Y V/r DATE: 2/14/00 ITEM NO.: 3 Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Zoning District: #2530 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Variances B-1, Retail Sales Business District Agenda Section: Zoning Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Draft Resolution Proposed Sign Plan Site Plan Notice of Council Action (November 22,1999) City Council Minutes (November 22,1999) Application Waiver Notification of 60 Day Extension Planning Commission Minutes (October 18,1999) Planning Commission Minutes (November 15,1999) Staff Report (November 22, 1999, Dated November 19, 1999) Application Summary’ The City Council had previously reviewed this application on November 22,1999 and voted to table based on the overhead canopy lighting was not in conformance with the approvals granted with the previous land use application. The applicant stated at the meeting the lighting was scheduled to be replaced, but had not been completed by the meeting date. Since the November meeting the lighting has now been replaced and is in conformance with the requirements of approval of the canopy and Municipal Code. Mr. Wear’s application to the City of Orono is for a variance to permit total signage of 380 s.f. on the property where 100 s.f. is permitted. The Planning Commission reviewed a comprehensive sign plan for the property that would permit 180 s.f. of building signage, 141 s.f. of signage for the existing twin pole pylon on the west side of the property and 59 s.f. of signage for a new conoco logo sign on the east side of the property. The building signage includes two 2.5' x 8’ conoco logos that would be located on the east and west sides of the canopy. r Thb application requires the following variances: 1. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A): Within the B-1 District the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. The property is allowed a total of 200 s.f. of signage based on frontage and building width along the front property line being 200 feet. The property owner has applied for a variances to allow 380 s.f. of signage on the property, primarily for the new Conoco Station. The plan for a 59 s.f pylon is attached as Exhibit D. Two Conoco Logos (Exhibit E) are proposed to be located on the canopy (2.5' x 8' each) totaling 40 s.f. The pylon encroaches into the front yard setback. The code requires signs to be located 10 feet from any property line. The applicant would located the sign with 4 feet of the front property line. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10, 1986, the property is allowed the following: A.Building Signage 12 individual tenant signs to be located on the building. Each sign is allowed to be 2' x 12 ’ = 24 s.f. The total building signage was approved for 288 s.f. B West pylon sign (Existing) Logo Sign - top {Orono Shopping Center) 5' x 7.5' = 37.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' x 7.5' x 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. C.East pylon sign (Advertising has been removed, pylons remain on property) Logo Sign - top {time and temperature digital display) 3' x 7.5’ = 22.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. D. Total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 = 573 s.f. Building Signage Each current tenant in the Orono Shopping Center would be permitted exterior signage not to exceed 30" in height to be located over the entrance. The Conoco Station would include two 2.5’ x 8' = 20 s.f. signs on the canopy that would be counted toward the allowed 180 s.f. building signage. The building signage is limited to the tenant's name or logo. Conoco Pvlon The Conoco Pylon would be located on the east side of the property near the front lot line. Two poles remain on the property from a pylon that was removed. Upon issuance of a sign permit the twin poles would be required to be removed. The total signage would include a 20 s.f. conoco logo and 39 s.f. dedicated to three lines advertising gasoline prices and two lines of reader board as indicated on the plan submitted to the City of Orono. The total sign space is limited to 59 s.f. « ' n«Ar»k- ri' '‘m m i 1 I ^ l~l~ l~ II I I ■—II t n Ml «a«riatri r. West Pvlon The west pylon was approved with variances in 1986. The sign was permitted one Logo Sign - top (Orono Shopping Center) 5' x 7,5' = 37.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' x 7.5' x 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. Planning Commission Recommendation The applicant reduce the signage on the property to allow 380 s.f.. which the property would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1.The use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the "B-3" Shopping Center District. If the property is zoned B-3 the lot would be allowed 380 s.f of sign space. A variance could be justified based on the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 District. The Planning Commission noted in 1986 the applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. 2.The Conoco station, as well as many other tenants, use an exterior entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this need. 3.Highway 12 will be relocated from the existing location reducing the amount of regional traffic to local traffic. The signage along old Highway 12 should be in character with the local traffic use and pedestrian users. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of variances based on the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B-3. Based on the total building signage to be in conformance prior to a permit being issued for the new signs. \ A A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) FILE NO. #2530 WHEREAS, William W. Wear and Mable Wear (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The West 200 feet of that part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 18, Range 23 described as commencing at the Northwest comer of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence due south (assumed bearing) along the West Line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes East, 545.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 87 degree; 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 188.93 feet; ihence North 87 degrees, 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence South 2 degrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of State Highway No. 12; thence South 69 degrees 41 minutes East along said Northerly right of way line 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 feet along said Northerly right of way line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1587.28 feet to an intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West from the actual point of beginning; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 232.24 feet to actual point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. (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 public hearings on October 18, 1999 and November 15, 1999 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3(A) and (D) to permit total signage on the property Page 1 of 6 to be 380 s.f. where 200 s.f. is allowed for this property in the B-1 zoning district and to permit an encroachment of 6 feet into the front yard setback. This signage plan requires the following variances to the B-1 zoning district standards for signage. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - Allowed area for signage in the B-1 district. Allowed = 200 s.f. Proposed = 380 s.f. Variance = 90% Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (D) - Front yard setback for signs in the B-1 zoning district. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. Allowed = 10 feet Proposed = 4 feet NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2530. The property is located in the B-1 Business District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15, 1999 and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0 for a variance based upon the following findings: A.The use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the "B-3" Shopping Center District. If the property is zoned B-3 the lot would be allowed 380 s.f of sign space. A variance could be justified based on the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B- 3 District. The Planning Commission noted in 1986 the applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. B. The Conoco station, as well as many other tenants, use an exterior Page 2 of 6 iTir .VA/iv* -• - r.« - 4. 5. 6. entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this need. C.Highway 12 will be relocated from the existing location reducing the amount of regional traffic to local traffic. The signage along old Highway 12 should be in character with the local traffic use and pedestrian users. D. The Conoco pylon shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any lot line. The existing pole for the previous pylon sign is located on the front property line. The proposed sign would be located 4 feet from the property line. The sign could not replace the existing pylon and meet the required setback from the front property line. If the pylon is located off the property line 10 feet it would be located in an existing drive and parking area. The sign could have been relocated further to the west, however relocating the sign would require the only tree remaining on the property to be removed. The tree would obstruct the view of the sign for westbound traffic. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances 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 a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of 6 1 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 10.61, Subdivision 3(A) to permit total signage on the property to be 380 s.f. where 200 s.f. is allowed for this property in the B-1 zoning district and Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (D) to permit an encroachment of 6 feet into the required 10 foot setback. This signage plan requires the following variances to the B-1 zoning district standards for signage. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - Allowed area for signage in the B-1 district. Allowed = 200 s.f. Proposed = 380 s.f. Variance = 90% Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (D) - Front yard setback for signs in the B-1 zoning district. Allowed = 10 feet Proposed = 4 feet 1. The signage on the property shall be limited to 180 s.f. of signage for the building. a) Two 2.5’ X 8' conoco logos, one each for the east and west sides of the canopy = 40 s.f. 140 s.f. of signage limited to each tenant in the building's name or logo. No individual sign shall be greater than 30" in height and shall be located above the entrance(s) for each current tenant. 2.One cast pylon shall be allowed for the Conoco Station. The pylon shall be allowed one 2.5' x 8* = 20 s.f. conoco logo, one 1.5' x 6' tenant's name for the gas station = 9 s.f.. three lines identifying types of gasoline for sale and price 21 s.f. and 1.5' x 6 ’ two line, changeable reader board = 9 s.f,. Page 4 of 6 3. I 4. 5. 6. 7. One west pylon shall be allowed six plaques 2.5' x 7.5’ = 18.75 s.f. x 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. one individual plaque is allowed per current tenant, limited to tenant's name or logo and one logo sign 5' x 7.5' 37.5 s.f. to identify the shopping mall, not to e,\ceed 141 s.f. as exists the date of this resoltion. All signage for the property shall be in conformance with the conditions set forth in this resolution by March 31, 2000. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 22, 2000). 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 agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 5 of 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of February, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of February, 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 J 8' WESTERN CONVENIENCE Unleaded 1.158 Unleaded Plus 1.198 Premium Unleaded 1.238 2 LINES 6 INCH CHANGEABLE LETTERS m 2 ’-6” 20 sq ft r-6” 9 sq ft 3’-6 ” 21 sq ft r-6” 9sqft r-6”59 sq ft total OD *3 •< AO fuovi H-rt I IMP. C<!STlN6 Coi*C tWALI'^ » • • .# VP fl» F o»a I 7 7. 1.^ ll-ICi COMC VIALU' i|t> I• VU • • ■^ V.’ I'S fP /. O 111 n -1 I. /. lit I!rr« ,f >» o oa 7. (H /J 3 Cz i o (« 0 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 249-4600 APPLICATION NO. 2530 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: November 29, 1999 TO: William Wear 36 Hackberry Hill Long Lake. MN 55356 DATE OF MEETING: 11/23/99 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To table the variance request for construction of a service station sign and comprehensive signage plan for the property. The request has been tabled until such time the lighting on the property for the overhead canopy recently constructed can be replaced. The lighting does not conform with local ordinance as the Municipal Code prohibits light sources from service stations to be visible to adjacent right-of-way and property used for residential purposes. Please contact sta^ at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. The application deadline was extended on November 15, 1999 to January 18. 2000 . 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. j ... ■ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22,1999 (#2398, Wayzata Country Club, Continued) Wetland and a Conditional Use Permit to Permit Land Alteration to Permit the Expansion of Two Ponding Areas for the Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#5) #2525 LARRY JACOBSON AND VICKIE O'NEILL, 635 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4386 Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4386, a Resolution Granting a Variance to Permit a Side Yard Setback to Allow a 612 Square Foot Two-Stall Attached Garage for the Property Located at 635 Ferndale Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#6) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCE Troy Ramhill, Conoco owner, was present. Weinberger remarked that little progress has been made on the canopy lights with Mr. Wear, noting that City Staff is attempting to work with the Applicant on finding alternative lighting. Mayor Jabbour noted that the lighting must be approved in order to be in compliance with the conditional use permit. Ramhill indicated that he is not aware of the problem concerning the lights, noting that he was under the impression that they had previously been approved. Mayor Jabbour stated that the lights are supposed to be recessed can lights with the light reflected down towards the ground rather than out. Jabbour stated he receives a number of calls per day regarding this issue. Kelley stated that William Wear has been made aware of the situation and is obligated to bring the lights into compliance. Kelley commented that the occupancy permit should not have been issued until everything was in compliance. Mayor Jabbour noted that the City has sent Mr. Wear a letter notifying him of the situation Ramhill commented that Wear is having problems with the installer of the canopy. Mayor Jabbour stated that the City Council cannot approve the signage until the other item is brought into compliance. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22, 1999 (Park Commission Applicant Interviews, Continued) Rick Meyers, Naviure, stated that he is happy with the progress being made on the parks in Orono and the eScrts to amend the comprehensive plan to reflect the changing philosophy of the City as it relat'-.s to parks. Meyers commented that people tend to identify with the neighborhood parks and that he envisions the parks becoming a community focal point for the various neighborhoods. Meyers indicated that he is willing to continue to pursue the Dakota Rail to Trail project, noting that he is a member of the ad hoc committee for this project. Meyers commented that the addition of a bike/hiking trail in this area would be a good asset to the community. Flint thanked Meyers for his efforts in working with the City, noting that the City is interested in getting some participation from the residents in the Navarre area. Flint noted that the Parks Commission acts as an advisory board, with the City Council having the final authority. Meyers commented that the Parks Commission and City Council need to work together towards a common goal. Meyers stated he is willing to abide by the decisions of the City Council. Mayor Jabbour thanked Meyers for appearing before the City Council. PLANNING COM^^SSION COMMENTS - Bill Stoddard, Representative Bill Stoddard stated he would be available for questions at tonight's meeting. Mayor Jabbour commended the Planning Commission for their fine efforts on the Adult Use Ordinance recently adopted by the City of Orono. PUBLIC CO>LMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT -(#4) #2398 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4385 Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4385, a Resolution Granting a Variance to Permit Land Alteration Within a City Protected j ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22,1999 (#2398, Wayzata Country Club, Continued) Wetland and a Conditional Use Permit to Permit Land Alteration to Permit the Expansion of Two Ponding Areas for the Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#5) #2525 LARRY JACOBSON AND VICKIE O’NEILL, 635 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4386 Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4386, a Resolution Granting a Variance to Permit a Side Yard Setback to Allow a 612 Square Foot Two-Stall Attached Garage for the Property Located at 635 Femdale Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#6) #2530 WILLUM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCE Troy Ramhill, Conoco owner, was present. Weinberger remarked that little progress has been made on the canopy lights with Mr. Wear, noting that City Staff is attempting to work with the Applicant on finding alternative lighting. Mayor Jabbour noted that the lighting must be approved in order to be in compliance with the conditional use permit. ‘Ramhill indicated that he is not aware of the problem concerning the lights, noting that he was under the impression that they had previously been approved. Mayor Jabbour stated that the lights are supposed to be recessed can lights with the light reflected down towards the ground rather than out. Jabbour stated he receives a number of calls per day regarding this issue. Kelley stated that William Wear has been made aware of the situation and is obligated to bring the lights into compliance. Kelley commented that the occupancy permit should not have been issued until everything was in compliance. Mayor Jabbour noted that the City has sent Mr. Wear a letter notifying him of the situation. Ramhill commented that Wear is having problems with the installer of the canopy. Mayor Jabbour stated that the City Council cannot approve the signage until the other item is brought into compliance. ORONO CnY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 22,1999 (#2530 William Wear, Continued) Weinberger noted that the requested signage would be a conditional use. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated that the City Council may elect to revoke the conditional use permit if the owner of the property is not in compliance with the City's terms and conditions. Barrett suggested that the City Council table this item until January to give the property owner time to resolve the situation. Kelley commented that he is not in favor of the type of signage being proposed for this site. Ramhill stated that they have downsized the sign significantly to bring the property into compliance, noting that he is planning to erect a monument type sign. Bill Stoddard, Planning Commission Representative, stated the Planning Commission reviewed the previous resolution that had been approved for this property, which allowed 573 square feet of signage, and the requirements allowed under the current ordinance, which allows up to a maximum of 380 square feet of signage. Stoddard noted that the Applicant has reduced the total signage on this property at the request of the Planning Commission. Mayor Jabbour suggested that the owner of the Conoco Station turn off the canopy lights at night until the situation is resolved. Ramhill commented that he has attempted to improve the property by removing the old signs and installing a new canopy with recessed lights as well as a new sign. Ramhill indicated that for security purposes a well-lit area is desirable. Ramhill reiterated that he was operating under the assumption that the light situation was in the process of being resolved, and requested that his sign be approved. Mayor Jabbour stated since the property owner is operating with a conditional use permit, the property must be brought into compliance prior to any new conditional use permits being issued on the property. Jabbour pointed out that the existing conditional use permit can be revoked if the property is not in compliance with the required terms and conditions. Flint stated that the light situation is an important issue and needs to be resolved before approval on this application can be granted. Sansevere suggested that Ramhill work with Wear to resolve this issue. Ramhill commented that he was unaware that the lights were an issue with the adjoining land owners. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2530,2160 Waj-zata Boulevard, to allow the Applicant time to resolve the lighting situation. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1I F 1/15/00 •' •. ! • •• 1 •1 ■ 0 . . Honorable Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Honorable Council Members City of Orono Re: Variance Application for Sign*Extension Request Honorable Mayor and Council Members, our contractor Griffin Petroleum informs us the lights will be replaced Tuesday, January 18th, with fixtures that meet the Council Members requirements. We earnestly request that the Variance Application Request for the sign be extended, as the weather, the supplier of the fixtures and the electrical contractor have precluded installing the new fixtures any earlier. Your consideration of our request is most appreciated. Sincerely William W. Wear Orono Shopping Center 2160 W Wayzata Boulevard Long Lake, MN 55356 GlTYof ORONO Munkipal Offices StrNt Addms: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Malliai Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 0066 NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION November 15,1999 William Wear 36 Hackberry Hill Long Lake, MN SS3S6 Application #2530 State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an application is considered complete. The review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application date is September 21. 1999. The 60 day review period expires on November 2Q. 1999. Your application was tabled at the regular Planning Commission meeting on October 18th. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the most recent plan on November 15th. The earliest the City Council can take action on this item is November 22,1999. Because the 60 day review period expires prior to the Council meeting the City of Orono has extended the review period to January 18. 1999. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have questions. Sincerely, Paul W'einberger Assistant Zoning Administrator Telephone (612) 249Er.Ti I Fax (612) 249-4616 \ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2530 William Wear, Continued) proposed sign down to 14 feet. Wear indicated that some of the existing signs could possibly be removed to reduce the total amount of signage on the property. The owner of the Conoco Station indicated that in order to compete with the other gas stations in the area, it is necessary to have as much signage as possible. Lindquist inquired what the total square feet of signage is that exists on the building currently. Weinberger stated that currently there is 324 square feet of signage on the property, and with the new sign being included, that would raise the total to 453 square feet. The property currently, without any variances, is allowed 200 square feet of signage. Stoddard noted that per Resolution No. 2073, the property is entitled to 573 square feet. Hawn commented that currently some of the tenants are in compliance with the signage ordinance while others are not, and that perhaps all the signs located on the property should be brought into conformance. Wear stated that the application pertains only to the Conoco Station. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission needs to review the entire property as it pertains to the signage, and that perhaps an exception could be made in the case of the laundry tenant since they have entrances on both sides of the building. Lindquist commented that if the property were zoned B-3, they v;ould be allowed a maximum of 383 square feet. Lindquist inquired whether there were any height restrictions on signage for this property. Weinberger stated that under City Code, they are ailowed up to 22 feet on this property, with the proposed sign being 17 feet in height. Lindquist recommended that the total signage for this property be limited to 380 square feet and submit it to City Staff for their review and approval. Smith commented that the tenant signage should be consistent with the exception of the laundry tenant. Hawn stated that a revised plan should be submitted giving the overall signage for the entire property, noting that the current signage is not in compliance with the previous resolution. Hawn indicated that she would be comfortable with allowing this property to have the maximum amount permitted under the B-3 zoning district. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a revised plan should be submitted detailing the total signage for the building. Wear stated that a permit has been issued for every sign currently located on the property. Berg stated that an overall plan needs to be submitted in order to bring the entire property more in Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2529 Continued) Motion by Stoddard, second by of Application #2529, 1453 Park Drive, to permit a variance renewal setback based on the City Council's approval of Resolution #4213. V U r Lr^l^ii«Navs 0. (#8) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCES, 7:50 p.m. - 8:31 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. William Wear. Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to allow 129 square feet of additional signage for the new Conoco Station on the property located within the B-1 District. The B-1 zoning district allows signage based upon frontage of the property, which means that one square foot of signage is allowed per each foot of frontage on the property. The property Is 200 feet wide and is therefore allowed 200 feet of signage based on the frontage. The Applicant is requesting an additional 129 square feet of signage. In 1986, the City Council approved variances to permit two pylon signs, one of which has been removed except for the two support poles. The poles were approved at 26 feet in height. The proposed sign is 17 feet in height. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 1986, the property Is allowed a 2' by 12’ sign for each tenant of the building, for a total of 12 signs or 288 square feet. In addition, the western pylon sign was permitted with six plaques for a total of 112.5 square feet. The eastern pylon sign has been removed, but the property owner was allowed to have six plaques as well on this sign for a total of 112.5 square feet. Total signage permitted on this property per Resolution 2073 is 573 square feet. The minimum front yard setback for the pylon detached sign requires a 20 foot setback. The east pylon sign was located within the front yard setback, with the west pylon sign being approved five feet off the west property line and ten feet from the front property line. Weinberger stated that the approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location for Highway 12. Upon relocation of Highway 12. the existing Highway 12 corridor will change from a major highway route to a local arterial. The City Council has expressed some interest in reducing back future development of signage to accommodate a local arterial street rather than a state highway. One possible option to resolve this issue would be to approve variances for a signage plan to allow the building signage and the west pylon to remain under the previous resolution, with reduced signage for the new Conoco station. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances based on the fact the proposed signage would not be allowed under the existing Ordinance and the proposed pylon style sign would be in contrast to the character of the area. Staff is recommending that they utilize materials more In keeping with other monument signs in the area. City Staff would like to work with the owner of the Conoco station to arrive at a suitable signage plan. Weinberger stated the use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the B-3 shopping center district. If the property is zoned B-3. the lot would be allowed 380 square feet ot sign space, and a variance could be justified based on the fact the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 district. A representative ct Suburban Lighting indicated that they do have some options for reducing the Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 18,1999 (#2530 William Wear, Continued) compliance. Lindquist stated he would like to table this application to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised plan, and that he would not be opposed to total signage in the amount of 380 square feet. City Council Member Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission take into consideration what they would like to see for signage along the old Highway 12 corridor as well as the new Highway 12 corridor, along with lighting and building materials. Kelley stated that most of these guidelines were established with the understanding that Highway 12 would remain in its present location and that these issues now need to be reviewed. Motion by Lindquist, second by Smith, to table Application #2530, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised signage plan for the entire property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. w) i#ta8P^iwp owowo RgvisieffTwtPUP The certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. There wer^^ public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated du^to the amount of information involved with this revision to the ordinance, in her opinion discussiono^is issue would be better suited to a work session. Hawn requested that the appropriate notice^ given to the general public regarding this ordinance revision. Motion by Hawn, second’by^luth, to table Application #2537, City of Orono Revision to Adult Use Ordinance to a Plaqping Commission work session to be scheduled this evening. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#9) #2531 ROGER AND ELIZABETH^^N, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD • RENEWAL VARIANCES, 8:34 p.m. - 8:43 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of PublicatT^^ere noted. Roger Olsen, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicant received variances to expan^*^d remodel the existing residence to include a four-stall garage and additional living area. Variancdt^o lakeshore setback and hardcover were granted on October 26,1998. The Applicant is requesting that these variances be renewed. Olsen stated that he is having a difficult time retaining a contractor to do thoq^rk at a reasonable price, but that he would like to have the work completed within the next year. Smith commented that she does not see any problems with this application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired whether the hardcover that was requested to be removed has in fact been Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2) #2530 WILLIAM WEAR, 2160 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCES Troy Ramhill, Conoco Owner, and Duane Downy, Suburban Lighting, were present. Weinberger stated the Planning Commission at its last meeting tabled the request by William Wear to locate new signage on the property not in conformance with Resolution 2073 approving a sign plan in 1986. The Applicant had originaliy proposed a 59 square foot pylon sign and two Conoco, canopy signs. The monument sign had been reduced from 89 square feet. The Plarining Commission tabled the application due to a substantial amount of signage not being in conformance with the requirements of Resolution 2073, and recommended that the signage be reduced to 380 square feet, which would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. Weinberger stated currently the property Is zoned B-1, with the current use of the property being more in conformance with that listed in the B-3 Shopping Center District. Under the B-3 zoning standards, the property would be allowed 380 square feet of signage. The Applicant is proposing to erect a sign that Is 10 ’ 6" In height, which can be compared to the Super America sign at 13' 10". The proposed sign consists of 59 square feet. Currently the property is allowed total building signage of 288 square feet, with each individual sign permitted to be 2* by 12', for a total of 24 square feet. The west pylon sign, which is still existing, consists of 112.5 square feet. The east pylon sign, which has been removed except for the pylons, consisted of 112.5 square feet. The total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 is 573 square feet. Weinberger stated the request by the Applicant is to allow a sign plan that would permit the property 180 square feet of building sign space. Included In the building sign space would be 40 square feet of signage on the canopy for two 2.5' by 8' Conoco signs. Tenants would be allowed one building sign above each entrance to each business, except busiriesses which are in the center of the mall or located on the south end of the mall. Each building sign would not be allowed to exceed 30 feet in height. Weinberger pointed out that the west pylon was approved five feet off the west property line and ten feet from the front property line. The east pylon sign was approved 27 feet from the front property line. The east pylon sign was located within the front yard setback. The Planning Commission will need to consider the future of the pylon signs that are not in conformance or allowed by variance as well as whether signs should be allowed to be replaced once removed. City Staff could recommend approval of variances based on the fact that the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B-3. Staff recommends the property owner show on a site plan the location of the proposed monument sign, and to design a sign and base that conforms to a smaller scale arterial street and utilizes materials used for the base of other monument signs in the locality. Weinberger noted that the approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location of Highway 12. Relocation of Highway 12 would reduce the existing Highway 12 from a major highway route to a local arterial. Ramhill commented that they have removed some of the existing - ;:ns from the building to reduce the total amount of signage on the property, and is attempting to improve the appearance of the property by the installation of a canopy and a nice monument type sign. Nyjard inquired how many square feet of signage remain on the building. Downy stated that there currently exists 124 square feet of signage on the building. Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2530 William Wear, Continued) Nygard pointed out that some of the existing signs are oversized. Downy stated to their knowledge they have removed all the signs that were non-conforming. Smith commented if the 288 is reduced to 124, the total is 309 square feet. Smith Inquired whether that number would be accurate for the total signage. Downy stated there is 180 square feet allowed on the building, with 141 square feet of signage on the west pylon sign, and the proposed 59 square feet of signage would bring It to a total of 380 square feet. Lindquist noted that the Planning Commission Is probably only going to approve up to 380 square feet of signage. Downy acknowledged that this sign plan does not allow for much additional signage for any new tenants. Weinberger pointed out that the 180 square feet and the 124 square feet that currently is on the building would also consist of 40 square feet on the canopy. Lindquist inquired whether the west pylon sign would be relocated Downy stated the west pylon sign currently has signs in it. Weinberger stated that the sign located under the power poles is being replaced with the Conoco sign. Staff does have a concern if the total number of tenants drops below six, the west pylon sign would contain less signs that what is currently allowed. The owner has indicated that the west pylon sign would remain as it currently exists. However, the west pylon sign Is a non-conforrning structure and would require that any proposed changes to the sign would require Council review. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented that a site plan is also requested as part of this application. Weinberger stated that the new sign would be required to meet the ten foot front yard setback and 15 foot side yard setback, and City Staff would like to have a site plan submitted showing the proposed location of the sign. Chair Hawn noted that William Wear, Applicant, is now present. Weinberger commented that Items A, B, and C were what was previously approved per Resolution No. 2073. The Applicant is now requesting 180 square feet of building signage, 59 square feet for the new Conoco sign, and 141 square feet for the existing pylon sign, for a total of 380 square feet. Lindquist moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Applicant #2530, William Wear, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of variances based on the signage proposed, with a maximum of 380 square feet of signage being allowed for this property, with the understanding that the Applicant will submit a site plan illustrating the location of the proposed monument sign, and with the further understanding that the east pylon sign will be removed. VOTE; Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 3 Application Date: Completion Date: Application Deadline: 9/21/99 9/21/99 1/18/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 11/19/99 ITEM NO.: U Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Paul Weinberger Zoning Title Zoning Administrator/Planner Item Description:#2530 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Variances for Signage ZoDing District:B-1 Retail Sales Business District Exhibits A Draft Resolution B Proposed Sign Plan for Conoco Station C Staff Report Application Summary Mr. Wear has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to permit total signage of 380 s.f. on the property where 100 s.f. is permitted. The Planning Commission reviewed a comprehensive sign plan for the property that would permit 180 s.f. of building signage, 141 s.f of signage for the existing twin pole pylon on the west side of the property and 59 s.f of signage for a new conoco logo sign on the east side of the property. The building signage includes two 2.5' x 8' conoco logos that would be located on the east and west sides of the canop^. Building Signage Each current tenant in the Orono Shopping Center would be permitted exterior signage not to exceed 30" in height to be located over the entrance. The Conoco Station would include two 2.5’ x 8' = 20 s.f signs on the canopy that would be counted toward the allowed 180 s.f building signage. The building signage is limited to the tenant's name or logo. Conoco Pvlon The Conoco Pylon would be located on the east side of the property near the front lot line. Two poles remain on the property from a pylon that was removed. Upon issuance of a sign permit the twin poles would be required to be removed. The total signage would include a 20 s.f conoco logo and 39 s.f dedicated to three lines advertising gasoline prices and two lines of reader board as indicated on the plan submitted to the City of Orono. The total sign space is limited to 59 s.f West Pvlon The west pylon was approved with variances in 1986. The sign was permitted one Logo Sign - top (Orono Shopping Center) 5' x 7.5’ = 37.S s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' x 7.5' x 6 plaques = 112.S s.f. Planning Commusion Recommendation The applicant reduce the signage on the property to allow 380 s.f.. which the property would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1.The use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the "B-3" Shopping Center District. If the property is zoned B-3 the lot would be allowed 380 s.f. of sign space. A variance could be justified based on the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 District. The Planning Commission noted in 1986 th^" applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. 2.The Conoco station, as well as many other tenants, use an exterior entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this need. 3.Highway 12 will be relocated from the existing location reducing the amount of regional traffic to local traffic. The signage along old Highway 12 should be in character with the local traffic use and pedestrian users. Staff Recommendation Staff could recommend approval of variances based on the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B-3. This application requires the following variance: 1. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A): Within the B-1 District the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. The property is allowed a total of 200 s.f. of signage based on frontage and building width along the front property line being 200 feet. The property owner has applied for a variancej^to allow 380 s.f of signage on the property, primarily for the new Conoco Station. The plan for a 59 s.f pylon is attached as E.xhibit D. Two Conoco Logos (Exhibit E) are proposed to be located on the canopy (2.5’ x 8' each) totaling 40 s.f The pylon encroaches into the front yard setback. »»•“•T'f'ti. 'ii”. *\ Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10, 1986, the property is allowed the following: A. Building Signage 12 individual tenant signs to be located on the building. Each sign is allowed to be 2' x 12' = 24 s.f. The total building signage was approved for 288 s.f. B. C. West pylon sign (Existing) Logo Sign - top {Orono Shopping Center) 5' x 7.5' = 37.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = H2.S s.f. East pylon sign (Advertising has been removed, pylons remain on property) Logo Sign - top {time and temperature digital display) 3' x 7.5' = 22.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. D. Total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 = 573 s.f. V- *^-^1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) FILE NO. #2530 WHEREAS, William W. Wear and Mable Wear (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The West 200 feet of that part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 18, Range 23 described as commencing at the Northwest comer of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence due south (assumed bearing) along the West Line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thence South 87 degrees 41 minutes East, 545.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 188.93 feet; thence North 87 degrees, 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence South 2 degrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of State Highway No. 12; thence South 69 degrees 41 minutes East along said Northerly right of way line 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 feet along said Northerly right of way line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1587,28 feet to an intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West from the actual point of beginning; thenc North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 232.24 feet to actual point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof. (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 public hearings on ^jctober 18, 1999 and November 15, 1999 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 variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3(A) to permit total signage on the property to be 380 Page 1 of 6 amount of regional traffic to local traffic. The signage along old Highway 12 should be in character with the local traffic use and pedestrian users. D. The Conoco pylon shall not be located closer than 10 feet to any lot line. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances 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 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. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3(A) to permit total signage on the property to be 380 s.f. where 200 s.f is allowed for this property in the B-1 zoning district. This signage plan requires the following variance to the B-1 zoning district standards for signage. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - Allowed area for signage in the B-1 district. Allowed = 200 s.f. Proposed = 380 s.f. Variance = 90% 1. The signage on the property shall be limited to 180 s.f of signage for the building. a) Two 2.5 ’ X 8' conoco logos, one each for the east and west sides of the canopy = 40 s.f. Page 3 of 6 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. b) 140 s.f. of signage limited to each tenant in the building's name or logo. No individual sign shall be greater than 30" in height and shall be located above the entrance(s) for each current tenant. One east pylon shall be allowed for the Conoco Station. The pylon shall be allowed one 2.5' x 8' = 20 s.f. conoco logo, one 1.5' x 6' tenant's name for the gas station = 9 s.f.. three lines identifying types of gasoline for sale and price 21 s.f. and 1.5' x 6' two line, changeable reader board = 9 s.f.. One west pylon shall be allowed six plaques 2.5' x 7.5' = 18.75 s.f x 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f one individual plaque is allowed per current tenant, limited to tenant's name or logo and one logo sign 5' x 7.5' 37.5 s.f to identify the shopping mall, not to exceed 141 s.f. as exists the date of this resoltion. All signage for the property shall be in conformance with the conditions set forth in this resolution by March 31, 2000. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 22, 2000). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 6 ;k Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of November, 1999. ATTEST: i Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of November, 1999 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 8' J WESTERN CONVENIENCE Unleaded >| | |^ j Unleaded m 4 A i Plus Premium 4 0^1 Unleaded J ’ 6 2’-6 ” 20 sq ft r-6 ” Osqft 3’-6 ” 21sqft r-6" Osqft l’-6 ” ...L.. - 50 sq ft total (X) 2. TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner November 9,1999 SUBJECT:#2530 William Wear 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Variances for Signage Zoning District:B-1 Retail Sales Business District Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Site Survey Proposed pylon sign plan Proposed canopy sign plan Site photos Sign survey completed by Suburban Lighting, Inc, Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 Resolution No. 2073 Revised sign plan (for consideration) The Planning Commission tabled the request by William Wear to locate new signage on the property not in conformance with the Resolution approving a sign plan in 1986. The applicant had proposed a 59 s.f pylon sign and two conoco, canopy signs. The monument sign has been reduced from 89 s.f. The Planning Commission reviewed the signage on the property and determined there was a substantial amount of signage that was not in conformance with the requirements of Resolution 2073. It was recommended the applicant revise the sign plan to allow 380 s.f.. which the property would be allowed if the zoning matched the use of the property. The Planning Commission made the following findings: 1.The use of the property is more in conformance with that listed in the ”B-3" Shopping Center District. If the property is zoned B-3 the lot would be allowed 380 s.f of sign space. A variance could be justified based on the use of the property is similar to that of a property in the B-3 District, The Planning Commission noted in 1986 the applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. miO millarn mar 2160 Wayzata Blvd. n/15/99 Page I 2. The Conoco station, as well as many other tenants, use an exterior entrance rather than a typical interior entrance associated with other malls. It may be appropriate to approve additional signage based on this need. This application requires the following variances: 1. Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A): Within the B-1 District the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of huilding, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. The property is allowed a total of 200 s.f. of signage based on frontage and building width along the front property line being 200 feet. The property owner has applied for a variances to allow 380 s.f of signage on the property, primarily for the new Conoco Station. The plan for a 59 s.f pylon is attached as Exhibit D. Two Conoco Logos (Exhibit E) are proposed to be located on the canopy (2.5* x 8' each) totaling 40 s.f The pylon encroaches into the front yard setback. Based on Resolution No. 2073, adopted by the Orono City Council on November 10, 1986, the property is allowed the following: A. Building Signage 12 individual tenant signs to be located on the building. Each sign is allowed to be 2' x 12' = 24 s.f The total building signage was approved for 288 s.f. B.West pylon sign (Existing) Logo Sign - top (Orono Shopping Center) 5’ x 7.5' = 37.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. C.East pylon sign (Advertising has been removed, pylons remain on property) Logo Sign - top (time and temperature digital display) 3' x 7.5' = 22.5 s.f. Six plaques (one plaque is allowed per tenant for advertising) 2.5' X 7.5' X 6 plaques = 112.5 s.f. D. Total signage permitted on site per Resolution No. 2073 = 573 s.f. The request is to allow a sign plan that would permit the propei ly 180 s.f of'building' sign space. Included in the building sign space would he 40 s.f of signage on the canopy for two 2.5' x 8' = 20 s.f Conoco logos. Tenants would be allowed one building sign above entrance to each business, except businesses which are in the center of the mall or located on the south end of the mall. Each building sign would not be allowed to e.xceed 30" in height. The Planning Commission should discuss the west pylon on the property. The existing approval allows only the tenant's name or logo to appear on the sign. The Commission should consider the future of signs on the pylon that are not in conformance or allowed by variance, and if signs should be allowed to be replaced once removed as any non-conforming structure or sign may not. H2530 Wtlham If'ear 2160 n ayzala Bhd ll/IS/99 Page! •il t I 2.Section 10.40, Subdivision 6 (C): Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. The west pylon was approved 5' off the west property line and 10' from the front property line. The east pylon was approved 27' from the front property line. The east pylon was located within the front yard setback. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.61, Subdivision 3: Signs in "B" Districts. Existing Signage Suburban Lighimg Inc. had completed a sign inventory on the property (Exhibit F). The survey indicates some signage on the building would not be permitted under the Resolution adopted in 1986. Existing Building Signage East Side MILK (lls.f.) BREAD (16s.f.) EGGS (I2s.f.) MALL (6s.f.) On page 3 of Resolution No. 2073, Paragraph 3 states "Building signage shall be limited to current tenant's name or logo. Building signage must be brought into conformance by May 31,1989." Orono Coin Laundry (25 s.f.) The building signage is allowed to be 2' x 12' = 24 s.f. Red Apron (35 s.f.) Rowlette & Assoc. (11 s.f) Existing Twin Pole Sign (141 s.f.) This pylon is in conformance with the staged sign plan approved. West Side Ti.G Classy Canine (20 s.f) Sunlife Tanning (16 s.f) MALL (6 s.f.) Orono Coin Laundry (25 s.f) The Variances approved allow one building sign per tenant 02S3O WilHam Wear 2160 Wayzata Blvd n/15/99 Page} 1 ANALYSIS The approvals granted in 1986 assumed the current location for Highway 12. Highway 12 will be relocated to the south parallel with the railroad tracks reducing existing Highway 12 from a major highway route to a local arterial. There has been some interest in scaling back future development of signage to accommodate a local arterial street rather than a State Highway. The concept of monument style signs can be seen along the highway at Super America and McDonald's in Long Lake. The proposed sign is designed to be 10’ 6" in height, in contrast to the 26* it was approved to be under the previous development plan. The height can be compared to the Super America sign which is 13’ 10" in height. It can be argued the previous proposal would allow the existing pylon to the west to remain as well as any building signage as permitted by Resolution No. 2073. TTie only change to the plan would be the replacement of a sign which does require a variance for location and allowable sign space. The most appropriate way to resolve the issue would be to approve variances for a signage plan to allow the building allotment of signage and the west pylon to remain under the previous resolution, with reduced signage for the Conoco station. Staff Recommendation Staff could recommend approval of variances based on the signage proposed would be allowed under the existing Ordinance if the property would be zoned B-3. Staff recommends the property owner show on a site plan the location of the proposed monument sign, and to design a sign and base that conforms to a smaller scale arterial street and utilizes materials used for the base of other monument signs in the locality. »2530 milicM Wear 2160 IVayzata Blvd H/15/99 Bagei Application # Date Receded"" Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afler-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Lm. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.).• Attach legal description to application if not incluckd on required survey. r 19^0 _________Date Property Acquired_________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. a / Present use of property: __presidential X other (specify) l'f)VViniPr0 I Zoning District:____I .o •• (month/year) ;V i-, ^ APPLICANT ^ . ■ '•'1 S I - Name lam Address T^^n i^b^rn OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same_- Address: Phone (home ) ^iSi' ____ Phone (work ) L v ' City: Irn/^ lAh^f Zip: 53356:^1^ -----------------------'J 9 Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:Zip:. Bstimatec^onstruction Cost $ ^^ escribe request in,de,tail: ('l/vttnOf In ifiDijj y dpj)\£rju/f. > l^f) Sf] ( Sp g rP/iA'/C/n//lL\ UML. DESCRIPTION OF REQU^T Describe request in detail: ( vvi.. ----- P.J/ru. //VTt L (iffs.cnsji/i. 'iA j II ^ I (ahacti^additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore / Other (specify) Sl HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship compliaru:e with Zoninj ^nyc<l^(ruju {ahl Aff f i _________ - -.' ' J X (attach additional sheets if necessary) i # L \ $ 154. 14 46.23 V\ 154. 14 209. 14 201.51 iir^33 iS«.38 196 '67^^ N69*36'07-E ^|2O — p,o ■^^=^-i5O2_^l0l. 17 SO. 09 (21) 100. 19 N CL 6 R 5 (19) %S 437.4 1 ^ 2038792 v3U 353.42 587*4 rw t-^U^gamvood ; \ .•• ' 1 ir9T~7i V ■/101.05 •54. 17 to .1. ^ O G. 22 4 ro 4 5 ^^(23) R (24) g — 1^ ?4 in -------------- __^ \ - 155.7-R Vv OUT 01. 59 5.Q^ 153.42 ?? 230.6 <\'0 O'JTLCT E (32) 7 :':*:;v:'>:-:'/X-:'/X-:<->x-x^ • < • • *•*•*•*•*•*•*•*•*«*•*•*•*#*<%*■ rnmmm 7^ (53) 204. 44 'f X-X^:-Xs-X*:':;X>-?X;:;<^ • • • • •«•• •••••••%•• • • • itlot a n 200 ^0* $87*4 1'E (1) OT I0-I3-9J- PARCEL 2423 (^V <#> 7 ?Sl.3: OL'TLOT f (50) ---- 214.41 V.xi^-or VC 1 WAYZA :<?6. Jo R/7/ 7.76 ODZC t—< X 5> (9) O • (O 4 s \ (~ I—|£J '■ t\» *I>S a (10) CDen < 1 1 1 '5 ...50 A . 'It ^ S (48) cx: (36) 30.01 225. CI 2*05 a ' o (46) - 205 / TTTi I X r \ruoy\ |/.r t i (Mf. I I IN6 CoiSc V^ALli> coKic yfiAiW in* t • M>u«/ ' vl- t> Sil i-c"' or"t« ^v- si fK »•* ;1 I* !•-* /. ftt I \ vP fn c X r & O -I 7 Z O l> < I /. fit {rf I* o on 7. (« Al ;.i 1 nz ..a j| C ^ 1 B 2.S’ 2.5’ 3.5 ’ 1.5 ’ 1.5 ’ 2.5’ 2 ’ 8 ^onocc^ mm WESTERN CONVENIENCE if 12 HI LIQUOR Unleaded Unleaded ! Plus r m *9*. ^ Premium : Unleaded^ • 'r*' y :'- . ;■• ’ t-.-f •*■-■;* 1.15 . :-i • -i’ r- . , 1.19 'U:1.Z3 mm m m T ' 7 I • *♦ TWO LINES OF SIX INCH COPY 20 sq ft — 6’ — 89 sq ft total : f 15 sq ft 21 sq ft 9sq ft 9sqft 17 ’ 15 sq ft ropose P (<)o + 0 LOhe<^e 5I)C(s4-jNiC( JLvi^l^-l t'c le i re €. 6*"’ fro fen SIGNAGE IDENTffIC ATION £ CAPSULE SIGN PLACEMENT ON CANOPY FASCIAS Jobbers may choose from 6' and 8' single-face Conoco capsule signs to inset or surface-mount on tiieir canopy fasda. The 6' capsule sign is to be used on vertical canopies which are 36" to 48" wide. The 8' is to be used on vertical canopies 48" and wider. Two capsule signs are permitted per canopy. While it is not mandatory at this time to mount a capsule sign on the canopy, it is recommended and wUl in the future become a part of the new image requirement. Canopy- mounted capsule sign cans will be painted charcoal gray. Use of the capsule sign on a mans ard-style fasda is prohibited. A mansard fasda should be con verted to a 36" or 48" three- panel, two-reveal canopy giving the facility a more contemporary appearance. Jobbers should be aware that local signage codes sometimes restrict the number and size of signs by a variety of formulas to determine allowable signage. In these cases, pole-mounted cap sule signs take precedence over canopy or building capsule signs. Capsule Sign Placement on Canopy Fascia r 10*—}■6' 36* mm 'Conoco .w* - . ■ • * >' —A •'VT7-; * - .it Edge of Canopy Capsule Sign Ca^are Painted €i 2'4-0' 4 '-J'i ' > , .m • '• « Mfa-.Conoco 1 : ■, •'i-'. , ^or £ 4 ix> 1-88 ■^.1 K-•- .* .* : { F •• $ /K>^S^hrsu*-(-£\j , ^ / jfi t=/y> A c<~ ( I:(.v<*^NV/, cau*K :^-i ■'I ■^1 jj ■ > •. 1 ^ / rrcn n •w.-s,' {i*t iiSfi: :^V V i 'r' ■^i^'?'*' '•' s •—.• V/ * ‘ •.1 . ?. ^.. .,w._, y ^;.'y '^•r ' * “ _#«»'' 1 •\.*.. '.*• •. i ^•V; •^;; ■: • r' : . ■ . - • " V’' EKUn^^- ii‘T'-‘ Uj. £«J Prcf^^-Hs, #' ■"if' •'Oi propc>S c C? C c>^ ^ ^ ^ £* , e^ UJ . €-W-^ Commercial Industrial LIGHTING INC. 6077 LAKE ELMO AVE. NORTH, STILLWATER. MINN. 55062 h § 10.61 [d. 2. Signs in "R" Districts. Within "R" Districts, the following signs are permitted: SNameplates. ^One nameplate sign for each dwelling and such sign shall not exceed two square feet in area per sti^e, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. . 2. One nameplqte sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet in^ per surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. 3. One nameplate sign for Sbl^ermitted use or use by conditional permit other than residential and such sign shall not exceed tw^^quare feet in area per surface. B. Illumination. Symbols, statues, sculptures ffli^ntegrated architectural features on non-residential buildings may be illuminated by flood lights pr^>q^d the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential disf^ C. Setbacks, Etc. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be setbq^ at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height above the avera^e^rade level. Signs may be illuminated but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect. Subd. 3. Signs in "B” and ”1" Districts. Within the "B" and 'T' Districts nameplate nd DUSsigns andousiness signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. "B-l", "B-2" and "B-4": Size. Within the "B-l", ”B-2" and "B-4" Districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed fifty square feet. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B. "B-3’’: Size. Within the "B-3’’ District, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. ORONO CC 381 43-1-84) § 10.61 C. "I”: Size. Within any "1" District, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 D. "B-l”, "B-2" and "B-4": Height. Within the "B-1”, "B-2" and "B-4" Districts, no sign shall extend in height more than two feet above the highest outside wall or parap>et of any principal building nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 E. "B-3" and'T: Height. Within any "B-3" or "I" District, no sign shall extend in height more than six feet in height above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building. No sign shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. Subd. 4rPurpose of Off-Street ^^Icmg anJ Losing ftequirements. Regulation ol k'treet parking and loading spaces in this Chapter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of Ae publH^ght-of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimulhi^equirements for off-street parking, loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordanceWifri the utilization of various parcels of land and structures. All applications for an occupancy certihimte in all districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicatfflg^he location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the following requirements: Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Application of ParkiH|^^les All Districts. In addition to the regulations and requirements set forth elsewhere in this Chaphj^Ae following regulations and requirements regarding off-street parking shall apply to the required Mh^on-required- off-street parking facilities in all use districts: SoviK^ Ordinance No. 172 EffectiW)ate: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 382 43-1-84) 1 i^CITY mBQUO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r NO.2073 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.61, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) 6 (D), ORDINANCE 13, SECOND SERIES FILE #1000 & 1009 WHEREAS, William Wear (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Section 34, Township 118, Range 23; Commencing at a point in Northerly line of State Highway No. 12 distance 149.05 feet Easterly as measured along said Northerly line from West line of East h of Northwest 1/4 thence North 2 degrees, 41 minutes, 23 seconds East distance of 334.52 feet; thence South 87 degrees, 18 minutes, 37 seconds East distance 200 feet; thence South 2 degrees, 41 minutes, 23 seconds West to Northerly line of said highway; thence Westerly along said Northerly line to beginning (P.I.D.: 34-118-23 21 0002), (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) & (D) and Ordinance 13, Second Series seeking approval of a staged comprehensive signage plan prior to the completion of the Highway 12 Planning Study requiring modifications in existing signage, allowing the installation of a second, independent pylon and limiting building signage at 288 s.f. (12 tenants each allowed a 2'xl2' location sign), this signage plan requires the following variances to the B-1 Commercial Zoning District standards: Ordinance 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) - Allowed Area For Signage Allowed e 200 s.f. Proposed >= 573 s.f. Total Signage Area Proposed Variance = 373 s.f. or 187 % Ordinance 10.61, Subdivision 3 (D) Allowed = 22 feet Proposed <== 26 feet Variance « 4 feet or 18% - Allowed Height For Signage NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 - '>/•. ‘ ' CITY I,-' ' _mm >• City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073________ FINDINGS 1. These applications have been reviewed as Zoning Files #1000 & 1009. 2. The property is located in the B-1 Commercial Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed application #1000 on December 16, 1985 and application #1009 on February 18, 1986, and recommended approval of the multiple variances sought by the applicant based upon the following findings: A) The location, height and size of the directory sign will not impair sighting at the accesses to the shopping center and poses no hazard to the safety of the general public. B) The applicable B-1 zoning standards are not compatible with existing shopping center use and since 1980 B-3 shopping standards were found more appropriate when considering signage needs of the property. C) The specific design of the structure with elongated sides and minimal building area facing the street is unique to this property requiring special signage. D) The highway is curved along the street frontage of the property and the two curb cuts at the extreme edges of the property create special signage needs. E) The majority of tenants have direct accesses from building and not via an interior mall requiring special signage needs. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of tho Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances 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 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. Page 2 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION C’^ ^''iE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073__________ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivision 3 (A) & (D) and Ordinance 13, Second Series seeking area and height variances and a variance to the temporary limited development ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Council hereby approves a staged comprehensive signage plan for the property: A) Total Signage Area: Building Signage (12 x 24 s.f.) Pylon Plaques (12 x 18.75 s.f.) Logo Area (5’ x 7.5') Time/Temperature Area (3' x 7.5 ) TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA = 288 s.f. = 225 s.f. = 37.5 s.f. = 22.5 s.f. = 573 s.f. B) The property is limited to two 26 feet high pylons described as the west "Logo" pylon and the east "Time/Temperature" pylon, the areas of each pylon are designated as follows: 1. West Logo Pylon 6 Plaques (2.5’ x 7.5' = 18.75 s.f. 1 Logo Sign (5' x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA X 6) = 2. East Time/Temperature Pylon 6 Plaques (2.5' x 7.5' = 18.75 s.f. x 6) 1 Time/Temperature (3' x 7.5') TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA 112.5 s.f. 37.5 s.f. 150 S.f. 112.5 s.f. 22.5 S.f. 135 S.f. 2. The existing west "Logo" pylon must be altered to meet approved 26 foot height by May 10, 1987. The east and west pylon must be identical and constructed of similar material. Building permits are required for the installation of the east pylon and proposed modifications of west pylon. Each tenant shall be allowed one plaque area space but in no case shall any one tenant be allowed to exceed 37.5 s.f. of single signage or the combined area of two approved plaque signs on each pylon. 3. Building signage shall be limited to current tenant's name or logo. Building signage must be brought into conformance by May 31, 1989. Page 3 of 5 R/( moNa City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2Q*^3_ _ _ _ _ 4. All additional signs in front island or landscape area are to be removed. The use of temporary portable signs is discouraged until the final code and comprehensive plan amendments have been completed. The use of temporary signs is limited to 3 to 5 day periods and requires a permit from the City. 5. The City Council places the owner on notice that he (she) is solely responsible for the maintenance and implementation of this staged signage plan and that violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. Authorities granted by these variances run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (November 10, 1987). 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of November, 1986. / ATTEST: /borothy M- Hailiri, City Cleric Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 5 • ; I K\ STK : I ic.TY :• lif ■■ ■ „>IESOTA COUNTY OP HENNEPIN On this /y4/- City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2073_ _ _ _ _ ) ss. day of aJo U-ejox h-e r 1986 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared tOiIhcLih) LO^P olt 'h X IxJ^CX.r'_ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. THEM8A L. NAAB MOTARV fUMJC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My oommUiion •xpirts 9-a.Q' MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1986, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 8 ’ • ■,v^‘ J:» i<.V;') 0-^‘h >'•H fel'/; '^3i. W k tiVi'V,-j.V.. K'i;-.. ^;.;i^^f.i!:^,.fe,...,..a.; 2’-6” 20 sq ft *' *1 ■i:H. ***^ ~ I' ' ^ihiitiiit I ■i^'ii ^iiiiillli^tlitrilitluiiil^i * ;» .-. •*.1 •• ;• -1 -- -/- j*. /^ ^ **ir ^ »i * .................. wPfiRif-''*' (;, > I •• Si!P* C»k»’j 1) I ' *• |■?P|■emiMm• '.'1 g ■:■ ■<':■ .• 1 • ffliiiislii«i •I • ii V,‘ j'i 2 LINES 6 INCH CHAN6EABLE LETTERS I M----- 8* ----- Si ■•' A.' Si. ‘ viV I r-r osqft r-B’^ 2tsqft r-8 ” 9sqft •* o '% Ot -I r- o» Oi •u> -'I Oi lo r-* W ?dw n *4 • K H X ( r-6"59 sq ft talal Application Date: 10/1/99 Completion Date: 10/29/99 Deadline: 2/26/00 r'- '—I MCirjiNG h.6 1 4 2000 Cm I wnv^/yQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/14/00 ITEM NO.:V Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2540 Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Draft Planning Commission Minutes (January 19,2000) City Council Minutes (December 13, 1999) Planning Commission Minutes (November 15, 1999) Request for Council Action (December 13, 1999) Letter Dated December 13, 1999 Letter Dated (January 6, 2000 - Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney) Planning Commission Recommendation The applicant was not present at the January 19,2000 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 5 to 0 to deny the application for a conditional use permit. The applicant had not submitted any additional information or an application for an after- the-fact variance to permit hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. The applicant has been sent notification outlining the requests for additional information for the City to review. Without an application for an after-the-fact variance the City of Orono is not in a position to approve a conditional use permit. StaR Recommendation The Staff recommendation remains for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit be denied or if ihe applicant requests to (uhle and revise the application, and agrees o waive the application deadline: Approval for a conditional use permit per Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 requires the project to meet all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Variances are required to permit hardcover w ithin 75' of the OHWL of 929.4' designated for Lake Minnetonka. 1) Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (Regulations for the Lakeshore Residential Districts), 2) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (Flood Plain and Wetland Management) and 3) Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) do not permit hardcover within the 75' setback zone. If the applicant wants to proceed with the request they must make an application for variances, and it is Staffs position additional land alteration occurred on the property simultaneously with construction of the retaining walls. Any land alteration would require additional permits. Based on the topography of the land it appears some regrading occurred within 75 feet of the lakeshore to support the boulder wall. Staff has requested additional information from the applicant to demonstrate the requirement of a retaining wall. We do not know the condition of the property prior to the construction period of the wall. Without this information it is difficult to demonstrate a hardship for the granting of variances. It is Staff s position the property should be restored to the condition prior to any land alteration and construction of the retaining wall in 1998. Staff is again requesting the applicant provide the following information: 1. Variance applications for hardcover within the 75’ lakeshore setback. 2. Information regarding the property conditions prior to construction of the wall. This information should include plans submitted to the contractor, photos and site survey. J.Information relating to the contractor and plans the contractor used for the project. All the above information is required for a detailed review of a variance application. Application Summary' Mr. Hoyt filed an application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit. The application is a result of a request made by the City of Orono to bring the property into conformance. The need for the CUP results from lakeshore land alteration and construction of a retaining wall. Staff indicated to the applicant that the property must be restored if permits are not granted. Consequently, the applicant has applied for a CUP for the retaining wall. As indicated above, because the retaining wall involves hardcover in the lakeshore setback area, the approvals necessary tor the retaining wall include variances as well as a CUP. It is the City’s position the boulder wall constructed on the lakeside of the property is hardcover . Section 10.02 Definition 69 defines Structure as "Anything, or part thereof, which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires a location on, below, or above the ground, land, or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground, land, or water." Section 10.03 Definition 29 defines Harikover as "Any structure, blacktop or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground." COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: VIotion to direct staff to draft a resolution to be adopted by the City Council at the ne.xt available meeting. dT.- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JJRAFT; MINUTES FOR _______JAKJt’WRV 'I*?, 2000 Kluth inquired whether steel trusses inside the building had been considered by Hennepin County. Nowlan stated to his knowledge that has not been explored, noting that due to the salt beini stored inside the facility, corrosion may be a factor Into why steel was not chosen. Smith suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to explore other jilCs for the facility. Smith stated she also has concerns regarding the size of the buildiij^s well as the need for a zoning code amendment. Chock remarked it would be difficult for the Hennepin to meet th^^eeds of this area with a smaller sized building. Nowlan stated the County would like to have this buildjF^^ constructed in time for next year's winter season. Nowlan stated if the application i^fabled, completion of the building by that time would be questionable. Hawn stated the Applicants can eitherb^e the Planning Commission vote on this application as it has been presented tonight table the application to allow the County additional time to review other sites. Hawi^ommented in her view it appears the application will be denied. Nowlan requested the ^fanning Commission act on this application. Hawn moved, St^dard seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2555, Hennepin Qdunty, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use PermiLMd Variances based upon issues dealing with the City’s Comprehensive Code Zoning. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:20 p.m. • 9:28 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED (#1) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE, AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA/ARIANCE, 9:28 p.m. -9:31 p.m. Page 24 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR*i>V» |1,2000 The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was not present. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant had submitted any additional Information on this application. Weinberger stated he has had very little contact with the Applicant, with no additional information having been submitted. Hawn noted this application has been called on two separate occasions, with no appearance by the Applicant or a representative on his behalf. Hawn stated this application cannot be approved without the additional information being submitted. Hawn Inquired whether the 60 day review period needs to be extended. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated the City does have the right to extend the 60 day review period under State Statutes without the Applicant’s consent. Hawn suggested this application be extended to allow the Applicant time to submit the additional information. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to continue the denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, After-the-Fact Conditional Use PermitA/ariance, and to return this matter back to the City Council for their review. Barrett noted the Applicant has received two letters from the City outlining the requirements of the City relating to the variances. Barrett stated without the additional information being submitted by the Applicant, a hardship has not been demonstrated and the application can be ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#5) #2418 RELEASE OF CONDH ;ONAL USE PERMIT FROM CRYSTAL BAY PRESERVE - RESOLUTION NO. 4399 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4399 Releasing Lots 1 Through 8, Crystal Bay Preserve from Resolution No. 1757. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTEIWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 ANT) WILLOW DRIVE, CLASS III SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILLOW \TEW' This item was continued on the agenda. (#7) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Sheridan, Continental Property, and William Skolnick, Esq., represented the appUcant, Mr. Hoyt, regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit at 2523 Kelly Avenue. Weinberger stated that Mr. Hoyt filed an application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. The applic ition is a result of a request made by the City of Orono to bring the property into con'.’ormance as there was some work completed on the property without contacting the City about permits to complete some retaining wall w'ork. Staff had told the applicant that the non-permitted work could be remedied by applying for a conditional use permit or he may have to restore the property. Consequently, the applicant agreed to apply for after-the-fact permits which included a conditional use permit and variances for the retaining wall work on the property. We'mberger displayed an existing survey of the conditions on the property. Weinberger said this is Minnetonka lakeshore property on KeUy Avenue. It is a triangular, narrow lot with somewhat of a steep ^ade fi’om the building area on the property down to the lakeshore. A boulder retaining wall is shown on the current survey. Sometime in September of 1999 Mr. Hoyt requested a conditional use permit application. Tlie application w as completed and brought into the City of Orono on October 1. Staff at that time had determined the application for a conditional use permit was incomplete. Staff had requested some additional information that included survey work showing conditions of the property prior to any construction on the lot and also requested surveys and as-builts for the property as the construction was completed. The applicant submitted the current survey on October 29th and stated there was no other information available. Staff had also requested Page 3 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued information regarding cut and fill calculations to determine the amount of land alteration on the propert)'. Although the property owner stated he had not done any land alteration at that time, it is staffs belief that land alteration hrd occurred simply because building a retaining wall in most cases would require some land alteration. The r staining wall and slope area are located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the code requirements for granting a conditional use permit in this case would also require approval of variances. The variances required would be for hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The applicant has not submitted an application for a variance. Weinberger said the notices for the public hearin-, ’ sfore the Planning Commission did note that variances were being requested because staff felt the application for variances would be submitted, however, the variance application has not been submitted up to this time. Weinberger cited the three sections of the code that would require variances in order for the retaining wall to be approved. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Section 10.55, Subd. 8, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L). Weinberger said this application is only for the retaining wall. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 15th and recommended denial of the application for the Conditional Use Permit based on not having enough information to proceed with the application. They did not have an application for variances to review. The applicant’s request did not meet the requirements of the code; therefore, the Planning Commission w as not in a position to make a recommendation of approval. The Planning Commission commented that additional information such as photos and information from the contractor would be helpful. Weinberger said that t>pically, if a resident were to make an application for the w ork that was completed on this property prior to it being an after-the-fact situation, st^ff w'ould have required a current survey showing all existing grades on the property, a survey showing the proposed topographic changes, additional engineering details on the walls, and a drainage study. Weinberger said that staff recommends the application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit be denied or, if the applicant requests, to table and revise the application. He requested that the applicant provide a variance application for the hardcover within the 75 ’ lakeshore setback, additional information regarding the property conditions prior to construaion of the wall such as plans submitted to the contractor, photos and site survey, and information relating to the contractor and plans the contractor used for the project. The information that the contractor would have used would be very important in determining hardship on the property as well as the impact of the conditional use permit. Jabbour stated that filing an application for a permit does not ensure it will be approved. Rick Sheridan stated that Mr. Ho>t is present at the meeting. Sheridan said he wanted to clarify some points from the staff report. He referred to the first paragraph of the report which Page 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (§7) U2S40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENVE - Continued states, “Consequently the applicant has applied for the necessary permits for the boulder retaining wall.” He feels this is a statement that his client has applied for all the necessary permits for the boulder wall which is contrary to Weinberger’s assertion that Mr. Hoyt has not applied for the variance. Jabbour asked if Mr. Sheridan was reading from the most recent staif report. Sheridan agreed that he had received the most recent report. He referred to the Background ?;ection of the report which states, “Mr. Hoyt had requested a conditional use permit application.” He said that is an incorrect statement. Mr. Hoyt came to the City Offices and asked for an application for the necessary permits the City was requiring that he have for his property. Sheridan said his client maintains that he didn’t need any permits or variances for his property. Sheridan referred to a letter that wa> sent to Mr. Hoyt in response to his application that indicated that more information was rcr; ired. That letter said the information was requested for consideration of the conditional use '''.rmit and variances. They supplied the survey that is being displayed and told Mr Weinbergei that, at that time, they did not have in their possession a pre-existing survey. They didn’t say that there wasn’t one available, but that they didn’t have one in their possession. Sheridan said it is their position that they have made all the applications that are required. Sheridan referred to the second paragraph on page 2 of the staff report regarding the action taken by the Planning Commission. He feels the entire paragraph is inaccurate. The next paragraph says the Planning Commission offered the applicant an opportunity to revise the conditional use permit application to include variances, but went on to deny the application. Sheridan said he does not understand what the basis for denial was. He does not agree that they w’ere offered an opportunity to revise the application. He does agree that they were offered an opportunity to come back with a variance application. Sheridan said his client maintains that he has not regraded within the 75’ lakeshore setback or filled the shoreline with rip rap, which staff says his client has done. Sheridan said he w ould like to discuss the issue of the conditional use permit. He and Mr. Barrett had a discussion about this application and that Mr. Barrett told him one of the conditions of the conditional use permit is getting a variance for hardcover. Mr. Barrett said that misstates their conversation. Barrett said Ho>l could apply for a conditional use permit. The condition that is set out with respect to the retaining wall is that such permit is subject to the other prohibitions and regulations of the City Code and other applicable statutes and ordinances. As it stands, Mr. Hoyt’s application is in violation of several salient city ordinances Most specifically. Section 10 55, Subd. 8, says ‘'Except as Page 5 ORONO cm COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (#7; U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued specifically permitted, no hardcover, temporary or permanent structures.... shall be permitted on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary high water elevation.” He asked if Mr. Sheridan understood that. Sheridan said he understood, and also that Mr. Barrett was drawing the conclusion that the retaining wall is hardcover. Barrett said he is drawing the conclusion that it is a temporary or permanent structure or hardcover. He asked if Mr. Sheridan denies that it is a permanent structure. Sheridan said that based on the City Code’s definition of what a structure is, yes. Barrett asked if he denies that it is hardcover. Sheridan said that is correct. Sheridan said the City is asking for his client to apply for a conditional use permit and some variances. He said that a conditional use permit and a variance are two different government actions that can be taken with respect to use of property. He read to the Council from a case that the Minnesota Supreme decided regarding what a conditional use permit is and its affect, Chanhassen Estates v. City of Chanhassen. Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984, which states, “By express designation as a conditional use in a particular zone, such a use is deemed consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare and consistent with goals of the comprehensive plan of that municipality. Until the district is rezoned or the zoning ordinance is either amended or successfully challenged, that determination is conclusive.” Sheridan said Orono’s conditional use definition says that conditional uses are permitted and, therefore, that a conditional use is a use permitted in a particular zone subject to conditions. A variance is an attempt by someone to come in and get a variance for a use that would not otherwise be allowed in a particular zone. He said you can’t have a permitted use subject to conditions and say that you need a variance for a permitted use. Barrett said the conditional use permit does not fall under the difficulties that Mr. Sheridan suggests. If you want a conditional use permit, all you need to do is demonstrate that you are in compliance with the city ordinances and the city will grant one. If you wish a conditional use permit when you stand outside of compliance with the city ordinances, then it follows that unless you get a variance from those ordinances, you cannot have the conditional use permit and that is why the variance question arises Sheridan said he disagrees for the reasons he has stated. Jabbour said the City asks someone that wants to put less than three yards of sand on their beach to obtain a conditional use permit. He does not feel it is out of line to ask Mr. Sheridan Page 6 ORONO CITY COUNCfl. MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (t^7) U2S40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - Continued and his client to present the City with information for a conclusive and accurate summary of the facts. Jabbour said he is obligated on behalf of the City and Mr. Ho>t to perform due diligence because the conditional use permit must be filed on the deed for the land. He said the City needs additional information to make a proper decision. Sheridan said he does not know what additional information the City needs. He said City staff has been to the property and seen the retaining wall. He feels that is better than a drawing. Jabbour said the person that the City asks to get a conditional use permit for three yards of sand on the shore would be extremely disturbed if the City doesn ’t know how many yards of dirt Mr. Hoyt put behind the retaining wall, if the City doesn ’t know how far he went into the lake or if the City doesn ’t know if he obtained the appropriate permits from the Watershed District or the Corps of Engineers or the DNR. All of that is part of the City’s due diligence. He said the Council could table this item and give the applicant a list of the documents necessary for the Council to make a decision. Sheridan said he and his client do not agree with that. He said the City has a current survey and a survey from 1990 prior to when the house was built and based on comparing those two surveys, staff has concluded that the applicant put rip rap in the water. He said that is an erroneous conclusion. He does not believe that the retaining wall is a structure or hardcover and there is a structural engineer present who will testify as to why he doesn ’t believe that either. Jabbour said they should figure out exactly what the Council needs to facilitate the application. Sheridan said if Jabbour is going to ask his client to concede that the retaining wall is hardcover, they will not do that. Barrett said Sheridan is correct, that if he wishes to make a legal argument that the retaining wall is not hardcover, he can make one and the City will make a legal argument that it is. He does not feel it is fhiitfiil to make that debate since it is clear that the City’s position is that it is hardcover. Jabbour said there is a substantial amount of information that the City needs. He suggested that the list be sent to the applicant in writing Sheridan said it should be contemporaneous with the decision they are making and not after- the-fact. Jabbour said this is a fluid issue and other issues might arise. He said the Council is trying to bring this after-the-fact issue into compliance or find out if it is appropriate for the Council to Page 7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»7) U2S40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued grant the appropriate approvals. The only way they can do that is by knowing the facts. He said they need to know who the contractor is, the amount of dirt moved, and the condition of the property before, during and after. Sheridan asked what the benefit would be of knowing who the contractor was. Barrett asked if the applicant takes the position that the entire retaining wall w as built without moving any dirt on the property. Sheridan said he could not speak to that issue. Barrett said the reason the City would like to see the contract and to speak to the contractor is to find out what he did on the property. Sheridan said that assumes there was a contractor, Barrett said someone moved the rocks and the City would like to know who did that and how much dirt was moved. Sheridan said the City is telling lus client that he has done regrading and presumably has done more than ten yards, so why doesn ’t the City tell them how it was done. Barrett said the applicant is being asked in good faith to submit the facts which support the application. Jabbour said the City could obtain the aerial photographs from prior years. Sheridan said the City has engineers on its staff and they can give the Council their calculations. Barrett said that does not preclude the City’s right to ask the applicant for valuable information in his possession. That is what the City is doing and he asked why the applicant is refusing it. Sheridan said he would let Mr. Skolnick respond. Kelley said if the applicant is not willing to supply the information, he will make a motion for denial at this time He asked Mr. Sheridan if he is willing to supply the information to the City. Sheridan said the information was supplied with the application. Pages ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (#7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application #2540, from Bradley A. Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. Flint said he is willing to look at further information if it is submitted, but he will vote in favor of the motion. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2540, from Bradley A. Hoj't, 2523 Kelly Avenue, for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit. He requested permission for staff to visit the site in order to determine the information they need, he requested that staff send Mr. Hoyt a letter telling him what the City needs, and he requested that the applicant be given notice of a 60-day extension to act on this application. William Skolnick said he is an attorney for Mr. Ho>t in a lawsuit with the City of Orono. He said that when there is a request for information, there ought to be a good faith belief that the City needs the information and that they don’t have the information. He said the statement in the staff report that Mr. Hoyt has filled and extended the rip rap approximately five to ten feet into the lake is an outright lie. He said Bruce Vang, the City Inspector also said it is false in his deposition. He said Mr. Haffiier also said it is not true. Jabbour said that most of the Council members are oblivious to the lawsuit. They know there is an action, but they don’t know what it is about. Skolnick said he does not believe that is the case. He said there has been correspondence between his office and the City ’s attorneys talking about Mayor Jabbour’s own deposition. Jabbour said he understands that. Skolnick said the Council is not oblivious to the lawsuit. Jabbour said he would like to go on record that most of the Council members know nothing about the lawsuit. Barrett asked Skolnick to specify the statement in the staff report that says that Mr. Ho>l extended the rip rap into the lake. Skolnick quoted, “The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately 5-10 feet into the lake.’’ Skolnick said that is not a true statement. Barrett asked if Skolnick is saying that what is described there is not true, that the difference in the surv'eys doesn’t show that Page 9 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (§7) U2540 BR4DLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued Skolnick said the entire statement is not true. Barrett asked if Skolnick is saying there is no rip rap that has been extended five to ten feet into the lake on the comparative surveys. Skolnick said that is correct, that they have the sworn testimony of the DNR, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Mr. Hafher, who said he has no facts to support an allegation that Mr. Hoyt did anything or that the rip rap has been altered. Barrett said Mr. Skolnick is making two different statements. One is what his client did and the other is that there is an alteration. That is a disputed fact about whether there has been any alteration. Skolnick said he wouldn’t say it is a disputed fact. He asked who says it. Barrett responded that City’s staff says it. Skolnick said the City employee that was in charge of it, that made the claim, later admitted that he had no factual basis to make that statement. He said that the indication that the flat land between the boulder wall and the water was something that was done by his client is also not true. Barrett asked if his client changed the topography in order to install the wall. Skolnick said no and that they have engineers present who will tell the Council that that flat surface was there prior to Mr. Hoyt’s owning the property. He wants the record to reflect that there are some assertions that are not supported by anything. He said they are present because they asked the City what they need to do to satisfy the City. They were told to submit the conditional use permit application and it was done. The City requested additional information and it was submitted. The application was put on the Planning Commission’s agenda and then they were told that despite the agenda saying it was on a permit and variances, that it was only on the permit and, therefore, they really could not decide the issue because they hadn’t applied for the variances. His purpose in making a statement tonight is to get the truth out. He said his client did put boulders on the property, but he did not do anything else. Skolnick said that the people that have testified from the other agencies cannot tell them what is wrong with the boulder wall or what code it does not meet. He said it is encouraged to put rip rap, to make sure there isn’t soil erosion into the lake and that is what has occurred. He said there has been a lot of information developed so far, including a visit to the property and an inspection by three of the City’s staff members and the City’s independent attorney. He said they walked the property and they were given free access to look, take measurements and take pictures. Page 10 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (#7) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - Continued Jabbour said that some members of the Council are not aware of the litigation. He said that most of the Council did not know the content of the lawsuit or what issues are pending. Barrett said that because the applicants have suggested that they are unclear about the facts that the City seeks, he would support the Mayor’s motion that the matter be tabled and extended for 60 days. He asked that the City staff prepare a letter to Mr. Hoyt which lays out precisely what is required of him if he washes to be successful in his application for a conditional use permit. It doesn’t mean that if he applies for the variances, that they will be granted. It does demonstrate what the City needs in order to evaluate the variances. He said he has a copy of the letter and he would be happy to give the letter to Mr. Hoyt or his attorneys at this time. He suggested that the matter be heard after better notice to the pubUc and a reopened public hearing on January 19th for the purpose of having a public hearing in front of the Plarming Commission with all the facts which the City believes are necessary. At that hearing the Planning Commission will make a recommendation and then the Council wall make a final decision. Jabbour suggested that perhaps the City staff should change its way of waiting reports. He said the report should refer to the land instead of saying that Mr. Hoyt filled in the lake. He said the applicant is probably right that no one can say that Mr. Hoyt physically took a shovel and started filling. He said the only thing the City has in its records is what was from the last application versus today. He said the City and the applicant can work together to obtain data between 1990 and 1999, such as aerial photographs, and if something has changed, then there is a problem with the land and the present owner is stuck with that problem. Until the City has all of the information, there is no way to make an educated decision regarding the land. Sheridan asked if the 60-day rule is being started over based on an incomplete application or if this is an extension. If this is an extension, he would like to know what the reason is. Barrett said the City wall send him a letter pursuant to the statute which extends for 60 days the time within which the City has to make a decision on this matter. He said the letter he wall give Mr. Sheridan now will suggest the information and the form the City needs in order to be certain that the variances are properly noticed and applied for. Sheridan asked why they are getting this information now ’ and why they didn’t get it previously. Barrett said he does not know whether the applicant has willfully misunderstood the requests of staff or whether staff has misstated the requests. He said this letter will clarify the issues, the matter can go before the Planning Commission for proper consideration with the facts and it can go before the City Council for a final decision. That is the reason for the e.xtension. Sheridan said he does not understand what is written by the City staff Page 11 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U 7) U2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued Jabbour said the state statutes give the City the right to have 60 days, so they are not asking for any concession. Sheridan asked why they are getting a request for additional information now instead of in response to the application that was made by his client. Jabbour said that if Mr. Sheridan reads his own correspondence, it shows that the variances needed are to expedite the application and make sure that it doesn’t have to be readvertised. Staff did put the ad in the paper for the public hearing on a conditional use permit and a variance, hoping the applicant would present the information necessary to review the variances. Jabbour said that the applicant can continue or discontinue suing the city. The City will treat the applicant the same regardless of the lawsuit. Skolnick said he would like to believe the Mayor. Mr. Hoyt had offered to sign a document saying that if there is anything that needs to be done to fix this property, he would be responsible and post money to fix the problem. The City said they would not give him such a document and continued to threaten Mr. Hoyt with prosecution. Jabbour said he will get due process independent of the litigation. Skolnick said that hasn ’t been their experience. Jabbour said again that the majority of the Council are totally oblivious to 90 percent what Skolnick is referring to in litigation. Sansevere said he was completely unaware of the lawsuit until the Planning Commission meeting, and he is not aware of the particulars of the lawsuit. Barrett said the application process is independent. If Skolnick wants to put information into the application process that he has garnered from depositions, he may do so. Sheridan asked if Barrett is suggesting that the information provided as part of the application will not be forwarded to the City’s counsel in regards to the lawsuit. Barrett said that if the counsel for the City wants it, they can have it because it is public information. Liz Hawn said she w'ould like to clarify the Planning Commission ’s position. She said they were only dealing with the conditional use permit. As a practical matter, particularly because there was reference to storm damage which compelled the building of the icleiiuing wall that had accelerated the erosion of the slope, they needed a reason to grant a conditional use permit because, generally, such retaining wall structures are not permitted in the 0-75 ’ Page 12 J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U7) U2S40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued setback. She said in fact that retaining walls of this nature are referenced in the comprehensive plan as not be'mg a desired alternative. Without compelling information presented to the Planning Commission suggestmg that the conditional use permit should, in fact, be granted because of a severe circumstance of erosion that came as an act of God from this storm, they were not in a position to grant the conditional use permit or to grant variances when and if they should be proposed to them. This is why they would like information suggesting what the property was like before hand and what it was like after the storm. Unfortunately, if people choose to proceed in building in these areas without coming to the City, they destroy the very evidence that would compel the Planning Commission to believe that this was an appropriate action to take. It would be her hope that evidence suggesting that the shoreline was sufficiently degraded and that it needed help could be provided by historical surveys. Without such information, the Planning Commission is not going to be in a position to take a different position than the one which they have already taken. She said they need information simply to decide whether or not what they consider to be hardcover and have always considered to be hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback should have been permitted. Mayor Jabbour said there is a motion to table seconded by Flint which supersedes Kelley ’s motion to deny. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Break, 8:10 p.m. - 8:15 p.m. (#6) #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND WILLOW DRTVT, CLASS HI SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WILLOW VIEW Dave Newman of The Bancor Group and Marty Campion, Project Engineer, were present. Weinberger presented the staff report. He said this application is for a subdivision of property with a conditional use permit for a Planned Resident!^ Development for a 58-acre parcel which is located at the south and west comer of County Road 6 and North Willow Drive. The property is located just east of the new middle school property*, to the west of the Shadowood neighborhood and to the northeast of the City Offices. It is located in the two-acre residential district within the MUSA where sewer service is available. The proposal is for 25 lots on 51 acres of dry buildable land which would maintain a one dwelling per two-acre density. The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 15th and recommended for approval. A conservation easement would serve as a buffer zone around the proposed development. The Planning Commission recommended the developer amend the site plans to include a vegetation plan and berming plan that would help to buffer the development from the surrounding properties and provide for areas that would be more aesthetically pleasing and protect vegetation on the property. The trail plan would include a trail along Willow and along County Road 6. The only concern staff has with the location of the trails is it appears there may be some areas where the trail would be in the lowest portion of the ditch. Staff would Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 NEW BUSINESS (#6) #2540 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY AVENUE - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA/ARIANCE, 7:03 p.m. - 7:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Richard Sheridan. Attomey-at-Law, and William Skolnick. Attomey-at-Law, were present. Bradley Hoyt. Applicant, was not present. Weinberger stated the Applicant has filed a general land use application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit, which also requires variances for hardcover. The application is a result of a request by the City of Orono to allow the property to comply with Code requirements and have the necessary permits issued. The application deals with the construction of boulder retaining walls within the 0-75' lakeshore setback but not with any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. City Staff has indicated to the Applicant that the property can be restored or an application for after-the-fact permits can be filed with the City. The Applicant has chosen to apply for the necessary permits for any work that has been completed on the property. The Applicant has indicated he is unaware of any lakeshore land alteration that may have occurred on the property. However, it is the belief of Staff that some land alteration may have occurred with the construction of the retaining walls. The Applicant has stated he did construct a retaining wall in a letter dated October 29.1999, which is attached to this report but denies doing any land alteration work within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The property surveys indicate that substantial regarding has occurred on the property within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Typically this would be considered extensive grading within the 0-75* setback since it is Staffs belief that more than 10 cubic yards of fill have been moved in this area. Weinberger noted that the only application that has been filed by the Applicant is for the retaining walls. The land alteration work is not a part of this application. Mr. Hoyt acquired this property in approximately 1996 or 1997. Weinberger stated that it is City Staffs position that Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 19, has been violated, which states that it is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or othemvise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property, which would require the issuance of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit can be granted in this case if the proposal meets all the other sections of the zoning code. Weinberger stated, however, this proposal would not meet the other sections of the zoning code since the retaining walls would constitute hardcover within 75 feet of the lakeshore. If the retaining wall had been constructed outside the 0-75’ setback, a conditional use permit may not be required and would be subject to other restrictions. Weinberger stated a variance would be required under Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, which states that no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinancy highwater elevation of any lake shoreline. In order to grant a variance, a definite hardship must be demonstrated by the Applicant. In addition, variances to permit the construction of the retaining wall would also fall under Section 10 22. Subdivision 2. and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(L). for a total of three variances being Page 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) required for the construction of the retaining wall. Weinberger noted that regardless of the conditions that existed for the regrading of the property demonstrated by the two property surveys, after-the-fact permits are still required on the property to bring the property into conformance with the City's Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. City Staff is recommending the application for a conditional use permit be denied based on the adverse impacts of hardcover within the shoreland area as well as the lack of an application by the Applicant for variances. However, in discussions held with legal counsel for the Applicant today, Mr. Sheridan has indicated that they would be willing to apply for variances, but based upon the application before the Planning Commission tonight. City Staff is recommending denial of the application. A recommendation of denial is also based upon the findings within the Comprehensive Plan and the fact that variances are required in this case, noting that the conditional use permit cannot be granted since it is in violation of the regulations governing this application. Weinberger stated a second alternative available to the Applicant would be to request that this application be tabled to enable City Staff to meet with the Applicant's representatives and to allow the Applicant time to submit a revised and complete application. Weinberger reiterated that this application deals only with the construction of the retaining wall. Richard Sheridan, Attorney-at-Law, commented that the language included in the Planner's Report stating that the Applicant was informed by City Staff that the property can be restored or he can file an after-the-fact permit is the first time they have seen anything in writing by City Staff that the Applicant is able to restore the property. Sheridan remarked that restoration of the property was raised in connection with some litigation regarding this matter. Sheridan stated a conclusion is being drawn by City Staff that substantial grading has occurred on the property based on a 1990 survey and a 1999 survey. Sheridan stated to his knowledge Staff has not viewed the property to make that determination. The property was acquired by Mr. Hoyt in late 1996 or early 1997, with the residence being constructed in 1990 or thereabouts. The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately five to ten feet into the lake. An issue of contention in this matter is whether Mr. Hoyt actually placed the rip rap into the lake, which is being adamantly denied by the Applicant during his ownership of the property. Sheridan commented that these changes to the shoreline could have been undertaken prior to his purchase of the property, and the Applicant is objecting to any conclusion that grading work has occurred within 75 feet of the lakeshore during his ownership of the property. Sheridan stated that some of the ordinances that City Staff is contending the Applicant has violated did not become effective or were not modified until the late or mid 90s, and that the conclusion being drawn by City Staff is.incorrect as it relates to Mr. Hoyt undertaking the grading work. As it relates to the three variances that City Staff has indicated are required. Sheridan stated in his view only one variance is actually required since they all deal with the 75' setback. Sheridan stated that the first time they were informed of the need for a variance is when they received the legal notice from the City that their application was for a conditional use permit and variances. Sheridan indicated that the Applicant is willing to apply for after-the-fact variances at this time, noting that Weinberger indicated that he did have sufficient information to file an application in their discussion earlier todav. Page 6 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Sheridan requested that the Planning Commission consider the application before them tonight. Skolnick commented that the Applicant has found himself involved in litigation \with the City and being threatened with criminal action concerning this boulder retaining wall when there is no basis in fact for it, with a potential sale of the residence being lost. Skolnick stated that most of the information is inaccurate: such as. placement of rip rap in the lake. The Applicant denies placing any rip rap in the lake. Chair Hawn remarked that the rip rap is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight. Skolnick stated the Applicant is also denying doing any grading in the 0-75' setback. Due to the windstorms approximately a year and a half ago. some trees were blown down and removed, with some boulders being placed in the area to prevent erosion. Skolnick commented that that 1990 survey does not depict the concrete wall which has been In existence for 30 or 40 years on the property. Skolnick commented a survey should be obtained showing the topography of the land just prior to Hoyt's purchase of the property. Skolnick stated the Applicant is attempting to work with the City by filing an application for a variance. Skolnick noted that the Applicant was not informed that the application is incomplete until recently. The matter before the Planning Commission tonight deals with an after-the-fact variance for the boulder retaining wall. In regards to the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for denial. Skolnick remarked that the Applicant has complied with the Comprehensive Plan. An expert hired by the Applicant has found that the retaining wall has been constructed to industry standards and does not present any issues relating to water drainage or runoff into the lake. Skolnick indicated that the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City on this matter, noting that they are willing to submit additional paperwork if needed, but that they are objecting to any decision that is made on inaccurate information. Skolnick stated he has not heard ariything tonight which would prevent the Planning Commission from granting the after-the-fact variance except for the lack of some forms being submitted by the Applicant. Sheridan expressed a concern with the 1990 survey being the recorded topography of the property, noting that he is unsure what that means, and would not like the decision of the Planning Commission to be based solely on that survey. Sheridan commented regarding the hardcover in the 0-75' setback, a stairway previously existed in that area, which are allowed in the area. Shendan stated that the amount of hardcover in this area has not changed significantly and questioned whether rocks should be counted as hardcover. Skolnick stated as it relates to an adverse impact on the shoreline or hardcover, the boulder retaining wall does not present an adverse on the shoreline, the water, or the hardcover. With the removal of the stairway, the hardcover in this area has been diminished. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired about the nature of the litigation that relates to this property. Skolnick stated that there is presently a lawsuit filed in federal court relating to defammation of the Applicant as well as the loss of the sale of the residence. The parties are currently in the process of discovery in that lav/suit. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kluth inquired what the defammalion lawsuit resuited from. Skoinick stated that it is aileged in the complaint that Mr. Vang made some untrue statements to a realtor representing a buyer and as a result of those statements, the buyer cancelled the purchase agreement with the Applicant. Kluth inquired whether the statements made by Mr. Vang reiated to the retaming wail. Skoinick stated they related to the retaining wall as well as the rip rap. Skoinick remarked that a statement was made that the Applicant has altered the rip rap, which caused a problem for the City, and that the rip rap will need to be removed as well as the retaining wall. The buyer decided at that point to cancel the sate. Skoinick stated in his opinion there is no issue relating to the rip rap and there should be no issue regarding the boulder wall. Kluth commented that the matter before the Planning Commission tonight relates to the boulder wall, which the Applicant has admitted to constmcting. Skoinick stated the Applicant is not denying that he had the retaining wail constructed after the windstorms. Kiuth questioned whether the Appiicant and the contractor hired on his behalf were unaware that they were violating policies of the City at the time this retaining wall was constructed. Skoinick stated he cannot comment on what the Applicant or his contractor knew. Sheridan stated the Applicant is not present tonight due to the legai action that has been threatened against him by the City. Kluth stated in his view the two matters are interrelated and impact one another. Skoinick stated they were told by the City Attorney that the two matters wouid not impact one another. Skoinick commented they are appearing tonight before the Planning Commission in good faith and that the permit should be granted. Kluth inquired what impact a decision would have on the litigation. Skoinick stated the claims alleged in the lawsuit would not be settled tonight. Kluth inquired whether this matter shouid be tabied to allow the other items to be resolved. Skoinick remarked this application should not be tabled because they were promised by the City of Orono that this would be a fair process. Kiuth commented he was merely asking if the Appiicant’s representatives thought it wouid be a good idea to table the application tonight. Skoinick stated they are in favor of obtaining the permit, and if there are still some unanswered questions, they are willing to address those, but they would like to avoid this becoming a long-drawn out affair. Lindquist inquired when the retaining wall was constructed. Page 8 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY. NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Skolnick stated to his understanding it was constructed in 1998, with the issue being raised in April of 1999 relating to the boulder wall. Lindquist inquired hov/ the City became aware of this matter. Skolnick stated the house was listed for sale, a buyer was interested in acquiring the property, an agreement was signed, and the realtor checked with the City on some items, with Mr. Vang making some statements that resulted in the buyer cancelling the sale. An effort at that time was made to try to resolve this matter with the City, with Mr. Hoyt then being threatened with legal action, which has led to the application tonight. Lindquist stated if this matter appeared before the Planning Commission in June of 1998, he probably would have voted against the retaining wall at that time and would have liked to see other options pursue in an attempt to lessen the impact on the 0-75 ‘ setback. Lindquist commented he is familiar with the area and that there have been a tremendous amount of changes made to the shoreline over the years. Chair Hawn commented in her view the Planning Commission is looking at a conditional use permit application after-the-fact, and the issues relating to the rip rap and land alteration is not before them tonight since the Applicant has not filed that application with the City. Hawn stated it is unclear whether the retaining wall was truly needed after the windstorm, noting that the Planning Commission has lost the opportunity to review the situation at the time the wall was constructed due to the lack of an application being filed by the Applicant. Hawn stated due to the loss of that opportunity, under Orono's ordinances, the Applicant needs to demonstrate the need for the retaining wall, which will be difficult at this time. Hawn stated absent a showing of need by the Applicant for the retaining wall, given Orono ’s ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, she would not have voted in favor of the retaining wall at the tim.e it was constructed and is not in a position at this time to vote in favor of the after-the-fact. Kluth stated he was in agreement with Lindquist and Hawn regarding this issue, noting that a hardship has not been demonstrated by the Applicant. Kluth noted that in general the Planning Commission does not look on this type of application favorably when it relates to land alteration within the 0-75' setback. Chair Hawn stated the Planning Commission will approve after-the-fact permits if they would have approved them in the first instance Hawn commented there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commission that absent a showing of hardship, it is unlikely that the retaining wall would have been approved at the lime it was constructed. Hawn stated as a matter of public policy, the City should not give a benefit to a property owner who does not comply v/ith the City's ordinances in the first place and then later approaches the City requesting after-the-fact variances. Hawn commented it is doubtful that this application would have been granted in the first instance. Berg commented that every community has ordinances regulating shorelines, noting that it has been well published in this area that Orono takes a very proactive approach to protecting the lakeshore. Berg inquired why the Applicant chose not to ask the City what steps need to be taken to address this issue before any work was commenced in the 0-75' setback, noting that an answer to this question has not been given tonight. Smith commented that some of the issues relate to work that has apparently occurred between the time of the Iv/o surveys. Smith inquired whether there were any neighbors or v/itnesses or tests Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) that could verify when the work was completed. Weinberger stated the City has not heard anything from any of the adjoining property owners. Nygard inquired whether there were any other surveys previous to 1990. Weinberger stated the City is in possession of a topographic map taken from some 1990 aerial photographs, noting that the map does depict a rather significant drop to the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the City does not have any other surveys on file subsequent to 1990. Smith inquired whether the Applicant and City Staff could work together on restoring the property should this application be denied tonight. Weinberger stated City Staff is willing to work with the Applicant, noting that it is unlikely that City Council and the Plannig Commission would recommend approval of any after-the-fact permits if the property remains in the same condition that exists today, Weinberger remarked it is possible due to the nature of the lakeshore that a retaining wall may be necessary due to erosion concerns, but the Applicant will need to be willing to make those changes to the property and obtain the necessary permits for that work. Nygard inquired what will happen with the rest of the property. Weinberger stated the Applicant will need to obtain the three variances discussed earlier before any other work can be commenced on the property. Weinberger stated this application only deals with the retaining wall. Nygard commented that photographs ,wing the condition of the property prior to the retaining wall would be helpful in considering this application, and encouraged the Applicant to obtain some photographs which might assist in this matter. Skolnick inquired whether a permit would be necessary if the retaining wall were removed. Nygard stated that a permit would need to be issued to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick questioned what would happen if the City denied issuance of a permit to remove the retaining wall. Skolnick inquired what action the Applicant should take in this matter. Smith stated that City Staff would be willing to work with the Applicant on this matter to address the concerns regarding erosion and water runoff Sheridan commented that there has been a lack of cooperation on the part of the City in this regard. Sheridan stated as it relates to hardcover, it was his understanding that hardship applies to variances and not to conditional use permits, and that perhaps the appropriate standard should be defined. Sheridan remarked as it relates to denial of the retaining Viiall in the first instance, he has not heard one single reason for the denial and what adverse impact the retaining wall has on the 0-75' setback. Chair Hawn stated it has been determined that hardcover in the 0-75' setback, which is a public policy in Orono, does have a more severe impact on the drainage issue. Hawn commented she is hopeful that this situation can be resolved amicably. Hawn indicated she would like to deal strictly with the conditional use permit after-the-fact application tonight. Page 10 ORONO PLANNING COM\USSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2540 Bradley Hoyt, Continued) Kiuth commented in his view, due to the litigation, the parties have taken more of an adversarial role versus that of attempting to assist the Planning Commission in resolving this issue. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2540, Bradley Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, based on the adverse impacts that the hardcover would have in the 0-75* setback and the incomplete application that has been submitted by the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#4) #2522 THE BANCOR GROUP, INC., SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 6 AND NORTH WILLOW DRIVE - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 8:00 p.m. -9:13 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. David Newmann and Marty Campion. The Bancor Group, were present. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has received a new Preliminary Plat appIiM|f&n for a 25 lot development on 58 acres for property located at the southwest comer oj^ounty Road 6 and Willow Drive North. Previously the Planning Commission had reviewed a o^osal for a 49 unit development at this site. The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed this development as part of an application for rezoning. The proposed rezorfmg was denied by the City Council. This application also includes a continuation of the conditional u4? permit for a PRD. The purpose of a Planned Residential Development is to enhance the apM^rance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to^fer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in generalo^ity residents. Weinberger stated the City has changed its ConM^rehensive Plan to reflect medium density residential for the property located directly souln of the proposed development. Medium density residential will likely be townhomes. It is tly^tention to extend Kelley Parkway to Willow from Old Crystal Bay Road. Properties locatep^ the south of Kelley Parkway and north of Highway 12 are guided for offices use: The lots located to the east of th^^bdivision. on average, are smaller than those lots to the south and west. The PRD would allo^he lots to be developed at the sizes shown on the site plan, with the overall density of the suhiffvision not exceeding one unit per two acres dry buildable. The City has approved PRD’s in tho^ast with an allowance of property being dedicated for other purposes such as roadways and oimding to count towards the lot area with the idea that the PRD would meet all the other criteria li^d in the City Code The roads are pu^^sed to be developed to City standards and dedicated as public streets. No lot within this pro^^ed development would have direct access to Willow Drive or County Road 6. All lots would bi^equired to access a newly platted street The Applicant in their original application had proQ^d a trail along Willow Drive and along the south side of County Road 6 The intent of the traji^ to connect to the larger regional system towards the school property and eventually west to pytypr Park. This trail would provide future access to the middle school property. This latest Page 11 Application Date: 10/1/99 Completion Date; 10/29/99 60 Day Deadline: 12/28/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 12/13/99 ITEM NO.: ”7 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Paul Weinberger Zoning Title Zoning Administrator Item Description:#2540 Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue •Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Property Owners List D Site Topography E 1990 Survey F 1999 Survey G Comprehensive Plan pg. 3-20 H Comprehensive Plan pg. 4-13 I Applicant Letter (10/1 /99) J Applicant Letter (10/29/99) K Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Summary of Request Mr. Hoyt filed an application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit. The application is a result of a request made by the City of Orono to bring the property into conformance. The need for the CUP results from lakeshore land alteration and construction of a retaining wall. Staff indicated to the applicant that the property must be restored if permits are not granted. Consequently the applicant has applied for the necessary permits for the boulder retaining wall. The surveys indicate work within 75' of the lakeshore, please refer to Exhibits E (1990) and F (1999). pack - round Mr. Ho>t had requested a conditional use permit application, at that time an application was delivered to Mr. Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt made a conditional use permit application with the City on October 1, 1999 that w’as reviewed by Staff and determined to be incomplete. A notice of incomplete application was sent to Mr. Hoyt on October 8, 1999 requesting some additional information, including an updated survey and information regarding the condition of the property prior to construction of a retaining wall. On October 29,1999 an updated survey was delivered to the City which determined the new retaining (boulder) wall was in fact within 75' of the lakeshore. Staff had indicated to Mr. Hoyt that variances would be required for hardcover within the 75' setback. Mr. Hoyt and his representative Rick Sheridan again stated no information was available regarding grade changes that likely occurred during construction of the boulder retaining walls. The Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit and Code requirements for granting the conditional use permit. They determined for approval of a conditional use permit variances must be applied for, no approval can be granted without variances. Staff had notified the applicant variances are required for hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback. Based on no application for variances the Planning Commission could not properly make a recommendation on the variances or undue hardship to support the granting of a variance. Therefore they could not conclude that the CUP could be granted because the retaining wall did not conform with City Code. The Planning Commission did offer the applicant an opportunity to revise the conditional use permit application to include variances. The Planning Commission also had requested additional information about the property, to include photos and other property information. Mr. Hoyt’s representatives stated it is there position to resolve this matter without any delays. The Planning Commission, based on the statements made by Mr. Sheridan to move the application forward, did not table the request but chose to recommend denial. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 permits a CUP to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property if the work meets all other requirements of the Code. Mr. Hoyt has stated he did construct a retaining wall in his letter dated October 29, 1999 attached to this report, but also stated he had not regraded within the 75' lakeshore setback. The propert}' surveys indicate regrading has occurred on the property below the retaining wall. Mr. Hoyt has refused to apply for conditional use permits for the regrading on the property. The most recent survey indicates the slope has been regraded creating a flat area on the lakeside of the boulder retaining wall, and the shoreline has been filled to extend into the rip rap approximately 5-10 feet into the lake. The surveys indicate the 929.4' shoreline has been extended into the lake. Attached (Exhibit I) Mr. Rick Sheridan, in his letter dated October 1,1999 has stated "Bradley Hoyt makes this request for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit based upon the request of the City of Orono and its attorneys, Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P". The application is only for retaining walls within 75' of the lakeshore. No other application has been received for any additional land alteration or variances for hardcover. Based on the surveys the following is a list of the ordinances which we believe have been violated when grading and retaining wall work was done. Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawiiil for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities w-ithout a conditional use permit issued by the Council: B.Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. C.Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. All of the above-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Some of the other "Regulations and Prohibitions of the City Code" which govern this matter include. 10.55 Subd. 8. Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands vsithin 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. 10.56 Subd. 16(L) & 10.22 Subd. 2 Retaining walls constructed constitute hardcover within 75' of lakeshore where no hardcover is allowed. A variance is required. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variances Required 0'-75'21,700 s.f 433 s.f (2 %) none (0%) 433 s.f (2 %) To permit hardcover for the retaining wall. 75’-250'27,800 s.f 9,630 s.f (34.64%) 6,950 s.f (25%) 9,630 s.f (34.64%) none 250’-500’3,670 s.f 400 s.f (10.90%) 1101 s.f (30%) 0 none Issue for Discussion The application made by Mr. Hoyt is only for the retaining wall. The recommendation of denial was based on the conclusion that the retaining wall does not comply with all requirements of the Code. No after-the-fact permit has been received for the regrading required for the wall and variances for the hardcover within 75’ of the lakeshore. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the application for a conditional use permit because variances required have not been applied for. The Planning Commission commented that a hardship may be difficult to demonstrate based on the total hardcover and other unresolved issues. Staff Recommendation Staff Recon unends the application for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit be denied or if the applicant requests to table and revise the application: Approval for a conditional use permit per Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 requires the project to meet all other provisions of the Municipal Code. Variances eue required to permit hardcover within 75' of the OHWL of 929.4' designated for Lake Minnetonka. 1) Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (Regulations for the Lakeshore Residential Districts), 2) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (Flood Plain and Wetland Management) and 3) Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) do not permit hardcover within the 75' setback zone. If the applicant w ants to proceed vdth the request they must make an application for variances, and it is Staffs position additional land alteration occurred on the property simultaneously with construction of the retaining walls. Any land alteration would require additional permits. Staff is again requesting the applicant provide the following information and application: 1. Variance applications for hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback. 2. Information regarding the property conditions prior to construction of the wall. This information should include plans submitted to the contractor, photos and site survey. 3. Information relating to the contractor and plans the contractor used for the project. All the above information is required for a detailed review of a variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to direct staff to draft a resolution to be adopted by the City Council at the ne.<t available meeting. CITY of ORONO Municipal Oflices Stnel Address: 2750 Kelley Paricway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-CG66 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INF0R>L4TI0N October 8,1999 . Bradley A. Hoyt 2523 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Application #2540 The City of Orono is required to notify you «ithin ten (10) business days as to the status of your application. The follotving information is required before we can proceed with your request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances. 1 The survey you have provided to us indicates existing structvu-es and the shoreime of Lake Minnetonka, however the survey is required to show previous and existmg topography over the entire property. 2. Cut and fill calculations for the amount of fill, in cubic yards, that has been added within the 75' lakeshore setback. This infotmation needs to be submitted by October 29,1999 to remain on the November 15 1999 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at (612) 249-4600 should you have any quesuons. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephone (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 LE:-Ci-lr?? li:26 ■:0r IT!r lEt IThL FFOFEFTi tll473ITC0 F.02 C V'rMAL 1 II c. December 7,1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger City of Oxono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Rc: Application of Bradley A. Ho>t No. 2540 Dear Mr. Weinberger This letter concerns the planning application of Bradley A. Hoyt for an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances for his property located at 2523 Kelly Avenue. As you are aware, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of Mr. Hoyt’s application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit. The Planning Commission, on the recommendation of staff and' despite the request of Mr. Hoyt’s representatives, refused to consider Mr. Hoyt’s application for certain variances. At the Planning Commission, the record will reflect the following: 1. It was the City that identified the necessary' after-the-fact permits required upon inquiry from Mr. Hoyt. 2. An application was given to Mr. Hoyt by yourself and mar’iced as to the type of permit required by d’e application. A variance was not indicated as required. ■ 3. A letter dated October 8, 1999, from yourself in response to Mr. Hoyt’s application identified certain items necessary' for consideration of the CUP and the variances. This information was either provided in a timely manner or not available. 4. Per your own admission, the public notice for the • application included the CUP and variances, and no additional information to what was provided by Mr. Hoyt would be necessary to consider any variances as part of the application. 253 East fake Strict, Wayzau, NlinaKOM 55391 C€C-0:3-1999 11:1-7 COi IT I h e IT hL f pofert.-E12473I-700 P.03 O' Mr. Paul Weinberger December 7,1999 Page 2 Despite these facts, the Planning Commission refused to consider the variances as part of Mr. Hoyt’s application. Mr. Hoyt now dem^ds that the City Council consider all necessary permits, including any variances, at the December 13,1999 meeting c: William Skolnick, Esq. TOThL P.03 Application # Date Receh*e<r JCt / ^ Amount Paid ^ S‘00 ‘ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY'LOCATION ,, A , . ^ Site Address Tvxe of ADDlication to be Filed ' I ^____________ f9i^r dTL/r Property Identificatioa Number (P.I.D.) Ul’ ^'h 1^ applicant Name A- Ha Address Phone (home). /I. ttAff ______ Phone fworkl /v/J City ni-orf C________Zip S~^----- OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address City Zip, Date Proc^rtv Acquired Qo lO'^^^ ^ I (do) ^oojn^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERVUTS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S 175.00 Residential Accessor>’ Use _______S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ______S300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use S250.00 Land Alteration ^ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more^ Gradi ng; s?-*iV2il~; retaining walls within 75 of laxeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule ______SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ^ After-the-Fa ;t Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____S250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review consultant fees) _____S300.00 Vacation _____S200.00 Easement Vacation _____S 100.00 Er'jc'ment Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 F.ezoring (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____S350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____S 100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule (month/yea:) »v r. L-- ■» nun UAiE o'i/o5/*»9 IlCtillCniil COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOM SYSTCH PIIOl’tIMY OWnURii LIST IIAIUI SOI PROP ADOR QUMER riAHE TAXPAYER MAIIE/ADDR PROP ADRR nUtlER NAME TAXPAYER tlAME/ADDR PROP ARDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ARDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP Aonn OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 20-117-25 11 0022 02S25 KELLY AVE K G IIEIHOACII t R E IIEIHRACII K C IIEIHDACH ARE IICIHDACII 2525 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 11 0032 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNCD DAVID J DELANEY DAVID J DELANEY <•000 CASAHITA RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0030 02523 KELLY AVE IIRAOLEY A HOYT CONTINENTAL PROPERTY GRP INC 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-117-23 12 0090 00030 address UNASSICNCD CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO nox 6b CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 30 20-117-23 12 0059 02503 KELLY AVE DTL ONE INC JOHN E KUPFER 2503 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 501 00015 30 20-117-23 11 0023 02595 KELLY AVE R H PONZETTI ADA POHZETTT ROBERT H/DARBARA A PONZETTI 2595 KELLY AVE EXCEL57.JR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0037 02509 KELLY AVE C A C NADLER CHARLES A CANDICE NADLER 2509 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0096 02505 KELLY AVE BRADLEY A HOYT CONTINENTAL PROPERTY CRP INC 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-117-23 12 0052 02999 KELLY AVE R V DAHL A H S DAHL SYLVIA A BERTACHOLI 2999 KELLY AVE EXCELLSIOR HN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0055 00030 ADDRESS L'NASSICNED KELLY COVE HHOWNRS ASN/ORONO KELLY COVE HHOWNRS ASN/ORONO 2997 KELLY AWE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 REPORT HO. PI935901 PACE 9‘ 30 20-117-23 11 0029 03333 SHOIlELlHE DR HOT COHPAHY SUPER VALU STORES IMC CORPORATE TAX DEPT PO BOX 990 HPLS HN 55990 30 20-117-23 12 0030 02515 KELLY AVE DAVID R HAROTEN DAVID R HARDTEN 2515 KELLY AWE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 30 20-117-23 12 0097 00030 ADDRESS UHASSICNED DRADLEY A HOYT DRADLEY A HOYT 253 LAKE ST E WAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-117-23 12 0053 02501 KELLY AVE TODD JONES TODD JONES 3555 CO RD NO 99 HINNETRISTA HN 55369 30 20-117-23 19 0019 02565 KELLY AWE E J SCHROEDER ET AL TRUSTEES E J SCHROEDER 2565 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR HN 55331 J ^ II -I V */ J 47 . . * / I : : ! ri Cl U, rvL.VjlJ I oulvvui r«'^. itco r / \ "s' irtby ctrtify Ihit turvty hos bttn prcportd mt Of undtf my dirtel suptrviiion ond IhQt I em a y llctniid Land Sufvtyof undor fht tewi o# rno 3lt of Mlnnisoto. »FFiN a GRONBC^C.IfVC. irK S. Groclberg Minntioto^ictnit Na 12755 SCALE * I INCH >30 FEET DATE • APRIL 30. 1982,^.^ ^ DATUM :MEAN SEA LEVEL note :N0T all TREES ON TRACT HAVE BEEN LOCATED : COFFIN a GRONBERG.INC. ENGINEERS 8 LAND SURVEYORS LONG LAKE, MINNES^ ' •• (5652). \ JWi• kf m •• ■r> wi ■(98U) <r A *<r •Nv ' :***•. V'\'‘V''';.\ \,v — “ \-i \'.'V}'v'\\V'‘-\ x'K \ \ - V \ \^ '5^ > %• n-<rP!PTiCM or PfiFViStS : D, R«q«5lc^eo tend Survey No. 1423. t^rzr of Tilles. Hennepin County. Uirncsolo. ^ •'O.!rro»ea iron rr.c»Uf» '•> itimoNt'j e*isling itpol ete*cl ‘»on, mecn 1i^o level »Julu^n denotes ej<Ist*tnq contour line, mem sen level Outum 1^5 sho^n ere Posed upon on assumed doturn. iufvcy imer.cs to odo- tfe oounCcfle* ol th« cSov« cesc'^beJ prope'iy. (cs’.ien ol cr> eiisttrq house, end the loenlion of cl visible sn. It does not purpofl to sho«» cny otner ifris('o»er-e''t$ or e . oc : Cue to srov» end ice cover. Iccction of ci hcroccver n\ \\ ^ \ ‘ \ V n\ ' \ \ \ \ ' . '' ,/s|y ' x-' s' p^yTRQNMENT JU>IE, 1980 6. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS 0? THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVE! AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICAI PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Manageaent Study, and Orono’s Surface Water Hanagenent Plan all recoaaend this approach to peraanent water quality aanageaent for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and carshlands that require protection as part of the City's storn water aanageaent progra: It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recoaaen- dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Manageaent Plan. 7. PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETL-ANDS AND DP^AINAGEW.AYS SH.ALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETIAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or c'onstruction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easeaents for conservation of these lands. 8. PROTECTION OF LAKE PEISOURCES WILL ALLOW REASON.ABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROVrDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conforaance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Hanagenent regulations for recreational developaent lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense developaent within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulation will be proaoted to liait excessive boat density and overuse of sens bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakcshore encroachn 9. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTER.ATION. Natural vegetatior in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasona in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas-of soi .• or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection w be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOUR.AGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TER-’ AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releas* large aaounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adverse y affects water quality for long periods of tine. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be app.roved to provide riparian access where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in lini^-e circunstances only where absolutely necessary to naintain existing natural riparian access pernanently lost by soaething beyond the control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the owne- desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons fo- disrupting sensitive lake beds. CMP 3-20 I AND US£ JUNE, 1980 FILTPATION system. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while ijecreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. 4. THE WETLAJIDS AND MARSHLANDS 0? THE CITY BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UlilQUE ctorm“ ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD O? FLOOD PROTECTION AND STOP* WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage ease ments for conservation of these lands. 5. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW ^^^ON^^ J^CESS, USE^D ENJOY^ENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENx. In conformance with Kn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. • 6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant . impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CM? 4-13 CONTINENTAL 3V G r o i o , Inc. «5^r-r^r. • m-' %-?7r- t;^: • »^..:Sa?l»^-'3i^t5^ i;. - • IMM; fm-'^ ■Cr^ • •> I”; ^ . • '0^ ;:’3' iKix October I, 1999 Mike Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Orono, Minnesota Re; Application for Conditional Use Permit of Bradley A. Ho>l for Property Located at 2523 Kelly Avenue, City of Orono Dear Mr. Gaffron; On behalf of Bradley A. Ho>t, enclosed and hereby submitted is a General Land Use Application for an After-the Fact Conditional Use Permit for landscaping work performed at 2523 Kelly Avenue. I understand that Mr. Hoyt’s application will be submitted to the planning commission at its review meeting at the ne.\t available opportunity. When Mr. Hoyt obtained this application from the City, NIr. Paul Weinberger of your office placed an "‘x” ne.xt to “S250.00 Land Alteration” and an “.\” ne.xt to “Grading and filling designated wetland or tloodplain". Since Mr. Hoyt performed no land alteration within the wetland or floodplain, we do not believe that Mr. Weinberger s designation is appropriate. The only appropriate designation, if applicable, would be “Grading, seawall, retaining walls withis 75 of lakeshore , as alleged in the City’s counterclaim against Mr. Hoyt in his lawsuit pending in United States District Court. Case No. 99-CD-1034 (JRTA^LN). Since the only portion of that designation that may be applicable is “retaining wall within 75’ of lakeshore” we have appropriately checked and modified this box. We have also checked and hereby submit an After- the-Fact Fee” in th<* amount of 5500.00 for processing this application. Please be advised that Bradley Hoyt makes this request for an After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit based upon the request of the City of Orono and its attorneys, Greene & Espel, P.L.L.P., and by making this application, in no way intends this application to constitute an admission of any liability of the allegatitrs contained in the City of Orono s counterclaim. «••:f .7 •* * ** “V ^^^’..-.7 . ••• v-\ o • -fy 253 Eas: Lakf Seres:, Vayzara, Minnssoca 55391 }.i We taist that Mr. Hoyt's application will be treated in a fair and objective manner, notwithstanding the pending litigation between the parties. If there is any way to expedite this process, please let me know. CON'TIN'EXTAL C r u ? . lac.I r : —•* * V ^ . • * • -*i ^r-.v ^0 ^'l m^f:^ '-S^ 'C jr '^ ' •SJJ-.. .: II iiS rxr>i jL^--. October 29,1999 Mr. Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Request for Further Information on Application No. 2540 Dear Mr. Weinberger: I write in response to your letter of October 8,1999 in which you request the following additional information relating to my application for a conditional use permit on my property located at 2523 Kelly Avenue. 1) The survey you have provided to us indicates existing structures and the shoreline ot Lake Minnetonka, however the surv'ey is required to show previous and e.xistin; topography over the entire property. 2)Cut and fill calculations for the amount of fill, in cubic yards, that has been added witnin the 75 la.<eshore setback. In response to your first request for a previous and existing ^ topography over the entire property, I am unable to fully comply with your request because I am not in possession of a preexisting topographic survey of my property. However, I have had prepared an existing topographic survey, a copy of which accompanies this letter. I do not understand your request for a topographic survey of the entire property when only lakshore area is the subject of my application. During the Spring and Summer of 199S, wind and rain storms toppled several tress, which was likely to cause the soil to erode on the hill facing the shoreline of my property’. For this leason, I placed boulders on my property to prevent erosion of the hill. Other than this landscaping, no change to the topography has taken place. In response to your second request for cut and fill calculations within 75 feet of the lakesbore setback, I reiterate that nothing has been added or removed from the propertv' other tnan the boulders placed at the edge of the hill. No soils were added in connection with the landscaping, and the srade is substantiallv the same as it was before the trees were 253 Eas: Lake Scret:, Vavzaca, Mir.r.fsoca 55391 Mr. Paul Weinberger October 29,1999 Page 2 toppled. I can give you no additional information on this issue other than what has already been provided. If there is any specific information you would like to know other than that which you already observed on the property, please let me know. c; William R. Skolnick, Esq. B rad M<5>YX HARDCOVER jC^CULATIO iN VVOKJvbHLEE 1 ’ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 25-500’ Art/ 500-1000’ Z-2L7 ^ -yr- E?aSTTNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House- LenjA X X X B. Garage C. * Driveway ••• X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric • 0<.^ C oaj C. C a JALL de//(c* _____________ X X G. Other . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ LcnjLh X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uttderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other WW-Jl TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • B , X 100 = Wid-J\ B •S.F. ♦ • *' •3 1 • w S.F. S3 .• •s.Fr • • - =3 •S.F. « 1 S.F. • • S.F. •S.F. S.F. S3.•S.F. ••S.F. B .t •S.F. S3 ^3 S.F. S3 S.F. S3 S.F. • • • • «• • 1 • S.F. ^33 .S.F. A m i.\noo t S.F. . B S '2,Cd t • • —• 7 • •• •• ^ S.F. S.F. s S.F. ■ >. s S.F. S3'• • • , S.F. S.F. • —S.F. •• • • S.F. ; . S3 S.F. '-•rj*-. * S.F. S.F. S.F. • 'S.F. S3 ’ •S.F." • S.F. •. S.F. ^ e C 5 X IQO - « •• • • •• • • 14 • . BraoHARDCOVER CAl.CULAri(^aVVOl<Jvatt±:E i ' SETBACK ZO^^E; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ 2S-S00’ f^tsting rard cover tn zone A. K0U55________ L:r.2^ X X X B. .Gmsc C. Driveway ••• X X D. Sidewalk 17.3 X X •' « E. p2:Io/DecIc+•X X F. Lir.dicape Underlain By Plaatic, Or Fabric • 63 40 OS' X X X G. OLber R ock oh VcAiric TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A *r B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X U.-.j-.i X X • X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Odr.er SOO-IQOO' 500 & S.F. Vr'uJA S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^blOt S.F. S.F. 5.9 \0'l S.F. S.F. s'so'S.F. •S.F. 6bZ s.s* “Zio S.F. S.F. S.F. • • • ZIB S.F. X 100 <i63ot S.F. R7.fi100t S.F. A-- ,JD % S.F. V.'<*A S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.T. S.F. S.F. r. • • S.F. S.F. S.F.. ‘ “S-F. S.F. e Vw • • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZON total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______• B ^S.F. S.F. .A 5 X 100 - • • 14 •% Bradley Hoyt December 13, 1999 Page 2 You should set up a meeting with City staff prior to your submittal, so we can assist you in making your application as complete as possible. Submittal of the above listed information by noon on Wednesday, December 22 will allow this item to be placed on the Planning Commission’s January 19 agenda. Please call me at (612) 249-4600 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner end.: Variance application packet ZZC^\r 4 V.*.ITKC; 2. :5'00 !4:45 JT. 14:56 XO. } i KiHSHAW & CULBbRl tiv. .s AfrLETON.WWCONSLN iUXEVlLU.aU)10IS BkOOIVnU). WIHCOKSLN CU AMT AlON. tU.D>Ol3 CnlCAOO.ILUNOU CItr 5TAL LAH. ILLINOIS rr laudiuale , fujrioa jACUONVILli. FLORIDA lOUBT, aUNOIS LULR.IL1IHOU MiAMi,n.okn>A PimiAFnAYTOVSH fumstoojaa sovm Mnmt MimiEAFOUS, MDWSOrTA JXOl tslcfa X 4iajM.*t«» Thomas J. Barrett Diiact; 612.334^676 TBeo«tt<giluiii4uwlaw.com January 6,2000 MILWAUKW. WISCONSIN MVHmK,OmA)4A PBOIO\IU4MOI9 FllOOfW, AJUt<n<A ROClCFORD.lLUiWIS *T. LOUl«. MXaSOURt SAN FRANCISCO, CAUf ORHIA APSTKariBiD. axcKois TAMPA.FIOR1DA WAUKtCAN. ILUNOIS Rick J. Sheridan, Hsq. Continental Property Group, Inc, 253 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 in A rArMrTi/m.E AND UNITED STATES HAHa Re: Bradley Hoyt v. City of Orono, el al. Court File No.: 99-CV-I034 (JRT/FLN) Our File No.: 4I288 ’75203l Dear Rick: This letter is written to further address the steps which your client should^e m order to present its case for a variance from the requirementa of the Orono City Sirisea out of your eUem’s appUcation for a Conditional Use Permit for a waU wbeh he coMtructed near the shore of Lake Minnetonka without a permit. As we hav© di«cuMed,^e Oinditional Use Pennit for which be made application requires conformity to all parts of the City <^de. SmM the City Code prohibits hardcover or structures in the area of shore land wito 75 feet of the lake, it be necessary for your client to seek and obtain a variance from those ordin2t»c« in order to bnng the retaining wall within the requirements of the Code. The Ordinances in question are: Section 10.22. Subdivisbn 1 and 2 Section 10.55. SubdiviskmO Section 10.56. Subefrvision 16(L) Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(C)(5) The Planning Commission, at its November 15,1999 meeting, recommended denial of the request for a Conditional Use Permit, because it concluded that the waU should not have been sranted a variance under the code and because it had difficulty understanding the nature o e msioD problem which h was claimed that the waU would prevent The City Council remanded the mAtfky to Planning Commission in order to allow yOur client to make an ^propnatc record o c J for variance from the requirements of the Code.il- The City of Orono has a longstanding policy against allowing hardcover or structure wito 75 feet of the lake. The City’s comprehensive plan also discourages devices like a wall Oh the fiO®W4?OT/16503l42.V2 inruxA A PAMNIK1B17 tNOJUDCHO FROfB«a«AL OOWORAITOO rwt .* riuiii :THU; 2 10'00 :4:42 OT. 14:S6 ':c. S760044 ’;I ? S Rick J. Sheridan, Esq. January 7, 2000 Page 2 lakefront. The City must look to a demonstration of hardship by your client as defined by Minnesota Statute 462.358-462.359. and Orono Code Section 10.08 as a necessary condition of granting a variance. The burden of demonstrating the hardship is on your client. As I understand it, your client constructed the wall in order to deal with the results of certain storm damage Had this matter been brought to the City’s attention before the wall was built, the City staff would have discussed with the applicant various possibilities for niinimiTing <h© impact of any erosion control measures, and would have recommended to the applicant and the Council a proposal which would accomplish the needed erosion control with the least impact on the natural shoreline. In this after-the-fect situation, the City staff seeks to have in hand evidence which will help it understand the condition of the shoreland before and after the stotm damage, and which will allow it to determine whether the W’all as constructed or another less intrusive scheme would accomplish the preservation of the shorclaud. This evidence is required in order to evaluate the claimed hardship which is legally necessaiy for a variance. Your client should provide the following information: 1. A detailed description and explanation of the specific problems the wall was installed to address. 2. A topographic survey of the site showing the condition of the site prior to any work being done to remedy the problems. As well, please provide any photos showing the condition of the site prior to any work being done. 3. Information indicating any other options considered besides the wall to address the problems documented. 4. An explanation as to whether you believe ftie wail is superior to other less intrusive options. This matt^ is scheduled to be heard on January 1^ before the Plaimiiig Com mission and a public hearing on the variances required and on the Conditional Use Permit wiU be noticed for that date. It would be most helpful if you could provide the factual information requested by January 15‘. Finally, l understand that as a legal maner you contend tha^ your cltem docs not need any permits or variances for the construction of the wall At the City Council Meeting on December 13, 1999,1 understood you to assert that the wall wdiich your client constnieted was not "hardcover” or a “structure" within the meaning of the Orono Code For what it is worth, the longstanding interpretation of hardcover and structure which the City Council applies has consistently included impervious elements like the wall which your client constructed. I xmderstand further that you diugree that the City may require a Conditional Use Permit for such structures if they are permitted by reason of hardship within 75 feet of the shoreline. The City Code and the City Practice have required such Permits for some time. The idea of the Permits is to allow the City and the applicant to have a clear understanding of exactly what is allowed and permitted in the zone, so that it cannot be changed over time without further evaluation or permission. (THU) 2. 10’00 14:43/ST. 14:S6 N’O. S760044705 F 4 Rick J. Sheridan. Esq. January 7000 Page 3 Please provide the information requested. If you should have any questions please don’t hesitate to call me. TJB/lIc c: William R. Skolnick, Esq. (via Facsimile and U.S. Mail) Peter E. Hinz, Esq. (via Facsimile and U.S. Mail) A fAlCIMeiWW tHOAnOM nUVtaaOKAL OOWOKAItOttt Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/99 11/1/99 3/2/00 I 4 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/14/00 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Zoning District: f#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit for a PRD RR-IB One Family Rural Residential Seven lot subdivision requiring sanitary sewer service. The applicant has also applied for a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. List of Exhibits A B C D E F G Planning Commission Minutes (November 15, 1999) City Council Minutes (December 13, 1999) Revised Site Plan and Grading Plan Notice of Planning Commission Action (November 15, 1999) Planning Commission Minutes (January 19, 2000) Lot Area Calculations City Engineer Comments (January 17, 2000) Pertinent Code Sections 1 . Section 10.28 - RR-1 B Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 - Planned Residential Development Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the application at their January 19. 2000 meeting. A primary' issue was the proposed density within the subdivision. Staff had requested the developer present lot area calculations for each lot and outlot within the proposed development. The surveyor has indicated the total dry buildable area within the proposed PRD is 1 3.7 acres (Please refer to Exhibit F for lot area calculations). The Municipal Code requires subdivisions by PRD 1 • i-' comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning district. The density requirement is 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. Proposed is 7 lots on 13.7 acres, thus not meeting the density requirements for the RR-IB zoning district. The Planning Commission had recommended the applicant reduce the number of lots to 6 to maintain the required 1 dwelling unit per 2 acre density. Summary of Request The City of Orono has received a Preliminary' Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 ^••own Road South. The request would require the following approvals: 1. 3. 4. 5. A Conditional Use Pennit for a Planned Residential Development -- This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be d^ v^eloped at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40' in width where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50'. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24' width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has indicated it would require the west 33' be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. A Homeowner's Association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road and drainage structures within the development. The owner of the 130 Brown Road property', southwest of the development and south of Tract G. has access from the private drivew ay w ithin Tract G and shall become part owner of a private road. Revised Plan The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish .setbacks for each of the lots. I he dry buildable areas ol lots 1,2,3 and 4 arc limited and arc between 1/2 acre to I acre diy buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located nc'rth of the development in the City of l.ong Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 35' front yard setback. 10' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The revised plan has maintained the lot arrangement for Block 1. The Planning Commission had requested the lots be platted w ith an average size of about 1 acre, however to maintain the best building sites, and to allow larger lots to the south in Block 2, the lots have remained similar to those lots previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. They are consistent to the development to the north in the City of Long Lake. Block 2 has provided 3 lots with an average size of about 2 acres. The lot originally planned tor wnerc Outlots C and D are located has been eliminated from the plan. Outlots C and D would be platted as conservation outlots. Previously the lot were found to have adequate building sites. f f ■ Mr. Van Eeckhout has revised his plan to not create a lot south of the Creek. This eliminates any concerns of placing hardcover and grading within 75 ’ of a protected waterway. The DNR, Trails and Waterways Unit had requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property. By not developing the southern lot and platting it as a conservation outlot the buffer area between development and tlie Luce Line Trail will be preserved. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono has no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer. Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit G) the proposed access to the property' be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. Further, he recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50' width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary surx’ey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer w ill require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. Sanitary Sewer A MUSA amendment is required to allow sanitary sewer service to the property. Sewer service has been discussed and a feasibility report has been completed for the Fox Ridge neighborhood south of the Luce Line Trail. The report identified a pressure sew er system as the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up Sou’h Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would ha\ e the potential lo serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of Watertow n Road needing sanitary sewer. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of .Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. The proposed alignment as chown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City and developer had explored the option of extending sewer across the Luce Line Trail and the Longridge Associates property to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. After looking at this option it has been detennined this is not the best option to extend sewer to the south to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1 960's. f Easements 1. 2. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flovvage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. A conservation easement shall be granted over the conserv'ation outlots to protect the outlots from future alteration and development. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Issues for discussion 1 . Access to the property is via a Tract G which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Staft is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access coiTidor be platted 50' in width to provide space tor future utilities along the private road. The Tract should be in ownership of the Homeowner’s Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. 2. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. The private road would require the City approve land alteration within a Citv’ protected wetland. The Planning Commission has recommended the number of lots be reduced to 6 lots based on the total acreage being 13.7 acres. The applicant would request a variance to permit 7 lots on less than 14 acres. 3. 4. t Staff Recommendation A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval or documentation of right- of-access for a private road acceptable to the City Attorney shall be submitted. B. Stormw ater calculations should be submitted for review- to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater w ill flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. C. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review, D. The City Council should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. The applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water exlc. -ion, including detailed sanitar\' sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. 5. 6. A drainage area map, storm scw’cr and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards the ponds shown in the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 A and Marilyn Fegers, Continued) Kluth inquire^wt^ther the shed still exists on the property. wn the shed down. •wtjgthe^ Fegers stated the wind n.' Stoddard stated with the acquisition^ on this application. idjoining piece of land, he would lend to look favorably Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approv3F«(^^plication #2545, Lou and Marilyn Fegers, 3590 North Shore Drive, granting of a hard^h^q^^riance to permit construction of an attached 24* by 30' garage to the west side oflTtei(^^idence subject to the Applicants submitting a revised survey, and further subject to rerfhMtal of the shed at the time of occupancy of the new structure. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 9:35 p.m. -10:30 p.m. The Certificate of ?<1ailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present. Weinberger slated the City of Orono has received a Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development, which would allow the property to be developed at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. The RR-1B zoning district allows a property to be developed as a PRD as a conditional use. Under a PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The Applicant is proposing four lots to be served on a private road, which would gain access from Tract G and ending in a cul-de-sac. The development would also include three larger lots. Lots 5. 6. and 7. This property is located immediately north of the Lucr Line Trail and south of the City of Long Lake. Weinberger stated the conditional use permit for the PRD would have the same consideration as the proposal by The Bancor Group regarding use of the land for higher density development with other land being dedicated for other purposes. This application would require a road width variance to allow the road to be developed at iCss than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40 feet wide where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be 50 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 24 foot road. The proposed road would serve as access for the property south of the road as well as potential access for the property to the north and the seven lots being proposed as part of this development, w^ich requires a road width of 28 feet. The subdivision is located within an area containing a number of wetlands as well as lying within the 100 floodplain. This subdivisior: would require a road crossing of a City protected wetland and located a NURP pond within 26 reet of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD will need to approve any v/etland alteration on si'.e. Weinberger noted the property is located outside of the MUSA area, however, this area is proposed to be serviced by City sewer in the future. It has been determined that this area would not be able to offer private septic due to the numoer of wetlands and high water table in the area. The DNR has expressed concerns with the proposed sevrer extension to the south end cf the project, with Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2S50 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. City Staff will continue to work with the DNR on this issue. Weinberger noted that the DNR does have some concerns regarding the extension of sewer under the Luce Line Trail due to future maintenanw issues and would prefer the sewer extension be run along Brown Road. It is City's Staff position that the sewer be installed as proposed. Weinberger stated the developer will also need to grant conservation and flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development, with restriction of land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75 feet of Long Lake Creek. The DNR is requesting the Applicant dedicate a 50 foot conservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 7. Weinberger stated access to the property is via Tract G, which is not currently owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending that the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant, with the corridor being replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Upon review of the sketch plan by the City Council and Planning Commission, it was determined that this development would be best served by access off of Brown Road and not through the urban area in Long Lake. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding Tract G for review by the Planning Commission. Weinberger stated Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75 foot setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek, with a variance being required for the alteration. Park Dedication Fees would be calculated at the standard eight percent of the land value, with a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. City Staff is recommending that the application be tabled to allow the Applicant additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the follows: A. The property owner of Tract G becomes a co-applicant and agrees to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval; B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a ten percent slope; C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south diredly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka; D. City Staff, the applicant, and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service cannot be completed, the City shall review alternatives; E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Van Eeckhout stated he has attempted to meet with City Staff to resolve a number of these issues but was unable to due to their busy schedules. Van Eeckhout stated a 40 foot road access was approved previously by the City, with the City further approving installation of utilities to serve these lots based on the zoning in effect at the time. Van Eeckhout noted that these utilities are currently in place and it would be costly to relocate them and realign the right-of-ways. In addition. Van Eeckhout stated, based on legal advice, he has all the rights to build and maintain adequate roads to serve this property without the need to make Mr. Dunn a co-applicant. Van Eeckhout commented that it should not be a problem to construct a road over the wetland, and requested that a variance granted based on the following reasons: one. since the access Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) corridor will not frops ary huUding sites, no parking Is needed and a 24 foot lane is the same as a highway lane and should provide adequate driving space. The additional four feet adds little functionability to the roadway and would result in the loss of trees as well as add to the hardcover. Van Eeckhout commented the properties can be served by driveways with a grade of seven percent or less. Van Eeckhout stated the sewer should be extended across the Luce Line as this is the most economical approach. Van Eeckhout remarked that these planning issues can be dealt with after preliminary plat approval and prior to final plat. Van Eeckhout requested that the Planning Commission approve his application subject to the conditions outlined by the Zoning Administrator. There were no public comments. Chair Hawn stated she would be happy to comment on the plan In general, but with the location of the road being uncertain at this time, she would have a hard time approving the preliminary plat as proposed. Hawn commented she would also like to see the DNR issues resolved as well prior to approval being given. Stoddard commented the Planning Commission can provide some direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Stoddard stated in his view this land does not have the same uniqueness and capability to be developed as the proposal by The Bancor Group. Stoddard stated in his opinion the proposed density for this development is too high and needs to be reduced somewhat, with the other issues needing to be addressed further with City Staff. Nygard stated he is In agreement with Stoddard and has some concerns regarding the issues relating to the creek. Smith commented in her view she is unsure whether this property meets the qualifications for a PRO. noting she also has some concerns regarding the creek crossing and the sewer extension under the Luce Line. Smith noted that the Luce Line In this area is not easily assessible. Smith encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with City Staff to resolve these issues. Chair Hawn inquired whether the wetlands would be subject to some type of conservation easement. Van Eeckhout staled he would be willing to discuss that issue with City Staff to see what they think is best for this area. Chair Hawn expressed a concern that some of the lots are too small and should be made larger by incorporating some of the other dry buildable land that is available. Van Eeckhout stated he is attempting to preserve the wooded area as much as possible. Lindquist concurred that some of the lots are too small in his opinion. Van Eeckhout commented with a PRD the overall density is what is considered. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission has not approved density less than one acre in the past, and noted he would not be in favor of doing so in this case. Van Eeckhout remarked that this development is adjacent to Long Lake, which has smaller size lots. Page 18 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15,1999 (#2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Kluth commented in his view the density is too high for this area. Chair Hawn stated she would like to see the issues relating to the sewer extension and creek crossing resolved prior to any approval being given on this application. Lindquist stated he wants to see a minimum of one acre zoning for this development. Berg stated the Fire Department will probably question the width of the road and request that it be made wider to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Chair Hawn commented the! it would be appropriate to table this application at this time to allow the Applicant time to resolve some of these issues. Weinberger noted that there are no conservation areas planned at this time. Gaffron stated in order for a PRD to be approved, the benefits to the City must be shown, and that clustering is utilized to help reduce infrastructure costs or preserve more open space and providing a larger open area by preserving the wetlands. Stoddard commented he would like to see lower density and more outlets for this development. Stoddard stated he would be in favor of a PRD if more benefits could be demonstrated, such as more outlets. Chair Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like the Planning Commission to table the application at this time to allow him time to resolve these issues. Van Eeckhout stated he would like the Planning Commission to vote on his application tonight. Gaffron stated if the application is denied, it would proceed to the City Council. If the City Council denies it, at that point the Applicant would need to wait six months before submitting a new application. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the input of the City Council as well on his application. Smith stated the Planning Commission would like to see the Applicant be more fully prepared before proceeding to the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission has provided some good direction to the Applicant on how to proceed. Smith indicated she would prefer to review the application again after the Applicant has resolved some of these issues. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550, Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, per the submitted materials, noting that there is insufficient information available to the Planning Commission in order to make a responsible decision on the application at this time. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ONTINUEDNEW Bust (#7) #2542 BRUCE HEDBLOMTWOLPAROL CLINE-HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. • 10:40 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were r Page 19 I • • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 B m) #2522 BANCOR GROUP, INC - Continued Ban^ said there has been one 60 day extension by the City. Permission of the applicant woul^\e required for another extension. Newman said^ doesn’t have a problem extending the time limit. Jabbour said the would need something in writing regarding extending the time limit. Kelley seconded the \ Flint amended the motion t6'<$tate that it is subject to staff drafting the resolution and presenting it to the CouncU at the next meeting. He asked if Newman would give his written consent to extend the decline. • V Newman said he understands the process "and he is willing to give his written permission. Jabbour said he would like the motion ameihl^d to state that the Council is giving approval based on these conditions, if written permission for an extension is not obtained. \ \ . Flint and Kelley accepted the friendly amendment to the mdlion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. \ \ Break, 10;30 p.m. - 10:35 p.m. \ (#8) #2544 ALFRED AND MARILYN RICHIE, 905 TONKAWA^OAD - FINAL PLAT OF RICHIE ADDITION - RESOLUTION NO. 4400 Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No. 4400, (#9) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - CLASS in SUBDIVISION Charles Van Eeckhout, applicant, was present. Weinberger presented the staff report. This application is for a seven-lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 BroMTi Road South. It is approximately a 20-acre parcel with approximately 14 acres considered dry buildable. The current access to the property is via a private driveway easement across a property known as Tract G which is owned by Mr. John Dunn. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter at their last meeting and recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to deny the request for this subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Page 28 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»9) U2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application as there was a lengthy list of issues to be resolved regarding this property. Weinberger said the application requires the following approvals; 1. 2. A conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development. Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Kelley said he would have a hard time approving this when the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 0 to deny the application. He would like to see what the rest of the Council members feel before Weinberger proceeds with the staff report. Sansevere asked Mr. Van Eeckhout if he has received any information from Mr. Dunn that he will sign the plat documents. Van Eeckhout said that Ntr. Dunn has not signed the access documents. Van Eeckhout said his attorney has told him that he has all the legal access that he needs. He suggested that the City Attorney and his attorney work out the access question. Sansevere said he would not be comfortable moving forward unless it was clarified. Van Eeckhout said it is clarified and that he has an absolute ability to access this property adequately. The worst circumstance would be a condemnation which the City has the authority to do. He said the City approved this access to serve this property and he bought it under those circumstances. He feels this is a legal issue, not a planning issue. Jabbour said Van Eeckhout should expect the elected officials to be ve^ up front with him. He said the Council members are uncomfortable acting on this application. Jabbour said there is a difference between having an access to several homes versus a private easement for one home. Flint asked if access could be from the north for lots 1,2, 3 & 4. Van Eeckhout said it was the general consensus on the part of City staff and his marketing people that access from the north would not make as nice of a community, but it isn t impossible. Flint said that perhaps some of the problems with the 30 percent inclines resulted because of the direction of the access. Van Eeckhout said this application has had some dark shadows cast over it frorn day one. One of those shadows are the 30 and 40 percent grades. He said they are strictly fictitious and Page 29 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (»9) U2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued there are no 30 and 40 percent roadway grades anticipated. He has a layout that shows they can serve all the lots with seven percent grades. Flint said that validates Kelley’s point, that the work has not yet been done at the Planning Commission level that allows the Council to decide on the issues. Van Eeckhout agreed that the Council should not override the Planning Commission. He said this is a difficult process and he does not want to change the plans based on individual suggestions. He again stated he does not feel there is an access problem and it can be worked out between the attorneys. He said the main issue that the Planning Commission raised is the size of the lots in the north portion of the property. The Planning Commission said those lots were too small, but they would not make any kind of commitment regarding the size of lots they would approve. He is reluctant to do detailed road design when he doesn’t know where the road is going to be and he is reluctant to do detailed sewer designs when he doesn’t know where the lot lines will be. He wants direction from the Council before making changes. He said he told the Planning Commission that he is comfortable with a 24’ road width and he doesn’t understand why the City wants a wider road because it will create more hardcover. He said that in light of what they talked about at the Planning Commission, he came up with a new plan which the Planning Commission has not seen. He presented a new plan with more open space. The new plan would eliminate all the creek crossings. Sansevere said he was present at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Van Eeckhout had queried each Commission member on issues that Sansevere thought should have been dealt with at the staff level. Van Eeckhout said the staff will not give him the information. Jabbour said that the Council members want to have a thorough understanding of the project and Mr. Van Eeckhout should work through the Planning Commission process. Regarding the access, the City doesn’t usually go through other people’s land for a road. Kelley asked if this project should be included in the MUSA line. He said there has been an assumption that the City will bring sewer to this property. Jabbour said that assumption was made by the Council when the applicant asked. Sansevere said he is unconffortable with the fact that Mr. Dunn has not signed the plat documents and dedicated the easements in favor of the City of Orono. He asked Barrett if that is something the City must wait for before acting on this application. Barrett said he would recommend that the Council make the PRD conditioned on demonstration of access or the proper title. He said he would give an opinion on the title and if the applicant doesn’t have proper title, then he can’t file the documents. Page 30 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (#9) U2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued Dave McCoskey, 130 South Brown Road, asked how the easement questions can be resolved. Jabbour said that is between Mr. McCoskey’s and the applicant’s title companies. Jabbour said the City cannot act as Mr. McCoskey’s agent. McCoskey said he does not want the development. Jabbour said the applicant has the right to develop the property. McCoskey asked if the access issue controls the whole layout, Jabbour said it can be approved subject to access and it will be up to the applicant to get the access. Douglas Coleman, 140 South Brown Road, asked if the development of the property is dependent on sewer. Jabbour said there must be sewer for this project. It would be hooked up to the Long Lake part of the sewer. The cost of the sewer will be paid for by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Coleman asked about the impact on the stream that runs from Long Lake to Minnetonka. Jabbour said there are shoreline management ordinances that the applicant has to adhere to. There are restrictions up to 300 feet from the creek. Weinberger explained some of the restrictions. The original proposal contained a crossing of the creek for a driveway and the sewer would have crossed the creek. Van Eeckhout said the new proposal eliminates those crossings. Kelley asked about the building envelopes and perhaps there isn’t room for seven lots. Van Eeckhout said the only problem would be the sewer and there is legally room for seven lots. He showed where they would be located. Jabbour asked what the Council wants, a standard subdivision or a PRD. Kelley said he believes it should be developed as a PRD because of the topography. Van Eeckhout said the Planning Commission was hung up on the size of the lots in the north and that is what Van Eeckhout objected to. He siud he had guidance from staff on the size of those lots. He said staff felt the size of the lots was appropriate from a transitional point of Page 31 .1 ■■■ » f rt~ii - ■—*- ■» ■ t I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13» 1999 (»9) U2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued vi v’.v. He is trading the small lots for all the open space on the south end. He said that if the Council likes this concept, he will go back to the Planning Commission. Flint said he prefers the new proposal over the proposal in the staff report. Sansevere asked why the applicant doesn’t make the lots bigger. Van Eeckhout said the best building sites are in those four spots. Jabbour asked how the neighbors feel about the new proposal. Weinberger said there is dry buildable area around the lots in the north that would expand the size of the lots, but the Council should keep in mind the lots to the north of this area in Long Lake are zoned and platted for a 10,000-15,000 minimum size. He said this design maintains all four sewer connections in the same area. He said that originally this was shown using the entire development as part of one of seven lots. Now the applicant is showing open space. The entire area to the south just north of the Luce Line Tr^ is shown as open space which is really almost four acres dry. This also addresses many of the issues the DNR had with the driveway and the sewer crossing of the creek as well as the issue of the sewer line crossing the Luce Line Trail. These are some of the things that the applicant discussed with staff. Kelley asked how everyone feels about the flag lot. Van Eeckhout said he lives on that lot. Coleman said this plan is better than the previous one. Kelley asked why the flag lot was so narrow at the top. Van Eeckhout said it is basically just a driveway at that point. Flint asked if the open space would be deeded to a homeowner’s association. Van Eeckhout said that would be subject to agreement between his attorney and the City ’s representative. He would not object to deeding the open space to a homeowner’s association. Jabbour said he wants the applicant to understand that this proposal will be subject to the access. Sansevere asked if Mr. Dunn is agreeable to sign the documents. Van Eeckhout said Mr. Dunn is in Florida, but he has talked to him once. He said Mr. Dunn has been paid twice for the easement and he wants to be paid again. Page 32 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13,1999 (U9) #2550 CHARLES V a N EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - Continued Kelley said he would like to send this matter back to the Planning Commission. He doesn’t have a problem with the size of the four lots in the north. He would like to have the outlot combined with lot 7 so it is a two-acre parcel. He feels it needs to be connected to sewer because the Comprehensive Plan includes protection of lakes and waterways and there is a waterway through this land. Jabbour told Mr. Van Eeckhout that this matter will be referred back to the Planning Commission and he asked staff to send the applicant a notice for a 60-day extension. Sansevere asked if there were trees on the western portion of Lot 7. Van Eeckhout said Lot 7 is totally wooded. Kelley said the setback could be increased as part of the PRD. Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to refer Application #2550 for Charles Van Eeckhout, 120 Brown Road South, back to the Planning Commission and directing staff to send Mr. Van Eeckhout a 60-day extension. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, HIGHWAY 12 PRELDIINARY LAYOUT- Moorse st31^that this is a resolution approving the Mn/DOT adopted preliminary layout for Highway 12 arlH^letter to go along with the resolution laying out the objectives of the City as the process is conuh^ed to the final design phase. He reviewed changes to the resolution. The Design Review C^lhamittee members reviewed and commented on the resolution and the letter. Sansevere said he objects to meterS^amps. He asked if that can be addressed at this time Moorse said it is addressed in #7, Objectivb^io be Addressed. Kelley asked about the light'mg on the bridges. Jim Murphy said that in the final design there will be a comtt^erable amount of discussion about the kind of lights that go on the bridges. Kelley said he walked the corridor and he feels there will be a lot of hSa^ght wash as cars that are westbound on the new road go underneath Old Crystal Bay Roa^^He said that Mn/DOT should do something to eliminate that headlight wash. Murphy said he will look at the cross sections, but he thinks the highway will be low^than the railroad by two or three feet all the way through there. Page 33 1 1 0 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 249-4600 ZONING FILE #2550 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 24,1999 TO: Charles Van Eeckhout 120 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Preliminary Plat Review Conditional Use Permit (PRD) Variances DATE OF MEETING: November 15,1999 Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial of the application by request of the applicant to allow the matter to move forward to a future City Council agenda. The Planning Commission, based on their review, recommendations of staff and the DNR required additional time for a thorough review. There were also a number of unresolved issues with the zoning request. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 2 and 3 were not consistent with lots that could be approved under standard zoning for the RR-IB district. It was recommended the applicant increase the lot sizes to approximately 1 acre in size. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The following issues must be resolved prior to any approvals by the City Council. A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. C.Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. City Staff, the applicant and the DNR shall determine if a permit can be issued to cross the Luce Line Trail with sanitary sewer service to Fox Ridge. If it is determined the sewer service can not be completed the City shall review alternatives. E. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. F. The DNR, MCWD and any other agencies with jurisdiction must approve grading plans and a crossing of the Long Lake Creek, which is a protected waterway. City Council Review Because the applicant requested the Planning Commission take action on this application it will be before the Council at a future date. The applicant shall be advised the Council may defer any direction to the applicant until the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to fully review the preliminary plat. Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J K L M Application Plat Map Section Map Site Survey Engineer Comments Property Owners List Wetland Map Shoreland District Boundary Map MUSA Map Planning Commission Minutes (May 17,1999) City Council Minutes (July 26,1999) CMP 4-12 through 4-22 Land Use Policies Draft Planning Commission Minutes Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.28 - RR-1B Zoning District Standards 2. Section 10.32 - Planned Residential Development Summary of Request: The Preliminary Plat application for a seven lot residential development for property located at 120 Brown Road South requires the following approvals: 1.A Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development •• This would allow the property to develop at a two acre density using cluster development and preservation space. 2.Road width variance and a variance to allow the road to be developed at less than the minimum requirements. Tract G is platted 40' in width where the City requires a minimum platted width for a private residential road to be SO*. Although the plat indicates a 28' paved width the applicant has proposed a 24' width road. The Subdivision Code requires a minimum paved width for property serving 7 or more sites to develop the road at a 28' width. 3.The subdivision will require a road crossing of a City Protected Wetland and locating a NURP pond within 26' of the City protected wetland. The City Council and the MCWD shall approve any wetland alteration on site. 4.The property is located outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). A MUSA amendment shall be approved by the City Council and the Met Council to provide sewer to the site. 5.The DNR has e.xpressed concerns with the proposed sewer extension to the south end of the project, with the intent of the developer and City to extend sewer under the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Van Eeckhout would install sewer to the south boundary to provide service for the Fox Ridge Sewer Project area. • • Application Date: Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: 11/1/99 11/1/99 12/31/99 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 12/6/99 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:ii2SS0 Charles Van Eeckhout 120 Brown Road South Class III Subdivision Conditional Use Permit Variances Zoning District: RR*IB One Family Rural Residential District Proposal: Seven lot Planned Residential Development on property located at 120 Brown Road South. The proposal will also require variances and a conditional use permit for land alteration, filling in a wetland and road width standards. The DNR is reviewing the proposal for permits to allow filling and crossing a protected tributary (Long Lake Creek) and crossing the Luce Line Trail for sewer extension to the south (Fox Ridge). Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to deny the request for subdivision, conditional use permit and variances based on a request by the applicant to move this item forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission was prepared to table this application to allow additional time for the applicant to revise the Planned Residential Development (PRD) and implement changes to the proposed lot layout based on reconunendations by the Commission. Mr. Van Eeckhout then requested the Planning Commission take action on this item to allow the City Council to review the proposed lot layout and conditional use permit for a PRD. Concerns by the Planning Commission included the size of the four lots located in the northeast portion of the proposed plat and no dedication of conservation space. A PRD would normally require preservation of natural open spaces. This concept does not have any conservation outlots proposed. It would not be desirable to accept areas designated as wetlands as conservation areas since they would be considered protected areas by the granting of conservation and flowage easements with a standard plat. Please review the draft Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit M. 4 The DNR has stated it is opposed to the line under the trail. Long term maintenance appears to be the main issue. StafThas met with representatives from the DNR and have determined the DNR would issue a permit for extending the sewer along Brown Road to the south. They have indicated this is the preferred location for a sewer line to cross the Luce Line Trail. 6.A small portion of the Tract G is platted to the center of Brown Road. Hennepin County has indicated it would require the west 33' be dedicated to the County for right-of-way. 7.Tract G is owned by Mr. John Dunn. Mr. Dunn is not a co-applicant. He would be required to sign the plat documents and dedicate easements over the lot in favor of the City of Orono. The easements would be necessary for public utility and drainage purposes. The standard road easement would be required should it become necessary for the City to acquire the road and open it as a public road. 8.A Homeowner's Association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road and drainage structures within the development. The owner of the 130 Brown Road property, southwest of the development and south of Tract G, has access from the private driveway within Tract G and shall become part owner of a private road. Sketch Plan The City Council and Planning Commission have reviewed the proposal as part of the Sketch Plan review process. Please note the attached Minutes (Exhibits J and K). The City Council recommended to the property owner the City of Orono lias no intent to rezone the property from the two acre standard. The Council has indicated they would consider developing the site as a PRD and make a provision for sewer service. Conformity to Zoning District Standards and Comprehensive Plan The RR-IB zoning district allows a property to develop as a PRD as a conditional use. Under the PRD the City can establish setbacks for each of the lots. The dry buildable areas of lots 1,2,3 and 4 are limited and are between 1/2 acre to 1 acre dry buildable. The lots also are similar to the lots located north of the development in the City of Long Lake. The proposed setbacks shown on the site plan indicate a 35' front yard setback, 10' side yard setback and a 30' rear setback. The established setbacks are similar to other lots in Orono that are zoned 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. Lots 5,6 and 7 are located south of the proposed private road and be subject to setback standards for the RR-IB zoning district. They would be developed with an average size close to two acres. They would be a transition between the higher density to the north and the RR-IB two acre south of the Luce Line Trail. All lots appear to provide suitable building sites based on sewer service being available to the property. Lot 7 is very wide and has very little lot depth. The property is bounded to the north by Long Lake Creek and the South by the Luce Line Trail. The rear yard setback is along the Trail. The front yard setback is 50', but Long Lake Creek is defined as a tributary stream and is within the shoreland protection area. A 75' setback for structure and hardcover is required the same as they apply to lakeshore areas. More detailed grading plans are required. The surveyor shall indicate on the plan set the OHWL of the Creek and 75' structure setback. Access The City Engineer has commented (Exhibit E) the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. Further, he recommends that the access to the site should meet a minimum 50' width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The grades are a concern regarding driveway access to several lots on the property. It appears that existing grades exceed 40% on Lots 2,3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as the City recommends that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlot B will require the construction of a bridge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossing. Outlot B would be a shared driveway in favor of Lots 6 and 7. The drive would be required to cross Long Lake Creek which is a protected tributary stream and subject to Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. A variance would be required to allow a driveway to cross the creek. Driveway locations and proposed grading shall be shown on the survey. Drainage and Ponding The draft version of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. The ponding location is shown on the preliminary survey. Final grading plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench 10-feet wide at the pond normal water level. The outlet structures shall be provided on the final plans indicating the location and actual size of the pond. The City Engineer will require Best Management Practices in all areas where stormwater can not be treated by the NURP pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided for review by the City Engineer prior to further review. Sanitary Sewer A MUSA amendment is required to allow sanitary sewer service to the property. Sewer service has been discussed and a feasibility report has been completed for the Fox Ridge neighborhood south of the Luce Line Trail. The report identified a pressure sewer system as the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckhout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sewer to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridge neigh^rhood if the DNR issued permits for to cross the Luce Line Trail. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow a gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. In discussions with the DNR on December 6,1999 it is clear the DNR would issue a permit for the sewer crossing along Brown Road not as proposed in this plan. The purpose of c:<tcnding sewer service from Long Lake through the Van Eeckhout property is to provide sewer to the Fox Ridge neighborhood. It is unlikely the DNR will issue permits for crossing the Luce Line Trail as proposed because a better alternative is available to cross under the trail below the Brown Road bridge. Longridee Associates Property To extend the sewer south of the Luce Line Trail to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, as proposed on the plan, it would be necessary to obtain a utility easement across a property owned by Longridge Associates. It is no^ known if obtaining the easement would even be possible. Surrounding Properties The property abuts the City of Long Lake to the north, where properties are provided with sewer and the minimum zoning lot size is 10,000 s.f. (approx 1/4 acre). The property abuts the Luce Line trail on the south, and on the east and west abuts neighboring rural residential properties in Orono zoned RR-IB. Just to the south of the Luce Line is the Fox Ridge neighborhood containing 7 lots averaging 1 acre in area, developed in the 1960's. Easements 1.Standard drainage and utility easements along the property lines will be required for the final plat. 2.Subdivider shall grant Conservation and Flowage easements across the wetlands and ponding areas located within the development. Language in the easement documents shall restrict land alteration and removal of vegetation in all wetland areas and within 75' of Long Lake Creek. 3. The DNR has made efforts to maintain a wooded and natural corridor along the Luce Line Trail. They have requested the applicant dedicate a 50' conservation easement over the southern portion of lot 7. Park Dedication Fee 8% of the land value, to be determined by the City Assessor, will be required for Park Dedication Fee. The City of Orono has established a minimum park dedication fee per lot of $2,900 and a maximum of $4,900 per lot. Issues for discussion Access to the property is via a Tract G which is not owned by Mr. Van Eeckhout. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applicant and the corridor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Director of Public Services have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50' in width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. The Tract should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Several lots would be served by driveways with severe slopes exceeding the recommended slope by at least 30%. IT.- r zia 3. 4. 5. Long Lake Creek is a protected tributary and requires a 75' setback for hardcover and structure. The driveway to serve Lot 7 would be required to bridge the creek. A variance would be required for the alteration, however the building pad of the lot is restricted by the lot requiring a 75' OHWL setback. The private road would require the City approve land alteration and mitigation of the City protected wetland. Is the proposed lot layout acceptable with 4 smaller lots to the north and 3 larger lots to the south? Does the plan meet the intent of the PRD for creation of open space areas. Staff Recommendation Conformity to Surrounding Properties and PRD Standards The intent of the PRD Ordinance is to preserve natural open spaces. The subdivision has not made a provision for any space to be held as conservation/open space. Conservation and Flowage Easemeius will be granted in favor of the City of Orono for those areas determined to be within protected wetlands. Under subdivision requirements in a standard plat (not a PRD) the City would also require the same C & F easements for wetland protection. This plan has not dedicated land that would be considered preservation land or "open space". The land located south of the Long Lake Creek has potential to eliminate a few concerns if the lot would be used for conser\ ation purposes. The DNR has requested in a letter dated November 10, 1999 an easement of up to 50' wide along the entire southern border with the Luce Line Trail to benefit the adjacent land owners and trail users by providing a buffer zone of vegetation. A 50' easement would restrict vegetation removal and land alteration. If an easement is requested with the PRD it would not remove the ability to develop the lot. The lot also requires regrading and filling of a portion of the Long Lake Creek for driveway purposes. If the lot does not develop a grading and hardcover would not be required to serve Lot 7. Staff feels a conservation outlot over Lot 7 would be desirable to meet the intent of the PRD standards. The Planning Commission recommended Lots 1 through 4 be realigned to have a minimum size of one acre. It appears the applicant has located the lot lines as showm on the survey to preserve the most ideal building sites. The lots located immediately north of the development are zoned for 10,000 s.f. (approx 1 /4 acre) minimum lot size. The properties, as shown, have a greater lot size than those to the north in the City of Long Lake. Other Concerns A. The property owner of Tract G to be a co-applicant and agree to allowing the property to be replattcd if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots w ill be provided with safe drivew'ay access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10% slope. The applicant shall provide to Staff for engineering review a proposed grading plan for the entire site. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. E. Road width for access to the property shall require a variance. The Code requires 28 feet of width. The applicant has proposed a road 24 feet wide. He has requested a variance from the Subdivision Code requirements. The Council should provide some direction to the applicant regarding the road width variances for Tract G and the conditional use permit for a PRD. Tabling the application to allow additional review by the Planning Commission would require the application deadline to be extended an additional 60 days or the applicant submit a letter requesting the application deadline to be waived. Application for Final Plat Tiie applicant shall be advised the following information is requested to complete the review prior to a final plat application. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Detailed Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control plans shall be submitted for review as requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Met Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. DNR permits shall be issued for crossing the Long Lake Creek for access to Lot 7 (if required). MCWD permit for grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Any additional information requested by the Staff, Planning Commission and Council to be documented in the Preliminary Plat Resolution. AApplication it 2.5'SQ________ Date Received r ftv\A Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ________} Z'O 6>(icuj k) lio/’i.o Property Identification Number (PID)_________________ Please check one • Property'____abstract or ^^torrensr Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name \AnjfT l< mo q ~ Address 12-c € vU) Phone (home) City uO'Vc) u\ec:Zip!7'>?^L Phone (work) OWTsTlR (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) City Zip Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Ta.x Parcels i Development Size N Acres Dry Land U Acres Wet Land ZD Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)Residential; no. of units i Other (specify)f- .•Present Zoning District PROPOSAL *7 Division for Ta.x Purposes Lot Line RcafTnagement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Buildins Sites > Existing Units 4 • • • ‘I *, * • 4 •-*./ • V* f C New Units « 7 Total Units . Proposed Gross Density 3 Units per I Acres • ft m w Minimum Lot Size Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land “j Proposed Use (check)Residential 1 ./ ^ Other (specify) !l(33)i »\ ’ #. C»| '^- I csi ^ ^ • (19) XtV' 03) fi.m 1TL15 (37) i/P^ ym % 9 • -n-J :;(50);(81) c(^) “ c } g (7F) 1(73)- : f 'iVi.j' S t !i0 63) (73) ^ ('b.-ifr.—1 i 3 t (I7)^g X iji.> ? Ooa) 2 1« T4 »«. 14 s 6 5 (?0) s in.53 sJ V >0 • (21) % »!» 33 L • ^-m^. /V “SUS3IYSS s'jsonisi a‘a:> s'uSSI S2CTIDH 3 (921 > V (70)5 •*»• «9 TV (T ’ cv; 1**)= *0 «r (^J (9j e . ^ 31 .33 : ^ . -d. ■;/••:" ; ''' tf'*';-;' . -••••••••••••••v** •• • •. •••••• ••• • • • ^ >Xv •:•>:•:•:; : ‘ :»| *• . ..* —p-ir . ’.V ! . • >.•! /.• •X*i*X ‘l*. •X*‘*> • • •' • • - Xv*-1 • y;:Xv m:Y:r^2 . . . • 9 j ' 4.VT 1 \. 03-m^3i t 5 rt <n l_ n 4' > * riv, (ID — *45 H13C1, (a: \‘ MC^ L.grj nys sie. §3 T. /// /?. • • • • 4 - • * .... , • •»§ • •• OSOHO-38 Lt»6 LAXZ-72 C / \ L ^ .»’4 **>| w4 it*!| •«-«U|r:fS |r^« fOMll f --------------11------- 1 I 1 1 i 1 t 1 llCix^•••••#••«•••••••••• rOM K«|t lillticr KU4U«« %ocx Btsrati' Bis**uf *<r«c»ui cowirft. iMM€urA IM<« cr Biaic it8>ici 9 MOPCitr r«i «« MLIC iCCiMt tl0h(r ||fltl9i Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Boneitroo. Boiene, ArCt'^K AsiOCiJtei, tnc n sn Afftrm^nv^ Action, Sou^i Opportunity Empto PnnctpsH Otto G Bonestroo RE • Joseph C. Andcrhii. PE • Marvm t Sor/«iM. PE. • Glenn R. Cook. PE • Rooert G. Schumcht. RE. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • Robert W Rosene. PE. Richard £. Turner. PE. and Susan M Eberlm. C PA. Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A. Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfefferle. PE • Richard W. Foster. PE • Oa/id O Loskota. PE. • Robert C. Russek. A IA • .Mark A. Hanson. PE. • Michael T Rautrrann. PE. • Ted K.Field. PE. • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidney R Williamson. PE. LS • Robert F. Kotsmith • Agnes M Ring • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl Weosite wwwbonestroo com .a# E November 9,1999 Mr Paul Weinberger Zoning Administralor/PIanncr City of Or.;no Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re:Van Eeckout Subdivision File No. 139-2550 Dear Paul: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed seven lot Van Eeckout subdivision. The site is located east of South Brown Road, south of Long Lake and north of the Luce Line trail in the northeast quarter of Section 3. We have ihc following commcnls in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: The proposed access to the site is across a parcel marked casement area. The parcel is 40-fcct wide. The ownership of this easement area is unclear. We recommend that the access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not across an casement. The access should be a minimum of 50-feet in width to meet City standards for a public or private street. The proposed typical street sections do meet the City standards for a private street serv ing seven or more units. The typical street section for station 0+00 to 4+00 shows an urban curb and gutter section while station 4+00 to the end shows a rural section with ditches. A method of conveying storm water from the urban to rural section should be shown on the plans. This may require flumes, swales, ditching or storm sewer construction. The driveway serving the existing house will need to be relocated so that it doesn t encroach onto Lot 6. Proposed driveway locations to all Lots should be shown on the plans. It appears that existing grades exceed 407o on Lots 2,3 and 7. Driveway design on these Lots will be critical as we recommend that driveway grades not exceed 10%. Access to Lot 7 across Outlet B will require the construction of a bridge or culverts at the stream crossing. The plans should provide a design for this crossing. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion con&ol measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the weUand. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 3. Drainage; The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Tanager Lake drainage district. A general location for a NURP pond has been identified on the plans. The final plans should include final pond grading including a 10:1 aquatic bench lO-feet wide at the pond normal water level (NWL). The pond design should also include an outlet structure that provides 1-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) should be implemented on all areas where storm water cannot be routed directly to the pond. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. SaniUry Sewer: The City ordered and received a feasibility report for sanitary sewer to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood located just south of the Van Eeckout property. The report identified a pressure sewer system v the most feasible to serve the neighborhood. The pressure sewer would be routed up South Brown Road to an existing gravity sewer on Watertown Road. This system would have the potential to serve properties north of Fox Ridge and south of Watertown Road needing sanitary sewer. The Van Eeckout plans include a preliminary design for sanitary sewer to serve the site. The plans show a gravity sewer system that ties into an existing sanitary manhole at the south end of Apple Glen in Long Lake. This proposed system could potentially serve the Fox Ridp neighborhood if permission were obtained to cross the Luce Line and the parcel directly south of the Luce Line. The proposed alignment as shown would not provide sewer service to properties along South Brown Road. The topography would allow the gravity sewer to be extended westerly in the proposed roadway to South Brown Road to provide future sanitary service. The City of Long Lake should be consulted regarding proposed connections to their sanitary sewer 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651-636*4600 ■ Fax; 651-636-1311 system. The developer should provide detailed sanitary sewer design including plan and profile sheets. The City of Orono should review the sanitary sewer needs along South Brown Road and determine whether a westerly extension of the sewer to South Brown Road makes sense. We can provide a cost estimate to extend the proposed sewer southerly to serve the Fox Ridge neighborhood with gravity sewer if the City so desires. 5. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 146. Drainage and utility easements should be provided S feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of- ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 1 J RUN DATE 09/08/99 ' I BATCH 507 RROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAtfE/ADOR PROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OMNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 03-117-23 11 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HXLLAN JR ETAL LONCRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55990 38 03-117-23 12 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN STATE OF HINN tONR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMNERS LIST 38 03-117-23 11 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINNESOTA STATE OF HINN (DNR) (LUCE LINE TRAIL) REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 29 38 03-117-23 12 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROMN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROMN RO PO BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0001 00350 BROWN RD S M F FARLEY i K 6 FARLEY MILLXAH 8 KATHLEEN FARLEY 350 BROMN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 13 0007 01895 FOX RIDGE RD T J DAYTON 0 H DAYTON TOBIN J 8 HAE DAYTON 1895 FOX RIDGE RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RO P O BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RD P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0010 00130 BROWN RD S WALTER RICHARD HCCARTHY JR HALTER RICHARD HCCARTHY JR C/O FCI 332 HINNESOTA ST R2100 ST PAUL HN 55101 38 03-117-23 13 0005 01995 FOX RIDGE RO ROB HACK RAYHOND H HACK 1995 FOX RIDGE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0001 00025 BROWN RD S S BITTHAN 8 L BITTHAN SCOTT 8 LISA BITTHAN 25 BROWN RO S LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 12 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 9300 DEPT 28 HPLS HN 55990 38 03-117-23 12 0005 00120 DROWN RO S CHARLES E VAN EECKHOUT ETAL CHARLES E VANEECKHOUT 120 BROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 SB 03-117-23 12 0008 00020 BROWN RD S JOHN F DUNN ETAL JOHN F DUNN 20 S BROWN RO P 0 BOX 77 LONG LAKE HN 55356 3B 03-117-23 12 0011 00190 BROWN RD S DAL COLEHAN JR DOUGLAS R COLEHAN JR 190 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 03-117-23 IS 0006 01995 FOX RIDGE RO 0 E KIRKHAN 8 J H KIRKHAN DAVID E 8 JOANNE H KIRKHAN 1995 FOX RI06E RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 .03-117-23 21 0007 00195 BROMN RD S JOHN H MINTON JOHN H MINTON 1319 HARQUETTE AVE R903 HPLS HN 55903 • m iL'i J ) RUN DATE 09/08/99 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 507 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 21 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN CDNRI ILUCE LINE TRAIL I 38 03-117-23 21 0019 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOHN P EARLING JOHN P EARLING 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0020 00032 APPLE GLEN RD X V BIGELOW I J T BIGELOW KENNETH I JUDY BIGELOW 32 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0060 00096 CREEKSIDE DR J T PASTER 8 A L PASTER JAMES T PASTER 96 CREEKSIDE LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0063 00069 CREEKSIDE DR MARY ANN HANSEN MARY ANN HANSEN 69 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0072 00091 APPLE GLEN RD D J DUDINSKY ET AL DAVID J DUDINSKY 91 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 30 38 03-117-23 21 0019 02010 COLIN DR DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III DOUGLAS W FRANCHOT III 2010 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 03-117-23 21 0018 00038 ADDR ;SS UNASSIGNED LLOYD S KELLEY LESTER S KELLEY 2135 COLIN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 39-118-23 99 0003 00135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDMUND W F RYDELL EDMUND RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0019 00038 APPLE GLEN RD M E 8 M B GUTHRIE MARY 8 MITCHELL GUTHRIE 38 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0021 00026 APPLE'GLEN RD JAYE ANN ZULLO JAYE ANN ZULLO 26 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 39-118-23 93 0022 00020 APPLE GLEN RD T W WOLLIN OMR WILLIN THOMAS 8 MELANIE WOLLIN 20 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 (. . )■ • \ 72 S4-118-2S 0061 000S2 CREEKSIDE DR J L OHMAN ORA OHHAN JOHN L OHHAN 52 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 36-118-23 43 0062 00058 CREEKSIDE DR H I J BERNS HICHAEL E B JOLYNN H BERNS 58 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 % ' "■ V kJ:. ,-J 72 34-118-23 43 0064 00043 CREEKSIDE DR R G ROACH OKA ROACH ROBERT G 0 KIHBERLV A ROACH 43 CREEKSIDE DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0070 00025 APPLE GLEN RD S C FEDIE A H L FEDIE STEVEN C I WENDY L FEDIE 25 APPLE GLEN RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 . • •' V. ; -.1 72 34-118-23 43 0073 00035 APPLE GLEN RD N E 8 H J STRUZIK NICHOLAS E STRUZIK 35 APPLE GLEN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 43 0074 01480 KENNEDY LA L R DANIELSON/N N DANIELSON LEE R I NANCY H DANIELSON 1980 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 ) % J RUN DATE OVOS/99 BATCH 507 PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY IHFORHATIWI SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. P1A35A01 PACE 31 72 3A-11S-23 A3 0075 01005 KENNEDY LA NANCY E PETERSON NANCY E PETERSON 1985 KENNEDY LA LONG LAKE HN »53S6 (72 39>118-23 A3 0083 08010 DROWN RD S D P 8 L A ERICKSON DAVID P A LISA ANN ERICKSON 10 DROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 3A*118-23 A3 0081 00055 VALLEY VIEW RD G W ANDERSON I S J ANDERSON GREGORY W 8 SALLY J ANDERSON 55 VALLEY VIEW RD- LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 3A-118-23 A3 0082 00018 BROWN RD S JUDY L KELLETT JUDY L KELLETT IB BROWN RD S LONG LAKE HN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 507 OOOAO OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 9- 9- « f. *•••% V‘ \ /’■■ I /) ■; ) •• > < J 8.-. -.9 ' ] a 3, T.nz /?. 23 G? SEC. 34, TI18,R.23 VIL OF ORONO YJHF ■ i SEC.34.T.118,R.23 $Ho«epw<ib ■&tST«4or ^OI4NOA<Y a ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2488 GREGG KLOHN, CONTINUED KIo*in staled he would like the application to be tabled. Havn inquired whether he .would be willing to waive Uie 60 day time limit • • ■ • 0 . • » * Klohn indicated that would be fine. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application #2488,4455 North Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit revised plans, and to extend the 60 day time limit to 120 days. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.* SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#11) #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Charles Van Eeckhout was present Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting to subdivide a 20 acre parcel to create nine sewered building sites ranging from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acres In area. This proposal would require rezoning the area from RR-1B, Single Family, 2 Acre, to R-1A, Single Family, 1 acre; extension of the sanitary sewer from the City of Long Lake; expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area; variances to the back lot ordinance; creation of a private road In a substandard corridor; variances to lot width; creation of a shared driveway crossing of Long Lake Creek; construction of a road or driveway through at least two delineated wetlands; creation of a wetland outlot for Park; and construction of an 800 foot private driveway extending from the private road to serve Lot 4. Charles Van Eeckhout staled that he has O’wned the property for the past 29 years. Van Eeckhout stated that he has done other subdivisions within the City of Orono and has made It a point to avoid the need for variances as much as possible. Before purchase of this property. Van Eeckhout commented that he checked with the City of Orono regarding what regulations existed regarding possible subdivision of this area and that this proposal encompasses essenually what he v/as told he could do at that time. Van Eeckhout stated that In 1975, the City rezoned this area, which changed this area from a one acre density to two acre, and that rezoning should be considered as a taking of value, and that this property should be allowed to be developed under one acre standards as he was originally told. Van Eeckhout remarked that he did not receive any compensation for the taking, which in his * opinion decreased the value of his property. Van Eeckhout noted that a lot of new rules and regulations have been adopted by the CHy over the years, and requested that the Planning Commission rezone this area back to what It onginally was at the time of purchase. G'-"ron commented that the City of Orono would disagree with the opinion that the rezoning was a taking. Van Eeckhout staled that he has quarter acre lots to the north adjacent to his property, one acre lots on the northwest, and one acre lots to Lhe south, and wetlands to the east. Van Eeckhout remarked that in essence his property was spot zoned at the time the area was rezoned. Van Eeckhout commented that this subdivision would contain one acre lots, which In his opinion are Page 16 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #;490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED sufficient lots, noting that two acre lots wou ’d cost more, and that due to environmental concerns because of its location by Long Lake Creek, this area should be connected to City sewer. A large number of trees alsp exist on the property which cannot be cut down. Van Eeckho'ut stated that he would like to have a forester out there to review the situation to determine v/hether some of the trees can be cut down to help the undergrowth grow back. Van Eeckhout stated he Is willing to work with City Staff on these Issues. Lindquist remarked that he understands Van Eeckhout's position on the taking, but that is an Issue for the City Council. Lindquist commented that in his opinion this area should remain zoned at two acres. Hawn stated she Is In agreement with Lindquist and that the Planning Commission does not do rezoning. Hawn remarked that this area might be a potential site for a PRD and might lend itself to some cluster development. Van Eeckhout commented that in his opinion under this sketch plan there Is sufficient spacing for the proposed residences, noting that he would not have a problem with doing a PUD on this area as he has presented it tonight Stoddard stated that he also concurs that this Is an issue for the City Council to determine, noting that the Planning Commission is a recommending body and it does not appear that the Planning Commission would recommend rezoning of this area. Stoddard remaiiced that the City also needs to make a determination bn whether this area should be included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Hawn noted that this application is driven by whether or not the Applicant can rezone this property and that issue should be resolved first before further consideration Is given to this sketch plan. Gaffron stated that the area south of the Luce Line Is zoned two acres, noting that Fox Ridge was developed back in the 1960s. Stoddard commented that the Applicant will also need to determine the type of wetlands that exist on the property. Van Eeckhout stated that in his opinion this area is Incorrectly zoned wetland and he has farmed the wetland area on a regular basis. Van Eeckhout remarked that the wetland Is six feet above the v/ater level. Van Eeckhout commented that In his opinion this area can adequately support nine structures. Lindquist stated that in his opinion this area will probably remain zoned at two acres. Hawn noted that it has was the consensus of the Planning Commission In a meeting regarding the comprehensive plan not to extend sanitary sewer to prevent denser housing. Hawn suggested Uie Applicant look at a PRD. Van Eeckhout noted that a PRD would require extension of the sewer. Hawn staled that a PRD probably would require extension of the sewer. Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2490 CHARLES AND SUE VAN EECKHOUT, CONTINUED Gaffron remarked that If the Applicant took the total bulldable acreage of the divided It by two. the Applicant might be able to put a maximum of seven homes on this property, and that clustering may help to preserve some of the natural features of the area. • . Van Eeckhout commented that the City should take a long-range view as far as it relates to sewer Issues, noting that in his opinion eventually sewer will more than likely be needed in Orono. Gaffron stated this application will go before the City Council at their June 14th meeting, noting that no formal action Is needed to be taken by the Planning Commission on this application. (#12) #2491 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN Deborah Sholl was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant Is requesting a sketch plan review for a Cla^ HI Subdivision • • for property located at 4100 Watertown Road, which consists of appro^'^jf ^e^ 37 acrw. Approximately two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the Crty The Applicant Is proposing to create two parcels, with one parcel being approximately 14 acres, 12 acres dry bulldable, and the other we^ parcel would be 23 parcels. Weinberger stated that there was a conditional use permit on this property domestic animals for commercial purposes and to allow the continued use of the ProP®«5^JfJ a public riding stable. Following sale of the property, the commercial use of the P^P® Jy ha9 ceased. The property also contains two residential properties on one lot without ® rt use permit for a guest house. The lot was combined with another five acre lot to the northeast in January of 1996. Weinberger remarked that two oversized accessory buildings are located on the Pf’^P®']^^’ Oversized accessory buildings are allowed In this district subject to the wndition . than one oversized accessory structure shall be permitted on any FOps^y. An oversiz is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. The tot footfrint area for the two accessory buildings Is 14,497 square feet. all accessory buildings where 6,000 square feet is allowed. Variances are also needed setbacks to the houses and the guest house. There are also some structures located on the property without a principal structure. Weinberger stated that the use of an accessory building for keeping enimals for non-oomm purposes Is a permitted use provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property or resident and meets the available area standards, which requires that a ni'n^niurn of^o open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available lor each additional horse. dedicated is not considered as tot area. Page 18 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 26,1999 lA (#5) #2490 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWn ROAD SOUTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present along with Tom Loucks, Planner. Gafifron stated the Applicant is requesting City Council direction regarding potential rezoning of this site to allow higher density housing. This lot is comprised of 20 acres, with roughly 12 to 14 acres being dry buildable. This lot is located outside of the MUSA, but an issue for City Council consideration is whether this property should be developed with City sewer regardless of whether it is rezoned. A third item for consideration is whether Council believes the Mtc should be considered for a Planned Residential Development. GaSiron stated the Applicant presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission which called for nine sewered building sites ran^g in size from 1.0 acre to 1.8 acre. The Planning Commission did not offer the Applicant much direction as they felt that the City Council should determine whether this property should be rezoned and whether City sewer should be provided. Loucks stated that this 20 acre parcel has unique characteristics, noting that the site abuts the City of Long Lake as well as the Long Lake sewer lines. The site is adjacent to some two acre developments as well as a number of one-third to one acre residential developments in ^ Long Lake. Loucks requested that the City Council consider the possibility of a PRD for this property. Loucks stated the proposed lots range from 15,000 to 20,000 feet to 1.5 acres with a diversity of housing being contemplated. The Applicant will attempt to preserve as much of the natural features of this property as possible. Gaffron stated that a zoning code amendment requires a 4/5's majority vote, noting that this property would not need to be rezoned in order to do a PRD if density standards are met. The number of units being proposed does exceed the number that could be accomplished throu^ a standard two acre plat, and a PRD does not allow the City to increase the density, hence this proposal for nine lots on 12 - 14 acres would require rezoning. Kelley commented that he is not in favor of rezoning, but would support a PRD with seven lots and hookup to City sewer. Mayor Jabbour thanked the Applicant for his efforts in attempting to preserve the natural characteristics of this property. Kelley remarked that he was unsure whether onsite sewer sites would be available on this site due to the topography and wetlands that exist. Flint inquired if the zoning is not changed, how a PRD would assist the Applicant. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 26,1999 (#2490 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Loucks stated under a PRD they would be able to have lots that are less than two acres as long as the density standard is not exceeded. Flint inquired what the density standard is for this lot. Loucks stated the area will need to be calculated, but in his view there is approximately 16 acres of upland. Loucks stated they are willing to work with City Staff on this matter. Sansevere stated he was in agreement with Kelley on the density. Peterson commented that she also was in agreement with Kelley regarding the density. Mayor Jabbour stated that in his view a PRD would be appropriate, noting that he is amenable to extending City sewer to this property. (#6) #2492 RICK AND GAEL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD - VARIANCE AJO) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Luzaich, Applicant, was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attomey-at-Law. Weinberger stated that the Applicant’s reforestation plan was denied at the last City Council meeting, with a revised plan having been submitted by the Applicant today. The Applicant is proposing to add a number of trees, which increases the canopy cover over the entire property. The City's consulting forester is recommending a minimum spacmg of 25 feet which will allow for greater canopy coverage when the trees mature. Bedker is recommending that any plan submitted by the Applicant restore a minimum of 90 percent of the estimated 14,450 square feet of tree canopy that was removed. The Applicant's plan achieves 83 percent canopy restoration over the 25 year period. Bedker is ready to recommend adoption of the plan with the recommended changes. Weinberger stated the issues for consideration by the City Council include the right to review the subject property by City Staff to ensure eventual full restoration on the property. Staff is recommending that a letter of credit be on file with the City to ensure reforestation of this property as well. Reznick stated according to his understanding, the Applicant's landscape architect was to meet with the City ’s forester, which has been done, and the recommendations of the City ’s forester 8 IM LAND USE JUNE, 1980 I AND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following 9oals and policies which in turn have been actively develops by Orono residents over the last 25 years. ]frwn USg GOALS 1, TO BEINFORCE ORONO'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT. 2.TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE URBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. 3.»ro PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR A VARIETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTIAL, EDUCATIONAL, RECREATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERC ACTIVITIES. 4. TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES 5. TO COORDINATE ORONO'S LAND USES WITH THAT OF NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. 6. TO COORDINATE LAND USES AND DEVELOPED ?S^pr0VIDE THEPHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS TO PROV NECESSARY PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. 6ENERA1 1.THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) IS FIXED, orono's Urban Service Area (MUSA) and Sewer Service Area (MSSR) are fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan and are legally described by Resolution of the City Council as shown on Map Mo. 6. 2.ORONO'S lAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRON^NTAL PROTECTION POLICIES. Land use and development roust assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental protection Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting thei misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. CMP 4-12 I 4 I AND USE JUNE, 1980 3. 4. 5. 6. DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED DRAINAGE ANDWHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases tne speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed Ian use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY tHE as wildlife habitats as °^^o ?ec5?on siomONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND WATER runoff FILTRATION. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading I excavation or drainage. Wherever poss i the City will acquire open space and flowage ease ments for conservation of these lands. PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ^LOW ^^^°5JJ®ggj^^ENCROAcL^T. ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCR In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach * are sensitive environmental features with signifi impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values an land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reason able in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear- cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. CMP 4-13 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 7. DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Host of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 8. NATURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. This will include topographical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public or private. 9. ORONO'S LAND USE PLAN WILL PROMOTE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 11. ALL LAND OI-INERS MUST HAVE EQUAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and require ments of the Community Management Plan. 12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the ]and and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. Cl'iP 4-14 I r II I 3 a Q n LAND USE JUNE, 1980 y 3 y 13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 14. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configura tions, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 15. ALL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. Physical Improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform, City- established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 16. DEVELOPERS MUST DEDICATE LANDS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence Increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP 4-15 JUNE, 1980 LAND USE> T€ the individual development’s density increase « i«p.=ri. relatively small, or the - not cLducive to public land "o lieu of lands the developer may be requir contribute funds for the municipal such lands or the improvement of such faci i re::!:“rn:rea:rirom'::iitpirsrari‘^L:eirpLnte. ?S aS mstic1 ™;%^pSsPusf WITH THIS PLAN. Land to be developed must be of "«h et«. Character and locatlcn ‘hat it can be safely used for the intended purpose , danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. NO land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the ^ity for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe lim favorable for development, severe erosion potential, un topography, inadequate water supply or . dispLal capabilities, or any other «®®^®^® to be harmful to the health, safety, °^^® , , _ the future residents of the proposed subdivision of the community. lIRRAN LANn USE POLICIES 1.THE MAJORITY OF ORONO’S URBAN AREA LAND USE. Orono’s urban residential neigh o will provide the opportunity for a variety , housing types and price ranges. Many urban ^®®^^®"®®® will be intimately associated with the la e and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low multi-family residential uses will be locations near existing shopping and services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 I « c a il k k LANDJISE JUNE, 1980 2. 3. 4. 5. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF TfflS EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. CMP 4-17 I LANILJISE JUNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. Mew land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sever, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. Mew development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. •• < THE EXISTING URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing Increased development in those areas. 10. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. CMP 4-18 1 I I 1 3 t i i i n i d LAND US£ JUNE, 1980 11 A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDSOPEN SPACE WILL BE retained on each property. Retention of natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OP OMAN ENCROACHMENT ON lake MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width ^iH spa out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro hibitions against clearcutting or thinning of vegetation. Natural y®9®^®^ be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion# in which case they w screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USF POLICIES^ 1.ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE ^SERVED FOR PERMANENT U)W-DENSITV residential land use. Orono's rolling rural is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs marshland assimilative ^ preclude expansion of the urban major environmental problems for ^®^®^ Therefore, the ideal land use for tha por Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area (MUSA) is the planned low-density rural land use. Commercial and industrial uses w be permitted in the rural area. CMP 4-19 I AND USE JUNE. 1980 2.ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR Q AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were a urban or all rural. 3. LI 4. 5. 6. RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDITIONS. Development of rural Orono is naturally lim e by a number of conditions including wetlands, steep slopes and areas . table, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as t e and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono's Community Management Plan is ^ ® *5® growth plan. The urban service area will expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will n£t be extended into the rural a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will ®® overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatible with rura land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE. Orono’s soil, topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary o ^ assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water, surface water or e public health. CMP 4-20 I I I and use JUNE, 1980 i ■ 7. nc eTm-TTrr'P TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PRO CAPABILITY. Future development in the r will be contingent upon the developer ^ prior technie.1 evidence th.t Jh® Efficient eulteble lend for all ’,td acceptable prlnary drainfield area, ^ spac^ lor at least one alternate ^”xnfleW^-«a. The zoning area requirements for therefore be based upon nlnlmum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, streams or areas of high water table. 8.RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All -r-erro^:n;^vtn :rif!“pJorttn,3^ th. _ t:r.^t*tren:ert’’rnd ‘iiLinari:;rove„ents>aln^ ll as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. 9.RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OP PRIVATE WOOD and OPEN SPACE. Low rural <iensities wiix accommodate homesites without affec *'9 traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands ^ lands will then assure permanent habitat tor our abundant wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Parx Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or "P®^ are unnecessary because of the ^^rge of available privately owned and maintaine open space. will increase. Orono's rural land use plans wiix piotect lll of our rural wetlands and -“shland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the ^eastd^nutlientrecycled urban storm water for increasea filtration. CMP 4-21 I AND USE JUNE, 1980 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS V7ILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In addition, the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas, including miniruin setbacks, green belts, clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to large extent the original appearance of rural shoreline as seen from the lake. Orono * s THE LAND USE PLAN MAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY: THE DESIGNATIOI OF ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The detailt location of the dividing line {the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluat.',isv of each of the elements of this Community Management Plan. Environmental concerns, historic land use patterns, and the availability of sewer, transportation and other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actual MUSA line location. Orono*s Urban Service Area identifies those portions of the City that have been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro politan Council's Development Framework Guide. Orono*s Rural Servxce Area identifies those portions of the City that do not have urban service and are not planned to have urban services. Orono*s Rural Service Area is intended to permanently accommodate General Rural Land Uses And^ housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council, and as distinctly different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono*s MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally describ and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14, 198 This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council. urono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the ^ broad-brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan Counci Orono*s MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and Ian use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono's MUSA line location direct affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City. MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the basis for land use zoning decisions. CMP 4-22 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR ______________ AAMU/i/iy \^,2oeo E Stoddard inquired whether there were any precedents similar to this situation. Weinberger stated this lot line rearrangement is not increasing the housing density in this area, but would allow the Applicant to create two lots meeting the one acre zoning requirement Weinberger stated these two lots would continue to be considered two housing units. Hawn stated In her view meeting the required lot size is an important factor to consider in this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicants are agreeable to the other conditions recommended by City Staff. Mr. Ploen indicated they are agreeable to the conditions. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2400, 4345/4365 North Shore Drive, Class I Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement, subject to the five conditions outlined In the January 12,2000 Planner's Report and further subject to removal of the garage located closest to Lot B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mrs. Ploen inquired when the garage would need to be removed. Weinberger indicated six months from the time of approval would be fine. (#3) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 7:32 p.m. - 8:23 p.m. Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present, along with John Berg, Loucks 4 Associates. Weinberger stated this application was reviewed at the November Planning Commission meeting, where the application was denied due to the number of issues to be resolved and concerns regarding DNR permits for sewer and driveway extension across Long Lake Creek, a protected waterway. The Applicant has submitted a revised plan for the subdivision to create an open space south Page 11 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FORMMMMASab of the creek, which eliminates any concerns with crossing the creek as well as concerns regarding bridging and extension of the sewer line across the creek. The DNR has requested the developer dedicate a conservation easement along the south boundary of the property to help preserve the natural area along the Luce Line Trail. As it relates to sewer access to the Fox Ridge neighborhood, the best option would be to have the sewer come up from the south due to some of the concerns by the DNR of crossing the Luce Line Trail with the sewer line. Weinberger stated the original proposal had access to this subdivision off of Brown Road, ending in a cul<de*sac, with the private road servicing four lots. The City Engineer has recommended the proposed access to the property be platted as part of the subdivision and not by easement. He further recommends that the access io the site should meet a minimum 50 foot width to meet City roadway standards for a public or private street. The Applicant ’s latest proposal has the same road configuration and also contains the same four lots off of the cul-de-sac. The lots located south of the private road have been revised to allow for larger lots. Weinberger stated one issue of concern is the fact that access to the property is via a Tract G, which is not owned by the Applicant. Staff is recommending the owner of Tract G become a joint applic'’''t and the com'dor be replatted as part of the subdivision. The City Engineer and Public Works Director have recommended the entire access corridor be platted 50 feet In width to provide space for future utilities along the private road. Tract G should be in ownership of the Homeowner's Association as they will be responsible for the maintenance. Weinberger indicated a driveway easement has been granted many years ago to the current residence. Weinberger stated it is unclear whether the driveway easement would entitle the developer to utilize the road to service other properties. The Applicant has indicated that his Title Insurance Company has verified that they will guarantee access to the seven lots. Weinberger stated in 1977, Halstad Acres was developed to the south of the access, vrhich is owned by Mr. Dunn. With that development, an easement was granted for roadway purposes Page 12 .1 . .....ri.. . ................. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FORmmmmimm with the Intent tnet some day access would need to be provided for this property. This Issue becomes a legal question over whether the driveway easement gives the Applicant the right to construct a roadway to serve his development Weinberger noted the City Engineer has reveiwed the drainage and grading plan for the subdivision and is requesting some modifications. The City Engineer at this time has some concerns regarding the size of the holding ponds and wants to insure that this development will not increase the runoff to the surrounding area. The developer will need to submit the requested Information for review and approval by City Staff. Weinberger stated this proposed subdivision is located Immediately adjacent to Long Lake, with the subdivision being serviced with sewer from an existing Long Lake sewer line. The Applicant Is requested to submit the following information for review and approval prior to a final plat application. 1. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review es requested by the City Engineer. 2. Final plans for sewer and water extension, including detailed sanitary sewer line profiles, shall be approved by Staff prior to review. 3. The Metropolitan Council shall approve a MUSA expansion to the site. 4. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for review and approval by Staff. All ponds shall meet NURP standards. The ponds shown In the development may not meet the minimum standards a NURP pond requires. 5. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required for site land alteration and wetland mitigation. 6. All easement documents for utilities, drainage and conservation land shall be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Final plans for the construction of the roads shall be submitted for review. 8. The applicant provides final lot area (dry buildable acreage and wetland acreage) Page 13 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR predevelopment. The Applicant shall be advised 14 acres dry buildable Is required for a seven lot subdivision. City Staff is recommending this application be based to allow additional time to resolve a number of complex issues, which includes the following: A. The property owner of Tract G become a co-applicant and agree to allow the property to be replatted if he will remain the owner subsequent to plat approval. B. More detailed engineering data is required to ensure lots will be provided with safe driveway access. The City recommends driveways not exceed a 10 percent slope. C. Stormwater calculations should be submitted for review to ensure the site can treat all runoff. Stormwater will flow directly to the Long Lake Creek which flows south directly to Tanager Lake of Lake Minnetonka. D. A grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for the entire site shall be submitted for additional review. Weinberger noted the revised plan does meet the Intent of a PRD. Van Eeckhout commenled the road access issue is a legal issue and indicated he is willing to work with City Staff to resolve this issue. Van Eeckhout stated the letter received from his title insurance company indicates that they are willing to guarantee access to this subdivision via this driveway easement which was granted a number of years ago. Van Eeckhout stated he has revised the plans in an attempt to comply with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City Staff. Berg stated they would be willing to relocate the road to help increase the lot size of the two north lots, reduce the encroachment into the wetland area, and preserve more trees. Smith inquired what the Impact would be if the road were relocated right next to the wetland. Berg stated any runoff from the road would need to be directed to the other side Into a holding pond and away from the wetland area. Berg commented in his view this would not be a major issue to resolve. Page 14 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR Smith commented the only way to create lots of one acre or more was to reduce the number of lots from four to three. Weinberger inquired whether the iand area calculations were determined by a surveyor. Berg indicated they were, with the revised calculations indicating 13.7 acres dry buildable. Weinberger stated the new numbers under a standard plat or PRD must meet ail the minimum lot size requirements, with 13.7 acr - jry buildable meaning the developer may have six lots in this subdivision. Berg stated this subdivision surpasses the City's ordinances for a standard sewered lot Berg pointed out they are only three-tenths of an acre less than 14 acres dry buildable. Berg stated one area within this subdivision was artificially lowered a number of years ago, which may not become flooded. Stoddard stated it would still be defined as a wetland. Van Eeckhout commented part of the wetland is located above the 100 year floodplain and would In all likelihood never be wet Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion this area would not have needed to be included in the wetland calculations. Stoddard stated the Planning Commission reviews these applications based upon the information that is submitted by the Applicant. Stoddard commented at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had focused on the size of the lots and had requested the developer look at increasing the tot size as much as possible. Kluth commented he likes the bigger lots in the northeast comer. Van Eeckhout stated in his view this is a good plan, and requested the Planning Commission act on his application. Hawn requested the Applicant address the issue of access. Van Eeckhout staled he has paid Mr. Dunn three times lor the same easement Van Eeckhout stated he has had an attorney review this easement as well as his title insura "ce company, who have both assured him that he is legally entitled to construct a road over this easement to Page 15 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR serve his subdivision. Tom Ban^tt. City Attorney, noted he has attempted to review all the documents relating to this Hem. Barrett stated there appears to be a utility easement over the southern portion of the property as well as the driveway easement Banett stated in his view the problem with the document agreeing to the driveway easement Is H does not further address any other issues. such as whether this driveway easement should support access to other residences. Barrett recommended approval of this application be made contingent upon final resolution of this issue. Barrett stated another issue dealing with the access is whether the City would allow a private road as an access, Barrett commented he has questions whether the driveway easement would allow the developer to build a public road. David Berkowski, South Brown Road, inquired what the additional ten foot area represented. Weinberger stated the City of Orono requires at the time a private or public road is constructed within a subdivision that 50 feet of right-of-way is dedicated only for roadway purposes. Weinberger stated the developer is requesting a 24 foot road vridth, with City Code requiring 28 foot. The additional space is utilized for snow storage or shoulder. When it was originally platted, the City required a ten foot roadway and utility easement across the north ten feet of Berkowski's property. Berkowski inquired whether the trees located within that easement could potentially be removed. Weinberger stated they could. Berkowski commented in his view the access issue should be resolved. Hawn commented from the information supplied tonight, it does not appear the road would run across the northern portion of his property. Ktuth Indicated access would become a condition of approval, and If not met. the subdivision would not be approved. Weinberger stated the City currently owns the ten foot easement. Weinberger stated City Page 16 > i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR Ordinance requires a 28 foot roadway, with a variance and a demonstration of a hardship being necessary in order for the City to approve a 24 foot road. Staff Is recommending construction of a 28 foot roadway. Berg stated they are attempting to preserve as many of the trees in this area as possible, noting there will be no parking on the roadway. Smith commented the reason behind the 28 foot requirement is to allow adequate access for emergemey vehicles. Weinberger stated if the roadway were to service only six lots, it would require a 24 fool roadway. Stoddard stated the developer may need to decide whether to create six lots or seven lots. Weinberger stated the City of Orono has been very consistent In the past on what they approve. in terms of density. Hawn commented the major issues before the Planning Commission tonight are access, size of the lots, and the size of the roadway. Weinberger pointed out even if six lots were created within this subdivision, the roadway itself would be serving seven lots. Hawn commented she personally would like to see bigger lots in this subdivision. Nygard concurred that he would like to see larger lots within this development. Kluth commented he would be agreeable to allowing a 24 foot road if only six lots were created. Hawn stated the Applicant needs to submit the appropriate documentation to the City demonstrating resolution of the access issue. Kluth noted City Staff is recommending tabling this application until these issues are resolved. Van Eeckhout commented he would like the Planning Commission to act on his application tonight. Hawn inquired whether the ten percent slope for the driveway Is an Issue, Van Eeckhout stated that is not an issue. Smith inquired whether the members of the Planning Commission preferred six lots with a Page 17 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FORVWMSpItiii * 24 foot roadway or seven tots with a 24 foot roadway. Stoddard indicated he preferred the six tots. Kluth stated based upon the conditions stated by City Staff, the developer may need to reduce the number of lots. e Weinberger stated this is another application that will need to be extended. Weinberger stated City Staff wouid be comfortable vnth sending this application to the City Council provided some direction is given to the Applicant on the conditions he should comply vnth. Barrett noted the Planning Commission has suggested the developer consider reducing the number of lots to six on a couple of occasions, with the developer indicating he preferred to leave the number of lots at seven. Barrett stated the Planning Commission could vote to deny.. this application, with dear direction on what the Planning Commission would like to see occur on this application. Kluth moved, Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2550,120 Brown Road South, Subdivision for Planned Residential Development, with a strong recommendation the developer consider reducing the number of tots within this subdivision to six In order to comply with the conditions outlined in the January 10,2000 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2555 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES, 8:25 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publicatior were noted. Guy Nowlan and Greg Chock appeared on behalf of Hennepin County. Weinberger stated the Hennepin County Transportation Department is proposing to construct a Hi-Arch gambrel type salt storage building at the maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The present facility was constructed efo timo when the property was zoned for commercial uses. However, that zoning was changed to residential in the early 1970s, thus Page 18 * k LOT TABULATION - VanEeckhout Property Description Upland.Welland Total Area (sq n.) .(sq. ft.)(sq. ft.) Lot 1. Block 1 31,259 155 31,414 Lot 2 21,780 0 21780 Lots 29.505 155 29,660 Lot 4 37,054 3021 40,075 Lot 1, Block 2 78,788 1,160 79,948 Lot 2 85,607 1,935 87,542 Lots 88,620 12,518 101,138 Outlot A 43,257 21,196 64,453 Outlot B 50,180 220,533 270,713 Outlot C 41,192 10,767 51,959 Outlot 0 34,176 30.212 • 64,388 Roadway 37,781 3,836 41,617 Entrance Road 16,000 0 16,000 TOTAL 595,199 305,488 900,687 ACRES 13.7 7 20.7 (2.9 ACRES PER LOT) 99202 F 1 I Application Date: 12/17/99 Completion Date: 12/17/99 60 Day Deadline: 2/15/00 C' ' ••CCJINQ fed I 4 am Cl I I wr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/9/00 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2552 Steven and Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance: Average Lakeshore Setback Zoning District: LR> 1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I Acre) Lot Area:22,010 s.f. (.51 acres) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Notice of Planning Commission Action (1/20/2000) C Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting (1/19/2000) D Staff Report and Exhibits of 1/14/2000 Application: The applicants are proposing to convert part of an existing deck on the second level and third level on the lakeside of their residence into a three season porch and a master bedroom addition. The proposed area is approximately 180 s.f. on each level, for a total of 360 s.f. The applicants are not increasing structure but changing its use. The hardcover amount in the 75-250' setback area is not increasing, it will remain at 30.08%. In 1988, a new home was constructed on the site to replace an older residence. A variance was granted at that time to re-use the existing foundation, and add decks which would encroach 8' past the 75' setback. When it was determined that only a small portion of the foundation was usable, the city required that the house and decks be located to meet the 75' setback, which they do today. An average setback variance was also approved at that time. In 1997, the applicants were approved for a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area to allow' 30.08% hardcover in order to replace a detached garage. The currently requested variance is for: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: To permit a variance to convert parts of existing second and third story lakeside decks into a three season porch and master bedroom addition that encroaches 78' into the average lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 toO vote to: Approve the application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. « A.- ^ ■vrtT /K.7 ' ^ -t. •ViiL 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16 (C) (6) FILE #2552 WHEREAS, Steven M. Sigel and Sheila E. Sigel (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1399 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A 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 January 19, 2000, 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C) (6) to permit the conversion of part of a second and third level lakeside decks into a three season porch and a master bedroom addition which encroaches 78' into the average lakeshore setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: Page 1 of7 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2552. The property is located in the LR-IB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of total area of 22,010 s.f. or .51 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 19, 2000 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A.The residence was rebuilt in 1988 in its appro.ximate original location which was already located closer to the lakeshore than the adjacent properties. B.The proposal will not result in increases of structural or nonstructural hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone above that approved in 1997 per Resolution #2463. C. The lot is small and narrow for the LR-IB zoning district. The City Council finds that no existing views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be impacted by the proposed improvements. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance 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 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. Page 2 of 7 fc’WT r I---- 7.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendations of the Planning Conunission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of7 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 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivisions 16 (C) (6) to permit conversion of second and third level lakeside decks into a three season porch and master bedroom addition which encroaches 78' into the average lakeshore setback. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the side plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Applicants are advised that the proposed enclosure of existing decks and resultant loss of open deck area will not be considered as a justification for any future variance request to add new decks. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 14, 2001). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution 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 agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 7 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of February, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of February, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 Exhibit A JOB NO. 97R-243 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 16, Block 6, Sago Hill Revised. Hennepin Co., Minn., according to the plot thereof on file or of record In the office of the Register of Deeds in and for sold County. Those portions of vacated Park Drive (formerly Lafoyette Avenue), vacated Oak Place, vacated Forest Avenue and vacoted Forest Boulevard, all as dedicated in the plat of "Saga Hill Revised. Hennepin Co.. Minn.", described as follows: Beginning at the most Eosterly corner of Lot 16, Block 6, In sold plot; thence South 22 degrees 43 minutes 16 seconds Eost, assuming the Northeasterly line of said Lot 16 bears South 43 degrees 44 minutes 05 seconds East, o distance^ of 42.43 feet to o point hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence Southwesterly along o non-tongential curve concave to the South hoving a radius of 245 feet, the radial line passing through sold "Point A" bears North 08 degrees 04 minutes 36 seconds West, to the Intersection with the Southeasterly line of vacated Forest Avenue; thence Southwesterly along said Southeasterly line to the Intersection with the Southeosterly extension of the center line of said vacated Forest Avenue: thence Northwesterly along said Southeasterly extension, olorig sold center line and along the Northwesterly extension of said center line to the shore line of Forest Loke; thence Northeasterly olong said shore line to the Northwesterly extension of sold Northeasterly line of Lot 16; thence Southeosterly olong said Northwesterly extension of sold Northeasterly line to the most Northerly corner of said Lot 16; thence Southwesterly. Southeosterly and Northeasterly olong the Northwesterly. Southwesterly and Southeasterly lines of said Lot 16 to the point of beginning. Page 6 of 7 N JfcTCC J CL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19.1999 Smith stated there are some safety concerns which should be addressed as w(noted the October letter from the LMCD does suggest some safe]sms. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, tota^l»A|SpTication #2551, Thomas Michael Randgaard. 2765 ShadywoorLBMdTtSonditional Use Permit due to the absence of the Applicant. iTXyes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2552 STEVEN AND SHEILA SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE • VARIANCES, 10:31 p.m. • 10:37 p.m. Steven Sigel, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are proposing to convert part of an existing deck on the second level and third level on the lakeside of their residence into a three season porch and a master bedroom addition. The proposed area is approximately 180 square feet on each level, for a total of 360 square feet. Structural coverage will not increase. The amount of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback will also remain the same. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback. The proposed addition will encroach 78 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Bottenberg stated the Applicants received approval in 1997, to increase hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area to 30.08 percent when they constructed a new garage. Sigel indicated they would like to enclose the upper deck and convert it into a three season porch. Sigel stated a large number of trees exist in the area, which will shield this addition from the adjoining neighbors. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith commented she would like to see hardcover reduced somewhat in the 75-250’ setback. Smith noted the structural coverage is under the allowable 15 percent. Smith indicated she does not have a problem granting a variance to the average lakeshore setback since the house currently exists in the setback. Page 32 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19,1999 Hawn stated It was her recollection at the 1997 hearing, there was discussion regarding the possibility of redudng the stairway in an effort to reduce hardcover. Sigel indicated they did consider reducing the stairway down to the lake. Sigel stated there is a significant number of steps down to the lake, with the variance indicating that if the steps are to be replaced, they could replace it with a four foot concrete walkway. Sigel stated the decks are included in the current hardcover numbers. Hawn indicated she would not be opposed to a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Kluth noted the structural coverage, hardcover numbers, and encroachment into the average lakeshore setback do not change with this proposal. Stoddard moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2552, Steven and Sheila Sigel, 1399 Park Drive, granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to permit the conversion of a three season porch and construction of a master bedroom addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9) #2553 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE > lES, 10:38 p.m. -10:52 p.m. Mike Connor i igared on behalf of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. Bottenberg stated the licants are requesting a variance for signage square footage to constiuct and replace an existingvdeterlorating sign on the property. The existing sign was constructed in 1956. The proposed sigrHafour feet by ten feet per side. The proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign, but 28 square fbtl larger per side than the allowed 12 square feet per side. Bottenberg stated the sign wilt not be illuminated and will be located in the same location as the existing sign. The sign will be situated on a briCKbase approximately one foot in height and will be at least five feet from the property line. The sign is ihtended to advertise the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, a use approved via a conditional use permihadopted by the Orono City Council in the mid 1950s. Page 33 ? p TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT: #2552 Steven and Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:22,010 square feet (.51 acre) This application requires the following variance: Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lake ward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to encroach 78' into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to convert part of an existing deck on the second level and third level on the lakeside of their residence into a three season porch and a master bedroom addition. The proposed area is approximately 180 s.f. on each level, for a total of360 s.f. The applicants are not increasing structure but changing its use. The hardcover amount in the 75' • 250’ setback area is not increasing, it will remain at 30.08%. The applicants seek approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. U2552 Steve/Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance 1/14/00 Page I I ANALYSIS Area Lot: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Required 43,560 s.f 140'158'10' Proposed 22,010 s.f.79'80'!12' 1 Structural Coverage : Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,010 s.f.Allowed: 3,302 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,895 s.f. (13.2%) Proposed: 2,895 s.f (13.2%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Shoreline Total area in setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover O' - 75'5,655 s.f 0 s.f 0 s.f 0 s.f 75' - 250'13,925 s.f 4,188 s.f (30.08%) 3,481.25 s.f (25 %) 4,188 s.f (30.08%) 250'. 500'2,430 s.f 727 s.f (29.9%)729 s.f (30%)727 s.f (29.9%) 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. ft2552 Steven/Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance 1/14/00 Page 2 1 • 1 Issues for Concern : 1. The existing house was approved and rebuilt in 1988 in its original location. At that time, it was located closer to the lakeshore than the adjacent neighboring properties. 2. In 1997, the applicants were approved to allow 30.08% hardcover in the 75' - 250' setback area when they constructed a new garage. 3. Other issues the Planning Commission may have. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Exhibits A Application B Letter from applicant C Site Plan/Survey D ElevationsA^iews E Floor Plan F Plat Map G Location Map H Hardcover Calculations I Topography Map J Property Owner’s List K Permit Record U2552 Steven/Sheila Sigel 1399 Park Drive Variance 1/14/00 Page 3 A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE ^PLICATION (^InTtial Application Fee $250.00^]]]) (55U.U0 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_________ Application # Date Receive^' ^ 9^ Amount Paid '^^SC>____ Co«np. Property Identification Number fPJD.’l ryn-Wl-Si'^- 4-3L’-00(3l Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pi^ent use of property: residential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:________________________________________________________ APPLICANT SHEILA Name ^ Phone (home) Phone (woric) u l \ Address: VptctvL '~taa.v^ig■_______ Citv: _________Zip: ^ 1:.) '- L 0\N7vER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). r Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ' Estoted Construction Cost $ n6,oeO _ Describe request in detail: (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ ---------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: Front Side Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: «-\caaa^ or^ OoS€.?> Lp>^^ f)Aor>C Tt-VftrfC> f»r>€.V» - >to CrP t1c»aa£S • (attach additional sheets if necessary)^<^|^^^^^^ REQUniED SUBMITTALS All of the followlny information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be conxidgred complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproductiorL Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this applicatiorL Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.’ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Admimstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses /incurred in revi^ivi of this application, and certifies that the mformation supplied is true/and correct to ifw best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNAT 7 Date ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property City st^ffi-consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiMtion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature / Applicant must have ^1 submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled re\iew 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. ^ -" •^XXKy^ ■ *.» p k\ I* i vu .9 T iJ/<:oNL.pitt (TYf) t 0• 0 ^O v6'^ C>MC^'"C^ rarTiN6.> V4C-S-|^C:U^ •jjy >2?V^mc F -» ^4Fjii i«v>Tut/’-- ^roc i^riiM |2|0 iM';JuA'%Jt4 (•TjpM’Au) l\ 5f^Cvl>JLKTov^tinf*'T t^:rAr'')U oP • rk’HAcr:/riiJ^ uAoMOt^P^^ M -1*3. Jtt.xcki- r k^ 'V lUDk:At£,V <OUi<‘**^-ATAlr>, ntA*,TLy> A--ri-oC' n<- ALUFT<i‘'^ToRe=-Ctxo.<nir ‘y^. •W HAiCWrl <'t’MlPA:T(V TOXJJ^if 1 AU_ec/^riMo» (TOUMniONS }V' i»^wr^>slC I F«?UHo/fTIOKl rUAN •l.tlc. Ate. T <0 tfi y»-a 4 M 'iss 8 ’ dpPEt-Fu»e-PUAKl lV»»p<iyr7 -jtf/ite Vt • <‘<y" ' «')-CUUN^*? Ai-U c^nuNMoN^ M -ttVk>k« UAl L cAJWHCrv \M Ndi^otfit ^. C s» s Mli 0*4- WFF SB Ol // J lOo h ^'V-J _ / 1 ---------Flz\ \^ \ U' ^ 1 1 INI / f _____ £>92 • • • • • •• ^ *J Ol r j VAC DOC NO 5394297^ ro 03 ^ en A^\\6!^ .cS »\r \ ^■■y , /„ dV '«^0 •/ (j, C;-'' ,5^>-^'; O. / \0£>,/y •/ V*. s ^'(y r>j /!^ ro /W • • ••• ORONC BAnoc . QFOWI PB 0 S'/ Q inAxs ENO cut iTM V:C;^4 f ?rr;i'. ELM, - • % ••*. -* *• RED OM •f:/’- :• Cbursct^-ANc -■'. >• '^i'l WECTHUMCHIttt ^ -A Xijil'. *.* aco w t t Red'. Oatt i- Coli; s/f Course HI6M EURN ST 5CHRaTniE OR 5 ■5/s^ ‘eS! f a»ef« bats I <uui ----(V; j.NjiAosBL*® lAVForest X-# ■\.^ ,, ^1/ BRABDVlEWUUvt :v;: >.• '-. *Ai.-» ' .7^ •* i • A A A * ^ r • • ^ ^ ■ . *' r • *• V A • :: •:< SkogsbergPdru y * 2 / \**i/»ooo i - • - Hi v -v •« 4 - • * .*.West .. • • • ORONO/- Arm • • « • *• PEERING • • • ■OH) -fotn \IA Crystal 4 • • : • • * ^ If* • ■ W y Fagtrness Point 7^.AVI '*•**-; \*. . • ••'••.. ^ ^ * • • •• # * *W HARDCOVER CALCULATl SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0>75' ORKSHEET 250-500'500-K F.YTSTINO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ CCc%ifi.c^r (f)L Length Width X X X B. Garage C* Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck tXciC F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric yVlTWri \.^'rtlKw'A,U Vet. vvio-ll ^ X X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE B !3^s6 xlOO TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PHOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck HpCtC Wrrloiirt-iKiJLCUt •ISTwcTTi ^ F. Landscape _____________ Underlain _____________ By Plastic _____________ Or Fabric X X rs s X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE>ERTid + B ; *100 S.F. S.F. S.F. SHF. 54-9 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 9^59 S.F. kfrU S.F. ___________S.F. ___________S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. o% % fiebi S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. llA S.F. .549 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ns S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.m13,-3*? S.F. A B S.F. A B >iUA.'*£.!• fcl Mtm. TtiaA >.ACV1-jU.r,1 rn 7 a.' —'•Tt-'.’.,!. . i;ir } Permit No. PERMIT RECORD Date Type o£ Permit .1231 --------------/0'<9’i'Sr /Q-3ir 6AI?AGI£ ^rtc S3HS to- V*6AftA0ifr A/I .........I/J jl JIU^ (^hcund^ !i>91 /.I-a-??^yvuuJL ISl'J ___ /^-5'S ^^ ^ZK(iJpJ^(LILy /&S/Lo -S'?/. c. a d.d. -A...,^aai^umuB^SB^BasamB^jmiiaiOsaSm msoM Application Date: 12/20/99 Completion Date: 01/06/00 60 Day Deadline: 03/06/00 '^'==TINQ I 4 auoo Cl 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/9/00 ITEM NO = 7 Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #25S3 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Variance: Signage Zoning District: L R-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential District {Vt acre) List of Exhibits A B C D E Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action (1/21/2000) Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting (1/19/2000) Excerpts from 1994 staff report regarding approved Calvary Memorial Church signage Staff Report and Exhibits of !/• Application: The applicants are requesting a variance for signage square footage to construct and replace an existing, deteriorating sign on the property. The existing sign was constructed in 1956. The proposed sign is 4' x 10 ’ per side and is a two sided cabinet style sign. The sign is smaller than the existing sign (4* x 12'), but 28 square feet larger per side than the allowed 12 square feet per side. The proposed sign will be illuminated from the inside with soft white lighting from dusk to morning by a timer located within the church. The proposed sign will be located where the existing sign is currently placed, due to an existing utility easement, mature trees and the contour of the properU’ away from the road. There is no other signage on the property. As a comparison, in 1994, Calvary Memorial Church and School located at 2420 Dunwoody Avenue received a variance to allow a third sign on the property for a total of approximately 148 s.f. of signage on the property. Staff report is attached as E.xhibit D. The requested variance is for: 1. Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A)(3): Allows one sign for each use allowed by conditional use permit - up to 12 square feet per surface. To allow 4' x 10' or 40 s.f (per side) where 12 s.f. is allowed, for a two sided cabinet sign to replace a smaller existing V-board sign. PLANNING COMMISSION; The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to (1 abstained): Approve the application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. L.I .. Vtiin*,». ** L i.k’««a;Llr<itr.:gefTfa^\• -N-m I I—j.-T- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISIONS 2 (A)(3) FILE #2553 WHEREAS, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church (hereinafter "the applicant")is owner of the property located at 3745 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 5, Block 7 Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereafter “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 January 19, 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subdivisions 2 (A) (3) to allow placement of a sign 40 s.f. in surface area where no sign is normally allowed to exceed 12 s.f. per surface. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 4 1. 2. 3. 5. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2553. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 19, 2000 and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 0, ( 1 abstained). 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A.The proposed sign is a two-sided cabinet sign that will be illuminated by interior lighting and in total is approximately 40 s.f., being approximately 4' X 10' high placed on a metal base that is approximately 1' high. B.The proposed sign is intended to advertise Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. C.Plaiming Commission accepts the appliczuit’s stated hardship that the 12 s.f. limitation per sign surface would allow signage insufficient for the existing church. There is no other signage currently on the property. The location of the sign meets city standards. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demoi!Strable 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. Page 2 of4 6.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, 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 10.61, Subdivisions (A) (3) to allow placement of a sign 40 s.f in surface area where only 12 s.f individual sign surface area is allowed. 1. 2. 3. Applicant shall obtain the appropriate building permit prior to placement of the sign. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (February 14, 2001). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution 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 agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 4 L Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of February, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of February, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & 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 4 I iM I wmtiiii II mi III iwMiai —■mat ■ u i a CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay* MN 55323 612-249-4600 TO: Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE # 2553 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 1/21/2000 COPIES: Michael O’Connor 3795 Togo Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING:VOTE: 4 FOR AGAINST ABSTAINED Planning Commission recommends the following: Approved as submitted. The abstained vote: Planning Commissioner did not feel there was enough information. Would like to know about other churches and their sign variances in Orono. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council on February 14,2000 at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. L.- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19,1999 Hawn stated it was her recollection at the 1997 hearing, there was discussion regardingjfle possibility of reducing the stairway in an effort to reduce hardcover. Sigel indicated they did consider reducing the stairway down to the lakey<^el stated there is a significant number of steps down to the lake, with the varianpdindicating that if the steps are to be replaced, they could replace it with a four foot caffcrete walkway. Sigel stated the decks are included in the current hardcover numi Hawn indicated she would not be opposed/to a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Kluth noted the structural coveragp^iiardcover numbers, and encroachment into the average lakeshore setback do not ch^ge with this proposal. Stoddard moved^Jluith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2552, Steven aiid^^eila Sigel, 1399 Park Drive, granting of a variance to average lakeshore setback to permit the conversion of a three season porch and construction of a master bedroom addition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2553 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH. 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES, 10:38 p.m. -10:52 p.m. Mike Connor appeared on behalf of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. Boltenberg stated the Applicants are requesting a variance for signage square footage to construct and replace an existing, deteriorating sign on the property. The existing sign was constructed in 1956. The proposed sign is four feet by ten feet per side. The proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign, but 28 square feet larger per side than the allowed 12 square feet per side. Bottenberg stated the sign will not be illuminated and will be located in the same location as the existing sign. The sign wilt be situated on a brick base approximately one foot in height and will be at least five feet from the property line. The sign is intended to advertise the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, a use approved via a conditional use permit adopted by the Orono City Council in the mid 1950s. Page 33 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19.1999 Connor stated the new sign will be situated on a platform approximately two feet lower than the existing sign. Connor stated they are intending to try a Bright Light and a Cool light to see which produces the softest light. The current sign is illuminated by two floodlights. The size of the new sign will be 40 square feet, with the existing sign 48 square feet. Hawn inquired what hardship exists for the variance. Hawn pointed out hardships typically are imposed by the property. Connor stated a larger sign is needed for visibility off of County Road 15. Connor stated a number of trees and overgrown brush exist in the area, which causes the area to be dark. Connor stated the sign needs to be located further back from the road due to a ditch in the area. Stoddard inquired whether the sign is equivalent to other church signs in the area. Weinberger stated this sign was looked at in comparison to other church signs in the area. Weinberger stated there also exists a utility easement in this area as well as a ditch, which necessitates the sign be located further back from the road. Weinberger staled the sign identifies the use of the property. Kiuth noted Staff has recommended approval of this application. Smith suggested the Applicant try the soft light first. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2553, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, granting of a variance for signage square footage to allow a 40 square foot sign based upon the hardship demonstrated, with the understanding soft lights will be used to illuminate the sign. and if the lighting proves to be too bright, this issue will be reviewed and approved by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstention 1; Kiuth Abstained. Kiuth indicated he abstained due to a lack of information regarding this application. Hawn inquired whether a variance was granted to the Calvary Church. Page 34 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 19,1999 Bottenberg indicated a variance was granted to the Calvary Church approximately five years ago. A ^0) #2554 ANN AND GIL ANDERSON, 845 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, VARIANCES, 10:5^.m. -10:59 p.m. Ann and ^Anderson. Applicants, were present. Bottenberg the Applicants are proposing to construct an 18 by 10 foot master bedroom addition to their r^dence. The addition will be constructed onto the side of their residence. which is currently loca^d 36.5 feet from the front property line. The septic site is located 59 feet to the south of theVesidence. Stnjctural coverage Is not an issue in this application. The Applicant Is seeking appr^l of a front yard setback variance. Hawn inquired where the addition was going, noting she is confused by the survey. Mrs. Anderson indicated the addition be constructed on the south side of the residence, just opposite of the driveway. Weinberger indicated the survey was completeH^y a certified surveyor, but due to the size of the scale, it is sometimes necessary to break the^wryey lines. The Applicants are proposing to add a master bedroom addition to the sideS^ the residence. Weinberger stated the addition should not adversely affect the adjoining neighbors. Smith inquired whether there are any other Issues regarding thiSsappllcation Weinberger stated the only issue is a variance to the front yard setb^k. Smith noted the Planning Commission has looked favorably in the past bo other simitar applications. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2554, Ann and Gil Anderson. 845 Willow Drive South, granting of a front yard setback variance to permit the construction of an 18 by 10 foot master bedroom to their residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 35 ; 'I D REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 4, 1994 ITEM NO.: JQ Department Approval: Name Michael A. Gaffiroo Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1964 Calvary Memorial Church, 2420 Dunwoody Avenue - Variance Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Application: Request for variances for proposed additional sign. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/22/94 C - Memo and Exhibits of 9/12/94 Please review the memo and exhibits of September 12th. Briefly, applicants propose to locate a 45 s.f. wall sign facing Shoreline Drive to advertise the Christian School. The variances required include: square footage for an individual sign (12 s.f. allowed, 45 s.f. proposed) - site signage square footage (24 s.f. allowed, 148 s.f. proposed) maximum height of sign will be approximately 9’ (8’ allowed). Planning Commission reviewed this request at their September meeting and voted 4-0 to recommend approval, noting the length of frontage on Shoreline Drive and the commercial namre of that thoroughfare. Please note that the September 12th memo indicated the application included a conditional use permit amendment. Staff has reviewed the signage code and notes that since specific standards are given for signage for conditional uses [Section 10.61, Subd. 2 (A-3)l the conditional use permit need not be amended but a variance is necessary, therefore the resolution has been written as merely a variance approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. A-'X r ^ •—I « • -^ • ^«ne»r et^*-oiN^ H»M/>OPITIfl»^ -1^ R|C. . tovir. ^17 5#«r5ff>» ^ g|T6. At. - A% " A^ - A^ - A^ - A7 • #l/| n^*^i ru«>A. ftAt^ I e>f»!;»>iM^/tw»»ni^ tvtJ -< ~ —■■ tuup*^ 4 I I>C I -rmt\tfikl^ fivniHA my • • 1. t.«. 800-848-4262 BOOKS 1 \ .J • ** » V; . i .4^ 3'6" X 8' Cabinet 3'-6" Legs. ^ vl ■ ____'.y ^ j »» • ^ J Ssiui^- p3 PliiSiEfi '^ifl:TSii£r£5^SS'.SiSS fiSEI ES EEEI .r^'-vAS "!pS-2 «-•«••••• •••• *« • TTTTr^ s?cr?* ;.t»> lU'T.i.' < ^ r ;.-ii.4™L^:i2: vf'i i^*^i •.yir.-^r’ -zf^y 4-r^rr. ' •T>’:Jr2f *.»»• •« <*• k-vT* CALUARY MEMCRIRL CHRtSTIAN SCHOOL This color sketch is provided as an f xample or color, There is no exact match be^^een mk and paint. Signs Plus dees not guarantee such.\ f eA>g-d^/y<g _ •• • »•• • # » •K T ? • . • -•• - ...4e» «A^C T I T‘ \ I _______ ^^j^r-rT^: ri^l Ai C» ....- 5/'^.--''-^ l-,V,..„, .........,i ....P-- li.J 1 1 1 1 /I N» ev/ <s itJ CA (-- pf 1 U>w^J'l K»A • ... .... .. .. . • -3-’ L i" i^Crp/OvrCi. (-^^A^JT . . (2-.xV> -£■? . f tvi, SI &!?___ ^S> '5?' • T^^<'*t- l^u^ - stT co.^,isy-i)u^ooi>-r MefeSi/ '1 PB. -.&y. oc^ QoeiT' r/X::^(? V-___ . -JT..., — >1 • • • »4 CAL\JM'i' ft q £ TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 14,2000 SUBJECT: #2553 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District This application requires the following variance: Section 10.61, Subd. 2 (A) (3): Allows one sign for each use allowed by conditional use permit- up to 12 square feet per surface. To allow a 4' x 10’ or 40 s.f. (per side) where 12 s.f. is allowed, for a two sided cabinet sign to replace a smaller existing V-board sign. Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a variance for signage square footage to construct and replace an existing, deteriorating sign on the property. The existing sign was constructed in 1956. The proposed sign is 4' x 10’ (40 s.f.) pe» aide. The sign is smaller (40 s.f.) than the existing sign (48 s.f.), but 28 square feet larger per side than the allowed 12 square feet per side. The proposed sign*l4^il^i^lluminated and will be located in the same location as the existing sign. The sign will sit on a*^Q«ek base approximately one foot in height and will be at least 5 feet from the property line. The proposed sign is intended to advertise the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, a use of the property since the 1950's. The applicant seeks approval of a variance for signage square footage to construct a new sign on the property. Statement of Hardship : The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. M2553 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Variance 1/1 4/00 Page I Issues for Concern: 1. Issues the Planning Conunission may have. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance for signage square footage. Exhibits A Application Site Plan/Survey Drawing-Proposed Sign Plat Map Location Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record B C D E F G 1 U2S53 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Variance 1/14/00 Page 2 si CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION i -4^ . Site Address ^ __________ Property Identilication Numter (P.I.D.) 2 o 7/~7 - 2 *2 / C O'LS Attach legal description to apoli^tlon if not included on required survey. Application U 25 Date ReccKe^ / 2/2 o /«7 y Amount Paid 2 0 ^ /U \Ja \ t / \ MlDate Property Acquired_ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential other (specify) /l/i Zoning District: _______________________________________ (month/year) 'mI . rnone ^nome;_____ _____ ’ Name Lgr V uj Phone (work ) ~ ^t-nL Address: itl City: /Ur?/c?Zip:_:5y ?*^/ APPLICANT Phone (home) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:.Zip:. UPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ l^iPOO _____ ribe request in detail: / I t\ci /) nXrlextp H ^I J 4t-?; 1-1(16’ fY /j < yrvr ('uLp/dal-P q. .. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) > HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoninc Code requirements: jw'* ■> «• / ■" r "1' O'"/1 i •-> cjuircmcni^i___________^ \, f_____| y____ ^ ^ \ ^ i y- V-t^vA ujiri op Tt.VCl (A '• jq , I . (attach additional sheets If necessary) ' > ’ 5<5vi' 'U on -?v'/:,4v: .&<,•;-a. , bu.4- vSF u/g-': pc. r.-..e Oi ij , KJcco Z-<1 -' 0 >,(•{. ^ ser l4C^ /' Cur'S- ^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of'' 3. 4. Utk must oDiain mis list, labels mao ^om nennepm i^ounty uepanmeni or*' ^ Finance, A-603, Govt Center,^8-59103 "74-5 D^. Kl(XKjCii^r>L Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy %Vi' x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZV2' x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. /U-v; Additional items as may be requested by City staff. cy The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. 5. 6. 7./V>J APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date /Z'-Zi ' 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 t J /'? J)/ Y Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1 i rmihTE. iF irewEY ^ For: Good Sheperd Lutheran Church 5749 Shoreline Drive (Co. Rd, #15) Wayzata, Minnesota. 55391 . Surveyor; Gilbert J. Beseke 4401 Crawford Road Hopkinst Minnesota. Phone: 938-2887 CO.MOAD*^/S 3/S.30 MSS-$2 Description: Lot 5t Block 7 Townsite of Langdon Park. Scale: T*=1O0' o Denotes I.P. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super vision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date; November 26, 1986. Registration Number 13795 >1 riJJuiesoba. JM1 ii-V- 3 J Vv? — •-'«» 1^ WORSHIP Sheperd 8:00 AND 10:30 Lutheran SUN SCHL 9:20 1-800-SHEPERD 1 6» •/ V ’X\\ EDISON SIGNS 510BRIMHALLAVE. long lake . MN 55356 (612) 473-7'M9 rMver\ACiu«x(A aulcViug n . \Cp *“ •S rf^ ^ c 63/i) Good Sheperd Lutheran Church WORSHIP 8:00 AND 10:30 SUN SCHL 9:20 1-800-SHEPERD .'7 St" ft FDSIFiBrnmN WORSHIP e 00 ANOlO 30 ciiu crui o on 0 UU lU JU SUN SCHL 9 20 _____ ___ 473*2150 1 -c^v4L-^- •• fr ,;r-■'S.'^.' »r>* :*S5-V :• V<> r*'. >t ‘7^-‘uwVy i . Address:"37^^ St»a/ieJ/»» *. PERMIT RECORD 6 Permit No.Date Type of Permit Ihje • ^ f ?<»*/«/. /9- llJSiri. ^-3o-*7 3 JSja^ /Lt^aatei^ />/ ^-X-.£3,__ ' '^'^1 ^r^J.-b'- ~”1 -----------7-f- /vi" ' mjjA 5^U^.l•/ L Application Date: 12/20/99 Completion Date: 12/20/99 Deadline: 4/18/00 COUNCIL M—-Mq I 4 ^UUU REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/14/00 ITEM NO.S' Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2555 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit Variances Zoning Amendment Hennepin County has requested their application be tabled and continued to a future meeting. Staff has extended the application deadline date to April 18.2000. Application Summary Hennepin County has filed a land use application for their County Highway Maintenance Facility located in Navarre for variances to construct a building for storage of salt and sand. The proposed building would be 70 feet X 112 feet in size and would be 42 feet in height. A Zoning Code amendment in the LR-IC zoning district to permit County Highway Maintenance Facilities as a conditional use is also proposed. The subject site has been in operation as primarily for County Road winter maintenance since 1962. In 1962 the property was zoned for commercial uses. The property was rezoned in 1975 for residential use. Since that time the facility has been allowed to continue as a legal non-conforming use. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To table zoning application #2555 for Hennepin County and continue the request to a future Council meeting. Hennepin County Sandra L. Vargas, County Administrator An Equal Opportunity Employer o % GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices i Stmt Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 NOTIFICATION OF 60 DAY EXTENSION Mailinf Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 February 11,2000 Mr. Vem Genzlinger Assistant County Administrator Hennepin County A-2303 Hennepin County Government Center Miruieapolis, MN 55487-0233 RE: ZONING APPLICATION #2555 State law requires that Cities shall decide on zoning applications within 60 days from the date an application is considered complete. Your application date was December 20. 1999. The 60 day review period may be extended by the City of Orono by notification to the applicant. We have received your letter, dated February 9,2000 requesting the Orono City Council table your application at their February 14,2000 meeting. The application deadline for #2555 is February 18. 2000. The earliest potential date that the Orono City Council could take action on this application is February 28,2000. The City of Orono is extending your application an additional 60 days to allow the land use request to be postponed to a later Council date. The new application expiration date is April 18. 2000. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 249-4623 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner Telephooe (612) 249-4600 • Fax (612) 249-4616 ^'•CCJINQ I hcd 1 4 i!000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ci • • w. DATE: February 14. 2000 ITEM NO.; ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Tttle Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment #JLStubbs Bay Road Cul-de-Sac Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment M2, Stubbs Road Cul-de-Sac Project to Buffalo Bituminous Inc. in the amount of $2,643.61 I/|I Sonestroo Rosene AnderiU(& Associates In^lnecrf 4 Arth^tcti Owner City of Orono 2750 Kelly Pkwy, PO Box 337, Cfvstai Bay, MN. 55323-0066 Date' February 8.2000 For Period: 11 /17/99 to 2/8/00 Request No: Contractor Buffalo Bituminous Inc 2852 County Road 12 N. PO Box 337,. Buffalo. MN, 55313 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT STUBBS BAY ROAD CUL-DE-SAC BRA FILE NO. 139-99-103 CLIENT PROJECT NO. CLIENT CONTRACT NO. SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amour; 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 Liquidated damages - 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. $ $ 0.00 0.00 $ $ s $ $ $ $ $ s 121,07475 121.074 75 15.997 75 000 15.997.75 79989 15.197 86 12,55425 000 264361 Recommended for Approval by; BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor. BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC Approved by Owner CITY OF ORONO Specified Contract Completion Date June 1.2000 Date: Rtqut«ti2 Jdt N®- Item Base Bid 1 Mobilizaton 2 Clearing and grubbing 3 Pavement marking removal • permanent 4 Remove pipe culvert 5 Remove sign, Type C 6 Sawing bituminous pavement (full depth) 7 Salvage bituminous pavement 8 Common excavation (P) 9 Topsoil borrow (CV) 1 0 Aggregate bas«.. Class 5 mod 1 1 Aggregate shouldering, Class 2 12 Type 41 wearing course mixture 13 Type 31 base course mixture 14 Bituminous pavement reclamation 1 5 Bituminous material for tack coat 16 Coarse Filter Aggregate Mod (CV) 17 Permanent Barricades 18 Traffic control 19 4" solid line wh'ite-epoxy 20 Sign panels, Type C 21 Bale check 22 Silt fence. Type self supporting 23 Seeding 24 Mulch material Type 1 25 Disk anchoring 26 Commercial fertilizer analysis 22-5-10 27 Seed Mixture GOA 28 Colorado Blue Spruce, 6 fl high, 6&B 29 Sugar Maple 2'Cal. B&B Total Base Bid Contract Unit Quantity Amount Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date LS 1 2000.00 05 $1,000.00 LS 1 1000.00 1 $1,000.00 LF 1000 1.50 1243 $1,864.50 LF 160 5.50 101 $555.50 EA 12 15.00 9 $135.00 LF 130 3.50 $0.00 SY 910 2.50 910 $2,275.00 CY 680 9.00 400 $3,600.00 CY 150 17.50 $0.00 TN 500 12.00 $0.00 TN 190 16.75 $0.00 TN 820 28 50 $0.00 TN 1100 26.50 $0.00 SY 8310 1.60 $0 00 GAL 500 1.00 $0.00 CY 400 27.00 $0.00 LF 8 35.00 8 $280.00 LS 1 2500.00 0.5 $1,250.00 LF 1300 2.50 1243 $3,107.50 SF 1625 25.00 16.25 $406.25 EA 8 16.50 $0 00 LF 700 1.75 $0,00 ACRE 4 275.00 04 $110.00 TN 8 125.00 0.8 $100.00 ACRE 4 110.00 0,4 $44.00 LB 1800 0.70 180 $126.00 LB 180 3.60 40 $144 00 EA 10 250.00 $0.00 EA 10 300.00 #$000 $15,997.75 Total Base Bid Total Work Completed To Date $15,997.75 $15,997.75 Rtquts»2 fit PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF ORONO CLIENT PROJECT NO. BRA FILE NO. 139-99-103 CONTRACTOR BUFFALO BITUMINOUS *NC CHANGE ORDERS i Total Change Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY ■ 1 11/16/99 11/16/99 12.554.25 660.75 13.215.00 2 11/17/99 02/00/00 2,64361 799.89 15.997.75 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date $15,197.86 Original Contract $121,074.75 Retainage Pay No. 2 799.89 Change Orders Total Amount Earned $15,997.75 Revised Contract $121,074.75 illiflill il: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING FEB I 4 2000 CITY OH 0/ DATE: February 14, ^86fP ITEM NO.:10 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Access Options for Narrows Dock Lots Introduction Parking restrictions and access to the Narrows Dock Lots have been discussed at several Council meetings. In June of 1999, "No Parking" signs were installed along both sides of Shadywood Road north o? the Narrows Bridge. These signs were installed because of safety concerns caused by vehicles pi King in this area. These parked vehicles were creating an unsafe situation for access to the drjv;jways in this area. However, installation of the no parking signs has resulted in difficulties in parking and access to the Narrows Dock Lots. We have recently received a letter, from Donald Miegel, one of the dock lot owners requesting that this issue be reconsidered by the Council. Below is a summary of this issue. Summary of Issue June 28. 1999 City Council Meeting Attached you will find a letter from a resident on Shadywood Road, north of the Lake Minnetonka Narrows Bridge, requesting the installation of "No Parking" signs. Cars parking along the wide shoulder in this area are creating a traffic safety hazard. The City reviewed the safety concerns raised in this letter and determined that they were valid. The main problem is that the shoulder area is used as a deceleration lane by vehicles entering the driveways. Without being able to use the shoulder as a deceleration lane, the turning vehicles slow down on the highway causing a safety concern as other vehicles attempt to pass the turning vehicles. This is a problem because of the limited sight distance for vehicles crossing the Narrows Channel Bridge. In June of 1999, no parking signs were installed in this area. A copy of the resolution ordering the installation of "No Parking" signs is attached. However, installation of these signs has created difficulties for the owners of the Narrows Dock Lots. These dock lots are 20 wide lakeshore lots, without a house, that contain a dock. These lots were originally created in the I950 ’s before the current zoning regulations were in effect. The dock lots are non-conforming to current City zoning regulations that prohibit accessory structures on lots that t!'> not contain a principal structure. Over the years, there have been many discussions concerning these dock lots. In the early I980 ’s, the Council went through a process to formalize the existence of these dock lots by issuing Conditional Use Permits. I have attached a resolution for one of these lots for your review. The resolutions provided one parking spot per dock on small lots between the dock lots and the County Highway. The access to these parking areas is difficult and there is limited room for moving past parked cars. Because of the limited off road parking, some of the dock lot owners have been parking along Shady wood Road. September 23. 1999 City Council Meeting In response to concerns expressed by the dock lot owners regarding the parking restrictions on August 23, 1999, the Council discussed this issue again. All of the dock lot owners and neighborhood residents were notified and many people were present at this meeting. At this meeting. City staff presented a modified no parking scenario for Council consideration. The first solution to post the entire wide shoulder area for no parking was a conservative approach. The revised proposal was for the no parking restrictions to remain in place for the entire northbound side of Shady wood Road. These restrictions are necessary to provide a deceleration lane for vehicles entering the driveways along this side of Shadywood Road. On the southbound side, staffs recommendation was that the beginning of the no parking area could be moved 100 ’ south to provide space for parking of four to five cars in the dock lot area. This would provide 120 ’ of space to used as a deceleration lane for vehicles turning into the driveway south of this area. This should provide adequate stopping distance for a vehicle speed of 30 mph when entering the deceleration lane. The area further south of the proposed parking area would still remain posted for no parking. The attached map shows the MNDOT recommended "Stopping Sight Distances" (SSD) required. This is the distance required for driver traveling at a certain speed to recognize a hazard in the road and safely stop the vehicle. The SSD contains two components the distance the vehicle trs;vcls during the driver’s perception and reaction time, and the braking distance required to safely stop the vehicle. Based on the results of many smdies, 2.5 seconds is used for the driver’s perception/reaction time between when a hazard is spotted and the brakes are applied. The speed limit is 40 mph. At 40 mph the recommended SSD is 315 feet. Also shown is the SSD for 50 mph to account for vehicles that may be exceeding the posted speed limit. A review of this map shows that limited parking could be allowed, and there would still be still adequate site distance from the blind approach at the bridge crest. At this meeting, the Council decided to leave the original no parking restrictions in effect. The Council stated that the best solution would be for the dock lot owners to have off street parking adjacent to their docks as was envisioned when the CUP resolutions were passed in the 1980's. My understanding is that when the resolutions were originally passed that the property owners were supposed to dedicate cross easements to allow parking access for the dock lots. These easements were never formalized and several of the dock lots never obtained CUP’s. The Council directed the property owners to work out a satisfactory solution and execute the required easements to allow off street parking for the dock lots. Current Status of Issue Mr. Donald Miegel, one of the dock lot owners has contacted several of the other property owners in an attempt to formalize easements to allow parking access for the dock lots. My understanding is that he has been unsuccessful in his efforts to work out a permanent solution for this issue. Attached is a letter, dated January 18, 2000, from Mr. Miegel requesting reconsideration of this issue. City staff, representatives from the Hennepin County Highway Department, and Mr. Miegel have met at the site to discuss this issue. Because of topography constraints the only acceptable locations for a driveway would be on either the "Ginther/ Ault" or "Huber" parcels. The preferred location for a driveway would be on the "Ginther/ Ault" parcel. (See attached map) The County will only grant one driveway permit to serve the dock lots. Before issuing a driveway permit the County is requiring cross easements to ensure that the driveway will be able to serve the dock lots. One driveway access to provide off street parking for the dock lots is Hennepin County ’s preferred option. The issue of allowing parking along Shady wood Road was discussed. Hennepin County ’s general policy is to recommend no on street parking whenever this is possible. However, the County defers to the municipalities on parking resfiictions and will install no parking signs if requested by the municipality. Enforcement of no parking restrictions is then the responsibility of the City. The County prefers the no parking restrictions but will honor the City’s request in this matter. If the City decides that parking will be allowed along Shadywood Road, the County strongly recommends only limited parking in the vicinity of the dock lots. For traffic safety reasons, Hennepin County is not in favor of a complete removal of the no parking restrictions in this area. Options for Council Consideration This issue is still not resolved and will likely be a continuing problem. Because of the increasing popularity of Lake Minnetonka, parking around the lake is a growing problem. Over the last several years, no parking restrictions have been instituted on many County Roads and City streets. The result of these restrictions is that the parking problems are just moved to another location which results in more parking restrictions in the new locations. This seems to be a never ending cycle of trying to balance the increasing pressure for parking near Lake Minnetonka against traffic safety and neighborhood protection issues. Below we have listed several possible options to address the issue of parking for the Narrows Dock lot users. No Action Option This option would be leave the no parking restrictions in place and to have the property owners work out an acceptable solution to provide off street parking adjacent to the dock lots. Over the past several months, there has been little progress among the property owners to work out a solution. One of the reasons for this is that some of the dock lots are owned by people from outside the neighborhood, who need to have parking space available, while the other dock lots are Current Status of Issue Mr. Donald Miegel, one of the dock lot owners has contacted several of the other property owners in an attempt to formalize easements to allow parking access for the dock lots. My understanding is that he has been unsuccessful in his efforts to work out a permanent solution for this issue. Attached is a letter, dated January 18, 2000, from Mr. Miegel requesting reconsideration of this issue. City staff, representatives from the Hennepin County Highway Department, and Mr. Miegel have met at the site to discuss this issue. Because of topography constraints the only acceptable locations for a driveway would be on either the "Ginther/ Ault" or "Huber" parcels. The preterred location for a driveway would be on the "Ginther/ Ault" parcel. (See attached map) The County will only grant one driveway permit to serve the dock lots. Before issuing a driveway permit the County is requiring cross easements to ensure that the driveway will be able to serve the dock lots. One driveway access to provide off street parking for the dock lots is Hennepin County ’s preferred option. The issue of allowing parking along Shady wood Road was discussed. Hennepin County ’s general policy is to recommend no on street parking whenever this is possible. However, the County defers to the municipalities on parking restrictions and will install no parking signs if requested by the municipality. Enforcement of no parking restrictions is then the responsibility of the City. TTie County prefers the no parking restrictions but will honor the City’s request in this matter. If the City decides that parking will be allowed along Shadywood Road, the County strongly recommends only limited parking in the vicinity of the dock lots. For traffic safety reasons, Hennepin County is not in favor of a complete removal of the no parking restrictions in this area. Options for Council Consideration This issue is still not resolved and will likely be a continuing problem. Because of the increasing popularity of Lake Minnetonka, parking around the lake is a growing problem. Over the last several years, no parking restrictions have been instituted on many County Roads and City streets. The result of these restrictions is that the parking problems are just moved to another location which results in more parking restrictions in the new locations. This seems to be a never ending cycle of trying to balance the increasing pressure for parking near Lake Minnetonka against traffic safety and neighborhood protection issues. Below we have listed several possible options to address the issue of parking for the Narrows Dock lot users. No Action Option This option would be leave the no parking restrictions in place and to have the property owners work out an acceptable solution to provide off street parking adjacent to the dock lots. Over the past several months, there has been little progress among the property owners to work out a solution. One of the reasons for this is that some of the dock lots are owned by people from outside the neighborhood, who need to have parking space available, while the other dock lots are owned by neighborhood residents who do not have a need for vehicle parking. My understanding is that are some informal agreements in place that allow limited access to some of the dock lots for vehicle parking. However, these informal agreements may not be a permanent solution to the problem based on property sales, etc. In the event that arrangements for off street parking cannot be made, and no parking is allowed along this section of Shady wood Road, the parking problem will most likely move to another location. Limited on Street Parking With No Restrictions on Use This option would be to provide parking along the southern 100' on the southbound side of Shadywood Road. This would provide parking for four or five vehicles in the vicinity of the dock lots and could be used by the dock lot owners. This option was discussed at a previous Council and is described in detail in a previous section of this report. The main disadvantage of this option is that this parking could be used by others and may not be available for the dock lot owners. Limited on Street Permit Parking Restricted to The Dock Lot Owners This is the same parking option presented above that would be restricted by permit only for the dock lot owners. For this option the dock owners would be issued a permit by the City for parking in this area. The City could charge an administrative fee to cover the costs of permit issuance. We have discussed this issue with the Police Chief, and he suggested that this be designated a "Tow Away Zone." This would allow for faster removal of illegally parked cars to ensure that the spaces are kept open for the dock lot owners. Permit only parking is used by other lake area Cities. The disadvantage of this option is the possible public perception problems from providing special on street parking privileges for private property owners. City to Provide Assistance in Obtaining Cross Easements for Dock Access and Parking At the September 1999 Council meeting, the property owners were directed to work out a solution to obtain the necessary cross easements to allow off street parking for the dock lot owners. As previously discussed this has proved to a difficult situation and no progress has been made toward a permanent solution. One possible option for Council consideration could be for the City to become actively involved in the process of obtaining the cross easements. We have discussed this issue with the City Attorney and there are legal questions and concerns about the City’s involvement in this process. If the Council is interested in pursuing this option further, more research can be completed on this issue and a report brought back to the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Consideration of parking and access options for the Narrows Dock Lots r\ehh?fi>i 'I 'PPl/Mf IcN)' / ’ I w-' 1 (*’%-•'’1 ,#>•• i . •• • • • *^ • •> • «•• •• • ••J I- I ,. jlue-vP- j I w«T/»w^ ' | <*>c^ • •• •• I •V // 'v' irnOP^ f«r*f foAT lA /l¥»iJCfL 2tiS 3111 T>Mr«M*.<^ Av« , ^^Wfusioe. f.o. *oK eeO,l>etA»»o ^ T /^wesTfc Zial^ WMt R.4 a i Oi f WirnwA^J sVrt TTAL rcfcri A»4/M OUSONi ZT7“7C 5Mf CY(/X»C^ rM>c*t \L^u CfiSiT^n&r $vviHt^9^ 'TfMCC 0 CoOl^0*y> ijayzm"A 473 'Tfdcrx^oy^z*?*) 1 5Wi.y(/JCti» .V .0 T-» / / /• / ' U' / z- ,c> > ^ \ 1 / \ Conocfrk €KCTC// 7»IS 75 ISO, SOO Jf 90.6 ^4" ............. Wjitr 929.§ X 931.4 X 958.2 V L->'> Po •A /I). X r>. *i;?> v/ * Ctaltur 2’ i.' .ji.i B ;(35), Nisf i:o S£E N I/; see ?i rOft CU*IL *U “I r^o" PL AT ^ 0 T 1 ^ ■ , >____XVIJ § -OX-4 NWl/4 SEC. 2 T117N.R23W lENNEPIN COUN FM • . f. Or a no . Mlnoeso aS^ str 9f H-* ^Sr> > HORIZONS. /A AWIH I«FF|.C MOFtSSiW L» ••••« eiiM M • •“**•* ■' *VM •....l..».."i $Mrt « >»'»*** HORIZONS* FILE 3-ZZ' fc ~\ekh?p>i P'-VW'.v'^V Lo((i\\o\i"^__ ^___ dBli 'PiM/ME tc>ht>' f i|i .< I y«<c4irTlO>^ • VT»f T«**t • TftMfL 4 < T . WMS tffl • *th.o.- s 0 ^ P • T«fcrt A»4|M fiats' wirrrwArt • TifiAc»t ^ L CfiSitV • ilkCC $ COOK • 'Tftcr> oy<^ I »'/■*'* f. ?**"••' V s s P- . O , AJ K. j I |^|TrrO#tf^ • CA%C*f • •• •• C90^V 'x' . V ^i>i X)<M Aw# , r.o.*ote«^,1>€t^»td </ \ /' / )( V >r SH«*PWOOt> fc>8i ^uu-ivwJ j C<)u/.;pAC/A r^’SHMfS SH^ Tat 0(tctf ^ t zni< syttL'/ojooti 1*7$vit3ftui90^ (,V> W, 473-^ I ^rxtyt/Jcxi* / ,r. ’ / / / / /• / \ 6i)»>c<7frK Sit^roH lt-2-V IS /i9” LOIS City of OR' . * \yrxQ\<\<2 j 1|^«S SB) resolution of the city council NO. ^--------- TVVU0L 'dls. p\kilt f OVl. 04E Cf A CONDIT iON GRANTING USE PERMIT PERA RES MONI^pPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03# SJJBOXVISION 5 PILE sjJEprv # * WHEREAS. Paul R. Nutt (hereinafter "the applicant") is cribed as Tracts O & P# Registered Land Survey No. 41j after "property"); and WHEREAS# the applicant has 10^03^ conaitional use permit per the”continued use of 'theSubdivision 5 A through J to permit tne®ropem as a legal uon-conforming use a„a spe=ifxcal^ HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono# Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #941. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. viewed ms^lpplicaiion a\*'proposed^and“rtclm^eX^ approval based on the following findings: A) Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J): ^ vn 1 s» v^rtnire strict compliance and willunreasonably require sttJ. c - variance...generally look with favor on granting of a variance.. The substandard tracts were P“°| municipal zoning and controls in February of B) The Orono Council minutes that^sKeakicle published in the Minnetonka Harold in that sam^ year confirm that the City was aware of ^he existenc and use of accessory docks by non-ad^acent owner . Pace 1 of 4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO NO.1846 - B C) The propert^fe^bcivided in the mid 50 ’s without the benefit of^'at ’&cjS^controls, is a unique situation requiring spec'^^^^pSnsideration. D} Tne iimirea use of these tracts as proposed by the City will not create hazards to the public safety. cinnrt\irurtrany'=rtrerre°«c"na"^^^^^^ but for limited dock use. and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a permit to allow continued use of the property ^ lot with an accessory dock not health, safety or general welfare of ^^® /^^^Q^her adversely affect light, air nor pose a ^Yn^?^^tnreeiate danger to neighboring properties, nor will surrounding property values and that ^^® .^ use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or nore of the above findings,- the Orono Pitv council hereby grants a conditional use pent per Municipal ZonL^cSS sSn ?0.03, Subdivision 5 to permit the continued use of an accessory dock on a property that cannot principal structure thereby establishing a legal non-conform g use of the property, subject to the following conditions. 1. Applicant/owner is limited to the mooring of one boat at zero lot line dock. 2. Tract P shall be used for the parking of one car bjr applicant/owner. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ — ^ V. The existing dock at Tract O measures 42 f e e tin 1«"91 h and 3 feet in width. The applicant must file ® ^ use permit with the City if an increase in the length of th dock is considered at some future date. Page 2 of 4 K5 ;City of OROJiq^i m BE£^; silliEORESOLUTION OF THE CITY C NO. 1846 - B _ 4. Violation of or hoh-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, understood and here by agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of September, 1985. ATTE 5T: llin, 'City Clerk (1) Property Owner 1 ~ri1l III I If uni ■ ■ II —-a . -r — • » * Jane 22.1999 P.5CB1V2D JU:1 2 3 W59 OW'i Cr*OKO Mr. Greg Gappa City of Oroao P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay»MN 55323 Dear Greg: I am following up on your conversation with Dick Ogle regarding the parWng safety situation on the stretch of County Road 19/Shadywood Road, just north of the Nanows Bndgc in Orono. I am writing on behalf of a group of Orono neighbors that live m the immediate area. There is currendy a very significant safety risk on County Road 19, in tht area indicated on the attached map. Unless something is done, we beUeve its just a matter of ume before a very serious accident will happen in this area. As backiround. many yean ago when the last major work was done on County Road 19, one of fte^idents in our Jel Gen«al Rawlings, worked with the city and/o«ounty to widen *e toad on both sides of County Road 19 on the northern side of the Narrows. The “ provide a deceletaUon lane so cars turning into the driveways on either side of 19 “uld get out of traffic, puli over safely, slow down and exit safely without d.sruphng traffic flow on 19. This L necessary because the approach to 19 is a hill and you can see cars for less than 100 yard. from the entrance to the driveways. The deceleration lanes work well since they give people plenty of time to puU o«t Md slow down without disrupUng traffic flow on County Road 19. Early on. ^ „„ problem, but over the past few years parking has become a problem m the f both sides of the road. There are frequenfly cars parked along both sides of 19 and sometimes overnight or all weekend. ^Yhen cars are parked along County Road 19 we are not able to safely gel over ^nd slow down to ma.ke a turn. Cars are forced to cither stop on 19 before turmng ^er County Road 19 before turning. In cither case, generally the cars behind lane to get around the car turning, leaving less than 100 yards of c ew visi ^ romin<T over Narrows bridge. Cars coming north on County Road 19 are ^ north side oflhe Lhe Narrows Bridge because they know the speed lirrit goes up to 40 t.*idgc. This creates a situation where cars arc speedin^p cormng over ® ^ acerferatins towards cars that arc speeding up to pass cars turning ofi County Roa towards each other with limited visibility in cssenually the same lane. Donald R. Miegel 683 Sullivan Drive Columbia Heights, MN 55421 RSC!=r;3D August 15,1999 AUG ^ 7 1999 qVXY Or CnOi'JO City Council City Of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Resolution 4316 Dear Council I petition the Council to reconsider its action as to resolution 4316 on 6/28/99 no parking on Shadywood Road North of the Narrows Bndge. As the property owner of tracks Q & RI feel you have created a hardship for me. r m limited to one car on my property by the conditional use permit other property in the area is not. I believe there to be adequate room for parking and right turn lanes in the area. I started parking bn the street per the request of a few of &e property owners on the south end, as they felt I was damaging the slip road by vmg on it, even throng I have the right to do so. Your reconsideration m this matter would be very helpful in restoring my faith in the theory of Due Process. Sincerely; Donald R. Miegel oF LV\]iyu SFMT T/> V^CY- GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Subject: Narrows Dock Lots Dear Mr. Miegel; You are listed as the owner of one of the "Narrows Dock Lots”. Theses are lakeshore lots without a principal structure and are not in conformance with the current zoning codes. The zoning code requires a principal structure (residence) on a parcel before a dock is permitted. Since these lots were created before the current zoning code was in effect, the City Council previously approved resolutions granting a "Conditional Use Permit” (CUP) to allow for continued use of these dock lots by owners who do not reside in the immediate neighborhood. . . The City Council recently passed a resolution requesting that Hennepin County install "No Parking” signs along both sides of County Road 19 in this area. This was based on safety concerns from parked cars and turning vehicles. The original CUP resolutions stated that parking for the dock lots was supposed to occur on the small lots adjacent to ti.e dock lots. Easements between all of the dock lot owners were supposed to be granted to allow travel across these small lots for parking purposes. All of these easements were not completed when the original CUP’s were obtained. Over the past several years, parking for use of these dock lots has been occurring on County Road 19. Since this is no longer possible, the easement situation needs to be finalized at this time. City staff, Hennepin County Highway Department staff, and Don Miegel, one of the dock lot ovsners, recently met on-site to review options for parking. Our understanding is that Hermepin County is willing to issue an entrance permit to formalize access for these lots. In the past, access from County Road 19 had been occurring on an informal basis. Based on the steep hillside, there are only two locations where a driveway access is feasible. Based on the site topography, the preferred location is on the "Ginther and Ault” parcel. The second alternative would be on the "Huber” property. Hennepin County will only issue one entrance permit to serve theses dock lots, and will require proof of cross easements before an entrance permit is issued. Telephone (612) 249-4600 • fax (612) 249-4616 . 1 December 1,1999 Mr.Miegel Page 2 This letter is being sent to all of the dock lot owners to inform them of the situation. The City’s position is that the dock lot owners will need to cooperatively work together to find a solution to this problem. Several of the lots have existing CUP’s and some of the lots still need to obtain CUP’s . Your existing CUP will need to be amended to formalize any agreements on access and parking for these dock lots. Any driveway construction will require a land alteration permit and a variance for hardcover in the 0-75 foot setback zone fi*om Lake Mirmetonka. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me with any questions you may have regarding this issue. Sincerely, Off' GrSg^ry A. Gappa Director of Public Services n GAG/hb cc: Mike Gaf&on, City of Orono Senior Planning Coordinator Dave Zetterstrom, Hennepin County Public Works tf i I I --L -JM' ina»i^iiiiii Hiller n < HH 11 I <ai>i ■ ■ * i ii ♦ ii —»■ t vnVA» |ik- 5 P- . , A) , K j I yi|7?TA/cf^ • I t^c’ir A. irno»^. iWr lA A*J$UC^ itiS /I4IJ' 3111 Avt? . ^AC^n-sioe. r.o. no)c eco,i>a«^AicS TtiMTl ^ i T HfA&€V.7J^V> <MA>Yu>oot> 'TA.VM 1 J!. f /<J/^66L 68^ SUUtfVOJ t>A j COl.«/;/AC?P ritlUiTS •!«.».* s 0 ^ P wirrrftArt yVrt TrAL ^ Th^,ts A»4|M Ot-SONi z"7"?< sMAtyt/joot» Vi^L Chs€^ tof>Y>6^ UJ» Uiu-t'.b6 w, I'JA'/eM’A 'TflAcr ^O'M E'jT 1 <'fk\.Y{/)od^ ._./ / / / / CortCCfrK ^KCTC// 77r»5 75 /<»5- ! Donald R. Miegel Home 612-572-9045 Cell 612-221-8708 683 Sullivan Drive NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 January 18,2000 Mr. Gregory A. Gappa City Of Orono Director of Public Services PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: No Parking Regulations County Road 19, Narrows Bridge Area Dear; Mr. Gappa I request that the above issue be placed on the Council Agenda for reconsideration, for the following reasons: A. I believe the council acted with incorrect information as to legal access to the Dock Lots. We now know the only legal access to the boat slips is from County Rd 19. There is no so called slip road. B. The parking problem presented was a once a year event on the lake, the usual Summer parking is on the weekends for 2-3 slip owner cars. C. Hennepin County will not grant a curb cut pemut because of the steep embankment on my property, unless the property is allowed to be filled in. I’m not requesting that all parking be restored just enough for the slip owners use, maybe on some type of permit system. If the residents in the area are really concerned about Safety they will grant the necessary easements that would make parking on County Rd 19 unnecessary. Sincerely; /I don ’t know what dates the council normally meets, but I will be out of town -;^m Feb. 22 through Feb. 29,2000. Hopefully it can get put on the agenda ^fore or after tliose dates. Thanks REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUMCH. MEETING FEB 1 4 2000 CITY Or OHONO DATE; February 14, 2000 ITEM NO.: / j Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Seasonal Weight Restrictions-Resolution We have revised the resolution establishing seasonal road weight restrictions to change North Femdale Road from a 4-ton seasonal weight limit to a 9-ton weight limit because this road has been completely reconstructed to adequately handle these loads. Language clarifying the policy for exemptions, from seasonal weight restrictions, for emergency situations has also been added to the resolution. We are recommending approval of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve Resolution Establishing Seasonal Road Weight Restrictions I I III iT«~i n Til TiiTiitfiin I ■ \t\t nti Ml wa*.J-L- n __ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON ORONO PUBLIC CITY STREETS The City of Orono ordains that axle weight limits are restricted on the following streets in the City of Orono to protect these streets from damage when road and weather conditions warrant in accordance with regulations as provided in Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 6.11 Section 169.87 of the Orono Municipal Code. These weight restrictions are in effect during the spring thaw season between approximately March 1st to May 15th dependent on weather conditions. Streets may be posted for weight restrictions any time that road and weather conditions warrant weight limits to protect streets from damage. An exemption is provided for refuse collection vehicles to exceed the posted limits except no refuse collections vehicles shall be operated during restricted times where the gross weight on any single axle exceeds 14,000 lbs. The City also reserves the right to restrict refuse collection vehicles to the posted weight limits should conditions warrant. An exemption to {X)sted weight limits is allowed for utility company service vehicles namely Northern States Power Company, Wright-Hennepin Cooperative, Minnegasco, U.S. West Communication, Mediacom cable or other companies providing utility service within the City when responding to an emergency. An emergency response shall include power outages, gas leaks, emergency communication, line down or severed, etc. An exemption to posted weight limits is also allowed for septic tank service companies, well drilling and service companies, and companies delivering fuel for heating purposes. An emergency response is limited to septic or sewer system failures posing an imminent threat to public health and safety, well failure resulting in loss of water supply, or lack of heating fuel. All persons requesting an exemption to the posted weight limits for response to an emergency situation must notify the Orono Police Department ^Administrative Office. This notification must include a description and location of the emergency, the number and weight of vehicles responding to the emergency, and the route to be used to reach the emergency site. The City reserves the right to request supporting documentation of the nature and location of the emergency. All persons responding to emergency situations shall limit travel on seasonal weight restricted streets to the minimum distance required to reach the site from the closest road that is not subject to seasonal weight restrictions. 4 Page 1 of 4 All persons responding to emergency situations shall limit the number and weight of vehicles to the greatest extent possible. Measures to reduce the detrimental impacts to posted roads include, but not be limited to, using the smallest service vehicle possible, minimizing vehicle weight by only transporting the necessary equipment required for emergency response, transporting the minimum amount of heating fuel oil, LP gas, liquid septic waste, other materials, etc. necessary to correct the emergency situation. The intent of exemptions to seasonal weight restrictions is to allow response to actual emergency situations that pose an imminent threat to public health and safety. Routine maintenance of utility facilities, wells, sewer or septic systems, or routine replenishing of heating fuel supplies are not considered an emergency. The City reserves the right to request supporting documentation to verify the nature and location of emergency situations, and control routes used to travel to emergency situations. The following streets are limited to four ton axle limits: Arbor Street Concordia Street Farview Lane Baldur Park Road Corral Road Femdale Green Barrett Avenue Country Club Road Femdale Road West Bayview Place Crestview Avenue Forest Arms Lane Bederwood Drive Crystal Avenue Forest Lake Drive Birch Lane Crystal Bay Road Forest Lake Landing Blaine Avenue Crystal Place Fox Ridge Road Bohn's Point Lane Cygnet Place Fox Street Bohn's Point Road Dahl Road Frederick Street Brackett's Point Road Dakota Avenue Glendale Avenue Briar Street Dickenson Street Grandview Avenue Brown Road, North Dickenson Street Alleys Hackberry Hill Carman Road Dickey Lake Drive Hanlon Avenue Carman Street Dunwoody Avenue Heritage Drive Caroline Avenue Eastlake Street Heritage Lane Casco Avenue East Long Lake Road High Lane Casco Circle Eileen Street High wood Road Casco Cove Elm Lane Hunter Drive Casco Point Road Elm Street Ivy Place Cherry Avenue Elmwood Avenue Keene Avenue Cherry Place Ethel Avenue Kellv Avenue Chevy Chase Drive Eagerness Point Road Kenwc'od Way Chippewa Lane Fair\ iew Cottage Lakeview Avenue Page 2 of 4 Lafayette Ridge Court Oak Street Stubbs Bay Road Lakeview Terrace Old Beach Road Tamarack Drive L.eaf Street Old Long Lake Road Togo Road Lilac Lane Olive Avenue Tonka Avenue Linden Avenue Orchard Beach Place Tumham Road Linden Lane Orchard Park Road Union Cemetery Road Livingston Avenue Orono Lane Vine Place Loma Linda Avenue Orono Orchard Road Watertown Road Long Lake Boulevard Orono Townline Road Wear Lane North Lydiard Avenue Park Avenue Wear Circle Lydiard Circle Park Drive Webb Street Lyman Avenue Park Lane Webber Hills Road Lyric Avenue Partenwood Road West Femdale Road Maple Lane Pheasant Lawn Road West Lafayette Road Maple Place Prospect Avenue Westlake Street Mapicridge Lane Railroad Avenue Wildhurst Trail Minn^ionka Avenue Rest Point Circle Willow Drive (Otten Minnetonka Highlands Rest Point Lane Brother’s driveway to Minnie Avenue Russell Avenue Medina City limits) Myrtlewood Road Shevlin Drive Willow Drive (from BN RR Navarre Avenue Smith Avenue Bridge to Brown Road Navarre Lane Spates Avenue South) North Arm Drive Spring Hill Road Willowbrook Road North Arm Lane Spruce Place Windjammer Lane Northern Avenue Starkey Road Woodhill Avenue i The following are nine-ton axle limit: Femdale Road North Kelley Parkway McCulley Road Old Cr>'stal Bay Road Willow Drive (from Highway 12 375 ’ north to Otten Brothers driveway) Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held February 14, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 4 of 4 klkdla COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ CITY KJt UHOnq DATE: February 14, 2 ITEM NO.: j ^ •Till Departiuent Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Navarre Park Improvements Background Information The Park Commission has been working on developing plans for upgrading Navarre Park. No improvements have been made to this park for many years, as the playground equipment is from the 1960's. This equipment was originally located in the parking lot until the current park was developed from Tax Forfeit parcels. Navarre Park is an important park because it is located in the most densely populated area in the City. Many homes are located on small lots without room for recreational opportunities on their property. Over the past several years, playground equipment improvements have been completed at Bederwood, Crystal Bay, and Antoine Parks. Other than Navarre Park, Hackberry Park is the only remaining park with older playground equipment. Playground equipment improvements should also be planned for Ha.kberry Park. The public work’s maintenance personnel have been completing tree removal and cleanup work in Navarre Park. Several trees have been removed to promote better growth of the remaining trees and provide more sunny areas in the park. The chain link fence was removed which makes the park appear larger. The neighborhood response to the completed work has been positive. Neighborhood Concept Plan The Park Commission did schedule a neighborhood informational meeting, and area residents were notified of this meeting. Rick Meyers, a neighborhood resident, attended this meeting. Since this time, Andrew McDermott and Rick Meyers have worked with a group of neighborhood residents to develop improvement plans for the park. This group looked at playground equipment at several parks in neighboring communities. They liked the new playground equipment at Cottagewood Park in Deephaven. This park contains two separate play equipment modules from Landscape Structure. Delano Minnesota. This is the same brand of equipment recently installed in Antoine Park and two parks in the City of Long Lake. This group developed a concept plan for the park. Andrew McDermott sketched this plan, and Bonestroo Engineers developed cost estimates for this work. These cost estimates were based on bid prices received for other park improvements in this area that have recently been completed. This plan is attached for your review. The total estimated cost for the plan that was developed by the neighborhood is $255,'•III Financial Issues The current balance in the Park Dedication Fund is approximately $181,000. An itemized listing of the revenues and expenditures in the Park Dedication Fund is also attached for your review. The balance listed includes the costs for the purchase of the Larson Property in Navarre and the costs for the land purchases and access installation for the Saga Hill Natural area. Also included in the Park Fund Financial Report is revenues of $19,064 received from the Lake Minnetonka Woods Town Home Development located in Navarre. This development will increase the number of residents and the demand on park facilities in the Navarre area. 1999 Park Dedication Fund revenues were approximately $161,000. The estimated costs of $255,000 for the neighborhood concept plan exceed the $181,000 balance in the Park Fund. The Park Commission has discussed Navarre Park at several meetings, and revised the neighborhood concept plan to reduce the project costs. The decorative concrete sidewalks were replaced with bituminous surfaced trails. The permanent picnic tables and benches with concrete pads were eliminated, and will be replaced with less expensive portable picnic tables. The decorative trash receptacles will be replaced with the standard trash barrels used in the other parks. Purchasing of the plants for the planting beds was eliminated. The neighborhood residents will be responsible for installing and maintaining the plantings. The lighting along the sidewalks was also eliminated. The concept plan included reconfiguring several spaces in the municipal parking lot to provide access from the street side for park users. This item was removed to reduce costs. Playground Equipment Potions Earl F. Anderson Company developed two options for Landscape Structures play equipment. Plan A was the same two module configuration that was used in Cottagewood Park. The two modules were x^parate the older and younger children. The estimated cost for the purchase and installaiioc A <bs> equipment is $52,000. An alternative Plan B single module was also developed. The Park Commission reviewed both plans and preferred Plan A. City staff is in favor of Plan B with the one larger module. This single module plan provides more activities on one module to make play more interesting. It also includes more popular activities such as a track ride. The Park commission was concerned that with one big module there may be conflicts between the older and younger children. A review of the module shows a natural break where the younger children will probably stay on one end the structure. The representative from Earl Anderson Company had developed Plan B as a more cost effective solution that provides a greater variety of play activities on one module. The estimated cost for the purchase and installation of this equipment is $41,000 compared to $52,000 for Plan A. We have reviewed the plans for other possible cost savings items. One item could be to substitute pea gravel for the manufactured wood chip product. This would result in a savings of approximately $3,000. It may be possible to save a greater amount by eliminating or reducing the under drainage system. With pea gravel the under drainage system is less critical. The use of pea gravel could also reduce future maintenance costs. t We have contacted several cities regarding the material that they use under playground equipment. There is a difference of opinion on the best material use. The most expensive material at this time is the manufactured wood chip product. This is a compressed wood chip product manufactured to a specific size. This is a relatively new product. It does offer the advantage of better accessibility, for disabled persons, as it is possible to travel across this surface in a wheel chair. There are also fewer problems with children throwing the wood chips than the pea gravel. The City of Plymouth is converting all of their parks to the manufactured wood chip product. They are adding additional chips to their parks every other year. This is more maintenance than is required for pea gravel. The neighborhood residents would like to have the manufacmred wood chips used similar to Cottagewood Park. Orono is currently using pea gravel in our other parks. Walkway and Trail Options The neighborhood concept plan includes a sidewalk along Shadywood Road and a trail on the alley north of the park between two houses. This is a 10* wide platted alley that has never been developed. The concept is that this alley trail could be used to access the park from the north. My understanding is those neighborhood residents, who ride the bus to work, would like to use this path to travel through to the park toward the Shoreline Drive bus stop. Currently they have to walk along Shadywood Road to reach the bus stop. This is hazardous because there is no sidewalk along Shady wood Road north of Lyric Avenue. This option of walking through the park would not work in the winter unless the park paths were plowed. We do not have the equipment for winter maintenance of these paths. Also, this path would go through a back yard and may not be acceptable to the adjoining property owners. This sidewalk issue is a larger problem than the park improvements. My recommendation is that the best solution would be for the City to construct a sidewalk along the Shadywood Road from Crystal Place to Lyric Avenue. Sidewalk installation may require retaining walls. This sidewalk would provide for safer pedestrian travel, from the north, to the park and the commercial area for neighborhood residents. The other sidewalks in Navarre are maintained during the winter by the City, so winter maintenance of this sidewalk would allow for year round access. It is possible to plow sidewalks directly adjacent to the street using a wing plow, so no new special equipment is needed. If this sidewalk is constructed, the use of Park Dedication fees may not be appropriate and other sources of funding may need to be used. The use of Municipal State Aid funds for this sidewalk is a possible option. State Aid rules allow cities to use Municipal State Aid funds on trounty Highway improvement projects, subject to the same cost participation rules that apply to Municipal State Aid Street projects. Sidewalks generally are an eligible item for State Aid f inding. If the City Council would like to pursue the installation of a sidewalk, wc can obtain cost estimates and investigate possible funding sources for construction of this sidewalk. A cost estimate has been developed that does not include the alley trail to the north and the sidewalk along Shadywood Road in the park improvement project. In ordf to reduce project costs the revised plans have substituted bituminous surface trails for the decorative concrete sidewalks. Options and Cost Summaries Original Neighborhood Concept Plan Mobilization and Grading Playground Equipment (Plan A, Woodchips) Trails and Walkways ( Decorative Concrete) Benches, Tables and Fence Planting Beds (With Perennials) Lighting Drinking Fountain and Yard Hydrants Parking Reconfiguration Subtotal Contingency, 10% Estimated Year 2(XX) Construction Costs Engineering and Administration, 15% Estimated Year 2000 Project Costs Park Commission Revised Plan Mobilization and Grading Playground Equipment (Plan A, Pea Gravel) Bituminous Trails ( No Trail to North) Benches, Tables and Fence Planting Beds (Without Perennials) Lighting Drinking Fountain & Yard Hydrants Parking Reconfiguration Subtotal Contingency, 10% Estimated Year 2000 Construction Costs Engineering and Administration, 15% Estimated Year 2000 Project Costs iiiii III iiii $10, $76, $33,000 $7,000 $37,000 $15, $12, $12,( $202, $20, $222, $33, IIII nil IIII III IIII IIIII $255,1 III IIII $10, $73, $12, $4, $6,000 III III $11,000 nil nil $116, $12, $128,000 $19,000 $147,000 City Staff Revised Plan Mobilization and Grading Playground Equipment (Plan B, Pea Gravel) Bituminous Trails (No Trail to North) Benches, Tables and Fence Planting Beds (Without Perennials) Lighting Yard Hydrants ( No Drinking Fountain) Parking Reconfiguration Subtotal Contingency, 10% Estimated Year 2000 Construction Costs Engineering and Administration, 15% $10,000 $62,000 $12,000 $4,000 $6,000 $5,000 $99,000 10,000 $109,000 $16,000 Estimated Year 2000 Project Costs $125,000 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consideration of options for improvements to Navarre Park. Consideration of recommendation for sidewalk construction along Shady v'ood Road from Crystal Place to Lyric Avenue.i 1 Ci^ofOroao Park Fund Total 1999 thru Nov ^tevenun Park dedication fees Real estate taxes Interest on investments State grant Miscellaneous Donations Total revenues S473.531 . 3.000 71,819 198,637 3,112 1,901 S16U8S 3.000 3,910 80,000 (2) S756.040 S232.970 g<yenditures Old crystal bay road trafl Andone park Crystal bay tot park Saga hill park Hackbetry park March for parks S30S.889 38,933 42,311 218,929 1,243 200 S13.831 163,033 649 1998 1997 1996 1993 S74.960 S39.170 S30.864 S24422 0 0 0 0 7J5Z7 9,223 16463 16499 30,000 (2)50,000 (l)-18,637 5,112 --- 926 S138,385 SI 18493 S47432 S59478 S14.191 S177430 S33.731 S66,8S6 3,945 34.983 ~- 7,073 1,763 6470 27,103 904 -34,972 - 394 --- 200 ——- 16.1 Navarre playground 2,083 2,085 •* Dickey park 8,771 7,517 1454 •• Parkland - 3790 Shoreline Drive 81,000 81,000 est —mm Docks and public accesses 3,533 -—mm French creek preserve 92,386 —mm H\vy 12 trail (n.brown to willow)1,047 —** Park ptanningAnapping 9,070 — Park benches 331 —•• Highwood nature trail 370 -••** Lowry woods 833 -** Baric 20,000 —— Tout expenditures S327436 $263,135 523,163 S214,001 Amount Available November 30 SI8I497 Amount Available December 31 S196.762 S52496 3,338 426 393 1,332 PARKFUM) 1,386 649 331 370 SlOl.187 S96.925 $ S52J96 S2Q7.856 S273J96,€ aw . I I I ~ll October 30,1999 •j>q; City of Orono, Greg Gappa From: Andrew McDermott Subject: Summary of meetings with neighbors about Navarre Park I have met with a number of individuals about the condition and future plans for renovating the pa^ The following Is a list of improvements we developed during our discussions. Fall 99 Demolition 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Remove silver chain link fence along County 19 and Lyric Ave playground. Treas to ba ramovad ara markad with a rad dot. Trim dead wood from remaining large oaks. Move or re.move the catch basin on Lyric Ave fill large depression with Place 6 inches of topsoil and boulder borders around the three proposed hosta ctean up ar.d?emove buckthorn and other debris along back property line. 1. 2. Spring 2000 Install the following playground equipment; r, "S V^e SSar'." SdSldren add a .rac. rtda or Hn, tea. •similar to DeephavenCottagewood Park 3 Reuse swings but replace at least one of the swings with a tot seat 1 "f«irn"alXe hav, hvo s,Idas one should on,, be 5 fee, ,a„, 6. Benches for parents to sit on. 7. Picnic table for snack preparation. concrele curbs around olavoround area 'similar to Deephaven Cottagewood Pa*' and nil "odXs and no, pea aoung children like ,o pu, pea grava, in meir mou«,s and also throw it.) Other v/ork in 2000 1. Install a concrete sidewalk along county 19 the length of the park and connect with Su a MlU rail fence along the entire rear property line and along ninety feet of Lyric A« Lea« oMrt^^ s section of fence for a future sidewalk to Uvingaon Ave fnstahdecoraUve walks of dark gray stamped concrete or brick pavers or something similar, see locations on the plan Install low bollard lights, about 3 feel tall. Install a yard hydrant for plant watering Install a high low drinking fountain. Pnn^fnirt a circular area for planting, or a fountain, or a gazebo, fnslall benches In the lower part of ttie park. Style of bench should be similar to m^a^SflnSo^ mat leads to Municipal parking lot Reorten,ro o?th?ee ping stall, sc they face park make one Of mem an accessible Paint a cross walk from parking tc Nsvj ■** Construct a large planter around parking lot light. Install a bike rack. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. if '1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects 8cntr.fOO. .7o»er*. Aruruk »r.c AssccJtes. me .* ^ Aff.rrr.,t,vt A::.cfr/tVJ*i Of penalty employer 5«."tVSim, fi!. l «.>«•.. »C. TO t«u» u. ••■«.. OA. I.TO CTO(unu A.,BriM,PrmelaslcHerr*tO A. Unfofd. M. • !«•*»’ Corflon. H • »eoeft «. 7feff«rtt. M. • W o. La.M.*. ne . Rce.ft C Ruu.x. AlA. . MW K K.uo«. Pi . MichmI r Rjutmjnn Pi • Pt- • Kerw»*tn P. AnCtfton. Pi • Mjrt i. Rolfl,P£ • Sitfnr/ P. Wliumion, Pi. Li • Rootrt P Kotimitn • A^oti M. Ruifl • AJjn Riek S<rsmia. PX OffictK St Paul. Roe.-?t»;tf. witimai- ana St Cioua. .v.n • .Viiwauaes. 'm U'eoiiCr: w.vw soreifco zem December 1,1999 Greg Gappa Director of Public Services City of Orono 2730 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Feasibility Study for Navarre Park 'fiKW N“'^r^«kpSs active and passive recreational opportunities for *«uito^dmg residents Md also acts M a transitional buffet between the residential ate« to the north and &e “mmercial areas and municipal parking lot to the south. Updating imd walkways, and amenities will significandy enhance the appeal, function, and s^e^ of Navatt p"emoving scrub vegetation and selected trees and plantmg new perennial beds wall improve the park’s aesthetics. Two proposed play structures will complement the existing slide and swing and ?;mpuL« w^h cement safety and ADA (A^iericans with Disabilities A^el^ jrr longer term, a circular planting area svill be created that can accommodate either a fountain or a gazebo in the future. fSX’i'SSX’KS5»'£S “ periodic site visits during construction which staking include full-time construction inspection services. It also does services, which can be provided for an additional fee. Please contact me if you have any questions regardmg *e information presented here or if you need additional information. My direct line is 6Dl-60n-48bl. Sincerely, BONEyi^^ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. i ____r,/:.c. P^Mi MM 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 SA/viE f^aiPKAfMT As CoMk^tWOob Df£PWAi/E'-J 2. hAOl>uUi • KEY BOOMO UCHT CCOAR snjT RML FCNCC L ] CONCRCTC SnCWALK mnnnmi occoratnc soomik t . . . I PCRCNMM. BCD MOTE* CnSTNO TRCCS TO 8C RCUOwCO ARC NOT SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. Um IB M fUfUM! fCXiNTAM \ OR GAZCBO LOCATION RCCONHCURCD PARKINC ARtA-v ^ 25G; ^ eCNCH (lYPlCAt) PCROMAL PtANDNC BCD (rrPCAL)\ -\\ C^MCFPT C5283DA 12/1 /99 PLAN A I /\M WOOD nBER SURFACING 5" * C* RECYCLED PLASTIC TIMBERS - 2 TIER SCALE: r = 10-0 EXISTING TREE - TYPICAL J / / ______I |6‘. wm %e m rnmm inMitummmm (U/.i| |i) / •MU MAf mil vuMt Himi 16 ‘« fut AJ»n SUf V • • • • • ( iraa MUMi oeai« t \ «of 1 »ua swo / / *. I rmrnrm mut 1A ^ » / \ maOl HAM 10 r 6 / _ I u>m« \ / \ \ \ / ^ \ \ \ \ \ i 5'2.^ 00(C) 5 u /iMb msT Hi / C5283DB 12/1/99 SCALE:' 1/8" = I’-O” RBER SURFACING i" X 6" RECYCLED PLASTIC TIMBERS - 2 TIER EXISTING TREE - TYPICAL tlBM /6’ 109 tie«Kqnawi mil HIM r KBSMl «K. (♦) niM if mz iitio vuttm -X iitjB M IllXf _ POS 11C9 t/v«a molxm. StM>€X cuwr 9Lmcc«THmiJa DCL 4riML»Cp<r . M & VTt fxiMircnDi MNOatPCMJ iiiarr / s*/ 000 fa5 lA iMAl •9 • ...... _________—*■ ' /"•*-----^ r— ............* NCW PtAV- SIHUCIURCS •/ NCW SWING % .11’ ..................... cxet'iNC si. «• • 1.0 RC<^.;..;>;: ’. f •X.*‘ T’l«*V"y-*’. /•'key / PLANTI^'KI* (WlCAl) \.r^rA^oE .>gs5sv><’V : / / ,•' .** {'"'•^'f''' '<• _____________________! /. /. A —-• "\ • — • —• • ! • 0 ! : * / / • . • / .' .' J A .7 if * • Navarre Park Improvements, Orono, MN Preliminary Cost Estimate-Option 1 File No. 139-99-109 December 23,1999 • issm Unit Qtv. Unit Prie«CsiS Mcbiiiration and Earthwork Mobilization Common Excavation-offsite LS CY 1 S5.CC0.00 SCO S11.00 55,000 $5,500 Subtotal $10,500 Playground Area Play StAiCtures New Swing Play Area Curbing Play Container Mulch (12" Deep Wocdchips) Play Area Underdrainage Accessibility Resilient Surfacing LS LS LF CY LS SF 1 S52.0C0 1 S2.9C0 294 S2Q 185 S40 1 S4.4C0 140 S23.5 552.000 52,500 55.880 57.400 54.400 $3,290 Subtotal $75,470 Trails and Wallc//ays Trail Excavation Bituminous Trails (Includes Aggregate Base) Topdress Entire Park (Assume r Average Depth) Overseed Entire Park (Shady Mix) LF LF CY AC 730 55.44 730 $16 64 525 0.48 52.600 ' $3,971 511,680 $1,600 51.248 Subtotal $16,499 Other Improvements Split Rail Fence LS 1 53.0C0 53.000 Subtotal $3,000 Planting Beds Topsoil Boulder Borders CY LF 71 525 £03 $7.50 51,775 $3,773 SubtoUl 55,548 Yard Hydrants 1" Corporation Stop rCurb Stop and Box r Type "K" Copper Water Service Yard Hydrant EA EA LF LS 1 S1.2G0 1 $800 150 519 2 $400 $1,200 5800 52.850 5800 SubtoUl 55.650 Combined Subtotal Contingency (10V«) 5118,667 Cl 1.867 Estimated Year 2000 Construction Costs Design, Engineering, Administration c-l ^ k S»:«5-3 Estimated Year 2000 Project Costs Deduct Alternate $143,$87 Crushed Limestone Trails Bituminous Trails Cost Included in Estimate Estimated Construction Cost Deduct Amount 730 S10 S7.3C0 11,630 -S4,38f Ic\139\139-99-10S'V^3'^''2-23-S9 Preliminary Cost Estimate-Option 1 . ----fUlirfil fOUNlAIN OH CAitOO lOCAllOH t- • • •»•••PUMTlite.eCO (T»^) —---------------^ •, ^ I ) )• LYf^d AVENOE . ..:r.-r/rrr/rrr-">- •• ...........v .™.“7-------------- ; • / * ; /• • • / ^'srrt.TrrrBB Navarrt Park Imprevamants, Oreno, MN Prallminaiy Cost Eatimata^ption 2 Fila No. 139-29-109 Oacambar 23,1999 Him Mobilization and Earthwork MobiTizatlon Common Exeavation<olT3ita Playground Area Trails and Walkways Play Structures New Swing Play Area Curbing Play Conuinar Mulch (12“ Oaap Woodchips) Play Area Underdrainage Accessibility Resilient Surfacing Trail Excavation Bituminous Traits (Includes Aggregate Base) Topdress Entire Park (Assume r Average Depth) Overseed Entire Park (Shady Mix) Unit Qtv. Unit Price Cost LS 1 $5,000.00 $5.CQ0 CY SQO $11.00 $5,500 Subtotal $10,500 LS 1 $52,000 S52.CCO LS 1 $2,500 $2,500 LF 294 $20 $5,880 CY 185 $40 $7,400 LS 1 54.400 $4,400 SF 140 $23 5 $3,290 Subtotal $75,470 LF 400 $5.44 $2,176 LF 400 $16 $5,400 CY 64 $25 S1.6C0 AC 0.43 $2,600 $1,248 Subtotal $11,424 Other Improvements Planting Beds Yard Hy its Split Rail Fence LS 1 $3,000 S3.CQ0 Subtotal $3,000 Topsoil CY 71 $25 $1,775 Boulder Borders LF 503 $7.50 53.773 Subtotal $5,S48 r Corporation Stop EA 1 $1,200 $uco r Curb Stop and Box EA 1 S8C0 saco r Type 1C Copper Water Service LF ISO $19 $2,850 Yard Hydrant LS 2 $400 saco • Subtotal $S.6S0 • Combined Subtotal •$111,992 Contingency (10%)$11,159 Estimated ^ear 20GO Construction Costs )5'h $122,7S1 Design, Engineering, Administration (tPKT $12,275 Estimated Year 2000 Project Cosu Deduct Alternate Crushed Limestone Trails B-tuminous Trails Cost Included in Estimate Estimated Construction Cost Deduct Amount 400 $135,026 St.CCO 6.400 •S2.400 k.\l39\l39-99-109\Word\l2-23-99 Preliminary Cost Estimate-OpUon 2 COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 1 4 2000 CITY ur Unuivu DATE: February 11,2000 ITEM NO = /3 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Request for Stop Sign at Shevlin Drive and Willow Drive At the January 24 Council meeting, Kurt Rakos of 2175 Shevlin Drive requested the City consider a 3-way stop at the Shevlin Drive/Willow Drive intersection to address concerns regarding safety and the speed of traffic. In response to this request, the Police Chief and the City's consultant engineer reviewed the request. Both recommended against the 3-way stop. A letter from Sheldon Johnson of Bonestroo Associates and a memo from Gary Cheswick, Police Chief, are attached. When Chief Cheswick discussed his findings with Mr. Rakos, Mr. Rakos requested an opportunity to address the Council regarding his request. Staff is recommending against the 3-way stop because the level of traffic at that intersection does not warrant the 3-wuy stop condition. When a 3-way stop is installed at an intersection that does not meet warrants, drivers tend to ignore the stop signs. This behavior also then tends to be applied to other stop signs. Chief Cheswick has indicated the Police Department will monitor traffic speeds and will take action to comrol the speed of traffic in the area. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion tc deny the request for the 3-way stop at the Shevlin Drive/Willow Drive intersection. ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\j I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Ander'ik ^nd Associates. Inc. is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Glenn R. Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE Jerry A Bourdon. PE. • Robert W Rosene. PE . Richard E Turner. PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R “fef^erle. PE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C. Russek. A I A. • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T. Rautmann, PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P. Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs, PE. • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes M Ring • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Wiilmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl Website WWW bonestroo com Memorandum TO; FROM DATE: RE: Ron Moorse Orono City Administrator^ A Sheldon J. Johnsoij? L January 28, 2000 Traffic Speed Issue - Willow Drive Our File No. 139-Gen Tom Kellogg asked for my thoughts with regard to the citizen complaint of speeding along Willow Drive, particularly in the area of the intersection with Shevlin Drive. He also informed me that an all-way stop at the intersection of Willow Drive with Shevlin Drive was an option that was mentioned with regard to “slovsing down the traffic”. Traffic Speeds The traffic speeds issue may or may not be valid. I would suggest that the City request the local law enforcement agency to conduct a speed study along Willow. This will help to determine if a problem presently e.xists. If a speeding problem e.xists, the City can take the following course of action: 1 . Increase speed enforcement along willow Drive. 2. Consider some signing requesting traffic to slow down and/or watch their speed. If these have no effect, the City could then consider various types of traffic calming measures that may help to slow the traffic. All-Wav Stop Control Attached to this memo is a copy for the warrants for stop sign installation and for all-way stop sign installation These warrants are from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Pcpcp? (MMUl CD). Given the volume conditions required. I donT think that the Willow^Shevlin intersection would meet warrants for all-way stop control. It is also recommended that stop signs not be used as a speed control as it is ineffective for such use. Also, all-way stops at low volume areas will find motorists “rolling ” through these stop signs as the tralTic can't really understand why a stop sign is at that location. Traffic will tend to ignore the traffic control and possibly other traffic control. 2335 West Highway 36 * St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 > Fax: 651-636-1311 2B-5 Warrants for Slop Sign Because the STOP sign causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists, it should be used only where warranted. A STOP sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of*way rule is unduly hazardous. 2. Street entering a through highway or street. 3. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. 4. Other interseaions where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the STOP sign. Prior to the application of these warrants, consideration should be given to less restrictive measures, such as the YIELD sign (2B-7) where a full Rev. 9/84 2B-2 ) II. i f I ) top is not necessary at all times. Periodic reviews of existing installations may be desirable to determine whether, because of changed conditions, the use of less restrictive control or no control could accommodate traffic demands safely and more effectively. STOP signs should never be used on the through roadways of expressways. Properly designed expressway interchanges provide for the continuous flow of traffic, making STOP signs unnessary even on the entering roadways, ^^'here at-grade intersections are temporarily justified for local traffic in sparsely populated areas, STOP signs should be used on the entering roadways to protect the through traffic. STOP signs may also be required at the end of diverging roadways at the intersection with other highways not designed as expressways. In most of these cases, the speeds will not warrant any great increase in the sign sizes. STOP signs shall not be erected at intersections where traffic control signals are operating. The conflicting commands of two types of control devices are confusing. If traffic is required to stop when the operation of the stop-and-go signals is not warranted, the signals should be put on flashing operation with the red flashing light facing the traffic that must stop. Where two main highways intersect, the STOP sign or signs should normally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. ,'raffic engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a STOP sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way intersection where safety considerations may justify stopping the greater flow of traffic to permit a left-turning movement. STOP signs may be used at selected railroad-highway grade crossings only after their need has been determined by a detailed traffic engineering study. Use of the STOP sign at railroad-highway grade crossings is described in Section 8B-9. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency purposes. Also, STOP signs should not be used for speed control. 2B-6 Multiway Stop Signs The ‘‘Multiway Stop*’ installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately e'lual. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any of the following conditions may warrant a multiway STOP sign installation (sec. 2B-4): 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the lultiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. 2B-3 Vlil-S(e) Km. 2 Rev. f/94 -.r rarrft* «• • ,•»-»-i 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a multiway stop installation in a 12-month period. Such accidents include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but (c) When the 85-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic e.xceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. 2B-7 Yield Sign (Rl-2) The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need stop only when necessary to avoid interference with other traffic that is given the right-of- way. The YIELD sign shall be a downward pointing, equilateral triangle having a red border band and a white interior and the word YIELD in red inside the border band. The standard size shall be 36 x 36 x 36 inches. k 2B-8 Warrants for Yield Signs The YIELD sign may be warranted: 1. At the entrance to an intersection where it is necessary to assign right-of-way and where the safe approach speed on the entrance exceeds 10 miles per hour. 2. On the entrance ramp to an expressway where an acceleration lane is not provided. 11-37 ( R*».S 2B-4 3. At intersections on a divided highway where the median between the roadways is more than 30 feet wide. At such intersections, a STOP sign may be used at the entrance to the First roadway of the divided highway and a YIELD sign may be placed at the entrance to the second roadway. 4. Where there is a separate or channelized right-turn lane, without an adequate acceleration lane. 5. At any intersection where a special problem e.xists and where an engineering study indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by use of the YIELD sign. YIELD signs generally should not be placed to control the major flow of traffic at an intersection. However, YIELD signs may be installed to control a major traffic movement where a majority of drivers in that movement are making right turns (see page 2A-16). At such an intersection, YIELD signs should not be erected on more than one approach. YIELD signs should not be used on the through roadways of expressways. They may be used on an entering roadway without an adequate acceleration lane, but in a well-designed interchange, the sign would interfere with the free merging movement, aud it should not be used under those circumstances. 11-37 11-37 Rf V. Date:January 26,2000 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Polic Subject: Request for Stop Sign In response to the request for stop sign at Shevlin Drive and Willow Drive, the following are reasons the Police Department does not support posting of additional stop signs. At the above location, the total number of vehicles on Willov/ Drive, in a 24 hour test survey, are extremely minimal, totalling 233, with a 50 percentile at 28 mph, and 85 percentile at 33 mph. This is seven miles per hour under the posted speed limit. The Shevlin Drive intersection has already a stop sign posted at Willow Drive with additional stop signs serving no purpose. Finally, a stop sign would impact normal traffic flow as well as providing opportunity for rear end collisions. 1 ^ mil 111— iii Piiilf P h i ~>lfT Win > r COrtMni meeting FE6 1 4 2000REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl i V v>r uiiUfVO DATE: February 10,2000 ITEM NO = /V Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse //f City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Park Commission Appointments There are currently two vacancies on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. The City has received applications from three persons interested in serving on the Commission. The applications are attached. The Council may want to schedule interviews to be held at the start of the February 28 Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to schedule interviews for the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission applicants. Application for Citizen Advisory Commission City of Orono Commission Applying for: Parks Commission Name: Address: Telephone: Resident of Orono: Jim Morgan 4725 Bayside Rd. Orono. MN 55359 (H) 495-0706 (W) 745-4941 2 Years Work Experience: • President - Mitten Software, Inc. • 1988 to Present Founded firm that develops custom software solutions and publishes programming tools and books. Offices are in Long Lake. Currently employ six employees and keep six subcontractors busy. • Manager - Coopers & Lybrand • Management Consulting Services 1983 to 1988 Managed various consulting projects applying computer technology to solve business problems and improve operations. • Business Analyst • I'/lodern Merchandising (Best Products) Developed and implemented various internal controls and top management reporting systems. • System Engineer • Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Designed, coded and tested subsystems in a complete work-in-process tracking system. Education: • University of Minnesota • Carlson School of Management Coursework toward Master of Business Administration in general management B.S.B. in finance and marketing. • Certified in Data Processing (CDP) and Production and Inventory Control (CPIM). Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): • Past member Maplewood Jaycees • Past member Delta Sigma Pi • Tree planting - personally planted over 500 trees in the past eight years. Reasons for wanting to serve on Commission: • I want to make a positive impact on community. • I would like to see more parks and a better trail system. View of the role of the commission: • Gather citizens views on park issues • Help disseminate park-related information. • Research park issues. • Develop and maintain a park plan. • Make recommendations on park use, access, rules, regulations, equipment, signs and land acquisition. • Work with the city, city council, county and other government bodies on park issues. Other Comments: • Although I have only lived in Orono for two years. I’ve spent my entire life in the Twin Cities area. I grew up Woodbury on a farm. I witnessed Woodbury grow from 4,000 to over 45,000 currently. I have observed their methods of park and trail ; 'anning. My father sold Woodbuiy land for a park, so I am familiar with land acquisition practices. I have also lived in Maplewood, Minneapolis, Minnetonka and Plymouth. • I enjoy the outdoors. I am an active user of trails and parks. I bike, walk, snowmobile, boat and fish. • The construction of Highway 12, potential railway to trail conversion, and the expected growth in population make this a critical time for parks. I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. / Signature Date 1860 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 612-476-2351 January 26,1999 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: I wish to be considered for appointment to the City Parks Commission. My application is enclosed. I am available to appear for an interview at the Council’s convenience. Feel free to call me if you need additional information. Sinc^ely, «t ^Pauline M. Bouch^d * J 1 a II APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COP^WIISSION O V;o • I *.• A . t'> CITY of ORONO McnicIfKil Onicei v'-. Stnet Wirejs: 27:0 K5il3v Ps.-k-tfay Cf:r.c. V.N ::;5c Mail'.flg A^drass: ?.0. Box o£ Crysbl Bay. MS :5223-CC:i Commission Applying For: ^Parks Commission □ Planning Commission G Community Task Force (Name)___________________________ Name /■• UY‘ Address PostOflice &.ZipCode (.(. ryyJ:^r/? Telephone IH) 4 lO.(W) Resident of Orono years Work Experience; Retired from state service in August, 1999; Program manager (division director) of several Minnesota Department of Health environmental programs, 1984-1999; led numerous internal and external study committees and task forces, with other state and federal agencies, local government, the public and professional communities: Assistant to Division Director, project leader, legal consultant, MN Dept, of Health, 1975-1984; Adjunct Assistant Profession, U of M School of Public Health, Sept. 1991-June, 1999. Edacctio.n: University of MN Lav;Sc*/>>»-', Sept. 1973-June 1976, JD degree (MN attorney license #0010017 ) Kotre Dame College, Sept. 1954-June 1958, BS Degree in Biology and Chemistry Civic a.^id Volunteer Activities (past and present): West Suburban Mediation Center (Hopkins MN) Board member 1995-present; Executive Committee 1997-present; and volunteer mediatior since 1991; Hamm Psychiatric Clinic (St Paul. MN) Board member 1995-present; Chair of Development Committee, 1998-present American Public Health Lab Association, Board member and See. Treasurer, 1993-1998; National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference. Baord member 1992-1996, Policy Committee chair, 1996-1999; MN Public Health Association, chair of various committees 1982-1996 Telephone (612) 473-73S7 ♦ FAX 473-0510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve or. this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necassa.^.) I would like to serve on the Commission for a variety of reasons. First, as one who plans to continue to live in the community for many more years, I want to help assure that parks and public recreational spaces get the support and attention they need, keeping in mind citizens* need for and use of those spaces and the resources available. As a lover of the outdoors and a supporter of organizations whose purpose is promoting and preserving outdoor spaces for recreation and future enjoyment, I have developed a keen appreciation of the need for responsible decisions about the creation, use and preservation of publicly owned lands. Secondly, as a user of public parks and trails, I want to assure that other Orono residents with similar interests have a voice in deciding the future recreational opportunities which Orono can offer. Thirdly, I have extensive knowledge of and experience in dealing with policy making bodies at the federal, state and county level which could contribute to my effectiveness as a Commission member. And fourthly, one of my retirement goals was to volunteer some time to a local government agency. I would like to donate back to a community in which I have so enjoyed living, and try to make Orono an ever more liveable and enjoyable community for all its citizens, young and old. What is your view of the role of the Cc.mmissior? The role of the Commission should be twofold: first, to serve as a vehicle to the Council for public Intput into decisions which affect Orono's parks and trails, and from the Council back to the public; and secondly, to propose to the Council, on behalf of Orono citizens, actions which will support, maintain and improve the City's parks and trails, including the addition of more parks and trails. In addition to whatever other tasks the Council would assign to it, the Commission should explore opportunities to cooperate with other units of government and landowners to help address public needs for rrK>re recreational areas. The Commission should also develop and periodically review a plan for parks and trails, to assure that the City's long term needs are known and addressed. Other Comments: [Use this scacs to Induda any fui^thar LnforrnatJon you would like the Cit/ Council to consider, cr that you fasi is raiavant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach othe.'- .materials you would like the Council to consider.) Should the cities of Orono and Long Lake merge, there might be disputes regarding parks and trails which my mediation skills could help resolve. I am particularly interested in the possibility of converting the Dakota Rail Line to recreational use. The fact that County Road 1 5 carries so much vehicular traffic along Brown and Smith's bays adds to the desireability of converting the rail line to a walking trail. If I were to be appointed to the Commssion, I would do whatever I could to help bring that about. Some neighbors who could provide references include: Orono residents: Greg and Kathy Coward (476-0439). Louis and Carol Bloch (475-1364), Ingrid Lenz Harrson (476-8449), Others who know of my volunteer and organizational experience are: Cheri Fischer, (933-5000) Executive Director of the West Suburban Mediation Center and Mayor of Minnetrista; Ann Thies, (476-1234) Long Lake attorney. I understand this appci.nrmo.nt may ba discLSScd a: a public maeiing. t' .a 6'- NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public in forms ticn. 2 a*e«ioJ APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Malllns Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 M Commission Applying For: H Parks Commission D Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)________________________ Name V^\lcn'C<. A V-\aWOt~Sv5V^ Address Sho e OrW Post Office & Zip Code ^5^9 I Telephone (H) M7\~ l\^S~ (W) Resident of Orono years. - '88-^ ^ ^'/qq—? Pjus«20-t- Work Experience; . i v? \ UpgvVn ncVuCLry- Qchj.aY(oi^ Cc^Scu^Hxnir (pc\\±it»y^ tq/Li - »qX.) - V.R fVWi \3gPiao ______________________________ Education: P) A — ^ustgvus CoWn Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): Bctif c.\ member - SV. Joino a EC^Q- ^ ^0 ^^xxx'td vTig<v^bja.v" • 5l(^ovelivnjg- Early Or>t\cU^coc3 Driv Or Cpgs^:'^ ?5oarc\ monabar - Ua,aQ\V?v\fl-Vla-Vl. 6c\T C\ub (pc»s.\ Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) ntvv •rr\rv\T\y fhG\/ed \3ac\c Dfo'iao afAer in S^ocymvVTygyvn ^*12. yeg/$, ViQ& cm dy^nsWe. pnrV-Cou»^y^-Vha^ enbgy^ces A-V\t.Q.Yga, Of gap Vxis A\\q 4r> pr\vit.<; \l^hV\-> u30u\di ><\^proV€-.^U Ouaivl-y of iwinq a\\ YeS^^v^+S. Tlwc oye ct'\OL{\y \ousy coav^-\y roads in l0rj>Vo:/ W<; or uca\\L I \ « 4 rMtn^ c. >y Oixy^iv — -— - 'i »i -^fn.Thc^ ^Oofis tY>A\Lc \V fj^iVhcuiBV \z>/ cWtVWer> \o rido toTifcS a\t X ^Ldd i;tft *to pa-V^ ...w.o.i -tTD ATvtAjr-l- 4o -Wig Luc £ Ural Ql>^c^ oM^£V -Vva\U> tov s.aVe-Vy ot c What Is your view of the role of the Commission? To vef cfwMnrvonf^ pnorV \mprp\/err\j£^\Hj po.rV-a(3dLViCT0S>j Q.^_,------- To re.^j\g>i\J fioric vj6g. ~Vo g.nsoK'g- ~^Kt- best uv&ft. AH l lavid .______ To pyg^QY^e. v>qVuYni) W \\\6 ojo^oyrrxo-At' Q.\\~ boVh \i\CLO 9o \a .--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you wouio like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting DattSignature ••NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. 040tSt.2 COUMCIL MEETING FEB 1 4 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cn t Ur UnUfVO DATE; February 10,2000 ITEM NO Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: WeCan Request for CDBG Funds Attached is a letter from the Westonka Community Action Network (WeCan) asking the City of Orono to support their request for Community Development Block Grant funds. The City has supported similar requests in prior years. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate the City’s support of the WeCan application for CDBG funding, and to direct staff to prepare a letter of support. 10 1 ^nniterutry 1 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 (612) 472-0742 (612) 472-5589 (FAX) 8IRVICC AREA Gmifield Mound Independence RocKford loreno St Bonifaaus Mapte Ptiin Spring Mini)etonki Beach Icnka Mmnithsta Wer: Orono OFFICERS Cfilg Andareon Westonka CommunitY Action Network Family Support Services ■ Meals on Wheels ■ Human Ser%nces ■ Job Development & Placement February 2, 2000 Sf. Bon-Mtvmnstn Oofothy MeOueen V!c0^rmtd^nf Community ^Weer tif>gy SImaf S^cfottfy Hota Stm Minioer Mr.vin Jotineon Ihomune Miyor of InOeoofxJerce BOARD OF DIRECTORS Larry Ballay Oncer of Wtef Honoepm Ptcac Sitrfy Mary DeMInnay Wfstenki Foortstmf CoorCfri::r Lan Harrall MounO Pct<o Cfu9f Irma Kafalghazil Ccmr'My VtiiurtUif Faula Larton Biomoss Ownof Unon Pvru^Q Sharon McManamy-Cook Normst Bonk Vici PrfSJCeri Suaan Mayart Community VoiLrieor Marty* Nalaon Pononoi BirMtf Uounc yi '^uetto Sandy OleUd Parts/t Nuru Chart#* Fugh Commurity Vt i Kan Riba PiStoe of Ptrst Prfs0,isr2i Cf'ufCft Bob Tbrnalka Communrf} Ikyunreer Mafdi Watt Communty Mark Winter C'ow 3 ,fr 3m:m Vcf ADMINISTRATION KlkJ Sonnan fjraatrva Ortcof Koho Chltko hmky kfyocan Audrey Ogland yui on s Shlrfay Tbibarg Cintr Counst c'-JcO Ce^ropr Mayor Gabriel Jabour And City Council Members City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Jabour and Council Members: On behalf of the WeCAN Board of Directors, I am again asking the city of Orono to support our request for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. WeCAN is a community-based human service organization, dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability. We provide a variety of services to low Income residents in western Hennepin County, and in most ^'ases WeCAN is the only provider of these services In this area. In 1999, we served over 700 families, ten of whom are residents of Orono. Our services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public assistance intake services, and family and individual mental health counseling. Approximately ninety percent (90%) of those families we serve have a total household income considered low or very low. Enclosed is additional information about area residents WeCAN served in 1999. As you well know, your city's CDBG allocation is now part of a pool of funds from communities receiving less than $75,000 annually in CDBG funding. Orono has a long history of supporting WeCAN operations, and your on-going support is essential to us. This year WeCAN is requesting $15,000 from Consolidated CDBG funds. If you continue to support WeCAN's mission of helping families achieve greater self-sufficiency, we would appreciate a letter of support or resolution from the City of Orono which affirms that support by March 1, 2000. We will then submit your letter along with ’ - •It* L our application for CDBG funds to Hennepin County. If you have any questions or would like additional Information, please feel free to contact me. I would be honored to present WeCAN's mission and accomplishments to your city council at a future meeting. And thank you for your continued support! Respectfully, Edith J. Travers Executive Director Enclosure ---------------------------- ■ --------------------------------------------—... - .r ^ ------------------- WeCAN Services to Households by City 1999 PROGRAM Emerg. Serv.Jobs Meals on Wheels Family Support Econ..Ass't Counseling Referrals TOTAL CITY 0 Greenfield 2 3 5 Independence 1 1 5 7 Loretto t 2 2 Maple Plain 6 1 13 8 2 15 45 Minnetonka Beach 1 1 Minnetrista 5 5 1 1 10 22 Mound 29 41 55 47 26 22 141 361 Orono 2 3 1 4 10 Rockford 7 7 8 1 31 54 St. Bonifacius 6 5 7 18 2 ii 49 Spring Park 7 8 30 2 4 20 71 Tonka Bay 1 4 3 8 Homeless 10 10 Other Cities 6 5 1 4 62 78 TOTAL 63 76 114 89 34 29 318 723 41* • % 1 1999 WeCAN Services Household Characteristics HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS - Per Cents of Totals PROGRAM < 80% of SMSA Low Income - 80% of SMSA Very Low Income - 50% of SMSA Federal Poverty Level Emerg. Serv.0 4%21%75% Jobs 9%15%36%40% Meals on Wheels 2%11%64%23% Family Support 0 7%65%28% Econ. Ass't.0 3%65%32% Counseling N/A N/A N/A N/A AVERAGES 3%21%51%25% HOUSEHOLD TYPEIS PROGRAM HH w/ Children Adults Only HH Seniors & Adults HH Seniors Only HH Emerg. Serv.46 17 0 0 Jobs 48 22 4 2 Meals on Wheels 5 11 4 123 Family Support 89 0 0 0 Econ. Ass't 13 15 1 5 Counseling 27 2 0 0 tOTAL 228 67 9 130 % of TOTAL 53%15%2%30% FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS PROGRAM Number of HH % of total HH Emerg. ^rv.35 56% Jobs 20 27% Meals on Wheels 63 44% Family Support 42 47% Econ. Ass't.17 50% Counseling 15 52% TOTAL 192 46% 1999 Income Guidelines Monthly Figures by Household Size HOUSEHOLD SIZE 80%50%Fed.Poverty 1 $ 2,788.00 $ 1,854.00 $ 671.00 2 $ 3,188.00 $ 2,121.00 $ 904.00 3 $ 3,583.00 $ 2,383.00 $ 1,138.00 4 $ 3,983.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 1,371.00 5 $ 4,300.00 $ 2,863.00 $ 1,604.00 6 $ 4,621.00 $ 3,075.00 $ 1,8^00 7 8 $ 4,938.00 $ 5.258.00 $ 3,288.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 2,071.00 $ 2,304.00 ..., .-i. 4 . A ... r COOMCII. meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 1 4 2000 Cll Y uruiDATE: February fl, ITEM NO = Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Planning Commission Reappointments The terms of Jan Berg and Dale Lindquist expire on March 31,2000. With Council authorization, staff will contact them to determine their interest in serving another term, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize staff to determine the interest of Jan Berg and Dale Lindquist in serving another term on the Planning Conunission. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION couwrii. mfeting ffB 1 4 2000 DATE: Febnofjvl(9»-^0^^^ ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk_______ Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval Agenda Section: Licenses RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1. Carol Brooks 980 West Femdale Road 5. Jayne Paasch 2150 Kenwood Way 2. Irwin Jacobs 1700 Shoreline Drive 6. Greg and Nancy Truchinski 1580 Fox Street 3. Jane Kline and Steve Bell 4455 West Branch Road 4. Don Lindall 666 Tonkawa Road SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1. Applicant: Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. Event: Half Marathon Location: Start at Norwest Bank Wayzata, Lake Street to Femdale Road to County Road 15 to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road to County Road 51 to County Road 19 to Northview Road to Lake Road to County Road 15 to Old Beach Road to County Road 19 to Beehrle Avenue to the South LRT Trail to Water Street. Finish at Norwest Bank Excelsior. May 7,2000 8:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Date: Time: COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. J Owner; KENNEL LICENSE APPUCATION2fjao Effective January 1, to December 31.A9 •:-.0 1 v: s / Oi « . • -k • Property Address: ^^0 V^O. ^ ' Lt Mailing Address (if different):_______ Phone; fhomel M~7 ^ 5 ^ ^ (include city and zip)tgT3?/ (work). RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Madmum No. of dogs to be kept at one time;, (over 6 months of age) ? Principal Breed:_____ Purpose for more than 2 dogs:. Dogs normally kept: u-^^side____kennel struc COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business;___________________ wre ^ Business Activities: (example; boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:____ After Hours Contact: (name)_ (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approva l Denial^ Date / "*/^ "“00 KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Eflfective January 1,19___to December 31,19 Owner: PropertyAddress:_inOG__iV^ Ttg-'v/p-, ■ KgXQ^ (include city and zip) * Mailing Address Qf different): ___________ Phone: (home) ig I ^ R>^arwr>r^.^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee; S25.00 (payment must accompany application) 1% faximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: Purpose for more than 2 dogs: | ^ ^ ____________ Dogs normally kept; ____^inside____^kennel structure 0(XrSt ti\aa&. COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: SISO.OO (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:___________________ Business Activities- *K-s.Nwfc.<— niGeirr 'nuAft. Normal Business Hours; (example; boarding, b.'eeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation, the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. \ Applicatiq;^\zp\CO Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approval ^ Denial K>ote_yn^/y 9/^ j KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Efifective January 1, ^1x0 to December 31,1 9 '2 joo o Owner: ________________ Property Address: U3 » ______Okrs^. Vli3 S*5~^^ m m •. ' Mailing Address (if different): (include city and zip) ik4b(\^ Phone: fhome^ 7,^ 'Tl ~________(work) -5^5*1 RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ^ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: X Purpose for more than 2 dogs: "^rr\\Vo Dogs normally kept: ^ inside ^nnel structure COMMERCLAL Kennel License Fee; S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:__________________ Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name). (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. k.U0^3^=:^ )plicani Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approval^ ^3^^ Date 1 KENNEL UCENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,19___to December 31,19 I • Owner. -___— —.7----------------------------------------------------------------------- Property Address; 0 (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): jQ/a/ ^ Phone: fhome^ 4''?/^?//^______(work)___(^/2> -9^^ presidential Kennel License Fee: 525.00 (payment must accompany application) Ma-ximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: S______________________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: A"^ ------ Purpose for more than 2 dogs:_____ Dogs normally kept; inside____^kennel structure COMMERCLAL Kennel License Fee: 5150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:_______________ Business Activities:, Normal Business Hours: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) After Hours Contact; (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel Licewe as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive omy an does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any speci conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. / AppUwnt^ /Date p)r C.itM Use Only Kennel inspected by 3^r Date Recommends Approval y Denial KENNEL UCENSE APPLICATION Efifective January 1,19___to December 31,19 Owner T^AASCH Property Address; ^/SZ) k ’£'A/lJ06D uJA>/ n!)t^\'ZA-rA M/. S:s~s9/ (include city and zip) ' Mailing Address (if different):_______________________________________________ Phone: fhome^ HTI "^3^^____________(work)_________ residential Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one tine: ST________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: jp.h Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Loi/£' A'AffM/U-S Dogs normally kept: )C inside____kennel structure COMMERCLA.L Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:_________________ Business Acti\ities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as soecified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and y .___^ __________________anv PiH/ rirHinflnrft or other law ordoes not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applic Date for City Use Only Kennel inspected by Date Recommends Approva l x/ Denial KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, to December 31, ^2^^ Owner.^T^^^ j TRUrH|A;5/^/_____________ Property Address: / ^ 5^0 Pnx %T $TS9/ (include city and ap) Mailing Address (if different): I5~^0 fc»c 5? u/^Y 2J.tA- Phone: (horned6/a >^7^ 3 /_________fwork^ 6/a - 7/*^- BESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ^___________________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: < tAutsAkh Pnn _____ Purpose for more than 2 docs: u7;=^ /nty^ Dogs normally kept: /msid^ kennel structure COMMERCLAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:__________________ Business Activities:___ Normal Business Hours:____ After Hours Contact: (name)_ (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and Ae undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kermel license approval. Appcant 6- 1^-00 Date ^or City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approva l >:T Denial^ Dale Date: To: From: February 8,2000 Lee Vee, City Clerk Gary Cheswick, Chief of Polic Subject:Special Event Permit - Norwest Half Marathon I have reviewed the application for the annual Half Marathon sponsored by Norwest Bank Minnesota. Providing conditions are met as noted on previous permits, I have no objection to the issuance of this years permit. € 4 ia 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 60674 60674 60674 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS lO-Feb-00 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS lO-Feb-00 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 60674 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS Check Number 60675 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE 60675 60675 60675 60675 60675 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUB AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUB AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUB AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUB AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE Totals Check Number 60675 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR/BELLEVUE Check Number 60676 ALIMED INC 60676 11-Feb-OO ALIMED INC Totals Check Number 60676 ALIMED INC Check Number 60677 AMEM 60677 11-Feb-OO AMD1 Totals Check Number 60677 AMEM Check Number 60678 AT <1 T - 60678 lO-Feb-00 AT 4 T - Totals Check Number 60678 AT 4 T - Check Number 60679 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 60679 60679 60679 60679 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES Totals Check Number 60679 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 60680 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO. 60680 lO-Feb-OO AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO. Totals Check Number 60680 AUTOMATIC SYST01S CO Transaction Amount 241.76 303.53 545.29 352.83 74.45 14.07 14.07 165.02 620.44 375.95 375.95 20.00 20.00 12.84 12.84 31.11 59.37 7.16 7.17 104.81 265.00 265.00 Comment COUNCIL red 1 4 2000 ICiTy UhO(^(j II DOOR CONTACTS-SECURITY SY GLASSBREAK DETECT CELL PHONB CHARGES CELL PHONB ON CALL PHONB ON CALL PHONE CELL PHONES MAT - COPY ROOM 2000 MEMBERSHIP-CHESWICK LONG OIST/REGULATORY CHGS CELL PHONE CELL PHONES CELL PHONES CELL PHONES RPR HIGH SRVCE PUMP 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Check Number Date Name Check Number 60681 60681 BIFFS INC. 11-Feb-OO BIFFS INC Totals Check Number 60681 BIFFS INC. Check Number 60683 BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC. 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 6068.' 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 60683 11-Fcb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb 00 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11 Feb-00 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-reb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-CO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO BONESTRCX) BONESTRCX} BONESTRCX) BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BCNESTPOO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. & ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. Ii ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. fi ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. Totals Check Number 60683 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC. Check Number 60684 BROWNELLS. INC 60684 lO-Feb-00 BROWNELLS. INC Totals Check Number 60684 BROWNELLS. INC Check Number 6068S BUDGET PRINTING 60685 60^85 60685 60685 lO-Feb-00 lC-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number t .685 BUDGET PRUfTING Check Number 60686 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. 60686 lO-Feb-00 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Transaction Amount 68.76 68.76 1.845.75 1,938.79 698.75 363.75 355.64 2.850.27 183.75 390.34 257.25 291.00 2,554.06 735.00 351.68 2.186.60 437.26 858.35 5.190.2ii 720.78 294.00 86.25 551.25 4.628.92 27.769.72 431.77 431.77 112.63 121.39 185.34 5.24 424.60 2.643.61 Comments PORTABLE - BIDERWOOD PRK NAV PK FEASIBILITY STUDY WELL NO 1 REHAB 12/99 ELECTRONIC MAPPING 12/99 ELECTRONIC MAPPING 12/99 I/I NAVARRE AREA 12/99 ORONO ORCHARD SWR 12/99 HERITAGE DR SWR 12/99 EDGEWOOD HILLS 12/99 NAV WTR PLANT WARRANTY CALC LENGTHS OF SWR PIPE DEC COUNCIL MTG FOX RIDGE SWR SEP-NOV I/I CASCO FENDALE 11/99 WELL NO 1 REHAB 11/99 I/I NAVARRE AREA 11/99 ORONO ORCHARD SWR RFP 3 ORONO ORCHARD SWR 11/99 EDGEWOOD HILLS 11/99 NAV WTR PLANT WARRANT/ HACKBERRY FLOW METER-LL SAGA HILL ACCESS NOV COUNCIL MTGS ARMORERS SUPPLY PD LETTERHEAD, ENVELOPES FUEL OIL - SHOP FUEL OIL - CLUB HOUSE SHIPING CHGS - TO BCA RFP 82 STB BY CUL-DE-SAC 1 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 60686 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Totals Check Number 60686 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Check Number 60687 CARGILL SALT 60687 11-Feb-OO CARGILL SALT Totals Check Number 60687 CARGILL SALT Check Number 60688 CARLSON TRACTOR k EQUIP CO. 60688 10-Feb-OO CARLSON TRACTOR k EQUIP CO Totals Check Number 60688 CARLSON TRACTOR k EQUIP CO, Check Number 60689 CITY OF LONG LAKE 60689 60689 60689 lO-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE Totals Check Number 60689 CITY OP LONG LAKE Check Number 60690 CITY OP MOUND 60690 lO-Feb-00 CITY OF MOUND Totals Check Number 60690 CITY OP MOUND Check Number 60691 CITY OF SPRING PARK 60691 11-Feb-OO CITY OF SPRING PARK Totals Check Number 60691 CITY OF SPRING P/RK Check Number 60692 CITY OF WAYZATA 60692 11-Feb-OO CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 60692 CITY OF WAYZATA Qieck Number 60693 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k KEATING 60693 60693 lO-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k IffiATINO CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING Totals Check Number 60693 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING Transaction Amount 2,643.61 2,013.38 2,013.38 19.37 19.37 1,080.00 405.47 94.46 1,579.93 24,014.75 24,014.75 82.31 82.31 6,104.50 6,104.50 2,934.43 217.74 3,152.17 Page 3 Comments SOFTENER SALT COVER 1/2 EHLERS-CONSOLIDATION SEH INV 57443-SWR CON MTG MAGNETS-CORN DAYS 1ST QTR 2000 FIRE PROTECT ADDT*L DNR PMPING FEE FIRE PROTECTION 1/00 FURNACES-NAVARRE WTR PLNT REPAIR LEAK-PUMP HOUSE 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Number Date Name Check Register City of Orono Transaction Amount Page 4 Comments Check Number 60694 60694 CLASSIFIEDS lO-Feb-00 CLASSIFIEDS Totals Check Number 60694 CLASSIFIEDS 53.60 53.80 ADV FOR EMP-RECORDER Check Number 60695 COFFEE MILL 60695 11-Feb-OO Totals Check Number COFFEE MILL 60695 COFFEE MILL 158.00 158.00 COFFEE. CREAMER Check Number 60696 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN 60696 11-Feb-OO Totals Check Number CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN 60696 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN 99.20 99.20 ADV FOR MATRLS & EQUIP Check Number 60697 COUNTRYSIDE HEATING k COOLING 60697 lO-Feb-00 Totals Check Number COUNTRYSIDE HEATING k COOLING 60697 COUNTRYSIDE HEATING k COOLING 99.95 99.95 USED HEATER MOTOR Check Number 60698 DAHLKE TREE SQIVICE 60698 lO-Feb-00 Totals Check Number DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 60696 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 245.00 245.00 RD40VE CHRISTMAS DEC Check Number 60699 DCA 60699 60699 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 Totals Check Number DCA DCA 60699 DCA 567.50 6V.00 634.50 FLEX SPEND ENROLL/RENEWAL COBRA ADMIN 1/00 Check Number 60700 DCA - WIRE ONLY 60700 60700 607C3 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 Totals Check Number DCA - WIRE ONLY DCA - WIRE ONLY DCA - WIRE ONLY 60700 DCA - WIRE ONLY 564.40 101.00 280.00 945.40 MEDICAL REIM WK END 2/4 DEP CARE REIM WK END 2/4 SPEND ACCT WK END 1/23/00 Check Number 60701 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES 60701 lO-Feb-00 Totals Oieck Number DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES 60701 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES 289.75 289.75 RUSTPROOFINC 11 Feb 2000 Frl 12:34 PM Check Number Date Check Number 60702 DELTA 60702 10-Feb-OO 60702 lO-Feb-00 60702 lO-Feb-00 60702 lO-Feb-00 60702 lO-Feb-00 60702 lO-Feb-00 Check Register City of Orono Page 5 Name DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL Totals Check Number 60702 DELTA DENTAL Check Number 60703 DEPT OP ADM - ZNTERTECH GROUP 60703 11-Feb-OO DEPT OP ADM - INTERTECH GROUP Totals Check Number 60703 DEPT OP ADM - INTERTECH GROUP Check Number 60704 DISCOUNT STEEL INC. 60704 02-Feb-00 DISCOUNT STEEL INC. Totals Check Number 60704 DISCOUNT STEEL INC. Check Number 60705 DNR waters 60705 lO-Feb-00 DNR WATERS Totals Check Number 60705 DNR WATERS Check Number 60706 DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES Check Number 60707 E-Z RECYCLING 60707 tl-Peb-OO E-Z RECYCLING Totals Check Number 60707 e-z recycling Check Number 60706 EARL F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC. 60706 lO-Feb-00 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC. Transaction 208.97 208.97 64.20 64.20 71.68 71.66 5,754.84 5.754.64 Amount Comments 101.30 FEBRUARY DENTAL -42.70 FEBRUARY DENTAL -42.70 FEBRUARY DENTAL 133.10 FEBRUARY DENTAL 56.60 FEBRUARY DENTAL 1.039.60 FEBRUARY DENTAL 1.247.20 PHONE SERVICE 1/4* PLATE 1999 PUMPING FEE 60706 11-Feb-OO DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES 202.50 LICENSE TABS 60706 11-Feb-OO DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES 27.00 LICENSE TABS 60706 i!-Feb-00 DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES 13.50 LICENSE TABS 60706 11-Feb-OO DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES 27.00 LICENSE TABS 60706 11-Feb-OO DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES 13.50 LICENSE TABS Totals Check Number 60706 DRIVER k VEHICLE SERVICES 283.50 RECYCLING 1/00 340.60 SIGN BRACKETS/REFLECTORS 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Hame Check Humber 60708 60708 60708 EARL F. AHDERSOH & ASSOC. lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 EARL F. AHDERSOH & ASSOC. EARL F. AHDERSOH & ASSOC. Totals Check Number 60708 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. Check Number 60709 ELDREDGE TRADING. INC 60709 07-Jan-00 ELDREDGE TRADING. INC Totals Check Number 60709 ELDREDGE TRADING. INC Check Humber 60710 FORTIS BENEFITS 60710 lO-Feb-00 FORTIS BENEFITS Totals Check Number 60710 FORTIS BENEFITS Transaction Amount 92.73 92.72 526.25 57.75 57.75 765.15 765.15 Page 6 Comments WHITE PAINT WHITE PAINT SHIRTS FOR RESALE FEBRUARY LTD Check Humber 60712 G &K SERVICES 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 79.32 UNIFORMS 60712 10-Feb-OO G a K SERVICES 35.64 SHOP TOWELS 60712 10-Feb-OO G a K SERVICES 8.61 UNIFORM-STEFFEHHAGEH 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 14.22 UNIFORM-RATHBUN 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 86.44 MAT SERVICE - PW 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 14.22 UNIFORM - RATHBUN 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 77.26 UNIFORMS 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 89.26 UNIFORMS 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 8.61 UNIFORM-STE FFHAGEN 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 14.22 UNIFORM-RATHBUN 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES r.67 UNIFORM - STEFFENHAGEN 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 79.81 UNIFORMS 60712 lO-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 34.85 SHOP TOWELS 60712 lO-Feb-GO G a K SERVICES 15.28 UNIFORM - RATHBUN 60712 11-Feb-OO G a K SERVICES 42.01 MAT SERVICE - ADM 60712 ll-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 42.01 MAT SERVICE - CC 60712 11-Feb-OO G a K SERVICES 56.14 MAT SERVICE - PD 60712 02-Feb-OO G a K SERVICES 8.52 UNIFORM - STEFFENHAGEN 60712 02-Feb-00 G a K SERVICES 86.44 MAT SERVICE 10/99 Totals Check Humber 60712 G a K SERVICES 802.53 Check Number 60713 GALL'S INC. 60713 lO-Feb-OO GALL'S INC.29.99 COMPACT BINOCULARS 60713 lO-Feb-00 GALL'S INC.2.774.91 LIGHT BARS - NEW SQUADi 60713 10.Feb-00 GALL'S INC.17.98 BADGE HOLDER 1 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 60713 GALL 'S INC. 60713 xo-Feb-oo GALL'S INC.89.96 HOLSTER, BELT - FARNIOK Totals Check Number 60713 GALL'S INC.2.912.84 Check Number 60715 GENUINE PARTS CO. 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.31.74 OIL FILTER. WRENCH 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.-26.36 WIPER AP>I 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.-10.65 WIPER ARM 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.37.25 WIPER ARM. BLADE 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.13.50 CLEANER 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.29.83 LIGH 8431 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.3.18 MISC SUPPLY 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.3.09 BUSHING. ELBOW 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.0.89 GLUE 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.29.58 HOSE, ENDS, CRIMP 60715 xo-Feb-oo GENUINE PARTS CO.-21.09 MASK 60715 xo-Feb-oo GENUINE PARTS CO.4.25 MISC SUPPLY 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.15.64 HEADGEAR 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.35.30 HANDLE, BRUSH, CLNG SUP 60715 lO-Feb-00 GEIRJINB PARTS CO.9.73 OIL FILTER 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.25.12 OIL FILTER 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.10.63 NUTS 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.7.52 AIR FILTER 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.17.68 FUEL FILTER, ADJ TOOL 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.10.28 FUSE 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.4.24 FUSE 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.17.38 FUEL FILTER 60715 10-Feb-OO GENUINE PARTS CO.6.06 TERMINAL. BAT CABLE 60715 lO-Feb-00 GENUINE PARTS CO.6.37 TEE. BUSHING Totals Check Number 60715 GENUINE PARTS CO.261.16 Check Number 60716 GREGORY. .JAMES 60716 11-Feb-OO GREGORY. JAMES 35.64 MILEAGE - SWR SCHOOL Totals Check Number 60716 GREGORY, JAMBS 35.64 Check Number 60717 GTE DIRECTORIES 60717 10-Feb-OO GTE DIRECTORIES 169.60 DIRECTORY ADVERTISING 60717 lC-Feb-00 GTE DIRECTORIES 239.40 DIRECTORY ADVERTISING Totals Check Number 60717 GTE DIRECTORIES 409.20 Check Number 60718 HACH CHEMICAL CO. 60718 lO-Feb-00 HACH CHEMICAL CO.3,444.30 WATER QUALITY LAB 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 8 Check Number Check Number Date Name 60718 HACK CHEMICAL CO. Totals Check Number 60718 HACH CHEMICAL CO. Check Number 60719 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 60719 lO-Feb-00 HAWKINS CHEMICAL Totals Check Number 60719 HAWKINS CHEMICAL Check Number 60720 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. 60720 11-Feb-OO HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. Totals Check Number 60720 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. Check Number 60721 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN 60721 60721 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Totals Check Number 60721 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GE!J Check Number 60723 HUDSON MAP CO 60723 11-Feb-OO HUDSON MAP CO Totals Check Nun;ber 60723 HUDSON MAP CO Check Number 60724 INT'L CONF. OF BLDO OFFICIALS 60724 ll-Feb-00 INT'L CONF. OP BLDG OFFICIALS Transaction Amount Comments 3.444.30 191.09 191.09 CHLORINE/FLOURINE 25.00 25.00 MLING LST-EAST LL SWR 295.50 299.00 TRAFFIC CITATIONS RM AND BOARD 12/99 594.50 Qieck Number 60722 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 1.798.72 ORONO VS LUZAICH-TREES 60722 11-Fcb-OO HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 154.36 CRYSTAL CREEK APPLIC-LOC 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 1.104.86 LEGAL SERVICE DEC 60722 11-Fcb-OO HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 275.00 NATIONAL GUARD DUTY 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 632.82 GOETTEN-SOEC LOT COMB 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 451.00 SAGA HILLS PARK 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 2,457.42 HOYT RETAINING WALL 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 204.00 EDGEWOOD SWR EASEMENTS 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 180.00 NLL SWR EASEMENTS 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 80.00 NELSON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 1,029.00 LUZAICH 82492 TREES 60722 ll-Feb-00 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 678.06 LEGAL APPLIC DEC Totals Check Nu.Tiber 60722 HINSHAW k CULBERTSCN 9,045.24 64.13 64.13 2000 STREET ATLAS' 85.00 KE7SERSHIP-0MAN 2000 .............................................................................m w ■ 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 60724 INT'L CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS Totals Check Number 60724 INT'L CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS Check Number 60725 INTOXIMETERS 60725 lO-Feb-00 INTOXIMETERS Totals Check Number 60725 INTOXIMETERS Check Number 60726 J a R REFRIGERATION 60726 60726 10- Feb>00 11- Feb-OO J a R REFRIGERATION J a R REFRIGERATION Totals Check Number 60726 J a R REFRIGERATION Check Number 60727 JOHN BABLER AUTOBODY 60727 11-Feb-OO JOHN BABLER AUTOBODY Totals Check Number 60727 JOHN BABLER AUTOBODY Check Number 60720 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA 60728 lO-Feb-00 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA Totals Check Number 60720 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA Check Number 60729 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO 60729 60729 60729 60729 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO KOEHNEN'S AMOCO KOEHNEN'S AMOCO KOEHNEN'S AMOCO Tot. * Check Number 60729 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO Check 1 w>er 60730 KYLE HUNT AND PARTNERS 730 lO-Feb-00 KYLE HUNT AND PARTNERS Totals Check Number 60730 KYLE HUNT AND PARTNERS Check Number 60731 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 60731 11-Feb-OO LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Totals Check Number 60731 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Transaction Amount 85.00 330.15 330.15 87.50 117.60 205.10 979.54 979.54 2.391.66 2.391.66 8.00 14.35 17.34 15.62 55.31 1.989.80 1.989.80 21.99 21.99 Page 9 Comments PORT BREATH TEETER CHECK FURNACE MOTOR REPLACE THERMOCOUPLE REPAIR SQUAD 104 PROSECUTIONS 1/00 UNLEADED GASOLINE UNLEADED GASOLINE UNLEADED GASOLINE UNLEADED GASOLINE PARTIAL REF PRm 111484 APPOINTMENT BOOK I 11 Feb 2000 Pri 12:34 PM Chech Number Check Number 60732 Qieck Register Cit; of Orono Date Name 60732 LAKE MTKA AREA CHAMBER OP COM lO-Feb-00 LAKE MTKA AREA CHAMBER OF COM Totals Check Number 60732 LAKE MTKA AREA CHAMBER OF COM Check Number 60733 LAKESKORE WEEKLY NEWS 60733 lO-Feb-00 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Totals Check Number 60733 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Qieck Number 60734 LMCZT-BERKLEY ADMIN 60734 lO-Feb-00 LMCIT-BERKLEY ADMIN Totals Check Number 60734 LMCIT-BERKLEY AE>MIN Check Number 6073S LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 60735 60735 02-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 60735 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 60736 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 60736 60736 60736 60736 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Niunber 60736 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Check Number 60737 MAGIC CLEANERS 60737 02-Feb-00 MAGIC CLEANERS Totals Check Number 60737 MAGIC CLEANERS Check Number 60738 MALL OF AMERICA TRAINING PROG Check Number 60739 60739 MAMA lO-Feb-00 Transaction Amount 226.00 226.00 92.00 92.00 20.00 20.00 10.05 9.24 19.29 53.05 26.63 5.18 4.05 88.91 13.53 13.56 60738 lO-Feb-00 MALL OF AMERICA TRAINING PROG 200.00 60738 lO-Feb-00 MALL OF AMERICA TRAINING PROG 200.00 Totals Check Number 60738 MALL OF AMERICA TRAINING PROG 400.00 Page 10 Comments MEMBERSHIP 2000 ADV-FREELANCE RECORDER ADD STERLING TRUCK BLADE STRAT FLUID, GARB CLNR BACK HOB SUPPLIES U JOINT PIN PIN BLANKET CLEANING 12/99 Vfc.lBAL JUDO - J JOHNSON VERBAL JUDO - WITTKE MAMA 45.00 MEMBERSHIP • 2000 XI Peb 2000 Pri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 60739 MAMA Totals Check Number 60739 MAMA Check Number 60740 MAMA-Q!C LABOR RELATIONS SERV 60740 11-Feb-00 MAMA-GMC LABOR RELATIONS SERV Totals Check Number 60740 MAMA-GMC LABOR RELATIONS SERV Check Number 60741 MAPBT 60741 11-Feb-OO MAPET Totals Check Number 60741 MAPET Check Number 60742 MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING 60742 lO-Feb-00 MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING Totals Check Number 60742 MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING Check Number 60743 MCNICHOLS, DAVID 60743 lO-Feb-00 MCNICHOLS. DAVID Totals Check Number 60743 MCNICHOLS« DAVID Check Number 60744 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 60744 lO-Feb-00 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Totals Check Number 60744 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Check Number 60745 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 60745 lO-Feb-00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 60745 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 60746 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SBR 60746 11-Feb-OO MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Totals Check Number 6C746 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Check Number 60747 HSCSh 60747 11-Feb-OO MGCSA Totals Check Number 60747 MGCSA Transaction Amount 45.00 2,668.00 2,668.00 65.00 65.00 17.98 17.98 6.40 6.40 53.00 53.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 74,844.00 74,844.00 65.00 65.00 Page 11 Comments SUBSCR 3/15/00-3/14/01 MGING EVID CONF-MCNALLY DIRECTORY ADVERTISING LUNCH - PURSUIT TRNG DRUG TESTING RELOCATE LIFT STATION SAC CHARGES 12/99 MGCSA SEMINAR - STEFFI 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 60748 60748 6074 8 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 10-Feb-00 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY lO-Feb-00 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 60748 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 60749 MINNEGASCO 60749 60749 60749 60749 60749 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 60749 MINNEGASCO Check Number 60750 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 60750 11-Feb-OO MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Totals Check Number 60750 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Check Number 60751 MN GOLF ASSOCIATION INC. 60751 11-Feb-OO MN GOLF ASSOCIATION INC. Totals Check Number 60751 MN GOLF ASSOCIATION INC. Check Number 60752 MN STATE TREASURER 60752 lO-Peb-00 MN STATE TREASURER Totals Check Number 60752 MN STATE TREASURER Check Number 60753 MN WEIGHTS & MEASURES 60753 11-Feb-OO MN WEIGHTS 4 MEASURES Totals Check Number 60753 MN WEIGHTS 4 MEASURES Check Number 60754 MOORSE, RON 60754 11-Feb-OO MOORSE, RON Totals Check N’jmber 60754 MOORSE, RON Check Number V-?55 MOROWCZ'fNSKI, JIM 60755 lO-Feb-00 M0R0WC2YNSKI, JIM Transaction Amount 27.00 13.50 40.50 651.63 38.22 916.22 1,119.82 983.14 3,709.03 165.03 165.03 90.00 90.00 5,332.65 5,332.65 600.00 600.00 502.48 502.48 8.32 Page 12 Comments ACETYLENE, OXYGEN MEDICAL OXYGEN GAS SERVICE GAS SERVICE GAS SERVICE GAS SERVICE GAS SERVICE N FERNDALE-MAT INSPECTION MES^ERSHIP 2000 SURCHARGE 12/99 CALIBRATE SCALES ICMA CONF - PORTLAND LUNCH-EMERGENCY MGMT TRNG 11 Feb 2000 Pri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 13 Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 60755 MOROWCZYNSKI. JIM 60755 il-Feb-OO MOROWCZYNSKI. JIM 19.30 MEALS - EMERGNCY MGT 1 Totals Check Number 60755 MOROWCZYNSKI. JIM 27.62 Check Number 60756 MTI DIST CX). 60756 10.Feb-00 MTI DIST CO.56.71 SOLENOID CHOKE Totals Check Number 60756 MTI DIST CO.56.71 Check Number 60757 MUNICI-PALS 60757 lO-Feb-00 MUNICI-PALS 20.00 MUNICI-PAL MBMRSHP 20C Totals Check Number 60757 MUNICI-PALS 20.00 Qieck Number 60759 NAVARRE HARDWARE 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.17 FLAGGING TAPE 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 31.80 HEATER, BATTERYS 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.36 FURNACE FILTER 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.64 BULK BOLTS 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 0.69 BULK SCREWS 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 4.25 HAND SOAP 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 18.63 4MIL CLEAR FILM 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.18 CASS RECORDER CLEANER 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 20.19 ANCHORS 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE H/JIDWARE 2.85 HANDLE, WEDGE 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.38 SURGE PROTECTOR 60*»59 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 18.72 ANCHORS, EXT CORD 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 19.45 BULB, BATTERY 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.76 MESH 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 4.03 WASHER, SWIVEL C0759 in-Feb-oo NAVARRE HARDWARE 7.51 HARDWARE CLOTH 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.17 BATTERY 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 13.83 PICTURE FRAME 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 1.05 MISC HARDWARE 60759 10-Feb-OO NAVARRE HARDWARE 17.80 MISC PIPE FITTINGS 60759 lO-Feb-00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.60 FELT MARKER Totals Check Number 60759 NAVARRE HARDWARE 204.06 Check Number 60760 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 60760 10-Feb-OO NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 144.00 PERA LIFE 2/2000 Totals Check Number 60760 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 144.00 i 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Number Check Number 60767 Check Register City of Orono Page 15 Date Name 60767 OMAN* LYLE 11-Feb-OO OMAN* LYLE Totals Check Number 60767 OMAN* LYLE Check Number 60768 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC 60768 11-Feb-OO PARK NICOLLET CLINIC Totals Check Number 60768 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC Check Number 60769 PETTIT. SANDRA K. 60769 60769 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO PETTIT. SANDRA K, PETTIT* SANDRA K, Totals Check Number 60769 PETTIT* SANDRA K. Check Number 60770 PIONEER Totals Check Number 60771 PIRTEK Check Number 60772 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 60772 60772 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number 60772 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Check Number 60773 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. 60773 lO-Feb-00 PUBLIC SAFETY* EQUIPMENT CO, Totals Check Number 60773 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO Transaction Amount 33.57 82.08 Comments MILEAGE/PRKNG • SCHOOL 52.50 52.50 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 5.85 25.00 30.85 MILEAGE 1/00 NOTARY RENEWAL 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 24.34 PUBLISH APPL 2550 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 22.47 PUBLISH APPL 2400 * 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 91.75 PUBLISH APPLICATIONS 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 24.34 PUBLISH APPL 2555 , il 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 45.26 ADV - MATERIALS/EQUIP 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 25.86 NOTICE OF IMP-EAST LL SWR 60770 11-Feb-OO PIONEER 230.31 PUBLISH 2000 BUDGET Totals Check Number 60770 PIONEER 464.33 ' •'* a Check Number 60771 PIRTEK ^13 60771 lO-Feb-00 PIRTEK : X 10 HOSES TRK S711 174.20 1.012.95 828.79 1,841.74 JANITORIAL SRVC 1/00 JANITORIAL SRVC 1/00 370.00 370.00 CONSOLES - NEW SQUADS 11 Feb 2000 Pri 12:34 PM Chec)c Number Check Number 60774 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 60774 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. 10-Feb-00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. Totals Check Number 60774 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC, Transaction Amount 120.00 120.00 Page 16 Comments CHECK LS i3 Check Number 60775 RC IDENTIFICATIONS 60775 11-Feb-OO Totals Check Number RC IDENTIFICATIONS 60775 RC IDENTIFICATIONS 5.33 5.33 ID CARD - BOTTENBERG Check Number 60776 60776 60776 60776 60776 60776 60776 RICKS SUPERVALUE 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO RICKS RICKS RICKS RICKS RICKS RICKS SUPERVALUE SUPERVALUE SUPERVALUE SUPERVALUE SUPERVALUE SUPERVALUE Totals Check Number 60776 RICKS SUPERVALUE 11.70 3.94 13.44 12.70 8.02 5.94 55.74 TIMER PUFFS PLUS ZIPLOCK BAGS CONCESSIONS FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS FOR RESALE ANIMAL TREATS ii Check Number 60777 RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC, INC 60777 lO-Feb-00 RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC, INC 340.40 REPAIR SHORT - STRT LIGHT Totalr Check Number 60777 RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC, INC 340.40 ^eck Number 60778 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN 60778 60778 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 Totals Check Number SCHOENHOFF, JOHN SCHOENHOFF, JOHN 60778 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN 321.83 31.38 353.21 MEALS,LODGIN-JV OFF CONF MEALS-INTRVW INTRGTN SCH r Check Number 60779 60779 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES lO-Feb-00 Totals Check Number SENIOR COWIUNITY SERVICES 60779 SENIOR COfWUNITY SERVICES 3,647.50 3,647.50 1ST QTR SENIOR SERVICES Check Number 60780 SKREEN, DALE 60780 11-Feb-OO Totals Check Number SKREEN, DALE 60780 SKREEN. DALE 19.00 19.00 CLASS A LICENSE FEE Check Number 60781 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. 60781 02-Feb-OO SUBURBAN TIRE INC.279.12 TIRES 11 Feb 2000 Fri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Name Check Number 60781 SUBURBAN TIRE INC, Totals Check Number 60781 SUBURBAN TIRE INC, Check Number 60782 SUPERIOR FORD 60782 IQ.Feb-00 SUPERIOR FORD Totals Check Number 60782 SUPERIOR FORD Check Number 60783 SURVIVALINK 60783 02-Feb-00 SURVIVALINK Totals Check Number 60783 SURVIVALINK Check Number 60784 TECH PARTNERS 60784 lO-Feb-00 TECH PARTNERS Totals Check Number 60784 TECH PARTNERS Check Number 60785 TEMPORARIES-TO-00 60785 60785 60785 60785 10- Feb-00 11- Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO 02-Feb-00 TEMPORARIES-TO-GO TEMPORARIES-TO-GO TEMPORARIES-TO-GO TEMPORARIES-TO-GO Totals Check N'^mber 60785 TEMPORARIES-TO-GO Check Number 60786 THE HOME DEPOT 60786 60786 11-Feb-OO 11-Feb-OO THE HOME DEPOT THE HOME DEPOT Totals Check Number 60786 THE HOME DEPOT Check Number 60787 TIM BUSSE 60787 60787 lO-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 TIM BUSSE TIM BUSSE Totals Check Number 60787 TIM BUSSE check Number 60788 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 60788 lO-Feb-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Transaction Amount 279.12 88.95 88.95 139.31 139.31 257.00 257.00 303.75 216.00 432.00 256.50 1,208.25 8.48 21.16 29.64 3,030.50 630.00 3.660.50 863.12 Page 17 Comments HUB CAPS, NUTS ELECTROIDS-DIFIBRILLATOR PRINTER CLEA.NING TM HELP - WK END 1/16/00 TEMP HELP-HK END 1/23/00 TEMP HELP-WK END 1/30/00 TEMP HELP - KK END 1/2/00 SOAP DISPENR SOAP DISPENR CONSOLIDATION NEWSLETTER 12/99 CONSOLIDATION WORK 764.6 GAL LT7LEADED 1 11 Feb 2000 Pri 12:34 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 18 Check Totals Check Number 63789 TREADHAY GRAPHICS Check Number 60790 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. 60790 lO-Feb-00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. Totals Check Numbe-. 60790 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO Check Number 60791 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 60788 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 60788 lO-Feb-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 267.73 274.9 GAL DIESEL 60788 lO-Feb-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 218.76 211.6 GAL DIESEL 60788 lO-Feb-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 788.04 697.6 GAL UNLEADED 60788 lO-Feb-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 2.240.86 1819.1 GALS UNLEADED 60788 lO-Feb-00 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 328.86 300.1 GALS DIESEL Totals Check Number 60788 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 4,707.37 Check Number 60789 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 60789 lO-Feb-00 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 24.11 DARE SUPPLIES 24.11 588.62 588.62 GARAGE DOOR REPAIR 60791 02-Feb-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 107.91 TROUSERS - FARNIOK 60791 02-Feb-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 235.31 SWEATER - CSO 60791 02-Feb-00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 44.95 PANTS - GOMAN Totals Check Number 60791 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 388.17 Check Number 60792 UNIV' OP MINNESOTA 60792 lO-Feb-00 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 120.00 MUNICIPALS TRAINING 60792 lO-Feb-00 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 40.00 MUNICIPALS TRAINING 60792 lO-Feb-00 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 80.00 MUNICIPALS TRAINING Totals Check Number 60792 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 240.00 Check Number 60793 US FILTER 60793 02-Feb-00 US FILTER 241.31 CURB BOXES Totals Check Number 60793 US FILTER 241.31 Check Number 60794 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 60794 11-Feb-OO US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 54.22 PHONE SERVICE 60794 ll-Feb-00 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 44.61 ALARM DIALER L_■ It MiBti ir I rtm n -iMTrr^rMi-■ f 1 -.itiAii .-i.a. 11 Peb 2000 Check Register Page Fri 12:34 PM City of Orono Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 60794 US WEST CO^•^UNI CATIONS 60794 ll-Feb-OO US WEST COfWUNICATIONS 913.75 PHONE SERVICE 60794 11-Feb-00 US WEST CO^•^UNICATIONS 30.45 PHONE SERVICE 60794 ll-Feb-OO US WEST CO^•1UNICATIONS 71.07 PHONE SERVICE 60794 ll-Feb-OO US WEST COmUNICATIONS 60.22 PHONE SERVICE 60794 ll-Feb-OO US WEST COrWUNICATIONS 93.90 DIRECTORY ADVERTISING 60794 ll-Feb-OO US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 99.27 LOGIS CONNECTION 60794 ll-Feb-OO US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 158.00 NT TO PH COM LINE Totals Check Number 60794 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 1,525.50 Check Number 60795 VESSCO INC. 60795 lO-Feb-00 VESSCO INC.305.16 REBUILD FLOlTaDE PUMP 60795 lO-Feb-00 VESSCO INC.110.66 COUPLING, BALL VALVE Totals Check Number 6079S VESSCO INC. Check Number 60796 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 60796 60796 lO-Feb-00 lO-Feb-00 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER Totals Check Number 60796 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER Check Number 60797 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 60797 IO-Feb-00 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Totals Check Number 60797 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Number 60798 W.W. GRAINGER INC. 60798 11-Feb-OO W.W. GRAINGER INC. Totals Check Number 60798 W.W. GRAINGER INC. Check Number 60799 WARNING LITES OF MN 60"79 60799 lO-Feb-00 02-Feb-00 WARNING LITES OF MN WARNING LITES OF MN Totals Check Number 60799 WARNING LITES OF MN Check Number 60800 WESTSIDB EQUIPMENT 60800 lO-Feb-00 WESTSIDE EQUIPfSNT Totals Check Number 60800 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 415.82 90.96 293.04 384.00 2.99 2.99 108.63 108.63 106.95 509.07 618.02 142.88 142.88 SAFTY GLASSES, COVERALLS BLAZE ORANGE CONES REFLECTOR O^OFF mSELS BARRICADES ROLL UP STOPS-Y2K REPAIR GAS PUMP HOSE 11 Feb 2000 Pri 12:34 PM Check Number Check Number 60801 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 60801 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 11-Peb-OO WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Totals Check Number 60801 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Check Number 60802 WOLF, LANETTE 60802 11-Feb-OO WOLF. LANETTE Totals Check Number 60802 WOLF, LANETTE Check Number 60803 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Transaction Amount 13.00 13.00 200.00 200.00 Page 20 Comments REPAIR TIRE - #712 COUNCIL MIN 1/10/00 60803 lO-Feb-00 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 7.99 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 60803 lO-Feb-00 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 28.02 ELECTRICAL SERVICE Totals Qieck Number 60803 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 36.01 Check Number 60804 YOUNG. JACKIE 60804 lO-Feb-00 YOUNG.JACKIE 150.00 PARK COM - 1/3/00 60804 lO-Feb-00 YOUNG.JACKIE 125.00 CON COM - 1/6/00 60804 lO-Feb-00 YOUNG.JACKIE 250.00 PLANNING COM 1/19/00 60804 lO-Peb-00 YOUNG.JACKIE 125.00 CONSOL COM 1/20/00 60804 lO-Feb-00 YOUNG.JACKIE 150.00 CITY COUNCIL 1/24/00 60804 02-Feb-OO YOUNG.JACKIE 400.00 CONSOLIDATION COM 12/2/99 Totals Check Number 60804 YOUNG.JACKIE 1.200.00 Grand Total 232,812.61 2$ Jan 2000 Ned 8:38 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 047100 047100 JOHNSON* MARY ANN Totals Check Number 047100 Check Number 047101 047101 BERRY* HEIDI N. Totals Qieck Number 047101 Check Number 047102 047102 KASQ1AN* CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 047102 Check Number 047103 047103 MOORSB* RONALD J. Totals Check Number 047103 Check Number 047104 047104 VBE* LINDA S. Totals Check Number 047104 Check Number 04710S 047105 KUEHN* THOMAS H. Totals Check Number 047105 Check Number 047106 047106 OLSON* RONALD J. Totals Check Number 047106 Check Number 047107 047107 PETTIT. SANDRA K. Totals Check Number 047107 Check Number 047108 Check Date 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO Page 1 Check Amount 584.02 584.02 707.32 707.32 804.72 804.72 1*571.88 1*571.88 1*197.92 1*197.92 1*076.14 1*076.14 104.96 104.96 466.54 466.54 I ■ '< 4 r 26 Jan 2000 Med 8:38 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 047108 047108 ANDERSON. BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 047108 Check Number 047109 047109 BOBZIEN, SUE A. Totals Check Number 047109 Check Number 047110 047110 BORIS, SCOTT H. Totals Check Number 047110 Check Number 047111 047111 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. Totals Check Number 047111 Check Number 047112 047112 CHFC%*IC^. GARY B. Totals Check Number 047112 Check Number 047113 047113 CORNICE, JAMES L. Totals Check Number 047113 Check Number 047114 047114 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C. Totals Check Number 047114 Check Number 047115 047115 ERICKSON. KURT R Totals Check Number 047115 Check Number 047116 047116 FARNIOK, CORREY L. Check Date 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-00 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO Page 2 Check Amount 445.18 445.18 663.63 663.63 1.133.47 1.133.47 122.93 122.93 1,548.37 1,548.37 1,675.66 1,675.66 1.274.16 1.274.16 1.277.03 1,277.03 1,318.37 f I 43 ftf. 26 Jan 2000 Ifed 8:38 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Bmployee Name Check Number 047116 Totals Check Number 047116 Check Number 047117 047117 FISCHENICH, DAN T. Totals Check Number 047117 Check Number 047118 047118 FISCHER* CHRISTOPHER K. Totals Check Number 047118 Check Number 047119 047119 JOHNSON* JEFFREY Totals Check Number 047119 Check Number 047120 047120 JOHNSON* BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 047120 Check Number 047121 047121 MADSON* ADRIENNE M. Totals Check Number 047121 Check Number 047122 047122 MCNALLY* STEVEN A. Totals Check Number 047122 Check Number 047123 047123 MCNICHOLS* DAVID L. Totals Check Number 047123 Check Number 047124 047124 MOROWCZYNSKI* JAMES •l-T.--15 Check Date 26-Jan-OO 26 ~Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan*00 26-Jan-00 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26>Jan-00 Page 3 Check Amount 1*318.37 1,301.95 1,301.95 1*117.29 1*117.29 884.63 884.63 1,389.84 1,389.84 499.95 499.95 1,134.37 1,134.37 638.28 638.28 1*668.85 26 Jan 2000 Ned 8:38 AM Check Number Employee Name Check Register City of Orono Check Date Page 4 Check Amount Check Number 047124 Totals Check Number 047124 Check Number 047125 047125 PERSELL, NZLLIAM R. Totals Check Number 047125 Check Number 047126 047126 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B. Totals Check Number 047126 Qieck Number 047127 047127 TONCKECK, LAMRENCE P. Totals Check Number 047127 Check Number 047128 047128 TOMCZYK, MARK H. Totals Check Number 047128 Check Number 047129 047129 HITTKE, ANTHONY A. Totals Check Number 047129 Check Number 047130 047130 KENDRICKS. RONALD J. Totals Check Number 047130 Check Number 047131 047131 JENSEN. CHRISTOPSSR E. Totals Check Number 047131 Check Number 047132 047132 BOTTBNBERG. WENDY C. Totals Check Number 047132 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 1.668.85 234.96 234.96 1.303.80 1.303.80 256.97 256.97 1.284.23 1.284.23 847.94 847.94 628.72 628.72 260.52 260.52 1.075.83 1.375.83 26 Jan 2000 Wed 8:38 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 047133 04*^* 33 DAVIS« MARK L. Totals Check Number 047133 Check Number 047134 047134 QAPFRON, MICHAEL P. Totals Check Number 047134 Check Number 047135 047135 QAPPA, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 047135 Check Number 047136 047136 MEYER, WILLIAM C. Totals Check Number 047136 Check Number 047137 047137 OMAN, LYLE E. Totals Jieck Number 047137 Check Number 047138 047138 PENCE, CHRISTOPHER M. Totals Check Number 047138 Check Number 047139 047139 WEINBERGER, PAUL E. Totals Qieck Number 047139 Check Number 047140 047140 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F. Totals Check Number 047140 Check Number 047141 047141 DEBAERE, DONALD L. Check Date 26-Jan-00 26-Jan' 00 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO Page 5 Check Amount 1,081.98 1,081.98 1,181.11 1,181.11 1,674.38 1,674.38 456.83 456.83 533.41 533.41 923.10 923.10 1,238.49 1,238.49 1,116.14 1,116.14 1,335.17 26 Jan 2000 Ned 8:38 AM Check Register City of Orono Qieck Number Employee Name Check Number 047141 Totals Check Number 047141 Check Number 047142 047142 GREGORY, JAMES D. Totals Check Number 047142 Check Number 047143 047143 HANSEN, STEVEN Totals Check Number 047143 Check Number 047144 047144 OBERAIGNBR, SCOTT O. Totals Check Number 047144 Check Number 047145 047145 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 047145 Check Number 047146 •147146 PALMER, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 047146 Check Number 047147 047147 RATHBUN, BARRY J. Totals Check Number 047147 Check Number 047148 047140 SKREEN, DALE S. Totals Check Number 047148 Check Number 047149 047149 OAJ, DANIEL 0 Check Date 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO 26-Jan-OO Page 6 Check Amount 1,335.17 666.60 666.60 953.98 953.98 035.53 835.53 338.92 338.92 739.74 739.74 1,008.20 1,008.20 707.79 707.79 21.92 - II ... 26 Jan 2000 Ked 8:38 AH Check Number Employee Name Check Number 047149 Totals Check Number 047149 Check Number 047150 047150 ROSS* COHN A. Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Check Date Check Amount 21.92 26*Jan-00 66.63 28 Jan 2000 Pri 9:02 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Name Check Number 60648 60648 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 26-Jan-00 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 60648 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 60649 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 60649 60649 60649 26-Jan-oo 26-Jan-oo 26-Jan-OO FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 60649 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES Check Number 60650 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 60650 26-Jan-OO ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Number 60650 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUSl - 457 Check Number 60651 LAN ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 60651 26-Jan-OO LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 60651 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 60652 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT 60652 26-Jan-OO MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PHI CT Totals Check Number 60652 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT Check Number 60653 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 60653 26-Jan-oo MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 60653 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 60654 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 60654 26-Jan-oo ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Totals Check Number v'f. * ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Check Number 60655 PEBSCO/OBRA 60655 26-Jan-oo PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number C0655 PEBSCO/OBRA Transaction Amount 7,169.00 7,169.00 3,818.03 3,818.03 9,106.31 16,742.37 275.00 275.00 462.00 462.00 179.51 179.51 3,537.88 3,537.88 1,986.68 1,986.68 13.98 13.98 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED PICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES WH SKREEN 80010755723 STATE TAX W/H DEF COMP OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H ■ t-a ■ ht fii —~ ~ —. ^ A •>> 'n- \ .ft. 9 Peb 2000 Wed 11:03 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Bnqployee Name Check Number 047153 047153 JOHNSON, MARY ANN Totals Check Number 047153 Check Number 047154 047154 BERRY, HEIDI N. Totals Check Numbei 047154 Check Number 047155 047155 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 047155 Check Number 047156 047156 HOORSB, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 047156 Check Number 047157 047157 VEE, LINDA S. Totals Check Number 047157 Check Number 047158 047158 KUEHN, THOMAS M Totals Check Number 047158 Check Number 047159 047159 OLSON. RONALD J. Totals Check Number 047159 Check Number 047160 047160 PETTIT, SANDRA K. Totals Check Number 047160 Check Number 047161 Check Date 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-OO 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 Page 1 Check Amount 615.72 615.72 706.00 706.00 826.97 826.97 1,571.88 1,571.88 1. 158.59 1,158.59 1,076.14 1,076.14 74.14 74 14 359.80 359 80 4 5 9 Feb 2000 Med 11:03 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Employee Name Check Number 047161 047161 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 047161 Check Number 047162 047162 BOBZIEN, SUE A. Totals Check Number 047162 Check Number 047163 047163 BORIS, SCOTT W. Totals Check Number 047163 Check Number 047164 047164 BUDIO, STACIE M. Totals Check Nlimber 047164 Check Number 047165 047165 cru:S*wICK. GARY B. Totals Check Number 047165 Check Number 047166 047166 CORNICK, JAMES L. Totals Check Number 047166 Check Number 047167 047167 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C. Totals Che^k Number 047167 Check Number 047168 047168 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 047168 Check Number 047169 047169 PARNIOK, CORREY L Check Date 09-Feb-00 09-Fcb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 Page 2 Check Amount 377.08 377.08 660.64 660.64 1.019.18 1.019.18 371.64 371.64 1,548.37 1,548.37 1,180.32 1,180.32 1,288.37 1,288.37 1,277.03 1,277.03 1,459.66 *A. > ’" 'i 9 Feb 2000 Wed 11:03 AM Qieck Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 047169 Totals Check Number 047169 Check Number 047170 047170 FISCHKIICH, DAM T. Totals Check Number 047170 Check Number 047171 047171 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. Totals Check Number 047171 Check Number 047172 047172 JOHNSON, JEFFREY Totals Check Number 047172 Check Number 047173 047173 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 047173 Check Number 047174 047174 MADSON, ADRIENNE M. Totals Check Number 047174 Check Number 047175 047175 MCNALLY, STE’/EN A. Totals Check Number 047175 Check Number 047176 047176 MCJJICHOLS, DAVID L. Totals Check Number 047176 Check Number 047177 047177 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES Check Date 09-Feb-OO 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Ft.b-OO 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09*Feb-00 Page 3 Check Amount 1,459.66 1,301.95 1,301.95 1,225.07 1,225.07 794.50 794.50 1,376.62 1,376.62 460.09 460.09 1,105.67 1,105.87 638.28 638.28 1,697.53 I 9 Feb 2000 tied 11:03 AM Check Number Employee Name Check Number 047177 Totals Check Number 047177 Check Number 047178 047170 PBRSELL, WILLIAM R. Totals Check Number 047178 Check Number 047179 047179 SCHOENHOFP, JOHN B. Totals Check Number 047179 Check Number 047180 047180 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. Totals Check Number 047180 Check Number 047181 047181 TOMCZYK, MARK W. Totals Check Number 047181 Check Number 047182 047182 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. Totals Check Number 047182 Check Number 047183 047183 HENDRICKS, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 047183 Check Number 047184 047184 JENSEN, CHRISTOPHER E. Totals Check Number 047184 ChecK Number 047105 047185 BOTTENBERG, WENDY C. Totals Check Number 047185 Check Register City of Orono Page 4 Check Date 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 Check Amount 1,697.53 191.71 191.71 1,401.48 1,401.48 256.97 256.97 1.284.23 1.254.23 845.95 845.95 503.77 503.77 135.93 135.93 1,047.05 1,047.85 9 Feb 2000 N«d 11:03 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Niufiber Ei^Ioyee Name Check Number 047186 047186 DAVIS, MARK L. Totals Check Number 047186 Check Number 047187 047187 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P. Totals Check Number 047187 Check Number 047188 047188 QAPPA, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 047188 Check Number 047189 047189 MEYER, MILLIAM C. Totals Check Number 047189 Check Number 047190 047190 OMAN, LYLE E. Totals Check Number 047190 Check Number 047191 047191 PENCE, CHRISTOPHER M. Totals Check Number 047191 Check Number 047192 047192 WEINBERGER, PAUL E. Totals Check Number 047192 Check Number 047193 047193 BRINXHAUS, JOHN P. Totals Check Number 047193 Check Number 047194 047194 DEBAERE, DONALD L Check Date 09-Peb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Fcb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-OO 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-OO 09-Feb-OO Page 5 Check Amount 1,075.93 1,075.93 1,181.11 1,181.11 1,638.94 1,638.94 487.37 487.37 476.82 476.82 895.06 895.06 1,185.36 1,185.36 1,065.67 1,065.67 945.97 9 Feb 2000 Ned 11:03 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Nunber Employee Name Check Number 047194 Totals Check Number 047194 Check Number 047195 047195 OlEOORY, JAMES D. Totals Check Number 047195 Check Number 047196 047196 HANSEN, STEVEN Totals Check Number 047196 Check Number 047197 047197 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT O. Totals Check Number 047197 Check Number 047198 047198 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 047198 Check Number 047199 047199 PALMER, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 047199 Check Number 047200 047200 RATHBUN, BARRY J. Totals Check Number 047200 Check Number 047201 047201 SKREEN, DALE S. Totals Check Number 0e7201 Check Number 047292 047202 ROSS, JOHN A. Check Date 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Peb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Fcb-00 09-Feb-00 Page 6 Check Amount 945.97 607.93 607.93 1,042.82 1,042.82 539.89 539.89 461.15 461.15 689.03 689.03 995.24 995.24 732.88 732.88 90.75 1 rf.-f f mh’ 9 Feb 2000 Mmd 11:03 AH Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Check Number Employee Name Check Date Check Amount Check Number 047202 Totals Check Number 047202 90.75 Check Number 047203 047203 STEPFENHAGEN« RONALD B.09-Feb-00 1,178.09 9 F«b 2000 ir«d 12:17 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Kunber Dete Name Oieck Itunber 60661 60661 CITY COOHTY CREDIT DMION 09-Peb-00 CITY COURTY CREDIT ONION Totals Checic Number 60661 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 60662 FIKET NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 60662 60662 60662 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 60662 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 60663 IO!A RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 60663 09-Feb-00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 Totals Check Number 60663 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 60664 LAN ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 60664 09-Feb-00 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 60664 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE C ^ck Number 60665 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT 60665 09-Feb-00 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PKT CT Totals Check Number 60665 MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PMT CT Check Number 60666 HN DEPT OF REVENUE 60666 09-Feb-00 MN DEPT OF REVQRJE Totals Check Number 60666 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 60667 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 60667 09-Feb-00 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Totals Check Number 60667 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST Check Number 60668 PEBSCO/OBRA 60668 09-Feb-00 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 60668 PEBSCO/OBRA Transaction Amount 7.199.00 7.199.00 3.717.01 3.717.01 8.780.13 16.214.15 275.00 275.00 0.00 0.00 179.51 179.51 3.401.71 3.401.71 1.986.68 1.986.£8 8.70 8.70 Page l Comments SAVINGS H/H A TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP N/H UNION DUES flH SKREEN 80010755723 STATE TAX W/H DTFCOMP-98995-01 D180 C3RA DEFERRED COMP W/H 9 Fttb 2000 V«d 12:17 PM Check Regiecer City of Orono Check Munber Date Name Che^ ihsnbe r 60669 60669 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS 09-Feb-00 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS Totelj Check Number 60669 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS Check Number 60670 PERA 60670 60670 09-Feb-00 09-Feb-00 PERA PERA Totele Check Number 60670 PERA Check Number 60671 UNITED HAY 60671 09-Peb-00 UNITED MAY Totals Check Number 60671 UNITED MAY Chedc Number 60672 MISCONSIN SCTF 60672 09-Peb-00 MISCONSIN SCTF Totals Check Number 60672 MISCONSIN SCTF Grand Total Traraaction Amount 2,658.00 2,658.00 4,291.57 5,555.41 9,846.98 28.00 28.00 184.62 184.62 41,902.35 Page 2 Comments USCM DEFERRED COW N/H PERA EMPLOYEE M/R PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS M/H EMPL-166693 - JOHNSON % REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 ftB ^ A 20W - - vcvTVWr-OtJfiJWftjT RANGE DECEMBER 1999 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO PERMIT TYPE QTY Building SGL FAMILY-NEW SF-ADD/REMODEL SF-ACC STRUCTURE DEHO/PRINCIPAL COM-ADD/REMODEL INST-ADD/REMODEL Sub-total 3 19 1 1 1 0 25* Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVE/FLUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION 17 1 2 12 0 12/01/99 - 12/30/99 BASE FEE VALUATION 10,284.25 11,623.20 35.70 50.00 111.25 0.00 22,104.40* Grand-total 100** 1,097.50 43.75 70.00 447.50 0.00 1,680,000.00 1,347,280.00 900.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 3,033,100.00* 144,700.00 3,500.00 2,774.60 19,709.04 0.00 FUEL STORAGE 1 35.00 1,000.00 GAS LINE INSPECT 1 35.00 200.00 DUCT WORK ONLY 2 122.50 7,080.00 REMOVE OIL TANK Sub-total Plumbing 0 36* 0.00 2,651.25* 0.00 179,-764.S2* /fz fSr.sz^ FIXTURES 14 1,972.51 147,650.00 WATER METER 1 240.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 1 35.00 2,295.00 Sub-total 16*2,247.51*149,945.00* Sewer a Water SEWER CONNECTION 3 105.00 0.00 WATER CONNECTION 1 35.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 3 300.00 0.00 SAC ONLY 3 2,100.00 0.00 SEWER a WATER 7 490.00 0.00 Sub-total 17*3,030.00*0.00* Sign TEMPORARY 1 35.00 0.00 Sub-total 1*35.00*0.00* Fire FIRE SPRINKLER 1 35.00 1,176.00 Sub-total 1*35.00*1,176.00* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 4 200.00 0.00 RETAINING WALLS 0 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 4*200.00*0.00* 30,303.16**3,364,060:(>»** 4 3^(a 1^¥0 PLAN REVIEW 6,684.77 4,068.13 23.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,776.11* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00* 10,776.11** *** *♦ QTY 2 15 2 1 0 1 21* 3 0 0 13 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 5 1 18* 1 1* 0 0* 1 1 2* 84** PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 12/01/98 - 12/30/98 BASE FEE 3,244.50 4,752.25 102.50 50.00 0.00 249.75 8,399.00* 154.06 0.00 0.00 1,114.01 35.00 0.00 35.00 70.00 85.00 0.00 200.00 5,000.00 70.00 5,620.00* 35.00 35.00* 0.00 0.00* 50.00 99.75 149.75* VALUATION PLAN REVIEW 493.876.00 425.848.00 3,158.00 0.00 0.00 16,570.00 939,452 00* 12.175.00 0.00 0.00 80.620.00 1,800.00 0.00 800.00 3,000.00 5,350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 4,500.00 4,500.00* 17,579.00** 1,150,244.46** 2,108.92 2,419.47 26.16 0.00 0.00 162.34 4,716.09* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22*1,493.07*103,745.00*0.00* 19 1,636.06 110,547.46 0.00 1 247.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 20*1,003.06*110,547.46*0.00* 10 350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00* 4,716.89** REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 BUILDING BASE FEE 22,104.40 PLAN REVIEW 10,776.11 SURCHARGE 1,517.34 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 SAC 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 MAIL-IN FEE MAIL IN FEE ESCROW 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 34,397.05 REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl- DATE OP RUN 12/30/99 1 • REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 30,303.16 PLAN REVIEW 10,776.11 SURCHARGE 1,693.03 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 SAC 4,200.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 MAIL-IN FEE MAIL IN PEE 4.50 33.00 ESCROW 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 47,009.00 ***** MECHANICAL 2.651.25 0.00 91.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 30.00 0.00 2,776.09 DECEMBER 1999 PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 12/01/99 TO 12/30/99 PLUMBING SEWER & WATER 2,247.51 0.00 75.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.030.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 4.200.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 3.00 0.00 2,327.77 0.00 7,237.50 ** PERMIT FEE REPORT ** CITY OP ORONO FROM 12/01/99 TO 12/30/99 USER 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 PAGE: 39 REQUESTER: CAROLE SIGN FIRE 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 35.59 PAGE: 40 REQUESTER: CAROLE THU, DEC 30, ^493, 4:46 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PAGE 1 DECEMBER 1999 PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 25C PI 1C ME 01 01 01 02 02 10 10 11 11 11 11 15 16 19 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 25C 20 3020 195 1580 1720 3135 259 2850 4035 755 755 2940 1830 845 1270 320 2811 1318 205 3895 465 730 2845 520 135 CRYSTAL CREEK RD WATERTOWN RD CRYSTAL CREEK RD BOHNS PT RD NORTH FARM RD NORTH SHORE DR HOLLANDER RD LITTLE ORCHARD WAY DAHL RD DICKEY LAKE DR DICKEY LAKE DR 6TH AVE N SHORELINE DR OLD LONG LAKE RD ARBOR ST WOODHILL RD CASCO POINT RD SPRUCE PL NORTHGATE RD SHORELINE DR LINDEN AVE GANDER RD LITTLE ORCHARD WAY TONKAWA RD CYGNET PL 99/12/02 OR- 99/12/14 OR- 99/12/29 OR- 99/12/16 OR- 99/12/16 OR- 99/12/06 OR- 99/12/30 OR- 99/12/02 OR- 99/12/01 OR- 99/12/08 OR- 99/12/08 OR- 99/12/02 OR- 99/12/13 OR- 99/12/09 OR- 99/12/17 OR- 99/12/28 OR- 99/12/07 OR- 99/12/02 OR- 99/12/02 OR- 99/12/13 OR- 99/12/15 OR- 99/12/15 OR- 99/12/22 OR- 99/12/28 OR- 99/12/29 OR- 012228 012270 012318 012090 012244 012243 012331 011804 012230 012247 012248 012148 012184 012252 010977 011949 012146 012221 012229 012271 012275 012288 012305 012313 012322 19 1C 2060 6TH AVE N 99/12/14 OR-012185 01 2755 COPPER VIEW DR 99/12/03 OR-012235 01 2085 6TH AVE N 99/12/06 OR-012240 01 100 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 99/12/06 OR-012241 01 140 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 99/12/10 OR-012256 01 885 FERNDALE RD W 99/12/13 OR-012261 01 100 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 99/12/13 OR-012264 01 4775 BAYSIDE RD 99/12/13 OR-01226G 01 3105 CASCO POINT RD 99/12/14 OR-012274 01 185 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 99/12/16 OR-012290 01 2755 DEER RUN TR E 99/12/17 OR-012295 01 2535 OLD BEACH RD 99/12/17 OR-012296 01 2701 KELLY AVE 99/12/20 OR-012306 01 2285 ABINGDON WAY 99/12/20 OR-012307 01 3470 BAYSIDE RD 99/12/21 OR-012310 01 825 BROWN RD S 99/12/22 OR-012312 01 1580 BOHNS PT RD 99/12/28 OR-012316 01 205 NORTHGATE RD 99/12/28 OR-012317 01 2670 COUNTRYSIDE DR W 99/12/30 OR-012324 01 1316 SPRUCE PL 99/12/30 OR-012330 02 320 WOODHILL RD 99/12/02 OR-012233 02 4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING 99/12/14 OR-012272 02 1085 BROWN RD S 99/12/16 OR-012292 03 1555 ORONO OAKS DR 99/12/21 OR-012254 19 2130 WAYZATA BLVD 99/12/17 OR-012301 17313153 14735435 14754902 14753330 15593700 00000000 14786001 17984970 19256156 15442255 14987573 00000000 00000000 18191865 00000000 18233489 14432041 19791580 15461100 14728745 14730378 19191302 18949882 35514949 00000000 CHARLES CUDD CO STEINER 6K0PPELMAN, INC PILLAR HOMES LAUER HOMES, INC. ANCO CONSTRUCTION MINNESOTA EXTERIORS BANNER ROOFING CORP HALEY JOHN HOME SPECIALIST INC HOME SPECIALIST INC HURSH LAND COMPANY REUTER CONSTRUCTION INC DIETHLEM BROS CONSTRUCTION SUNSATIONAL SUNROOMtREMOD. DEMPSEY GRAY CONSTRUCTION JOHNSON KELLY CONST RIGHT ANGLE BUILDING CORP WAGENMAN JACOBSON REMODEL SKARPHOL CONSTRUCTION RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 88354700 JOHNSON J N SALES & SERVIC 00000000 34344178 35453797 33157500 39296767 39J14211 00000000 32662510 33157500 35453797 39296767 35453797 39296767 35453797 35712525 35453797 35453797 37777950 35421166 39414211 35421166 00000000 34722971 00000000 DAHL HEATING FIREPLACE CENTER AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO VOGT FRED & CO KLEVE HTG & AC ALLIED FIRESIDE AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO FIREPLACE CENTER VOGT FRED & CO FIREPLACE CENTER VOGT FRED & CO FIREPLACE CENTER AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO FIREPLACE CENTER FIREPLACE CENTER WOODBURY MECHANICAL, INC FLARE HTG & AC KLEVE HTG & AC FLARE HTG & AC LEGEND PLUMBING & HEATING RENCKENS 1,000,000.00 ROVICK 385,000.00 50,000.00 HANSON 299,000.00 HALVORSON 25,000.00 BAKER 12,535.00 CARPENTER 70,000.00 HALL 5,300.00 ESAU .00 ESAU 5,500.00 SEELAND 900.00 SAVAGE .00 FULLERTON 5.000. 00 8.000. 00 PAULUCCI 400,000.00 NORSTED 4,000.00 WALKER 28,900.00 ARNOLD 25,821.00 RAUSCHENDORFER 3,800.00 HOMMEYER 18,625.00 ANDERSON 25,000.00 WIKNER 350,000.00 A 15,200.00 599.00 VOGT 1.176.00 1.250.00 MARESH 3,800.00 WOODHOUSE 1,000.00 33,900.00 MELME 8,100.00 1,500.00 NORMAN 2,000.00 CODUTE 1,459.84 4,000.00 5,700.00 STORLIE 1,000.00 POLEY 880.00 WALSTEDT 1,000.00 BOHL 1,774.68 ROVICK 1,200.00 ARNOLD 2,200.00 DEVERE 200.00 PULUCCI 3,500.00 7,000.00 SCHOEMZEIT 1,200.00 BERRETT 400.00 HAUSER 1,800.00 WEAR 1,000.00 THU, DEC 30, 1999, 4:46 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 2 DECEMBER 1999 ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION MB 36C 16C SI 1C 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 29 36C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 24 24 24 24 16C 3315 3250 680 1925 1480 3452 2601 205 2496 520 1580 2265 100 1130 95 115 2691 2755 1085 2670 1725 2845 1318 465 1555 3452 520 4070 CRYSTAL BAY RD FOX ST BROWN RD S FOX ST GREEN TREES RD LIVINGSTON AVE CASCO POINT RD NORTHGATE RD OLD BEACH RD TONKAWA RD BOHNS PT RD BLAINE AVE CRYSTAL CREEK RD LOMA LINDA AVE SMITH AVE SMITH AVE CASCO POINT RD DEER RUN TR E BROWN RD S COUNTRYSIDE DR BOHNS PT RD LITTLE ORCHARD WAY SPRUCE PL LINDEN AVE ORONO OAKS DR LIVINGSTON AVE TONKAWA RD DAHL RD 17C 13 3333 SHORELINE DR 1C 01 145 BROWN RD S 01 1910 HERITAGE DR 01 1910 HERITAGE DR 01 95 SMITH AVE 01 95 SMITH AVE 01 115 SMITH AVE 01 20 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 100 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 3705 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 3703 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 3701 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 3706 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 3704 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 3702 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 3700 LIVINGSTON AVE 01 865 FERNDALE RD N 29 2691 CASCO POINT RD 17C 99/12/02 OR- 99/12/10 OR 99/12/10 OR- 99/12/13 OR 99/12/13 OR 99/12/13 OR 99/12/14 OR 99/12/15 OR 99/12/17 OR 99/12/17 OR 99/12/17 OR 99/12/09 OR 012232 012257 012258 012263 012265 012269 012273 012286 012294 012297 012302 012253 99/12/01 99/12/01 99/12/06 99/12/06 99/12/08 99/12/08 99/12/16 99/12/30 99/12/29 99/12/29 99/12/10 99/12/14 99/12/03 99/12/21 99/12/27 99/12/28 OR-012224 OR-012227 OR-012239 OR-012242 OR-012249 OR-012251 OR-012293 OR-012323 OR-012325 OR-012328 OR-012255 OR-012284 OR-012234 OR-012309 OR-012314 OR-012315 37575040 39411044 39296767 37241899 34248333 35378491 38242656 37557160 34233391 39296767 39414211 34282826 24454692 24248455 24738793 24738403 00000000 24796436 00000000 37777950 25334357 28663057 28900149 24738793 24549297 29220087 27735740 25510555 99/12/16 OR-012291 00000000 99/12/01 OR 99/12/01 OR 99/12/01 OR 99/12/06 OR 99/12/06 OR 99/12/07 OR 99/12/13 OR 99/12/13 OR 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 OR 99/12/14 OR 99/12/30 OR 99/12/08 OH OR OR OR OR OR 012223 012225 012226 012236 012237 012245 012267 012268 012277 012278 012279 012280 012281 012282 012283 012332 012246 54791869 00000000 24722316 00000000 24461495 24461495 55099011 55099011 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 00000000 24461495 DEPENDABLE HTG & AC KEENAN CENTRAIRE INC LUCAS VOGT FRED & CO OTT RESIDENTIAL HTG & AIR INC WATSON ROYALTON HTG & COOLING PLATOU SUPERIOR CONTR INC MAXWELL STANDARD HTG & AC CO HEDBLOM LARSON MECHANICAL SOUTH RIVER HTG & COOLING CARLSON VOGT FRED & CO KLEVE HTG & AC PRACTICAL SYSTEMS ELANDER PLBG CO INC MACK PLUMBING CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG DAY EARL W & SONS PARK PLUMBING INC WOODBURY MECHANICAL, PLYMOUTH PLUMBING SOUTHTOWN PLBG H & H PLUMBING CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG JANECKY PLBG ULLOM PBLC DINIUS PLU'BING MR ROOTER INC INGELSIDE ENGINEERING COPPIN PLBG WIDMER INC WIDMER INC J S STEWART STEWART K HTG & J K K K K K K K 5 Sc 6 & Sc S. Sc Sc K K K K K K HTG HTG HTG HTG HTG HTG Sc Sc Sc Sc s. Sc PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, INC INC INC INC INC INC INC REVICK GUTTORMSON BOCKMANN AHLBERG HBRZENBERG MILLER POST BERRETT DEVERE HOE FT WALKER HOMMEYER HAUSER MAXWELL CARLSON DAHLQUIST BLOOMQUIST WINTON BLOCH BLOCH AHLBERG AHLBERG HERTZENBERG WIDMER INC MILLER 1.400.00 22,645.00 26,000.00 2.200.00 1,600.00 3.900.00 6.105.00 3,000.00 8.500.00 8.300.00 8.850.00 1.400.00 8.900.00 9.700.00 4.550.00 2.295.00 .00 12,000.00 400.00 1.200.00 64,000.00 31,200.00 4.200.00 1.200.00 3.400.00 550.00 5.850.00 500.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 THU, DEC 30, ..^99, 4:46 PM PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 3 UliCEMUER 1999 ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION UD 4C lOOC 01 22 22 22 4C 495 4150 4555 315 OXFORD RD HIGHWOOD RD WAYZATA BLVD TONKAWA RD 99/12/10 OR-012259 99/12/13 OR-010450 99/12/15 OR-012289 99/12/20 OR-012304 00000000 00000000 00000000 14750548 JENSEN HOMES KILBANE GUETZKOW FRAZIER BENNETT .00 .00 .00 .00 3,364,065.52* l-r. I*# . . : ..a THU, DEC 30, -999, 4:44 PM NUMERICAL LISTING PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR Nl OR-010458 99/12/13 N 4150 OR-010977 99/12/17 N 1270 OR-011804 99/12/02 N 2850 OR-011949 99/12/28 N 320 OR-012090 99/12/16 N 1580 OR-012146 99/12/07 N 2811 OR-012148 99/12/02 N 2940 OR-012184 99/12/13 N 1830 OR-012185 99/12/14 N 2060 OR-012221 99/12/02 N 1318 OR-012223 99/12/01 N 145 OR-012224 99/12/01 N 100 OR-012225 99/12/01 N 1910 OR-012226 99/12/01 N 1910 OR-012227 99/12/01 N 1130 OR-012228 99/12/02 N 20 OR-012229 99/12/02 N 205 OR-012230 99/12/01 N 4035 OR-012232 99/12/02 N 3315 OR-012233 99/12/02 N 320 OR-012234 99/12/03 N 1555 OR-012235 99/12/03 N 2755 OR-012236 99/12/06 N 95 OR-012237 99/12/06 N 95 OR-012239 99/12/06 N 95 OR-012240 99/12/06 N 2085 OR-012241 99/12/06 N 100 OR-012242 99/12/06 N 115 OR-012243 99/12/06 N 3135 OR-012244 99/12/16 N 1720 OR-012245 99/12/07 N 115 OR-012246 99/12/08 N 2691 OR-012247 99/12/08 N 755 OR-012248 99/12/08 N 755 OR-012249 99/12/08 N 2691 OR-012251 99/12/08 N 2755 OR-012252 99/12/09 N 845 OR-012253 99/12/09 N 2265 OR-012254 99/12/21 N 1555 OR-012255 99/12/10 N 1318 OR-012256 99/12/10 N 140 OR-012257 99/12/10 N 3250 OR-012258 99/12/10 N 680 OR-012259 99/12/10 N 495 OR-012261 99/12/13 N 885 OR-012263 99/12/13 N 1925 OR-012264 99/12/13 N 100 OR-012265 99/12/13 N 1480 OR-012266 99/12/13 N 4775 OR-012267 99/12/13 N 20 OR-012268 99/12/13 N 100 OR-012269 99/12/13 N 3452 OR-012270 .. 99/12/14 N 3020 OR-012271 99/12/13 N 3895 PAGE 1 DECEMBER 1999 WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION FULLERTON 8,000.00 CARPENTER 70,000.00 PAULUCCI 400,000.00 ROVICK 50,000.00 NORSTED 4,000.00 SEELAND 900.00 SAVAGE .00 1,176.00 WALKER 28.900.00 WINTON .00 8,900.00 BLOCH .00 BLOCH .00 BOCKMANN 9.700.00 295,000.00 ARNOLD 25,821.00 HALL 5,300.00 KEENAN 1,400.00 PULUCCI 7,000.00 HAUSER 3,400.00 VOGT 1,250.00 AHLBERG .00 AHLBERG . 00 AHLBERG 4,550.00 MARESH 3,800.00 1.000.00 HERZENBERG 2.295.00 HALVORSON 25,000.00 HANSON 299.000.00 HERTZENBERG .00 MILLER .00 ESAU .00 ESAU 5,500.00 MILLER .00 POST 12,000.00 5.000.00 GUTTORMSON 1,400.00 HAUSER 1,800.00 WALKER 4,200.00 .00 LUCAS 22.645.00 OTT 26,000.00 KILBANE .00 WOODHOUSE 33,900.00 WATSON 2,200.00 8,100.00 PLATOU 1,600.00 MELME 1,500.00 .00 .00 MAXWELL 3,900.00 RENCKENS 1,000,000.00 RAUSCHENDORFER 3,800.00 HIGHWOOD RD 22 ARBOR ST 29 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY 11 WOODHILL RD 29 BOHNS PT RD 02 CASCO POINT RD 29 6TH AVE N 15 SHORELINE DR 16 6TH AVE N 19 SPRUCE PL 29 BROWN RD S 01 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 HERITAGE DR 01 HERITAGE DR 01 LOMA LINDA AVE 01 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 NORTHGATE RD 29 DAHL RD 11 CRYSTAL BAY RD 24 WOODHILL RD 02 ORONO OAKS DR 24 COPPER VIEW DR 01 SMITH AVE 01 SMITH AVE 01 SMITH AVE 01 6TH AVE N 01 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 SMITH AVE 01 NORTH SHORE DR 10 NORTH FARM RD 02 SMITH AVE 01 CASCO POINT RD 29 DICKEY LAKE DR 11 DICKEY LAKE DR 11 CASCO PCINT RD 01 DEER RUN TR E 01 OLD LONG LAKE RD 19 BLAINE AVE 29 ORONO OAKS DR 03 SPRUCE PL 02 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 FOX ST 24 BROWN RD S 24 OXFORD RD 01 FERNDALE RD W 01 FOX ST 24 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 GREEN TREES RD 24 BAYSIDE RD 01 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 CRYSTAL CREEK RD 01 LIVINGSTON AVE 24 WATERTOWN RD 01 SHORELINE DR 29 00000000 00000000 17984970 18233489 14753330 14432041 00000000 00000000 88354700 19791580 54791869 24454692 00000000 24722316 24248455 17313153 15461100 19256156 37575040 39414211 24549297 00000000 00000000 24461495 24738793 34344178 35453797 24738403 00000000 15593700 24461495 24461495 15442255 14987573 00000000 24796436 18191865 34282826 34722971 28906149 33157500 39411044 39296767 00000000 39296767 37241899 39414211 34248333 00000000 55099011 55099011 35378491 14735435 14728745 BANNER ROOFING CORP REUTER CONSTRUCTION INC LAUER HOMES, INC. DIETHLEM BROS CONSTRUCTION JOHNSON J N SALES & SERVIC SUNSATIONAL SUNROOM&REMOD. INGELSIDE ENGINEERING ELANDER PLBG CO INC COPPIN PLBG MACK PLUMBING CHARLES CUDD CO DEMPSEY GRAY CONSTRUCTION HALEY JOHN DEPENDABLE HTG & AC KLEVE HTG & AC JANECKY PLBG WIDMER INC CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG DAHL HEATING FIREPLACE CENTER DAY EARL W & SONS ANCO CONSTRUCTION WIDMER INC WIDMER INC HOME SPECIALIST INC HOME SPECIALIST INC PARK PLUMBING INC HURSH LAND COMPANY PRACTICAL SYSTEMS LEGEND PLUMBING fid HEATING H fi. H PLUMBING ' AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO CENTRAIRE INC VOGT FRED fit CO VOGT FRED fit CO RESIDENTIAL HTG & AIR INC KLEVE HTG fic AC ROYALTON HTG &> COOLING J S STEWART J S STEWART SUPERIOR CONTR INC STEINER fitKOPPELMAN, INC JOHNSON KELLY CONST THU, DEC 30, 1999, 4:44 PM NUMERICAL LISTING PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREi=:T PAGE 2 DECEMBER 1099 WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION OR-012272 OR-012273 OR-C12274 OR-012275 OR-012277 OR-012278 OR-012279 OR-012260 OR-012281 OR-0I2282 OR-012283 OR-012284 OR-012286 OR-012288 OR-012289 OR-012290 OR-01229I OR-012292 OR-U1.293 OR-012294 OR-012295 OR-012296 OR-012297 OR-01230X OR-012302 OR>012304 OR-01230S OR-012306 OR-012307 OR-012309 OR>012310 OR-012312 OR-012313 OR-012314 OR-012315 OR-012316 OR-012317 OR-012318 OR-0I2322 OR-012323 OR-012324 OR-012325 OR-012328 OR-012330 OR-012331 OR-012332 lOOC 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/15 99/12/14 99/12/1-1 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/14 99/12/15 99/12/15 99/12/15 99/12/16 99/12/16 99/12/16 99/12/16 99/12/17 99/12/17 99/12/17 99/12/17 99/12/17 99/12/17 99/12/20 99/12/22 99/12/20 99/12/20 99/12/21 99/12/21 99/12/22 99/12/28 99/12/27 99/12/28 99/12/28 99/12/28 99/12/29 99/12/29 99/12/30 99/12/30 99/12/29 99/12/29 99/12/30 99/12/30 99/12/30 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4480 2601 3105 465 3705 3703 3701 3706 3704 3702 3700 465 205 730 4555 185 3333 1085 1085 2496 2755 2535 520 2130 1580 315 2845 2701 2285 3452 3470 825 520 520 4070 1580 205 195 135 2670 2670 1725 2845 1318 259 865 FOREST LAKE LANDING CASCO POINT RD CASCO POINT RD LINDEN AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LIVINGSTON AVE LINDEN AVE NORTHGATE RD GANDER RD WAYZATA BLVD CRYSTAL CREEK RD SHORELINE CR BROWN RD S BROWN RD S OLD BEACH RD DEER RUN TR E OLD BEACH RD TONKAWA RD WAYZATA BLVD BOHNS PT RD TONKAWA RD LITTLE ORCHARD WAY KELLY AVE ABINGDON WAY LIVINGSTON AVE BAYSIDE RD BROWN RD S TONKAWA RD TONKAWA RD DAHL RD BOHNS PT RD NORTHGATE RD CRYSTAL CREEK RD CYGNET PL COUNTRYSIDE DR COUNTRYSIDE DR W BOHNS PT RD LITTLE ORCHARD WAY SPRUCE PL HOLLANDER RD FERNDALE RD N 02 24 01 29 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 24 29 22 01 13 02 01 24 01 01 24 19 24 22 29 01 01 24 01 01 29 24 24 01 01 01 29 01 01 01 01 01 10 01 35421166 38242656 32662510 14730378 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24775505 24738793 37557160 19191302 00000000 33157500 00000000 00000000 00000000 34233391 35453797 3929e*»67 39296767 00000000 39414211 14750548 18949882 35453797 39296767 29220087 35453797 35712525 35514949 27735740 25510555 35453797 35453797 14754902 00000000 37777950 37777950 25334357 28663057 35421166 14786001 00000000 FLARE HTG & AC STANDARD HTG & AC CO ALLIED FIRESIDE RIGHT ANGLE BUILDING CORP K & K HTG & PLBG, INC PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, PLBG, CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG LARSON MECHANICAL WAGENMAN JACOBSON REMODEL K K K K K K & & & & & & K K K K K K HTG HTG HTG HTG HTG HTG & & & & Sc Si INC INC INC INC INC INC AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO SOUTH RIVER HTG i COOLING FIREPLACE CENTER VOGT FRED & CO VOGT FRED & CO KLEVE HTG & AC JENSEN HOMES SKARPHOL CONSTRUCTION FIREPLACE CENTER VOGT FRED & CO ULLOM PBLG FIREPLACE CENTER AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM DINIUS PLUMBING MR ROOTER FIREPLACE CENTER FIREPLACE CENTER PILLAR HOMES WOODBURY MECHANICAL, WOODBURY MECHANICAL, PLYMOUTH PLUMBING SOUTHTOWN PLBG FLARE HTG & AC MINNESOTA EXTERIORS INC INC 1,200.00 HEDBLOM 6,105.00 NORMAN 2,000.00 HOMMEYER 18,625.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 HOMMEYER 1,200.00 3,000.00 ANDERSON 25,000.00 PPAZIER .00 1,459.84 BLOOMQUIST .00 BERRETT 400.00 BERRETT 400.00 CARLSON 8,500.00 4,000.00 CODUTE 5.700.00 8.300.00 WEAR 1,000.00 REVICK 8,850.00 BENNETT . 00 WIKNER 350,000.00 STORLIE 1,000.00 POLEY 880.00 MAXWELL 550.00 WALSTEDT 1,000.00 BOHL 1,774.68 15,200.00 CARLSON 5,850.00 DAHLQUIST 500.00 ROVICK 1,200.00 ARNOLD 2,200.00 385,000.00 A 599.00 DEVERE 1,200.00 DEVERE 200.00 HOEFT 64,000.00 31,200.00 3,500.00 BAKER 12,535.00 .00 Ha ■L 01 Residence 24 02 Addition 25 03 Garage/Atta ched 26 04 Garage/Detached ..27 05 Porch 28 06 Deck 1,'29 07 Fence 30 08 Gazebo 31 09 Pool 32 10 Re-side 33 11 Re-roof 34 12 Tennis Court 13 'Sign 14 Dock 15 Shed 16 Demo-Prlnclpal Structure 17 Demo-Accessory Structure 18 Move 19 Commercial 20 Institutional 21 Storm Damage Repair 22 1-100 Cubic Yards 23 101 Cubic Yards or More 99 Undefined 9999 Replacing Existing Lifting Principal Residence Well Abandonment Foundation Only Temporary Trailer Renovate/Remodel Accessory Structure Stairway to Lake Retaining Wall Entrance Monuments Tree Removal LOCAL OSB CODES Undefined 4 m <e DECEMBER 1999 REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 /^f tr%r% ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO REQUESTER: RANGE- - - - - - -- PAGE: 1 CAROLE 12/01/99 - - - - - - - 12/30/99 12/01/98 -12/30/98 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User Defined SUBDIVISION 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 775.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 6 1,750.00 0.00 0.00 7 1,800.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 1 175.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 A A A ZONING CODE AMEN 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 0*1,925.00*0.00*0.00*10*2,825.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 1,925.00**0.00**0.00**10**2,825.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 12/20/^3 ***** permit fee report ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 12/01/99 TO 12/30/99 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 1,925.00 1,925.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 1,925.00 1,925.00 YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 * * ** *CO' CURRENT RANGE - ■ 12/30/99 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO * * ** * PERMIT TYPE Building SGL FAMILY-NEW DUPLEX-NEW SP-ADD/REMODEL SP-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL-NEW COM-ADD/RBMODEL COM-ACC STRUCTUR DEMO INST-ADD/REMODEL DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/GARAGES Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVE/FLUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION FUEL STORAGE GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY REMOVE OIL TANK Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES SPRINKLER WATER METER VACUUM BREAKER UNDEFINED Sub-total Sewer a Water SEWER CONNECTION WATER CONNECTION NEW SEPTIC SYSTE DRNFLD a/OR TANK SAC ONLY SEPTIC CONNECTIN SEWER DISCONNECT SEWER REPAIR SEWER a WATER UNDEFINED Sub-total Sign PERMANENT/POSTED QTY 44 1 325 38 20 1 9 1 0 2 5 12 458* Crtt ur- BASE FEE VALUATION 114,557 1,637 107,485 5,7':8 1,27H 3,09^ 1, 906 237 0 963 150 5,241 242,307 .75 .25 .15 .75 00 .^r • f • .0i» .50 .00 .25 .40* 18,568 250 10,344 333 550 140 13 88 420 30,709 ,461 , 000 ,532 ,860 0 ,000 ,175 ,900 0 ,000 0 ,725 ,654 .55 .00 .05 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .40* 144 16,502.03 1,285,658.90 18 882.88 59,385.50 7 247.50 8,374.68 93 4,083.53 238,167.73 10 407.50 18,215.00 3 445.00 33,800.00 26 950.00 20,500.00 10 461.25 22,630.00 8 2,672.55 205,133.79 319*26,652.24*1,891,865.60* 173 16,590.55 1,203,032.89 1 93.75 7,500.00 13 6,800.00 0.00 4 140.00 eoo.oo 5 175.00 6,703.00 196*23,799.30*1,218,035.89* 27 945.00 0.00 2 70.00 0.00 33 3,170.00 0.00 2 100.00 0.00 20 22,050.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2 105.00 0.00 5 175.00 0.00 15 1,050.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 107*27,700.00*0.00* 1 48.50 1,500.00 IM' PLAN REVIEW 74,462 1,064 47,929 3,597 0 2,014 883 154 0 0 0 3,406 133,512 .55 .21 .45 .25 .00 .84 .35 .21 .00 .00 .00 .01 .67* 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.00* 0.00 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE --.PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/90 - 12/30/90 QTY BASE FEE VALUATION 33 81,743.50 14,954,615.44 0 0.00 0.00 367 90,500.75 8,012,547.10 41 9,131.50 861,748.00 16 830.00 0.00 1 6,365.25 1,492,000.00 6 3,051.25 367,555.00 5 1,462.25 110,000.00 1 50.00 0.00 s 1,226.75 141,550.00 6 180.00 0.00 25 5,523.25 375,003.20 506*200,064.50*26,315,018.74* 106 13,883.78 1,090,057.44 22 1,069 85 74,205.52 2 70.00 3,000.00 85 4,129.20 246,538.00 9 315.00 11,935.00 0 0.00 0.00 9 315.00 8,784.00 21 751.25 29,183.00 14 601.25 26,413.75 268*21,135.33*1,490,116.71* 179 15,235.06 1,053,942.84 1 82.75 6,620.00 10 1,882.00 1,225.00 10 350.00 2,600.00 1 35.00 600.00 201*17,584.81*1,064,987.84* 59 2,065.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 39 3,850.00 0.00 3 150.00 0.00 51 49,250.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 3 105.00 750.00 2 140.00 0.00 2 35.00 0.00 162*55,715.00*750.00* 137.25 7,000.00 PLAN REVIEW 53,133 0 39,262 5,546 0 4,137 1,765 105 0 162 0 3,424 107,537 .21 .00 .80 .48 .00 .41 .07 .46 .00 .34 .00 .55 .32* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN l*V30/99 *****PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO PAGE: 2 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/99 - 12/30/99 PERMIT TYPE PER./FREE STANDG TEMPORARY Sub-total QTY 1 6 6* BASE FEE 21.00 175.00 244.50* VALUATION 450.00 0.00 1,950.00* Fire FIRE SPRINKLER FIRE SPRINKLER Sub-total 3 3 6* 457.50 1,698.88 2,156.38* 34,976.00 135,550.00 170,526.00* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 24 1,230.00 0.00 RETAINING WALLS 2 491.75 33,920.00 DOCKS 1 30.00 0.00 LAWN SPRINKLER 22 770.00 0.00 Sub-total 49*2,521.75*33,920.00* Grand-total 1,143**325,461.57** 34,025,951.89** PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/98 - BASE FEE RANGE . . . . 12/30/98 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW 0.00 1 74.75 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 3 105.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*5*317.00*10,300.00*0.00* 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3,650.00 292,000.00 0.00 0.00*1*3,650.00*292,000.00*0.00* 0.00 35 1,850.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 2 187.00 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 1,120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*69*3,157.00*9,000.00*0.00* 133.512.67**1,212**301,623.64** 29 ,182,173.29**107,537.32** i i Cff K - REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 YEAR-TO-DATE ***** permit fee report ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/99 TO 12/30/99 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER £c WATER USER SIGN FIRE BASE FEE 242,307.40 26,652.24 23,799.30 27,700.00 2,521.75 244.50 2,156.30 PLAN REVIEW 133,512.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 15,306.12 956.07 622.27 44.00 27.00 0.75 05.47 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 17,050.00 0.00 0.00 4,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 5,167.50 0.00 35.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN MAIL IN MAIL IN FEB MAIL-IN FEE WATER CONNECTION 2,450.00 149.61 1.50 50.99 65.19 58.48 12.00 19.50 4.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 4.50 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 416,673.69 27,003.60 24,546.55 32,044.00 2,657.75 246.75 2,247.05 REPORT NBR. BFEBRPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 0 ***«« PERMIT FEE CITY OF FROM 01/01/99 REPORT ***** ORONO TO 12/30/99 PAGE: REQUESTER: CAROLE REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 325,461.57 PLAN REVIEW 133,512.67 SURCHARGE 17,041.60 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 SAC 22,050.00 INVESTIGATION 5,402.50 DEPOSIT 0.00 MAIL IN MAIL IN MAIL IN FEE MAIL-IN FEB WATER CONNECTION 218.59 1.50 72.49 09.19 2,450.00 ESCROW 0.00 I '-nMTT total 506,300.19 YEAR-TO-DATE DATE OF RUN PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP SKETCH PLAN VARIANCE/CUP VACATION REZONING RQST SIMILAR USE ZONING CODE AMEN Sub-total Grand-total ;s-i '99 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO REQUESTER: range- - ---- PAGE: 1 CAROLE 01/01/99 - ----- 12/30/99 01/01/98 -12/30/98 QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW 19 20,625.00 0.00 0.00 18 7,812.50 0.00 0.00 51 12,950.00 0.00 0.00 69 17,310.00 0.00 0.00 13 2,425.00 0.00 0.00 16 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 10 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 5 1,400.00 0.00 0.00 6 1,850.00 0.00 0.00 7 1,900.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 300.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 250.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 106*40,700.00*0.00*0.00*119*32,322.50*0.00*0.00* 106**40,700.00**0.00** 0.00**119**32,322.50**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFFERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 12/30/99 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/99 TO 12/30/99 USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 40,700.00 40,700.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 40,700.00 40,700.00 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE i •9t m 1999 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIES January February March April May June July August Septeinber October Novefnbcr Oeceinber TTO Totals Spring Park Plan Review 40.46 274.14 0.00 2,760.22 2,063.10 1,576.90 3,095.31 1,389.54 598.00 2,317,90 89.21 0.00 11,797.67 Inspections 120.00 45.00 195.00 135.00 135.00 180.00 150.00 360.00 210.00 360.00 375.00 270.00 2,170.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 300.00 TOTAL 185.46 344.14 220.00 2,920.22 2,223.10 1,781.90 3,270.31 1,774.54 833.00 2,702.90 489.21 295.00 17,039.78 No. Plan Reviews 1 1 0 4 4 4 5 3 2 2 2 0 28 No. Inspections 6 3 13 9 9 12 10 24 14 24 25 18 169 Mfnnetonica Beach Plan Review 568.59 0.00 72.96 326.79 787.80 739.21 4,565.86 1,636.86 5,677.42 444.92 2,424.67 404.95 17,650.03 Inspections 60.00 45.00 150.00 135.00 60.00 180.00 300.00 435.00 270.00 165.00 300.00 285.00 2,385.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 300.00 TOTAL 653.59 70.00 247.96 486.79 872.80 944.21 4,890.86 2,096.86 5,972.42 634.92 2,749.67 714.95 20,335.03 No. Plan Reviews 1 0 1 1 2 1 7 3 4 2 3 2 27 No. Inspections 4 3 10 9 4 12 20 29 18 11 20 19 159 839.05 414.14 467.96 3,407.01 3,095.90 2,726.11 8,161.17 3,871.40 6,805.42 3,337.82 3,238.88 1,009.95 37,374.81 ► j- . - ,•»' 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^5 Anderlik& ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. R >?ene. Ande^'*k »mc/ AssouAtes. /nc #s *sn AffirmMive Actton/£qu*il Opportunity Employer Pnnctpi^ti Ottu i *^one'.tfOO. PE • Joseph C Arderlik. PE • M^rvm L. Sorval.i, PE • Glenn R. Cook. PE • Robert G Schumcht. PE. • Jerry A Bourdon PE • Robert W Rosene. PE . Rtch<ird E Turner. PE cind Susan M Eberlm. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Stinford. PE • Keith A Gordon, PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I A. • Mark A Hansors. PE. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P Williamson. P£ . L.S. • Robert F Kotsmith • Agnes M Ring • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl WeOsite WWW bonestroo com January 28.2000 Gabriel Jabbour .Ma> or City Hall 2750 Kelly Pkwy Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 °^CIL MeETiMO '"f® I 4 Dear Mr jabbour. The City of Pelican Rapidb and Bonestroo are currently in the process of resolving a dispute associated with the c.vpansion of the City's wastewater treatment plant. The press learned of the situation and. as you may already know, printed an article that appeared in several regional newspapers and in USA Today. Unfortunately, the article was one-sided and contained inaccuracies that prompted calls from clients. For that reason, w e'd like to take just a minute of your time to clarify the issues at hand, and to invite you to contact us if you have further questions. Your trust and confidence in us is the heart of our relationship, and it is too important to Jeopardize due to mis-communication. In a nutshell, Bonestroo helped the City of Pelican Rapids expand its wastew ater treatment plant on a fast-track approach between 1994 and 1996. The goal was to give the City’s major industrial u.ser a 100 percent capacity increase. In 1996. when the expansion become operational, there were effiuent violations that Bonestroo worked w ith the City to resolve. The City and Bonestroo determined that the violations were not caused by the expansion project, but by a pre-existing process in the original plant. When the problem surfaced. Bonestroo took immediate action to find a solution. However, before we could present that solution, which carried a cost of just 2 percent (S40.000) of the cost of the expansion, the City hired another engineer who not only designed the same correction Bonestroo would have proposed, but w ho also advised the City to replace Boncstroo's expansion project w ith his ow n experimental design. The City is now seeking damages for the cost of our expansion project. An independent engineer has confirmed that our expansion design was indeed proper and is needed by the City to meet its capacity necJ.s. Wc have agreed to a dispute resolution process with the City and anticipate favorable resolution in the near future. Wc hope this infoi Illation alleviates any concerns that may have surfaced if you read the article or were approached by someone who had. We invite you to contact Ted Field of our firm diiectly at (651) 6U4-4832 if you would like further inform.ation.. .Again, thank you for your time. Sincerely. Marvin L. Sorvala President i 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 - 651-636-4.»00 ■ Fax: 651-636-1311 11367 Cedar Pointe Drive South Minnetonka, Mn 55305 612.591.2633 COUNCIL MEETING FEB 1 4 2000 CITY or January 12,2000 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour 985 Tonkawa Road Orono, Mn 55356 Dear Mayor Jabboun Obviously the results of the City of Orono City Council’s vote Monday night concerning our application for two variances at 684 Tonkawa Road in Orono was very disappointing to us. As I mentioned at the meeting, 1 feel the city has continued to extend the process of seeking a variance by making more and more requests for information, which we responded to at considerable expense. During the past two months we have been addressing and addressing drainage issues while at the end of the day, staff recommended denial due to lack of hardship and hardcover issues. To ask a single property owner for more and more information, to be gathered at considerable cost, and then recommend denial based on two issues that haven’t changed on this project from day one is disingenuous and blatantly unfair to the applicant. I have worked with planning issues on lakeshore previously. I once wanted to construct a deck on my lakefront cabin and was informed by the staff planner that I could apply for a variance, but based on precedents it would be unlikely the city council would approve the project. That person probably saved me a great deal of time and money. With this case, 1 believe the staff person that ultimately made the recommendation to the council, had her mind made up to recommend denial from the beginning, but rather than be up from with me, chose to belabor the process with repeated requests for more costly information, sometimes at the last minute before the next meeting deadline. In the end, despite all the drainage issues, her recommendation was based on hardcover and hardship. This is a smoke and mirrors approach-i.e.”you need to address these drainage issues, but we are going to recommend denial based on hardship and hardcover anyway.” It is not my intent to second guess the actions of a particular staff person, but I firmly believe there was very little oversight from you, the mayor, the city administrator and on down in this case as to informing the applicant of the apparent new standards that were now being applied in Orono. Clearly the overall issues to me that were not satisfactorily responded to me by the commission or staff were hardship and hardcover. We were going to reduce hardcover on the total property by over 1500 square feet or 16%. The critical 75 ’ to 250’ area was going to increase by only 550 square feet. To me, and I would imagine to most people, having a garage 200’ from the front door to one’s house in Minnesota is a hardship. The neighbors were in full support of the project as evidenced by their letters. Orono’s planning commission was in full support of this project as evidenced by their unanimous 7-0 positive vote. The project would have resulted in diidnage on the property to be improved, bcnefitting the lake and the neighbors. Also, we would have removed an unsightly garage by the road and replaced it with some very attractive landscaping. I am enclosing a letter which I prepared to send you on December 7, but after our meeting on site with all the staff on December 7,1 thought it was not necessary as I thought we were all in agreement that the issues had all been raised by then and it was felt they could be adequately addressed. The only change since that letter is that the costs have risen as I was asked to survey both of our neighbors’ properties, which in good faith we did. Not only were we treated unfairly, but I believe we were held to a new higher standard by the city. One does not have to look very far in Orono to see completed projects that clearly faced sigpuficant hardcover issues to come to this conclusion. I suspect there may be some discussion about this project around the city hall water cooler shortly, as there should be, and I would suggest someone on stafr should rightly admit the city not only moved the ball in this case, as Lucy does repeatedly to Charlie Brown, but in fact the city really dropped the ball. I do plan to research the variances that have been granted by the city as I consider seeking to recover the significant costs I have incurred as a result of this process. Sinc^ly, John'Sundet :c/ i^Kbn Moorse, City Administrator Charles G. Carpenter 111: Fabyanske, Svoboda, Westra, Davis & Hart iH i , t «' 1 ■ill i issues be addressed. This request was made late Friday and needed to be satisfied Monday morning to get on the agenda for December 13. After all of this, ironically, the recommendation is now to keep the driveway where it is. I believe we are not on the December 13 agenda and will be rescheduled to the next meeting in January. This would be the third or fourth time we have been delayed, depending how one counts. Becki and I will be out of the country in January, and I am very concerned and disappointed that while I have made myself available for the past meetings that ha\ i come and gone, I now would not be available to finally attend the meeting at which our application is reviewed. We have been totally cooperative with the city and have not challenged any requests by staff, to my knowledge. We want to fit into the community and comply with all requests, etc. At some point, however, my wife Becki and I must ask ourselves if we should continue this process as we bought the property on June 1,1999 and so far we feel we have made very little progress towards accomplishing our goal of remodeling. Unfortunately for us however, the additional requests that have been made by the city have delayed the project and arc increasing the project budget. Our costs to date for this project have been as follows: Katherine Taylor design, application work, contracting for surveyors, etc. $4975 Additional costs of Taylor, not billed as yet est. 3000 Financing costs for mortgage 10,165 Application for variance 250 Monthly mortgage payment 2767 Becki and I do not know for sure if we arc going to ultimately initiate the project as it depends on the final cost estimates, but as you can see we have invested a significant sum so far and we are beginning to feel we are facing a situation where the requirements are being created as we proceed, ie the city seems to keep moving the target on us. It is unreasonable for the city to continue to make new requests at the last minute before the deadline to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. The fu’st time such a request was made at the last minute it could be considered an oversight, but this has become a pattern and it docs not serve the property owner well or the city. This situation reminds me a little of Charlie Brown attempting to kick the football, but right before every attempt Lucy moves the ball. In summary, we want to pursue this project, we have complied with all the requests directed to us and are seeking your support to allow us to receive a review by the full council as soon as possible. We really appreciate your support. Sincerely, John and Becki Sundet 612.591.2633 684 Tonkawa Road Orono Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future January 21, 2000 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour City Of Orono 985 Tonkawa Rd Long Lake. MN 55356 COt;^/cn ---- FEB I 4 i:uou CITY Or w. •^0 9^ Dear Mayor Jabbour: As we enter the new year, the Metropolitan Council would like to share some good news with you. Your sewer bills are going down, again. Your finance staff already have received the first billing for the year 2000. This bill is for wastewater collection and treatment services provided by the Environmental Services Division of the Metropolitan Council. The 2000 rate per hundred thousand gallons is $120, compared to $125.70 in 1999 and $135 in 1998. This is a 4.5 percent rate reduction, following last year ’s 6.9 percent cut. Our plan for allocating resources anticipates another cut in this rate for the year 2001 and plans no increase in 2002. The Metropolitan Council works very hard to deliver services in a cost and quality effective manner. Setting high goals for performance is one of the Council's smart growth strategies. It contributes to our Region's competitiveness and helps make this one of the best places to live, raise a family, work or do business. Please call me or Helen Boyer, Environmental Services Director, if you have any questions concerning these rate changes. As always, we appreciate your support. Sincepblyf id Mondale, Chair letropolitan Council cc:Metropolitan Council Members Helen Boyer. MCES Division Director City Manager 7IOK.11I KilihSiifrl SI Paul. MlnnrHiUa SSIOIMi'iH (b51 Mi02 • 1 000 Fa.\602I 550 TOD/HV *291 O^KM Mrim Inin Linr 602-IHS8 1'* Fivitt! rFtttfittmt*-*