Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1997 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 14, IW, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COLT^CIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA * 19. LICENSES * 20. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 07/14 07/16 07/18 07/21 07/28 08/04 08/06 08/11 08/18 08/25 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Mn/DOT Stormwater meeting 8:30-10:30 a.m. Planning Commission meeting 7:00 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. I .1 '» ■ f ' r -------- Public A ttendance Meeting D ate -^0L^l IM , 1*^^*1 Council □ Planning Commission Park Commission Other Please fdx out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS tali PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I ^7c 2- ((t L<.r f.c. 3. /)Oaj ZlL/X?yg/>gY # ZIHC ^ O'i'ns f Ujgprtf\ Qu/uvocf^Cj 5. ( 6.. 7.. 8.. 9._ 10.. 11.. 12.. 13.. 14. 15._ 09U9S.4 i I V ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 23,1997 COUNCIL MEETINGI ' ) JOL 14 1997 ROLL ^*tyoforono The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten and Richard Flint. Barbara Peterson and Charles Kelley were absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorsc, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Glenn Cook, City Finance Director Tom Kuehn, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. (#1) 7:00 PJVI. AWARD SALE OF BONDS - RESOLUTION NO. 3924 Carolyn Drude of Ehlers Associates, bond consultant to the City, reported the tabulation of the seven bids received prior to 11 :00 a.m. on June 23, 1997 for the $1,760,000 General Obligation Improvement Bond, Series 1997. The best bid was received from Piper Jalfrey at a true interest rate of4.9793% over 15 years. The Bond Buyer ’s Index of 20-year ’'A"-rated bonds on the national scale shows the rate is to be lowest interest rate in the last 13 months. Drude indicated the interest rates have been declining over the past several weeks and said the favorable interest rate on the current bond issue is a reflection of the City ’s continuing excellent debt rating from Moodys Investors Services of Aal. Dnide presented a list of other Minnesota city and county governments with Moody's debt ratings of Aal, or Aaa, and noted that the highest rating of Aaa is usually obtained by cities larger than Orono. Mayor Jabbour indicated that Pat South of Moody’s had visit’d the City, meeting with himself. Councilman Kelley, the City Administrator, the City Finance Director, and the Finance Department support personnel, and this visit aided in mainUuning the excellent bond rating for a community of our size. He noted it is difficult to receive a higher rating. Drude agreed, though she did not believe it would be impossible for the City to at some point obtain a Aaa rating. She recommended the City continue to pursue the higher rating. Drude said Steve Rossow of Faegre Benson prepared the resolution. The resolution awards the bid to Piper Jeffrey. The resolution indicates the official statement is accepted for the sale of the bonds and directs the city's officers to sign the closing documents and the bonds themselves. She noted that the resolution further states that the City will keep the bonds tax exempt and that the bonds will be used only for public improvements. Jabbour expressed appreciation to Drude and Ehlers for their assistance, and to Staff regarding how efficiently the City is run financially, all of which has resulted in the excellent rating received by the City. Jabbour asked that the Finance Director and his staff to continue working with Moodys towards the increased bond rating. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#1 Award Sale of Bonds - Continued) A correction was noted in the resolution to amend the time of the meeting from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3924 awarding the sale of bonds in the amount of $1,760,000 to finance the North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club, Bracketts Point, and Bay Ridge sewer projects, and the Orono Ice Arena sewer and water project with correction regarding time of meeting, as noted. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (•#2) CONSENT AGENDA Items #8,12,14, 15,19,20,25, 27, and 29 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•#3) REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 9,1997 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of June 9, 1997. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (•#4) EAST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING CONCERNING HIGHWAY 12 DESIGN MEETING OF JUNE 9,1997 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the East Neighborhood Meeting Concerning Hi^way 12 Design Meeting of June 9,1997. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS James White thanked the Council for attending the Park Tour. He noted the activity on the bike trails. White informed the Council that the Commission is working on alternative sources of funding for paries and a tree preservation policy. Flint asked White to convey to the Commission that the Council would like to see the tree ordinance proposal as soon as possible. Van Zomeren said the sub-committee met recently, and David Beal has requested the item be on the July agenda of the Park Commission for movement to the Planning Commis^on in July. Jabbour suggested similar studies be conducted in the Planning Commission first in the future for review by the Park Commis^on. I -• ! t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Jabbour noted that as a result of the Park Tour, the City is be^nning to stock pile dirt at Crystal Bay to make needed improvements. White indicated that work has also begun at Aiitoine Park as well. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS No member of the Planing Conunission was present. PUBUC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#5) #2165 CITY OF ORONO, ”4730” TONKAVBEW LANE - METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 3915 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3915 approving a subdivision of the Saga Hill tax forfeit property. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#6) #2233 WALTER HOLZER, 1130 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3916 Van Zomeren reported that the applicant originally proposed a 1200 s.f accessory structure which exceeded the limit of 1000 s.f. The applicant agreed to reduce the building mzc to 1000 s.f winch is the limit for accessory structures in the LR-IB, one acre. Zoning District. He originally planned on storing equipment for his plumbing bu^ess within the building but has since made other arrangements for storage elsewhere. The applicant has applied tor a home occupation license. The application requires a h^ght variance. The principal residence is only 11.6' high. The accessory structure is proposed at a maximum height of 30' which is the maximum allowed under the ordinance. Goetten asked what the reason was for the 30* height. Holzer stud he originally planned on storing his plumbing supplies in the building but wants the second story for his collection of antique fishing lures. A 15'x8' storage area will house cabinets for the lures. Holzer said the 12.12 pitch requires a 30' height for the hig^ side walls. Go^en said she is concerned with high accessory buildings in that zoning district. Holzer said the building is a single story with the accessory storage of the cabinets located above. Flint said he has the same concern for that height of building in that zoning district. MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#6 - #2233 Walter Holzer - Continued) Holzer said the building would be surrounded by dense woods and cleared room for the building in the woods. He said it would not be in view. Holzer also indicated there is another building of similar height nearby. Jabbour indicated that the height variance is required due to the low height of the principal structure. He noted that if the height of the principal structure was 30', which is allowed in that zoning, no height variance would be requir^ for the accessory structure. Goetten indicated she had no problem with the accessory building but with the height of the buildii^. Jabbour asked the applicant if he could lower the height of the structure. Holzer said he would lose storage space and it would eliminate the Kgh side walls. He noted there is a 2’ overhang to make the building look less high. He reported that his collection includes over 6000 lures. Jabbour said he would like to see a lower h«ght but supports the Planning Commission recommendation. He clarified that the use of the building for home occupation has not been approved. Holzer said he understands that the issue is being reviewed. Holzer said he will house his wood and metal shops on his property and house his business supplies dsewhere. Goetten noted that the proposed height of the accessory structure is 2-1/2 times the height of the principal structure. Holzer said he plans on adding onto the house in the future. He said the house is small, and he is in need of storage. Flint indicated that the iq)plicant would be able to raise the height of the house without a variance, and the height of the house results in this application being a peculiarity. Van Zomeren said the applicant is allowed 2-1/2 stories. She said the current footprint conforms to the standards and would require a building permit only to raise the house. During public comments, Maureen Bellows noted that the 12:12 pitch of the building would present a less bulky look and have less of a visual impact than most accessory structures of that size. Goetten said she understood that but could not approve the hdght. i ri 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#6 - #2233 Walter Holzer - Continued) FTint said due to the peculiarity of the principal structure height resulting in the need for a height variance, he would support the proposal. Goetten indicated that this could be said of any variance application. Flint responded that the applicant could increase the size of the home and, thereby, not need the variance for the accessory structure. Jabbour agreed that a 3-step process could be taken to result in the same as what is proposed. Holzer noted that the cost would be a factor in that process. Jabbour said he did not feel the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit an application of this type. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3916 granting a height variance to allow the accessory structure to increase the maximum height to 30' where 11*6" is required based on the existing residence. Vote; Ayes 2, Nays 1, Goetten. (#7) #2240 JIM WATERS INVESTMENT GROUP, XXXX WILDHURST TRAIL - SKETCH PLAN FOR SAGA HILL Jim Waters presented a handout to Council containing the background information and benefits of his proposed development. Gaffiron noted that the sketch plan review is normally performed only at the Planning Conunission level but due to the uniqueness of the application including a proposed rezoning, the sketch plan was brought to the Council for direction before formal subdivision application. Gafiron reported that the sketch plan is for property north of the newly acquired Saga HiU park property. Two subdivisions are being proposed, one of which is to the south of the park property. The southerly subdivision includes the Sollner and Soskin properties. The Planning Commission expressed their support of the proposal with a road and cul- de-sac as presented in the sketch plan review in May. The northerly subdivision, which is being presented tonight for sketch plan review, includes the Van Sloun property, the Morgait property, and two lots owned by Sollner. The Van Sloun property is in the two-acre zoning outside the MUSA boundary. The western portion of the Morgan property is outside the MUSA in the two-acre zoning while the eastern portion is in the one-acre LR-IB zoning district and is in the MUSA. The Sollner property is also in the one-acre zone and inside the MUSA boundary. The proposed subdivision would require rezoning and sewering of the properties as noted. i f . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 Gaffion indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed four concept plans. After review of the first two plans in May, the Commission suggested the developer take a clustering approach to housing, which subsequently resulted in two additional concept plans. The Planning Commission generally supported sketch plan 3 with 17 lots averaging one acre in size, which would require rezoning of the two-acre zone properties. The topography of the two-acre zoning properties is not capable of supporting septic systems, and Gaf&on indicated Staff* feels the property should be sewered in order to be develop. The plan provides for open spaces and undisturbed areas as well as an extension of Wildhurst Trail and potential future connection to West Branch Road. The proposed plan would result in the need for change in the MUSA boundary, rezoning, and amendment of the comprehensive plan. Sewer would probably have to come fi'om Wildhurst Trail. The applicant would ask for sewer only if the property would be considered for rezoning. Jabbour indicated that the applicant would be in a better position if he would make the presentation to the full Council as a 4/5th majority vote is required for rezoning. Jabbour said he did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to divert from the City ’s MUSA policy. Jabbour said he does not favor changing the MUSA boundary, rezoning, or making a precedent by allowing these changes in order to make full use of a property. Jabbour indicated that his opinion is not necessarily in reference to this application but as a general rule of thumb. He said the City would receive many requests for rezoning and sewering if such a precedent was set. He cited an example of property annexed to another city in order to accomplish desires of an applicant. Jabbour said the City should adhere to the present policy. Jabbour indicated that the Coundl is planning a work session to discuss the future including sewering but the critical mass needs to be considered. He noted that a development by Lundgren Bros, was denied for higher density housing within the sewered area. Gafifron noted that he had informed Waters of this occurrence when this subdivision was initially proposed. Jabbour said he is concerned that the Planning Commission would consider such policy changes when the other proposed subdivision was denied on a property that did not include steep topography. Goetten informed the ^plicant that the Council has spent a number of years reviewing the issue of sewering noting the selection of ten hot spots which have received Met Council approval. She indicated that concessions are sometimes required by Met Council of the City when such applications are made and does not want to make any further applications for sewering boundary changes at this time. Goetten said the focus is on proceeding with the selected hot spots first. Goettra also noted that the number of lots fw this proposal is excessive for the location. She does not recommend lots under two acres with the topography. Goetten said she is unaware of the opinions of the absent Council members. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNOL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Flint voiced another concern. He said he has difficulty viewing this application as a PRD without the Sollner and Soskin properties. He would like the entire area looked at as a whole. Gafifron responded that the proposal did consider the whole area for the PRD. Flint questioned what control there would be on the Sollner and Soskin properties and what impacts would be fdt on the entire area by the subdivision. Jabbour asked Gaffiron if Staff agreed or disagreed with Flint. Gaifion said he agreed that the Park and Planning Comnussions need to review the whole area comprehensively. He indicated that the Park Commission has not seen the most recent plan. They saw the plan for the Sollner property and the first draft of the northern area. Gafiion said the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for the southern property but did not find it necessary to pass the sketch plan for that area on to the Council. Gaflron said the Planning Commission felt the properties required seweiing and a PRD to achieve the open space amenities. Gaffton said the applicant could provide reasoning for the plans and Staff sees the proposal as viable. Jabbour asked Gafiron if Staff is satisfied with the southern plan in terms of number of units and density. Gaffron indicated that the subdivisions could be considered together or separately, and that the southerly plan would meet denaty requirements. He noted there are issues regarding density with the northern plan. Jabbour asked if there is a mechanism by which to deal with the subdivision as a PRD. Gaffron said there was as long as the property is sewered and Council found adequate reasons. Jabbour asked if the PRD could occur without sewering. Gaffron said no. Goetten asked about the status of the property being con^dered for a park. Waters said he has an option on the two Sollner lots. Waters said he understands that the full Council is not here and understands the reservations regarding the concepts. He asked to be able to discuss briefly why the particular ^proach has been taken. Waters noted when the City acqmred the Saga Hill park property, all of the land that was within the MUSA was coniudered prime property for development with the platted right- of-way access to the site. With the creation of the park. Waters said the City desired to gain access to the park and limit access through the park. He said that in effect landlocks the two parcels within the MUSA, the Sollner lots, both zoned one acre and eligible for sewering. Waters said some benefit could be achieved by providing access to the park via Garden Lane to the Sollner property without making the park become a throu^ street. Waters reviewed the sketch plans presented. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 ! (#7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Waters indicated that sketch plan 4 would require clearing of land which was adverse to the desire of preserving open space and trees. Sketch plan 3 preserves the topography according to Waters with large lots avera^ng nearly one acre in size, with the flexibility in spacing of the homes on the lots. This plan would allow for undisturbed zones and buffering for the park. Waters feels this plan would provide a high quality development with minimum impact. Waters does not feel that sewering is an issue in the right location. He feels the plan addresses the public health issue noting mound septic systems are damaging to wooded areas due to space needs. Waters said the plan would provide for 19 lots and a right-of- way easemait to West Branch Road eliminating the need for the long cul-de-sac on Wildhurst Trail. Waters said the property could be developed regardless of the issue of rezoning noting the one acre parcels are within the MUSA for sewering and the two acre parcels could remain as such. He felt a better development than this could be gained. He indicated that a change to the MUSA boundary would be modest and be an administrative change. He believes the boundaiy is atypical at best, and a change would be similar to other modifications to the boundary made in the past and in keeping with the current neighborhood. Jabbour noted the applicant's sensitivity to the issue of preserving the park area but fdt there were more substantial issues with the application. He indicated that the park land did not have to be bisected but could be. He said the main issue is with the sewering of other properties within the City. Jabbour noted that other property owners are also requesting sewer with similar reasons why their properties should be sewered. Jabbour said he would not favor chan^g City policy to accommodate one applicant. It would be a major change in how the City operates if the policy was driven by one application. He cited the example of the length of time and discussions regarding sewering of the ice arena which was supported by all agencies. Jabbour indicated it is an honorable goat to change the MUSA in order to eliminate bisecting the park land but not if it involves chan^g City policy. Jabbour asked for Staffs recommendation. Gaflfron mdicated that the City's policy is long standing. He noted that rezoning is rarely considered. Gaflfron said he believes in order to develop the property, it would require sewering or no development should occur. He noted that other similar requests could occur from properties abutting the hot spots for sewering. He did note the uniqueness of the property and design of the MUSA boundary at this location. Goetten asked how the MUSA boundary was originally determined. Gafifron said it followed the 1975 rezoning. 8 t MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 r : Flint ^ he does not understand how the plan would solve the problem Staff expressed reg^dmg a collection to West Branch Road. Flint said there would still be no access. Ciatfron said a future potential expansion would be present. As proposed, there would now be a 7/8th mile long roadway from Wildhurst requiring a secondary outlet Flint said the road would be near CoRd 19 and West Branch Road. He could not approve a plan mcre^i^ the amount of additional traffic to Wildhurst and the cui>de-sac that would be caused by the development and changing the overall look of the area. Flint questioned how PRD could be approved without this problem of access solved. Gafiron indicated ^t a p-,>ssible consideration could be access to Highview. The appUcant is providing for future i otenti^ access expansion. Gafiron said he previously posed many of these same questions to the applicant. Flint noting the configuration of the properties questioned the division of the Van Sloun prop^ with access through existing West Branch Road. Gafton said that access was inten^ to s^e only one house on that property due to the number of other homes locked ott ot this potential private road. Flint also noted the DNR grant application made on the Sollner property. Jabbour indicated that this was a moot point. Flint indicated the Morgart property could be accessed from Wildhurst Trail. These examples according to Flint show that there are other options for development. <^on said many discussions regarding access to these properties have been held over the nortfr^ providing access to the Sollner property from FTmt said this option would provide access without overriding the City ordinance and eluinnate impacts on the neighborhood. Waters noted that another alternative would be to develop Garden Lane. Jabbour informed Waters that it would be the responsibility of the developer to make the improvements to the roadway and maintain the road as a private road. Gafiron noted that the Sollner property is in one acre zoning and the responsibility of the developer to provide road development. He said Waters expects to subdivide the Sollner property. Jabbour indicated that even if the Council would decide to change the sewer policy, they would request maintaining the two-acre density. Waters asked if a proposal with sewering of two-acre parcels is viable. Jabbour said he was not suggesting that. 1 i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Gaffron said sketch plan 2 presents a scenario with the two-acre zoning Morgart and Van Sloun properties. He said there is a problem with septic, however, in that there is no location for septic sites due to steep slopes on some lots. While noting the review is an informal discussion only, Jabbour acknowledged the interested parties in the audience and asked for public comment. Jim Stephenson, who resides on West Branch Road, said the property should not be developed into 19 homes considering the density and grade of the area. Sandy Rasmussen said she appreciated the Council's comments. She asked the Council to restate their vision for the City, suspecting accountability and health of the community were factors. While noting the plan's effect on the economic health of the commumty, Rasmussen felt there were other issues that bind the community together citing protection of the environment and open space. She noted that Forest Bay and Saga Hill are big assets and are examples of what the City is all about as well as examples of its vision. She indicated the community can be brought together not only by these issues but by threats to sensitive environmental areas and pollution to endangered lakes. Rasmussen said a variance to the MUSA boundary would have a high impact on the community. She indicated the City was not only fortunate to acquire the park but recognized the large grass roots effort by the commumty in that acquisition. She said she hoped the developer understood this. She said she would be interested in hearing what the vision and mission is of the City. Jabbour said the vision and mission of ihe City is summarized in the Comprehensive Plan and invited her and ethers to read it. He noted that page one recognizes the need to preserve the natural resources. He noted that the rights of individuals must also be upheld by the majority. Jabbour said the developer should be allowed to develop the property within the current ordinances. He indicated that the City does not normally grant variances to subdivisions. John Hasselbalch, the listing real estate agent for the property, said the environmental concerns are addressed by sketch plan 3. He indicated the current plan would bisect the park. Hasselbach said development of the area adjacent to the park will result in trees being removed if septic was allowed. This plan, Hasselbach said, eliminates tlie need to bisect the 6-7 acres of wooded open space and eliminates tree removal. • ^ rI MBSUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,199? (#7 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Flan - Continued) Kathiyn Kasprick commented on developing the area to gain access to the park. She said she understood Jabbour's comments regarding development but noted the economic costs to the City of the development aside from sewering, citing maintenance and fire protection. With the rationale of determining how the property is to be developed, Kasprick questions the economical feasibility. She asked that the Council continue to show sensitivity to the issues. Jim Waters thanked the Council and indicated he would take their comments under consideration. (The meeting was recessed from 8:24 to 8:33 p.m.) (•#8) #2242 WAYNE A. JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVIEW AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3917 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3917 that grants a front yard variance ot 15.94*. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#9> #2243 JOHN D. BLACK, 4030 DAHL ROAD - V ARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3918 Van Zomeren reported that the application is for replacement of an existing deck with the addition of a 12'xl8* room with a screened porch underneath, t he proposal requires variances to average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and hardcover. The Planning Commission supported the lakeshore and average lakeshore variances but requested the hardcover be capped at 3.9% or 555.5 s.f. as existing in the 0-75' setback. The applicant is in agreement with maintaining this level of hardcover. Van Zomeren noted that the resolution contains a typographical error and will be corrected. I he error relates to the I2*xl8' room size. Goetten asked to review the plat and clarify the locations of the additional structure. Van Zomeren reviewed the survey and indicated that the topography makes the lot look like the structure is further back from the lakeshore than what it is. Goetten reiterated that the Planiung Commission recommendation includes that no additional hardcover is allowed in the 0-75' from what exists. Black noted that the improvements could not be viewed from the neighboring properties. Black indicated he is satisfied with the resolution as presented. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3918 with no increase in hardcover in the 0-75* setback. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD UN JUNE 23,1997 (#10) #2247 WAYNE HOLMES, 1390 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3919 Gaffron reported that the application is a request for side setback and side street yard setback variances for construction of a detached accessory- storage building. The building as initially proposed would be located 2 5' from the unimproved dedicated right-of-way known as Forest Avenue. The right-of-way is wooded and low land. It is a potential access for Highwood Park. Staff and Planning Commission agreed that the 2.5' setback was inadequate. Gaffi*on said the applicant has agreed to mountain a 10' setback by angling the building and renraving 2’ from one side. This would allow the large oak tree to be saved but might resuh Hi the loss of lilac bushes. Gaffron said the 10' setback is typical of normal setbacks. There is a 15' setback requirement for buildings of this size, but he feels a 5' variance is appropriate in order not to impact the tree. Additional grading or retaining wall would be required to eliminate any impact. The applicant has proposed building a retaining wall. Gaffron said the Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the amended plan. Goetten asked how far the buildmg would be from the oak tree. Mrs. Holmes said they have reduced the building by 2’ to increase the separation. Gaffron indicated that the tree would be 10-12' from the building. Jabbour asked if there was any reason to maintain the 60 ’ right-of-way. Gafi&on said there are no plans to improve the road, but it could be a potential park access in the future. Goetten asked that the applicants be considerate of the tree. Mr. Holmes said they will work around the root system. Mrs. Holmes noted that the building is a pole bam and would be constructed on a floating slab. This should eliminate any problem for the oak tree. The applicant voiced satisfaction with the resolution as presented. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3919. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#11) #224S DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE Mr. Rahn was present. 12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23* 1997 (#11- #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the .3 acre property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District. The proposal is to add structure to an existing cabin located within the 0-75’ setback. The second story would require a variance to the side yard setback which exists and is proposed at 5.3' and 10* is required. Lakeshore setback variance is required. Average lakeshore setback b not an bsue as the structure is located behind that line. A conditional use permit is required for land aheration in the 0-75' setback. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the property. The 932' devation line "wanders" on the property. The existing structure is located at the high point of the property. 1 he flood plain is located behind the structure requiring a CUP for any alteration. The proposal is to square oflf the structure which encroaches the 0-75' setback. The hardcover in that setback would increase from 9% to 19%. Van Zomeren indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the side setback and hardcover variances noting that improvements are limited to an area behind the existing lakeside setback and an additional half-story. They also recommended approval of the CUP for land alteration. Goetten asked the applicant if he had considered moving the addition to the rear of the structure in order to get out of the 0-75' setback. Rahn said he met with the Watershed District. He said his design was an attempt to gain a favorable response from the Council. He indicated that moving the structure back would result'm building in the 931.5' elevation which is the flood plain. The plan as presented would not require mitigation of the flood plain as the additions would be built on posts. Rahn said the plan is an attempt to restore the existing structure. He thought the Council would be less receptive to a plan involving alteration of the flood plain. Goetten said her concern is with doubling the hardcover in the 0-75' setback with any new construction if there are other alternatives to consider. Rahn indicated that only one-third of the new hardcover is livable space; the remainder is decking. He said he tried to keep the structure compact and only squared the structure off. The screen porch and deckiog is only 8' wide. Goetten asked if Rahn discussed adding to the rear of the structure with the Watershed. Rahn said he did. He met with Jim Hafher of the Watershed District. He said this recommendation is possible but would occur in the lower area of the lot and require major alteration of the flood plain. Rahn said the home is located similarly on the lot with other homes in the neighborhood and is the only unimproved site. n MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#11 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Jabbour asked about mitigation of the flood plain. Rahn said he would have to dig out the soib and switch with the soils where the cabin currwitly sits. Jabbour said he was concerned with setting a precedent of allowng structure in front of the 75' setback. Rahn reported that Lot 22 was granted 29% hardcover in the 0-75' setback in 1983. He also indicated that the adjacent property owner had sold a pie-shaped portion of property to the owner of his lot in 1962 in order to make the lot buildable. The home on lot 22 is located on the hill at the back of the lot. Rahn also noted there is City sewer to the current structure location. Jabbour noted the structure is sitting between two vital zones, the 0-75* setback and the flood plain. Goetten said she could not support the application that adds to structure in the 0-75' setback. She would only consider replacement. Goetten informed Rahn that there are homes that ^mply cannot be added onto. She suggested Rahn add structure to the rear but understood he said he could not mitigate. Rahn responded that mitigation could take place but would require extensive en^neering of the design. He suggested altering or eliminating the decks. Goetten said the lot is only 1/3 acre in the one acre zoning and Rahn is asking for too much structure proposed'm the 0-75' setback. Jabbour suggested Rahn add the structure upward. Van Zomeren noted that all buildable lots are allowed a 1500 s.f. footprint. She asked if the Council would prefer the applicant move the structure back into the flood plain. Van Zomeren asked for Council direction on these matters. Jabbour questioned whether the plan is sensitive to the watershed and the flood plain. He noted the floor plan is proposed at 1320 s.f. Goetten and Jabbour both acknowledged the 1500 s.f allowed but noted that the amount is allowed outside of the 0-75' setback. Goetten expressed surprised that the Planning Commission recommended approval. She said more thought should have been given to the plan. Rahn addressed the idea of two stories. He indicated the present plan is for a 1-1/2 story structure. While the rear of the structure is 30', the side is only 15' and would create the look of what he called a "double-decker bus" if he utilized a two-stoiy plan. He indicated that the neighbors supported the proposed plan and the ndghbor to the rear was concerned with obstruction of lake views. Rahn suggested considering the open land owned by the adjacent neighbor as making up for the additional hardcover. Jabbour informed him that this option was not possible. Goetten suggested the applicant speak whh Staff regarding other options. 1 i { MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#11 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Rahn said the only other option is to place the structure in the middle of the flood plain which would require mitigation. He reiterated that no mitigation would be required in squaring off the structure. Jabbour asked the Coundl for thdr opinion. Goetten said die would not approve additional hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Jabbour noted the applicant had suggested elimination of the decks which would decrease the hardcover from 1320 s.f. to 1018 s.f. Rahn said he has sold his other home and his family plans on living here year around. He also Lidicated that he will be planning on adding a gan^e in the future. Jabbour and Goetten both informed Rahn that structure in the flood plain b less of an issue than structure in the 0-75' setback. Rahn said his dream is to restore the cabin and suggested etiroinating the deck and maintaining the screen porch as planned. Goetten was informed that the 8*x 12' is to be located on the north side of the structure. Jabbour said there is 60 s.f of existing deck and 252 s.f total of decking. Eliminating this decking and maintaining the screen porch would result in 1068 s.f. of structure. The structure would be increased from 540 s.f. to 840 s.f. with a 132 s.f. porch. Jabbour indicated that he is only considering this option because the structure is minimal in size noting 1500 s.f is normally allowed. I he option would also maintain the structure out of the flood plain and would be serviced with sewer. Jabbour said this situation creates a tnie hardship. Jabbour nx)ved to approve Application #2248 based on the hardships and reasoning as stated with the removal of decks as proposed by the applicant in order to facilitate the ^plication. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Goetten said she could not vote in favor of the motion and noted that the application could be heard in front of a full Council. Rahn indicated that the guidelines have not changed ^ce 1983 when the adjacent property was permitted 29% hardcover. Jabbour said he recognized the City made a nustake at that time. Rahn indicated that time is of the essence in providing a home for his family. Goetten said she would be >^ing to table the application to the meeting of July 14. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2248. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 15 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEEiiNG HELD ON JUNE 23> 1997 (#11 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Flint asked what Rahn would do if the structure was moved back on the lot. Rahn noted, if the site was visited, the Council would recognize that the cabin is built on the 3' knoll. To move the structure behind the 75* setback would cause uid)eUevable land alteration according to Rahn and would be a ^'nightmare'’. Rahn questioned why bulldozing of the land from high point to low point and mitigation should occur when there is no need to do so as h currently stands. A CUP would be required to dig out the high area and move it back on the lot. He noted that the 0-75' setback would be dug out in order to mitigate. Van Zomeren agreed. Flint noted the historical improvement of properties little by little. Rahn indicated that the application is a case of hardship and would be made clear if the site was viewed. He said he might be able to engineer a plan to ma.\imize the lot but did not want to do so in the flood plain. Jabbour noted that movement of the structure into the flood plain might also encourage drmnage to run toward the lake instead of away from it. Jabbour said he agrees with Goetten regarding keeping structure out of the 0-75' setback, this property is a special case that would require digging up of the 0-75' setback and a conditional use permit. Flint and Goetten indicated that they would visit the property prior to the review of July 14. Van Zomeren asked if the plan should come back before the Council as it currently stands. Goetten said yes and including detailed minutes from this meeting. (•#12) #2249 U.S. MARSHAL, 2245 FRENCH LAKE ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3920 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3920 granting a variance for septic system lakeshore setback for 2245 french Lake Road. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#13) #2250 MAUREEN BELLOWS FOR ELLEN AND STEVE POLANSKY, 1900 FOX RIDGE ROAD - VARUNCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3921 Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a rear yard variance for construction of a third stall to an existing attached two car garage and 5' to an existing porch. The 1.32 acre lot is located in the RR-IB two-acre Zoning District. Van Zomeren indicated the current garage location and unusual topography of the property. The addition will not be viable from any neighboring properties. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rear yard variance for 35' and 38* setbacks where 50* is required. 16 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#13 - #2250 Bellows/Polansky - Continued) Bellows clarified the locations of the existing and proposed additions. She indicated that t* .2 porch requires r^Hulding. Numerous leaks are present and the insurance agent suggested rebuildit^ the porch. Bdlows said the survey noted the porch located within the rear yard which had not been disclosed to the Poiansky*s at time of purchase. They were also surprised to find out that their lot is substandard. Bellows said she was satisfied with the rescrfution as presented. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to {q>prove Resolution No. 3921. Vote: Ayes 3, NaysO. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour indicated he would be attending the upcoming LMCD meeting. He said he plans on addng the LMCD to recodify their ordinance and refocus their attention to the task of protecting the lake environment through efforts toward public safety and education. (joetten adced that a correction be made to the minutes of the February 10, 1997 Council meeting regarding the vote of the Orono Lane and County Road 1S Intersection Improvements. The vote was noted as "Ayes 5, Nays 0" and should reflect Goetten's nay vote on the issue (Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten). Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve reconrideration of the motion approving the Minutes of the Council Meeting of Februaiy 10, 1997. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. The minutes were revised in relation to the error as noted above regarding Goetten's vote for deniai of said improvements. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the February 10,1997 Council Meeting as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Flint voiced concern vdth the amount of milfi^ that has grown this year in Long Lake. Small traces of milfoil were successfully treated several years ago. The increase in clarity of Long Lake has resulted in this new growth of milfoil. Flint had detected the milfoil while on the Park Tour. Gappa noted that the north shoreline is thick with milfoil. Flint said he has asked Moorse and the DNR to look into the issue. He suggested the lake be treated when the lake accesses on Lake Minnetonka are scheduled for treatment. Moorse said he did not know what solutions are possible at this tune. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD UN JUNE 23,1997 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Jabbour said he spoke with the DNR representatives regarding proper notification of adjacent property owners when chemical treatment is undertaken. He cited past problems with lack of notification. Jabbour said the DNR said the Department of Agriculture was responsible for notification. Jabbour said he would talk with the DNR again and the DNR should be calling Moorse regarding the issue. He said notification should occur one week prior to any treatment of the lake. Flint said excellent notification was given and posted when Long Lake was last treated. ENGINEER REPORT (*#14) NO PARKING - FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - RESOLUTION NO. 3922 Gotten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3922 prohibiting parking of vehicles with trailers on streets in the Fagemess Point neighborhood. Vote: Ayes 3. NaysO. (*#15) AWARD BIDS FOR BRACKETTS POINT AND BAY RIDGE SEWER IMPROVEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 3923 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3923 awarding the contract for the Bay Ridge/Bracketts Point Sanitary Sewer project to Barbarossa & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $523,740.00 contingent upon receipt of signed Petitions for Local improvements from all the property owners in the project area. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0, (#16) AWARD BID FOR OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL - NORTH SEGMENT Gappa reported that several issues have arisen. He indicated that Expert Asphalt had not acknowledged the two addendums on the project which changed the tonnage from 170 to 200. Their low bid was $54,324. Buffalo Bituminous, the #2 bidder, had acknowledged rtc addendums. Gappa said the lack of acknowledgment was felt to be a matter of minor iirr^larity only and proceeded with the bidding process. Buffalo Bituminous has voiced their disagreement wth contracting the bid to Expert Asphalt. Gappa indicated that this information was submitted to City Attorney Barrett prior to the meeting for his review. He noted there were three options at this time: 1) delay decision to July 14 meeting; 2) reject all bids and re-bid the project; or 3) award the contract. «r»»- • mi i ii i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#16 Old Cr>'stal Bay Road Bike TraU Bid Award - Continued) Flint said he questioned whether proceeding with the project would waste City money. He indicated that projected school construction may damage any work done at this time. He suggested waiting on the school project. Flint said there would be contractors available in the area at that time that could provide cost estimates to complete the project. He said he was not in favor of having to redo the proiect at a later time. Jabbour said Flint is most knowledgeable on the bike trail. Moorse said the plans were submitted to the school's architect. He said the school's project should not afiect this project except through the point of entry which could be repaired. Goetten was informed that the school referendum, wWch would dictate the future of any projects for the school, should occur this tall. Flint said the project could then be completed in conjunction \vith Hennepin Parks completing their portion of the trail. Moorse indicated that Hennepin Parks has agreed to complete tlw trail from CoRd 6 to Baker Park. Jabbour said he was willing to meet with the Hennepin P^ks Superintendent regarding the trail and any problems with securing the grant funds. Flint said he thought a one-year extension was possible for the grant. Jabbour qufi^stioned whether the project should be completed. Flint said the project is substanPaily completed now. He said he was inclined not to spend the money on completing the project until the school project is done. Goetten agreed as long as the wait does not impact the agreement with Hennepin Parks. Jabbour indicated that the project could be completed in conjunction with Hennepin Parks. Cook informed Moorse that there were four bids received. He indicated the bids were comprtitive. Moorse said when Hennepin Parks is completing their project, there would be a bidder available at that time. Jabbour agreed with waiting on the project. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to reject all bids and table the issue. Vote- Ayes 3 Nays 0. ’ (#17) PAY REQUEST #1 - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL Flint moved, J^bour seconded, to approve Pk.equest for Payment #1, Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Project to Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $40,764.50 Vote Ayes 3 Nays 0. • / . ; i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#18) CHANGE ORDER #1 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Gappa reported that the cost includes remo val and replacement of trees and e?rtra manholes. Goetten indicated concern over the high cost and expense of planting sugar maples. Gappa S2ud the cost includes extending storm sewer to the lake. Additional manholes are being required to allow tree removal to only occur on one side of the sewer line. 1 he sewer also has to be run up a driveway and through a yard to serve two other properties adding another manhole. The cost fine-tunes the casement acquisition and allows for minimizing the tree removal. Home owners have questioned the impact on the trees in the area. The trees are being replaced with smaller trees. Gappa said the home owners arc being made aware of the benefits provided beyond thdr own properties. Flint indicated that the trees have been devastated in this area and appreciated the negotiations being amicably resolved. He noted that 4 ” trees are replacing the 18" diameter trees that were lost. Flint said he supported the change order but felt the cost was high. Cook informed Flint that replacement with 3” trees would only save about $100 per tree. Cook informed Goetten that the tree replacement will occur in the fall around October. Tom Kellogg noted that the cost of similar trees were $100 more per tree for the Brackens Point project. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $12,420. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#19) CHANGE ORDER #2 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Change Order No. 2, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $1,690. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#20) CHANGE ORDER #3 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Change Order No. 3, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of a $737.00 deduction. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MELliNG UELO UN JUNE 23, 1997 (#2!) CHL4NGE ORDER #4 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG L-\KE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Gappa reported that the change order is for the completion of the drainage improvements at the County Road 19/Tonkaview intersection. He noted that the easement has been acquired and the improvements will be completed under the existing contract with unit pricing instead of going through the bidding process, in order to save lime and expense. He noted the urgency of completing the project to eliminate fimher drainage damage. Jabbour asked for City Attorney's input regarding including options in our bid process for increasing or decreasing the cost. He is concerned with accepting prices, then doubling the value of the contract through change orders. Gappa said a contract cost can go up or down by a maximum ot 25% according to the contract requirements. Jabbour asked that this information be included in the cover letter of the specifications. Cook noted that State Statutes regulate that the cost cannot exceed 25%. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Change Order No. 4, North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $31,450. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#22) CHANGE ORDER #2 - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL - O'lT’EN DRIVEWAY Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve Change Order No. 2, Old Crystal Bay Road Bike I rail Project, in the amount of S8,797.50. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Jabbour asked that the work not be completed until Staff has spoken with Otten and the solution will remedy the problem. Gappa said he would do so. Gappa said he telt the solution would work and will ensure that this has occurred before any paving is done. Gappa said Otten favored the proposed action. Flint was informed that the Otten change order work will not be paid from Park Dedication. CITY ADMINISTRAl OR'S REPORT (#23) LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICLE PURCHASE PROPOSAL In response to Council Member Kelley's report on the Long Lake Fire Commission meeting, Moorse presented a proposal for replacement of two lire vehicles totaling $100,000. 21 f t . 'I i, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MIlLIUNU tULL.U tWH JUrxlL 2^, lyy/ (#23 Long Lake Fire Dept. Vehicle Purchase Prooosal - Continued) Moorse indicated that one vehicle would be a used Subuiban that would be outfitted for light rescue for medical rescues. The current vehicle is not ideal for this usage. He noted that the area is served by North Memorial Ambulance Service but their response time is not Ideal. 1 he v^cle replacement is the number one pnonty ot the t ice Department this year. M^rse s^d the proposal appears to be a good concept. It would allow the older, and hea\ier, vehic'e to be used for heavy rescues and extend the life of that vehicle. Moorse said the proposal for the pick-up vehicle is less clear at this time. He suggested waitmg to approve this vehicle purchase until more information is provided. labour asked about the ownership of the vehicles. Moorse said vehicles purchased after 1993 are owned by the cities in direct proportion to their share of the cost. Staff recommended approval of the Suburban and waiting on approving the second vehicle until further information is received. .labbour ask^ that the Long Lake Fire Department understand that the delay in approving the second vehicle is only due to lack ot lull intormation. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Long Lake Fire Department’s proposal to purchase and equip a Suburban to serve as a light rescue vehicle at an estimated cost ot $45,900, and approving the City ’s share of the cost at $32,240. The motion includes approving the $32,240 cost to be funded from the Fire Vehicle Replacement Fund and to amend the 1997 budget to reflect this expenditure. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#24) LEASE RATES FOR WATER TOWER Jabbour said he supported the proposed lease rates. Goetten asked how it would work. Moorse said he is working on how many users can be accommodated on the water towers. It may be possible that more titan three vendors can be accommodated depending on their location on the tower. Jabbour asked if there would be different pricing depending on location. Moorse said this possibility was suggest^ to the consultant. The consultant said that he did not recommend different pricing levels based on location, as the constraints related to the ant^s was determined by the number ot channels and frequency and not the locauon on the tower. Moorse, however, thought it would be worth reviewing as providing an incentive to providers. Moorse informed Goetten that a document would be provided for each set of antennas for three vendors. Jabbour thanked Moorse for the excellent job in researching this issue. L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#24 Lease Rates for Water Towers - Continued) Cook asked Moorse to include ths paint color in the contracts that would blend in with the tower color. Moorse said he would work with Bonestroo regarding the draft of the agreement. Gappa suggested a letter of credit be included as well. Jabbour was informed by Moorse that the vendors would likely need access to the property. Moorse said the vendors will be informed of the after>hour contact and would have to pjQr the cost for providing after-hour access if necessary. Discussion was had regarding providing emergency electricity. Gappa indicated that the generator would be used tor operation of the lift stations. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the lease rate of $14,500 per year for PCS and £SMR antennas located on the City's water towers. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#25) CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR 1995-21 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the extension of the curbside recycling pickup contract with E-Z Recycling for 1998 through 2000 at a cost of $2.04 per household per month with the added revenue sharing and market downturn language, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract extension agreement. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#26) APPOINTMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY 12 DESIGN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEES Mwrse reported that the list of possible committee members was made up of those who voiced interest in participating. Four letters were received confirming that interest. Jabbour asked to add Clint Miller to the list of West Neighborhood Committee members. Goetten asked to include Gail Bollis to the list. Jabbour agreed with that addition. G^ Bollis was suggested to chair the West Neighborhood Commhtee. Lili McMillan was added to the East Neighborhood Committee list. Flint suggested adding Karen Anderson to the list. Flint will speak with Anderson regarding her nomination. Jabbour suggested Claric Jenney and Lili McMillan co-chair the East Neighborhood Committee. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to appoint the following members to the two neighborhood committees: Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINVTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCDL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1997 (#26 Highway 12 Design Committee Appointments - Continued) West Neighborhood Committee Gail Bollis - Chair Roger Dumas Brian Fulmer Bob Sansevere Jeffrey Martin Donna Croiteau/Beily Bruning (these two women wiii split their duties) Clint Miller East Neighborhood Committee Lili McMillan • Co Chair Clark Jenney - Co Chair James Palmer Julie Palmer Karen Anderson (*#27) AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE AN INTERNAL PROMOTION PROCESS FOR A SERGEANT POSITION Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the creation of a sergeant classification in the Police Department with a base pay rate of $22.1 J/hour and a 3-5-7-9% longevity pay sdiedule. The motion authorizes an internal promotional process to appoint a sergeant. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#28) LOCAL PERFORMANCE AID CERTIFICATION Flint asked Moorse if he felt the participation in the program was worth the cost. Moorse said he did, and this opinion was further substantiated by information recently received. The League of Cities is currently developing general performance standards for use and other cities are also working towards that goal. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to authorize the Mayor and one Council Member to rign the LPA certification. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (»#29) GARY CHESWICK SALARY STEP INCREASE Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve a salary step increase for Gary Cheswick to step 3 of the Police Chief salary range, which is 559,883, eiTective June 16, 1997. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Goetten asked that appreciation be extended to Cheswick for Ws excellent performance. f r ^^NUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#30) SCHEDULE RECOGNITION FOR BRUCE AND RliTH DAYTON Jabbour asked Moorse to determine a date that is satisfactory with the Daytons and to poll the Council members regarding a Council meeting where all members will be in attendance. The recognition will take place prior to the scheduled Council meeting. (#31) TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Moorse indicated that the information is an update regarding telecommunications. He noted that Staff is working on a lease agreement. The draft agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorn^ and is being reworked. When that is complete, it will be provided to the vendors for review and the agreement will be finalized. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT (#32) REQUEST FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Barrett requested adjournment to an Executive Session for discussion of an assessment appeal and easement acquisition for the North Long Lake Sanitaiy Sewer Project. Troy Anderson, 14^ Long Lake Boulevard, said he attended the meeting in good faith to attempt to i^gotiate an easement. He said he feels he has been unfairly treated by the City Attorney in the handling of this matter and formally objects to an Executive Session. labour informed Anderson that the State Legislature dictates how the matter is to be handled but offered to discuss the issue with Anderson if he so desired. Ai^rson ^d he was comfortable in discussing the issue with the City Attorney to work out a solution but felt the City Attorney was unwilling to do so in a reasonable manner. ^bour^d the Chy would act fairly regarding the issue. He informed Anderson that if deared to propose a settlement, he had the right to do so. Jabbour said the City must abide by the ^es and regulations and listen to advice from the City Attorney on legal rril" the City does not want to hold back the project. Jabbour said he thought the issue of entry had been resolved. AndCTson said he hiw not seen any document regarding the matter. Jabbour said he would not ^ It until the City Anomey has reviewed it with Council. Jabbour informed person that he must either speak with the Council or allow the discussions to occur between the City Attorney and Anderson’s Attorney. ^feUCT of ^*5* 1^7^^ response fi-om the City Administrator to •/ I r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (#32 Request for Executive Session - Continued) Flint reported the reason for the Executive Session. He noted that Anderson has the right of attomey/client privilege when speaking with his own attorney, and the Council hw the same right with their attorney. The Executive Session is that process for the Council. This process is also used in preparation of matters of litigation. Flint said this is the only procedure in which the Council is able to obtain an objective opinion and ^ongly favored doing so at this time. Flint said while he has no objection to working out a settlement with Anderson, he would like to hear the City Attorney's opimon on the matter. Goetten asked for clarification on the problem. Jabbour smd he wanted Anderson to understand the rules and regulations giuding the procedure. Anderson said he was attempting to make a poative step toward settlement on Iris part. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session. (•#33) UCENSES Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. One Day On-Sale Liquor License Annual "Smith Days" at Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive September 6,1997 Special Event Permit Parade of Homes Chailes CXidd Co. at 280S Somerset Lane Septenri)er 6-21, 1997 Monday-Friday, 3:00-8:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday, Noon-6:00 p.m. Com Days Foot Race August 10, 1997 11:15 a.m.-Noon (•#34) BILLS Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 26 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUTCE 23,1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 10:31 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, Chy Clerk I % •.li i Mi r i COUNCIL meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^997 DATE: ITEM NO.: - Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Tree Preservation Ordinance Overview A Park Commission subcommittee has met several times with staff to review other tree preservation ordinances from other municipalities and to review information provided by the American Planning Association entitled "Tree Conservation Ordinances". On July 7, 1997, the subcommittee reported on their work to the Park Commission. The Park Commission discussed a draft memo prepared by David Beal and voted to send the attached memo to the City Council, PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To request that the City Council appoint a subcommittee or work group of two Park Commission Members and two Planning Commissioners to finalize a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance with assistMce from city staff and consultants, such as Dahlgren and Schardlow. The ordinance would be in draft form by mid-September 1997 with ordinance adoption by November 1997. COUTVCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the Park Commission recommendation. Attachments: Memo prepared by David Beal dated July 7, 1997 Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance re: shade trees and tree preservation Draft ordinance prepared by David Beal dated April 4, 1997 Tree Preservation, Maintenance, & Reforestation Policy for City Council Review and Action Prepared by Orono Park Commission July 7,1997 Introduction The Park Commission has been asked to prepare the first draft of a Tree Preservation, Maintenance and Reforestation Policy. The process involved review of other municipal ordinances in the metropolitan area (Wayzata, Minnetrista, Shorewood, Eden Prairie). Several meetings have taken place with Park Commission subcommittee members and city staff. The Park Commission voted at their July 7th meeting to propose the following for review and action by the Orono City Council at their July 14, 1997 meeting: Purpose Statement It is the policy of the City of Orono to recognize and preserve existing natural resources. Trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to: stabilization of soil by prevention of erosion and sedimentation; reduction of storm water runoff; improvement of air quality; reduction of noise pollution; control of urban heat island effect; protection and increase of property values; protection of privacy; energy conservation through natural insulation; providing habitat for birds and other wildlife; and conservation and enhancement of the city's physical/aesthetic environment The Park Commission recommends that an enforceable policy be enacted to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with development or construction would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or subdivision. The policy would also apply to public projects and commercial development. The Park Commission notes that Orono has been well served over the years by "good development". Former cornfields and open pastures, such as Webber Hills, are now forested and covered by vegetation. A Tree Preservation policy and ordinance would continue to encourage appropriate development. Authority The state statutes provide the authority to enact tree preservation ordinances under enabling legislation in Chapter 462. Further, the City's Comprehensive Plan (June 1980), notes the importance of tree preservation in several sections, environmental protection goals, urban area i I policies for ndtursl resource m&nsgetnent, and rural area policies for natural resource noanagement. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances (Subdivision Chapter) provides authority for the city to require shade trees around the perimeter of subdivisions and provides a list of specific trees. Excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Chapter are attached to this memo. Key Concepts for a Tree Preservation Policy and Ordinance 1 . Direct a tree preservation policy and ordinance at residential and commercial development. Clearcutting of forested areas would be discouraged. 2. Prepare a guide for property owners that provides information on tree preservation, maintenance, and reforestation. 3. Preservation of the rural theme of Orono should be the purpose or theme of the policy. Rural characteristics include wooded areas as well as open prairie or pasture land. 4. The ordinance should address specific development such as: • forestation of pasture land proposed for housing development • tree replacement in wooded areas proposed for development • creation of buffers between public and private property • tree planting and landscaping for commerical development/redevelopment 5. 6. Establish criteria for preservation, maintenance, and reforestation, to include • tree size and type • density • canopy cover as a percentage of total lot size Prepare amendments to the existing Zoning Code and Subdivision Chapter that address tree preservation, maintenance, reforestation and landscaping. The proposed guide is considered an important companion to the tree preservation ordinance to provide information and assistance. The Park Commission believes that the majority of Orono residents enjoy the rural character and want to protect and maintain trees. The guide would serve to encourage residents in this endeavor. Consultants who have specific knowledge of trees (landscape architects and foresters) can assist staff with developing specific criteria for preservation, maintenance, and reforestation. Recommended Action h consisting of two Park Commissioners and two Planning Commissioners to work with Liz and Mike to finalize the policy, ordinance, and citizen's guide. Assistance would be provided to staff on an as needed basis by consultants (Dahlgren and Schardlow are considered to have expertise in this area and are already consultants to the city on other matters). A draft policy would be prepared by mid-September with ordinance adoption scheduled for November 1997. ( fi ;! COHP PtMJ ENVIRONMENT JUNE, 1980 The statistical result of this study was the realization that a natural storm water drainage and filtration system was economically practical for Orono, but that excessive urbanization would outstrip the natural capacity of most of the wetlands leading to flooding potential and to increasing levels of nutrient pollution in Lake Minnetonka. Three of the twelve study recommendations are most significant in terms of the effect on this CMP: I i.u 1. 2. 3. Every available means should be utilized to preserve the natural water storage and treatment system, which is one of Orono's best assets. The City of Orono should protect land adjacent to marshes which require more than their total existing areas to control storm water runoff and preserve the water quality. The city of Orono should acquire supplementary land which is needed to preserve the integrity of the natural system of pollution treatment and runoff control. QRONO^S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT The Goals and Policies of this Chapter are basic to the remaining sections of the Community Management Plan. Without environmental stability, Orono character and vitality would be lost. With environmental care and concern, Orono citizens expect their forefather's heritage to live on for generations to come. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GQAI R 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3. 7. C 9. TO PRESERVE ^HE QUALITY OF LAKE MINNETONKA. TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF ALL OTHER LAKES IN ORONO. TO PRESERVE THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLAND AND NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. TO PROVIDE FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SUCH THAT THE CITY IS PROTECTED PROM BOTH FLOODING HAZARDS AND POLLUTION HAZARDS. TO PROTECT THE CITY'S GROUND WATER RESOURCES FROM POLLUTION AND FROM DEPLETION. TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM AIR, WATER AND NOISE POLLUTION. TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, LIGHT AND AIR, INCLUDING SOLAR ACCESS FOR ALL PROPERTIES. TO PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OP NATIVE WOODLANDS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OP ORONO'S HERITAGE. if K li m m m n TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NATURAL WILDLIFE HABITAT IN WOODLANDS AND WETLANDS. _ _ _ ^®^"^^^*^^^®C?tS^^S?FROH^OI^^ROSION^ND^H^HAZARDS OF DUS^ANDSILTATION. CMP 3-18 i \ pNVTRQNMENT JUNE# 1980 T\^•r-r- DEVELOPMENT OR ALTERATION OP FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by other pro­ visions 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 n other properties# and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 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. The extent of each such review will be determined“by probable environmental impact. Greater detail will be required of larger projects than of smaller ones. As proximity to Lake Minnetonka or a major wetland increases# so will the care and concern increase in direct proportion. ON-SITE WATER RETENTION FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHENEVER NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE THE EXISTING STORM WATER RUNOFF PATTERNS. Whenever a development's location# size# scope or hardcover would tend to Increase the quantity of runoff# increase the speed of runoff# or decrease the quality of runoff# that development will be required to provide on-site retention facilities sufficient to maintain the existing situation or to improve the resulting runoff by reducing quantity# reducing speed and/or improving quality. No development will be permitted to adversely Impact it's neighbors# or the City# by changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting storm water drainage. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT THE EXPENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazard# inadequate drainage# soil formations with severe limitations for development# severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography# inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities# or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health# safety# or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. No land use will be allowed to adversely affect the neighborhood's air or water resources nor will any use be permitted to emit noise# dust# electrical or radiation pollution. CMP 3-21 ENVIRQNMFNTAI JUNE, 1980 15. EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL LAND ALTERATION PROJECTS. Each contractor will be required to minimize the probability of soil erosion on site and/or slltation damage downstream. The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will be required until permanent cover is provided. Sediment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. URBAN AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAfiFMFNT 1. 5. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot widths will space put 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. RETENTION OP NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATIOl AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standard^Jil^Te" established and maintained to limit the amount of impervious hardcover in proportion to closeness of the shoreline* Maximum hardcover will be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shoreline pursuant to Mn. DMR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban runoff exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate all nutrients, therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any wetlands would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimilation include on*-site retention on all new developments and storm water recycling through the existing marshes. CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE STORM WATER QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be minimized. Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites where they *iot overload the natural drainage system or where foreign matter, especially salt, will not directly enter a marsh or lake. Spring cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts befcre' environmental damage occurs. CMP 3-22 gNVlRONMENT JUNE, 1980 7. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE DETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space each urban property. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ALL DEVELOPMEtNTS WILL BE DESIGNED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimim 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. Lion. &nd lining rent Lon. ints, :lands RURAL AREA POLICIES FOR NATURAL RESQURCg MANARFMFMT 1. LSND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE POLLUTION LOADING OF PURAL MARSHES ^ND DRAINA6EWAYS. Rural densities will be low enough to ensure p^.'^Qanent reliance upon satisfactory on-site sewer and water systems and to ensure that rates of phosphorus and nitrogen generation will drainage system. lAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION , PT/.VATE W.-^jOS and open space. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total watershed population increases, even at our relatively low rural densities, the volume of runoff increases as does the nutrient input. Upland marshes and wetlands will be required for flood control water retention and for maximum nutrient assimilative capacity. Tffi CITY WILL PROMOTE FARMING PRACTICES DESIGNED TO CONSERVE THE SOIL AND GROUND WATER. Where farming occurs in the rural areas, the innovative tilling methods, land banking, crop rotation and Wind breaks are encouraged to protect the native soil from erosion and deterioration. Animal sanitation methods will be enforced to assure minimal pollution of drainageways or ground waters. intal CMP 3-23 Ii ( jnji^JUNE, 1980 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO A LEVEL WHICH WILL NOT OVERLOAD THE NATURAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND FILTRATION SYSTEM. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing 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. THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM 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. I o c: cn Hzi o . ■Tit PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWTtlNG AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. 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 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. 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^Mh±ch can be destructive if not properly r e g u 1 a t e d. ^^KaturaTTegefaSToffTrffnSlWfmfWnffCT^^^" 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 . j * •1 11 t . land use JUNE, 1980 future development must enhance the environment. Land development should respect and enhance the unique^atural 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. ?55SJjJ3^IffRo!SffiNTS 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. Lemd 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. . I t • ♦ 1 t t iII1 li CMP 4-15 AND MS£JUNE, 1980WILL BE SUBJECT TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPABILITY. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water table. RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for the intended use, especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and internal improvement maintenance, prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. 4rh i i ^^NSITIES will ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OP PRIVATE WOOD! AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesltes without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marsh­ lands will then assure permanent habitat for abundant wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained open space. MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total population in the watershed increases, the total requirement for storm water filtration will increase. Orono*s rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration. ! . ; . »• * i CMP 4-21 I J Subdivision § 11.03 55. "Setback” - The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, system, or facility and a natural feature, property line, right-of-way line, OHWL, structure, system, or other facility. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-24-92 '56, "Sewage Treatment System, On-Site" - A device or series of interconnected components designed, installed and main­ tained for the purpose of safely treating and disposing of sewage and domestic waste, whenever such system is not part of a municipal sewer system. a. "Individual System" - A system serving an individual building, typically a single family residence. b. "Collective System" - A system serving two or more buildings, typically including individual septic tanks connected to a common soil treatment and absorption area. c. "Commercial System" - A system serving any non-residential building. 57. "Screening" - A man-made or natural visual barrier of a type that will form a year-round dense screer^ 59. "Shoreline" - A line denoting the ordinary high water elevation of any lake, stream or other body of water, which ordinary high water elevation shall be as established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Department of Natural Resources or any other agency, whichever elevation is the highest. 60. "Slope" - Vertical distance in feet per 100 feet of horizontal distance. 61. "Street" - See Roadways. 62. "Structure" - 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. Source: Ordinance 101, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-24-92 ORONO CC 423 (4-1-84) I * * * § 11.10 itional information oning Administrator or Planning Commission such as; (a) proposed protective covenants? or (b) statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestions of population? or (c) where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire the property adjacent to that property which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a Sketch Plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and any future subdivision. In any event, all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions? (10) payment of the Preliminary Plat Review fee? and, (11) written and dated certification by the Zoning Administrator confirming that the subdivision has been completed in compliance with the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter. Certification does not mean all information submitted is correct, just that apparently all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed by the subdivider. i ! D. Application Deadlines. The subdivider shall file a complete Preliminary Subdivision application with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty days prior to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at which a public hearing will be scheduled. Subd. 11. Staff and Agency Review of the Preliminary Subdivision. On behalf of the City, the Zoning Administrator shall coordinate the review of Preliminary Subdivisions by all appropriate City staff persons and governmental agencies. The subdivider is responsible for filing all applications and obtaining all appropriate approvals from other agencies and to keep uhe Zoning Administrator fully informed of the status of the review by the appropriate agency. The subdivider shall submit to the City copies of all applications filed with other governmental agencies. A. Referral to Planning Comm.ission. Upon receipt of a complete Preliminary Subdivision application, the ironing Administrator shall place the application on the agend. of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for wV'c- the public hearing has been scheduled. The Planning Commission rfiall then begin reviewing the proposal. B. Public Hearing Meeting Notice. Notice of said hearing shall consist of the time and place thereof, the address of the property and a brief description of the proposal including subdivider's name, number of lots proposed, and the proposed use thereof, and shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the meeting. Written notification of -.aid ORONO CC 432 (4-1-84) § 11.60 SEC. 11.60. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL FEATURES AND AMEMITIES. Subd. 1. General. Existing feature^s^ whlch^^^^ value to residential developmen or^^^^ falls, beaches, historic trees, as herein assets, shall be preserved in the spots, and similar irrep trees shall be removed from any design of the subdivision. a^ade of the land effected until subdivision nor any change ei on has been granted. Allapproval of the preliminary subdivision has been gr t?les „^?‘>firrrres'’ whe/e’regStred shall be welled and preserved, and all The vegetation map shall show protected against change r^p„istinq trees, as required by this Subd. 2. Shade Trees Planted by Subdivider. "^^^T^Teouirement of subdivision approval, the City may a^re^W \*'e*'^|lanted «ltJ?n £i°r%) feerof^the^right-of-way of ^he 'of'^thrcit?,*w'\t1?i‘“thl the subdivision, or, at the tree shall be planted for right-of-way of such roads “®%^ch the every forty (40) feet ^he^ cAy staff shall grant aCouncil, upon recommendation of the i waiver. n N<aw trees to be provided pursuant to this B. New trees rifv and shall be planted in Chapter shall be approved ^y th y^^ city. Such trees shall accordance with the speciric /-^^.enred twelve (12) inches above have a minimum trunk ( inches. Only Oak, Honey acceptable to the City shall be planted. SEC. 11.61. NONBBSIDBNTIM. SUBDIVISIONS. C K/1 1 General If a proposed subdivision inda^e®Subd. 1. General. ^ industrial purposes, the land that is zoned for ^ to such land shall make suchlayout of the subdivision with respect Q^residential subdivision provision as the Council may requi * „ij.gj„ents of the site plan lhall also be subject to ^ City Code. Site approval set forth in the Zoning ^^ap approval may proceed plan approval and nonresidentla council A nonresidentialsimultaneously at the ‘discretion of the Council^ subdivision shall be subject to all required by the Chapter, as well as such ^^‘ditiona standards Sushed"^n the cSmp °ehens^ve Municipal Plan, and Zoning Chapter of the City Code. ORONO CC 469 (4-1-84) »V'R 04 *97 10:0Zrt l TP hVELI IhYS P.2-12 Date: From: To: CC: Subject: April 03,1997 David Baal Park Commission Members Elizabeth VanZomeren, Mike GafTroo, Greg Gapa and Ron Moorse Tree Policy On N^ch 19 a Park Commission sub-committee consisting of David Beal, Susan Wilson and Jim White met at the City Hall on the Orono Tree Policy. Liz, Mike and Greg were in attendance. The purpose of this committee is to develop a proposal for consideration by the City Council. A general discussion took place, with everyone giving his or her opinion. It b unanimously a^eed that Orono nefids a policy, but there is disagreement as to whether it should be a policy passed by resolution or as an Ordinance. GeneraUy speaking, it was fWt that a policy should be aimed primarily at developers because most citizens of Orono arc here because they(wc) like Orono's rural setting with it s open space, trees, parks, trails, etc. Most citizens, we agreed, have the environment at heart and will tend to do the "right thing" when it comes to preservation of trees. The writer of this memo has reviewed a number of policies from other cities, including Shorewood, Wayzata, Chanhassen, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie and Austin. In all cases the tree preservation and replacement policy is very specific as to what can and cannot be done, both by developers and individual citizens alike. It is the writer's belief that Orono should adopt the same type of policy because, if there are no clear applications, definitions, application procedures and enforcement mechanisms, there will be too much opportunity for improper activity to take place. Action needed 1. If the Park Commission and the City Council agrees with my position I will proceed to "fiesh out" a policy, borrowing heavily from policies already developed by the cities mentioned earlier. Following is an outline, with details to be filled in, for your consideration. OR 2. If the Park Commission and Council would prefer to implement a general "guide and recommendations" for tree preservation and replacement a much shorter document can be prepared. NOTE: If a Policy and Ordinance is enacted an attractive, concise, layman ’s guide to tree preservation and replacement should still be produced and distributed to all residents of Orono. APR 04 '97 10:03AM TPAVELl lAYS P.3'12ni ; H riftcumprt* @ 4/3/^T TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY CITY OF ORONO I Purooie. It is the policy of the City of Orono to recognize and preserve natural resources of the conummity. In its effort to mmntain the ® ® hinted to' arpa the Titv finds that trees provide numerous benefits including, but not Unu • conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aestheUc environment and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in the development or construcUon procMS. In those cases tree replacement or reforestauon shall be require . n ADDlicablllty. This policy shaU apply to any person or entity that would disturb land areas and impact significant trees or stands of trees in neighborhoo ^ rwk ^ wmipublic projects such as streets, utilities and parks whether distwbed by a ?equi?erSents wh^^^^ there would be greater pubUc issuuicc of ft Lftftd Disturbance Pentut. m n.lh.idons All words in this Policy have their customary dictionaty Slition except ai specifically dehned herein The word "shall” is mandatory ajrf the^^ words "should” and "may" are permissive. Technical terms used in this P y in Appendix A. Area- The portion of a lot which is not located within “V y^d.land^^ strip/area, or buffer; that porton of a lot wherein a buildmg may located, as prescribed by the Orono Zomng Code. ftPR 04 '97 10:03hH TP hVELIIhYS P.4 k I DBH (Piametef-at-Breftrt-Hglght): A standard measure of tree size, whereby a tree trunk diameter is measured in inches at a height of four and one^half feet (4 1/2') above ground. If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet (4 1/2'), then the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split. Driplinet A vertical line extending from the outer surface of a tree's branch tips down to the ground. Land Disturbance Permit! An official authorization issued by the Building and Zoning Administrator, allowing defoliation or alteration of the site for the commencement of any construction. Protection Zone: All lands that fall outside the buildable area of a parcel. Significant Trees: Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring eight inches(8'*) DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring twelve inches (12") DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring eight feet (S') or more in height. Box-elder, cottonwood, and willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees. Specimen Tree or Stand - Any tree or grouping of trees which has been determined to be of a high value by the Building and Zoning Administrator because of its species, size, age, or other professional criteria Structure- Anything 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 jointed together in some definite manner whether temporary or permanent in character. Tree: Any self supporting woody plant, usually having a single woody-trunk, and a potential DBH of two inches (2") or more. Tree Preservation Plan: A plan established in Section IV(B) of this Policy. See Appendices BandC. Building and Zoning Adminirtrator; The agent of the City of Orono having the primary responsibilities of administration and enforcement of this Policy. TV Procedures A Development Standards (copy to be added). 1. Size of trees. 2. Species, health and attractiveness of the trees including: a. Sensitivity to disease b. Life span 1hPP 04 ' 97 10:04Afl TRAVELM hVS p.saz 3. 4, 5 c. Nuisance characteristics d. Sensitivity to grading Potential for transplanting. Need for thinning a stand of trees. Effect on the functioning of a development B. Land Disturbance Permit Procedure. (Details of items I-IO Here would be a listing of approved tree species to be used as replacements when trees are lost or removed. For example: Green Ash - Frctxinus permsylvanica Black Locust > Robinia psuedoacacia etc. i 1 . Financial guarantee(Subdividers) (copy omitted) 12. Financial Guarantee (Builders) (copy omitted) V. Tree & .Site Related Diatufbnnces. Tree protection zones* (Here would be wording on tree protection and disturbance prevention regarding, physical root damage, indirect root damage, trunk and crown disturbance, and direct physical root damage, etc.. VT. of Tree Prntgctlen, A. Planning and considerations, (copy omitted) B. Protective Barriers, (copy omitted) C. Encroachment, (copy omitted) D. Reclamation of the Growing Site., (copy omitted) APR 04 '97 10:04AM TPAVELllAYS TREK PRFSFftVAnON POLTCY PITY OF ORONO Technical Terms: APPENDIX A Cambium: The tissue within the woody portion of trees and shrubs which gives rise to the woody water and nutrient conducting system, and the energy substrate transport system in trees Cambial dieback: 7 he irreparable radial of vertical inteiruption of a tree's cambium, usually cause*,’ by mechanical damage, such as "skinning bark", or from excessive heat. Coniferous: Belonging to the group of cone-bearing evergreen trees or shrubs. Deciduous: Not persistent; the shedding of leaves annually. Feeder roots: A complex system of small annual roots ^if-owing outward and predominantly upward from the system of "transport roots" These roots branch four or more times to form fans or mats of thousands of fine, short, non-woody tips. Many of these small roots and their multiple tips are 0.2 to 1mm or less in diameter, and less than 1 to 2mm long. These roots constitute the major fraction of a tree's root system surface area, and are the primary sites of absorption of water and nutrients, Major Woody Roots: First order i roots ori^atlng at the "root collar" and growing horizontally in the soil to a distance ^'between 3 and 15 feel from the tree's trunk. These roots branch and decrease in diameter to give ri.se to "rope roots". The primary fruiction of major woody roots include anchorage, struc iw .n support, the storage of food reserves, and the transport of minerals and nutrient-^ Protected Root Zone: The rooting area of a tree cstablisned to limit root disturbances. This zone is generally defined as a circle \vitli a radius extending from a tree's trunk to a point no less than the furthest crown dripline. Disturbances within this zone will directly affect a tree's cliance for survival. Root Collar: The point of attachment of major woody roots to the tree trunk, usually at or near the gruundline and associated with a marked sw’elling of the tree trunk. Root Respiration; An active process occurring throughout the feeder root system of trees, and involving tlie consumption of ox>gen and sugars with the release of energy ^nd carbon-d’.oxide. Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport of minerals and nutrients essential for tree survival. APR 04 '97 10:04AM TRAVELHAYS RopcKoou:Ane.tens«*o^^^^^^^ r2eT« t::ch p«f- " the transport of water and nutrients, and the storage of o soil co«p«.ion: A change in soU weight f ‘ Sd to tree U, compacted soil a decree, in scU oxygen leveis with an increase in toxtc gases, and can be impervious to new root developrnent. Transport Roots: The system or framework of tree roots comprised of major roots and rope roots. fiPR 04 '97 10:04 hM TRhVELWYS P.8/i' TRP.K PRF.SFRVATTON POUrV CTTY OF ORONn APPFKnry n Cliecklist for Tree Protection Plan: Tree Protection Plans. a. Provisions for tree protection on the site shall be, at mininura, in conformance with the rec^uirements of the City of Orono Tree Preservation Policy in conjunction with the Orono Tree Preservation Ordinance No. b. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted either Si pat of a landscape plan, preliminary plat, or as a separate drawing, to inciudt the lOllowing; All tree protection zones Approximate location of all specimen tfvfes or stands of trees Approximate location of all specimen trees when their preservation is questionable, or niight result in a change of the site design Identification of specimen trees to be removed. (Removal of specimen trees is subject to Building and Zoning Administrator approval.) Limits of clearing and land disturbance such as grading, trenching, etc. where these disturbances may affect tree protection zones. Proposed location of underground utilities. Methods of tree protection shall be indicated for all tree protection zones, aeration systems, staking, signage, etc. The plan should indicate staging areas for parking, matu ir * storage, concrete washout, and burial holes where these areas mignt affect tree protection. c. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree preservation plans and a grading plans in large letters: (1) Contact the City Planning Department at 33 36 to arrange a pre-construction conference with the City Zoning Aaministiator prior to any land disturbance. (2) All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to building construction. (3) Contact the City of Orono Planning Department at 473-7357 for a Site Inspection upon completion of landscape installation. APR G4 '97 iO:ObHt-1 TPhVELUhYS P. 12. II TREC rCNCIMC SHALL CONSIST Or 4J1' HICH MINIMUM QMAWGC POLYETHYLENCLAMINAR SATCTV netting. FENCE SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORCl) BY STEEL FENCE POSTS INSTALLED E.0 FEET DM CENTER. / N ^ » . • L V A- • “ ^ w * * tu • • “ -p , i V* • 4 ^ • • P* • . * •V . • .* » ♦ . -» ^ 2/. *• •• _ • • , » V . .. * .,1 ig® ^ figure 2 ACTIVE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING 04 10:05hH TP hVEL11 h(S P.li 12 \Canopy Drip-line -4: * ■» » ^ ^ -''*^''Or>fV'^ -vicc<y*Jii Critical Root Radius Critical Root Zone Within the Drip-Ime Actual Feeder Root System Extends Well Beyond the Dnp-lme figure 1 typical critical root zone «4 " nif CITY OF Mil ORONO CITY OF MINNETONKA GUIDE TO THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE JUN 1. PURPOSE OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE F- * ^ The City of Minnetonka has eotablished a Tree Preservation Ordinance to govern the preservation, protection, and removal of trees within the city. This document is a summary of the ordinance. For specific details of the ordinance, please refer to City Code Section 300.28, subdivision 19 or call the planning department at 939-8290. 2. DEFINITION The Tree Preservation Ordinance only applies to trees that meet the city’s significant tree definition. Trees that do not meet this definition are not regulated by the ordinance. Significant Tree - A deciduous tree of at least eight inches caliper or coniferous tree of at least 15 feet in height, excluding a diseased tree which is likely to die. The caliper of a deciduous tree shall be measured 4.5 feet above the base of the tree. 3. WHERE SIGNIFICANT TREES CAN BE DESTROYED WITHOUT REPLACEMENT A. Significant trees may be destroyed for development, without any required replacement, in the following areas: 1) within the width of required easements for public streets and utilities, and the required areas for surface water ponding, 2) within the areas improved for reasonably-sized driveways, parking lots, and structures without frost footings and within ten feet around those improvements, and 3) within the footprints of buildings and 20 feet around buildings with frost footings. B. Tree removal on property with an existing home or other principal structure shall be exempt from this subdivision, except as stated in 4C below, unless the tree removal is to accommodate new development or the expansion of the existing development. 4. REPLACING SIGNIFICANT TREES A. For each significant tree removed in areas outside of those identified in 3A above, a replacement tree must be planted on the property, subject to the followii.g: 1) The applicant will not be required to raise the number of trees above 25 trees per acre. 2) If the applicant and the city agree that there is no appropriate location for seme or ai! of the replacement trees, those trees will not be required. : I f B Any trees required to be planted must be varied in species, must be primarUy species native to the area, may not include any species that are subject to disease epidemic or are on the list of less desirable trees established by the city forester, and must be hardy under local conditions. The required trees m^* be replaced by the property owtier or original developer if they die within one year after installation. C. A significant tree that was removed or otl’.erwise destroyed by humaii means within two years before a development application must be replaced in the same general location by two trees meeting the requirements of 4B above. The replacement trees wUl be considered significant trees existing at the time of the development application and may be removed and relocated on the site only if the original significant tree would have been allowed to be removed under this ordinance. 6. TREE SIZES All replacement trees must be at least two and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees ^d six-feet tall for coniferous uees, except that for property located in the Planned 1-394 Dismet they must be at least three and one-half inches in diameter for deciduous trees and ten-feet tall for coniferous trees. 6. BEFORE STARTING WORK Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing, erosion control fencing, or a similar device must be placed around the drip lines of significant trees to be preserved or that are located nearby on adjacent property. No construction, compaction, or grading of any kind may occur within these, drip lines, except when necessary to save additional significant trees ^d when the risk to the trees designated for preservation is minimal. The developer must place signs on the fencing prohibiting construction, compaction, or grading. 7. CITY FORESTER TREE SPECIES LIST The following trees are considered by the City to be less desirable tre«. New replacement trees may not be of these species and the City will take into consideration the less desirable qualities of such trees in the review of a development proposal. Less Desirable Trees . * •• Boxelder: Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay. Cottonwoods; Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay, heavy seed production. Elms: Poplars: Willows: > , ■ C:\WTVFORMS\TREEPRES.FRM - APR97 Susceptible to Dutch elm disease. Rapid growth, weak wood, short-lived. Rapid growth, weak wood, prone to decay and wind damage « 9 k tf * COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DAIE; ITEM NO.: JUL 14 1997 CITYOFORONO Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Adminisirator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr. 6,0 Cygnet Place Variances and Conditional Use Permit for Amateur Radio Antenna Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:34, 874 sq. ft. (.8 acres) Application: The applicant proposes to install a retractable, nesting antenna with a concrete base, 65 ’ antenna tower for a maximum height of 7C'in order to participate in amateur radio international communications. The following variances are required: 1 . A side yard variance to reduce the required side yard setback from the north property line from 70' to 55.26'. 2. A height variance to increase the maximum height from 65' to 70'. A conditional use permit is required for any accessory anter.ia that does not meet setback and height requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To approve (3-1): 1. A side yard variance from the required 70' to 55.26 ’ . 2. A height variance from the required 65' to 70'. 3. A conditional use permit for the accessory antenna structure and tower. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve the enclosed resolution. 1 ^ J I i- f ---mailll __■ Jn:9-».T r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (H)(l)(a)(c) AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (H)(2) FILE NO. 2246 WHEREAS, Donald J. Currier, Jr. and Margaret A. Currier (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property located at 60 Cygnet Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 2, Swan Lake Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 4 (H)(l)(a)(c) to install a retractable nesting antenna with a concrete base and 65' antenna tower with a maximum height of 70' for amateur radio communications. Variances for side yard to be reduced from the required setback of 70' to 55.26 along the north property line; and for height to increase from 65' to 70' are required. A conditional use permit for an amateur short wave radio antenna and tower that does not meet the conditions for an accessory antenna is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2246. 2.The property is located in the RR-IB One Family Rural Residential Zenmp District where the minimum lot area requireme^it is two acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 16, 1997 and recomuiended unanimous approval of the proposed variimces and conditional use permit based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 4 J I 4. a.The zoning lot does not conform to lot width, lot area or front yard requirements for the RR-IB zoning district. b.The location that would meet the 70' setback from both the north and south property lines has mature trees. c.The topography of the lot slopes away from the residence towards a wetland at the rear of the property. d.The mature trees will provide a visual screen for the antenna from the north and south views. The Council fmds 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 c.onditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring prop* . would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary i :viate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substa. i%\’. property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit ana intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City The City Council fmds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the antenna structure at 70' will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Basi-’ upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances ior side yard setback and height, and a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 4 (H)(l)(a)(c) and Section 10.20, Subdivision 4 (H)(2) to allow the installation of an antenna at a maximum height of 70’, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 4 1 r 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. ATTEST: The permit is issued for the sole amateur use of the applicant while he owns the property. The antenna structure shall be dismantled, and substructures and footings to be removed or filled when the applicant is no longer residing in or owns the property. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the antenna structure. 4. The antenna will not be extended to the full height when not in use. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, t-u; are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expiie on that date (July 14, 1998). 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 1997. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 J STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of July, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. Notary Public 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 Listrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. Notary Public 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 ti e same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 rh M i I r JOHN R. DuBOIS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTING ENGINEER 29267 ROUND LAKE ROAD NEW AUBURN. Wl 54757 July 6, 1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planning/Zoning Administration City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Ms. Van Zomeren; Ref: City File No. 2246 Donald J. Currier Jr. TELEPHONE (715) 967-2321 FAX (715) 967-2221 pnr CITY OF I 1 ORONO J JUL 3 ISST This letter/report is in answer to you letter to me dated July 2, 1997 in which you asked me to review and comment on a Zoning variance/conditional use permit (CUP) (No. 2246) regarding an amateur radio antenna installation for Donald J. Currier of 60 Cygnet Place in Long Lake, MN 55356. As you note in your analysis, Mr. Currier's CUP is necessary because his proposed 70 foot "crank-up" amateur radio tower is 5 feet in excess of the new Orono ordinance regarding towers. FACTS OF THIS MATTER: o 0 Applicant is a duly licensed amateur radio operator. Applicant states a major interest in international short wave communications which generally means that the 20 meter amateur band will be used extensively and a 20 meter beam antenna will be mounted atop a retractable 65 foot metal tower. The mast for the beam antenna, a rotator and the antenna itself will increase the overall structure height to 70 feet above ground. The optimum height for a beam antenna for use on the 20 metci amateur beam is 70 teet above ground. So Mr. Currier is spending the time and money to optimize his participation in a avocation that involves over 200,000 U.S. citizens, and many more "hams" or amateur radio operators around the world. Mr. Currier has had the wisdom and forethought to contact his closest neighbors, Mr. Harde J. Panuska and Ms. Peg Panuska of 20 Cygnet Place in Long Lake and he has explained his CUP request to them. Mr. & Mrs. Panuska have provided written approval for Currier’s plans with the Zoning Variance Department. In my many years of experience, in this field with this type of controversy, by far the greatest problem has always been neighborhood disapproval. The City of Orono is unlikely to receive criticism from other neighbors since Mr. & Mrs Panuska are the most affected of all neighbors. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area 34,874 sq. ft. (.80 acres) Lot Width 150 ft. (app.) Front Yard 40.26 ft. Side Yard 38.03 ft. for residence Rear Yard 170' app. to garage The zoning lot does not conform to lot width and lot area or front yard requirements. The proposed antenna location is 55.26 ’ from the north property line where 70’ is required. Height The proposed height of the antenna tower is 65 ’, with 70’ the total height. The Code limits height for amat?«ir radio towers to 65 ’. A 5 ’ variance in height is required. However, the antenna will only be at the maximum height when in use because it is retractable. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See applicant’s Statement of Hardship, Exhibit L. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is zoned residential and it can continue to be used as a residence. The applicant indicates that he needs a 70’ tower to engage in amateur radio. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The applicant's property is pie-shaped with the rear yard narrower than the front yard. The yard slopes to the rear where there is a wetland. The requested height of the tower is based on the applicant's proposed amateur radio use. 3. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. The variarice for antenna setback and height will change the character of the area. A 70’ antenna will be visible from adjacent properties. §2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr, 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Page! ■ * r 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A conditional use permit is required for an accessory antenna structure. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions are based on the size of the lot, lot width and proposed height of the tower. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. All accessory antennas for amateur radio towers are restricted to 65'. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has an interest in being able to engage in amateur radio communications for his residence. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. U2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr, 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Pagt3 A«r'‘T'”'M™"‘^‘'^^'“‘”‘‘*“’'‘*'’apea«hardsUps. Additionally he has that he needs a taller tower for international radio operations noted Issues The zoning lot does not confonn to lot width, lot area or front yard requirements. The applicant has stated he is interested in preserving the trees in his yard. The adjacent neighbors have consented to the location of the antenna. No previous variances have been requested on this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 3. The conditional use permit for an accessory structure (amateur radio antenna tower). A variance to increase the maximum height to 70' where 65' is allowed. requke^^^ property line where 70' is Attachments Variance Application Conditional Use Permit Application Description of Request Letter from Ap, licant Plat Map Survey Topographical Map Letter from Neighbor ^2246 Donald J. Currier, Jr. 60 Cygnet Place 6/16/97 Page A a^ 3 S' MerPcACE: an Ml LlfTsSl 1300 V»“ —1» «T5 I DLAND CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ^ • 'i Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ' (no change from original application) / Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application if ^ ______Date Received J9 7Amount Paid ^ 3 2S'. -f *’*. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address {, o c^/Ltj gr-_____lq/oc, sttr?r7. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) m-l'i 12. _________________ Attach legal description to application if not h.cluded on required survey. Date Property Acquired ____________________^(month/year) I (do) fdondt) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: >( residential ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District: __________________________________________ ___________ APPLICANT Name Doi^Al/) t. C^uA.A/r?J :jyt. Address: (.6 W___________ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) - ______ _____ Phone (work) -<%/;-> 9/0/_______ City: LOJi Zip: ySPSL Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 4/ ooh Describe request in detail: /•> A^AtuJ ^__________________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width y Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) A/^JlAT HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ___________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) T.' ' V-» i ;A REQUIRED SUBMITTALSAll of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 4. Completed Application FormCertified 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, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. 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 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. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 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. 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 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fiirther authorizes reasonable entr>' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date 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. 8 'iTuTf ^iTifil •M«lVi •« i I i\« tJ 0«HllItl i:ir:r; r!i^mti ^.riTiVtTiBirtititit iSttW REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ------- Completed Application Form. 2- ____Describe request in detail. P>^‘ ™ap (you RnL^^ r Hennepin County Department ofFinance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). -------bfomadon^^ Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey i’ -------description to application if not included on required survey -------Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). "an>« (“C>“de marital status) of all persons with an interest in fte prope^. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current orvner(s). • ------- Construction p*an, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ' -------addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY SUBMITTED ^ SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENiS sub^S) require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Imtials of Clerical Staff:____________________£,3^^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE T^e 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 unusual expenses incuired 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 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Orvner's signature ___________Date ________ PlaSli?nrVTl!ir„ commission Mooting. In '^“''"8'/;' '■' <* 0." thW Monday of oach month. Applicants must bo prosont at schodiiloH m t' ^ i”'” Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attond a BuilHin/* 7n an authorized agent attend in your place and advise theBuilding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. M Description of Request I am requesting this land use application to erect an Amateur Radio antenna and commercially built antenna tower, to be used for my personal enjoyment as a licensed Amateur Radio operator. Neither the antenna or tower wil* be used for any form of business activity. The overall height of the antenna structure wall be 70 ’, a necessary height of the antenna configuration for the type of communications that i desire to engage in. (International amateur communications.) The installation will consist of an appropriate concrete base, a 65 ’ antenna tower, with the antenna’s located at the top of the tower. The antenna structure will not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. The location of the structure was selected to minimize its’ visual impact by making use of the surrounding trees. May 19, 1997 City of Orono r " . * *•. To Whom it May Concern, application, one article, that albeit technical in nature, is /m raateur ’s Matim is only as effective as the antenna ’s he/she employs. As 20 meters is the ^st p^ular high frequenr^ band, and a twenty meter antenna must be at a minimum height of 66 fe« to be one wavelength above the ground to be effective. I beUeve that my request for ffO foot “L^Hn r:^:- ScLr Sincerely, Don Currier 60 Cygnet Place Long Lake, MN 55356 r % I i • 5 » ! r to oi(toer flPiCcS j May 19, 1997 City of Or jno Planning Commission To Whom it May Concern, > V V. * A /-t • V vy^-N V^4 ir y V H «7. :=r ics'riTor.s s; ~ structure could fall onti orpTOpe“ r Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. Yards. Accessory antennas shall noi be located within the required front yard setback, comer side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. Roofs. If vegetation or obstmctions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized stmcture on the premises. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or Utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a honzontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and stmctural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. (g) Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. (h) Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: r (a) Height. When an anaateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed ^ feet. (b) Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. (c) Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Section 7. Section 10.40, B-1, Retail Sales Business District, Subd. 3 (F), Public Services, to be amended and Subd. I, Antenna Structure, and Subd. H, Antenna, to be deleted to read as follows: F.Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service stmctures. Hr ■Anterma;-"Any antenna or combination of antenna rigidly attached to the principal or acces sory structure provided that none of the foregoing cxcecda ti>c-total heighHillowed in Section 10.75: h ■Antenna ■ Structure.—One independent antenna structure, -with-antenna or eembination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to-and scn'icing the prmeipahi sc-of stnieturc on the some lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna strueture"dec8'not exceed 6 5 feet and the antenna structure is set-back front any lot -line a dia tanee at least equal to the tntnl height nf tha nwtennn stfueturc. H. Personal Wireless Service Antenna and Towers. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communication equipment in order to accommodate the growth of wiieless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City’s aesthetic resources and the public welfare. 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 TTCaDC^IIi[52 Sheet I of (209)-733-2438 Fax (209)-733-7194 rower Model - HDX-572 lax. .Allowable Antenna Area (sq. ft.): 22.8 (376 lb. wind load) ^ 1 ft. above top of tower) (ax. Allowable Antenna Weight (lbs); 200 ce Load : None tov. Codes, Stresses and Materials (Min) 3524 ^ ^900/99 Iniform Building Code <’ind Loading structural Steel (All shapes, plates, bars, angles) •elding ■ot Dip Galvanize, All Metal Hardware Headed Foundation Bolts Reinforced Concrete Reinforcing Steel structural Square Tubing •tructural Pipe ‘•olts: Tower & Accessories ■poxy — Rebar to Concrete oundation and Soils Passive Pressure 1994 Edition 70 Mph Basic Wind Speed,' Exp. B ASTM A36 (F-y = 36 ksi) AWS Dl.l E7018 ASTM A123 ASTM A153 ASTM A307 or ASTM A36 2000 psi Strength @ 28 days ASTM A615 ASTM A500 Gr. B ASTM A53 Gr. B (or ASTM A501) ASTM A325 ASTM C-8C1 Type 3 Grade 3 1000 psf Bearing (tl = dl+ll) 100 psf/ft of depth le Engineer shall not be responsible for errors and omissions in the project ot in conformance with these calculations and the Uniform Building Code 1994 Edition. le Engineer accepts no responsibility for field inspection during construction >r for the method of construction. is the responsibility of the Contractor to point out any points of conflict I'he Engineer that will not allow for the tower to be built as per specs id drawings. is tower has been designed only for the antenna loads within these calcs.. .y additional loads or discrepancy shall be brought to the Engineer’s attention. le engineering and design of antenna(s) and antenna mount(s) are not with- . the scope of these calculations. r •US • 1220 Marcin Street TOWER (209)-733-2438 Visalia, CA 93291 Sheet No. of GENERAL NOTES: 1. All work shall be in conformance with the requirements of the "Uniform Building Code" and "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Structures", by the Electronic Industries Association. (Latest editions) 2. All concrete shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2000 psi at 28 days unless noted otherwise. All concrete shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and ACI 318. Slump shall not exceed 4-1/2 inches. 3. Reinforcing steel shall be intermediate grade deformed bars conforming to ASTM A-61 5. No. 4 bars and smaller shall be Grade 40. No. 5 bars and larger shall be Grade 60. All reinforcing details, placement etc. shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and ACI 318. 4. All reinforcing steel, anchor bolts, dowels and other inserts etc. shall be securely anchored In place prior to pouring concrete. 5. Steel fabrication and erection shall conform to the requirements of AISC Manual of Steel Construction and Electronic Industries Association (as referenced in note 1 above), latest editions. 6. All tower section lift cables shall be 7 x 19 Aircraft cable with the following minimum strengths: Cable diameter fini Minimum Strength (lbs) 3/16 4200 1/4 7000 5/16 9800 3/8 14400 7/16 17600 1/2 22800 7. This tower analysis Is based the antenna being installed at a height of one foot above the top of the tower. Any location of the antenna other than at this height shall require another specific aniaysis to verify that the tower is adequate to support the load. 8. This tower is designed to be used In Its fully extended position. 9. The design of the hoist system is not with In the scope of.these calculations and shall be designed by others. 10. The information contained In these calculations Is the property of U.S. Tower Cor^». and shall only be used to obtain an Installation permit. Any other use shall be authorized by U.S. Tower In writing prior to utilizing the information contained herein. r ,US1220 Marcin Street TOWER (209)-733-2438 Visalia. CA 93291 Sheet No. Ar of . Tower Section Properties: Code: 1994 UBC Ice: None All units are in lbs. and inches U.O.N. Tower section No.: |“5| Face width (C.L.):13.95 Section length (ft):21 X brace? 1=y. 2=n Leg dia.:1.05 Top lap length (ft):3.75 2 0 Leg wall thk'ness:0.154 Bot tap length (ft):5 1 7 Web dia:0.375 No. of addt’l webs^ Web spacing: (leg 15 in lap area unsupported length)Top plate depth:4 Web "phi":22.55 Bot plate depth:6 Web bend radius:2.94 Plate thk'ness:0.25 Web clear width:12.90 Leg F-y: 36000 Web L:13.97 Web F-y: 36000 Projected Area: No. of diagonal webs 39 Legs (sq. ft. / ft.)!0.117 Webs (sq. ft. / ft.):0.049 Top & Bot anchor 0.044 (sq. ft. / ft.) Total P.A. (sq.ft./ft.):0.21 it Weight: Legs:93 Webs:71 Anchors:30 Misc.:19 Total weight: I 2131 1220 Mara'n Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER ' I (209>733-2438 Top strap A”x1/4” 1 side 1/2”xl-l/2”x1/2”xl/8 channel 2 sides Bottom strap 4’‘xl/8" 1 side 1/2"xl-l/2”xl/2”xl/8 channel 2 sides Note: All butt welds shall be complete penetration welds. i T ? 15" Typ T 16.68" C.L. 21’-0 Pipe Leg 1.315" O.D. 0.179 ” thk. 1" XS Diagonal & he rod braces as 7/16" dia. sopid rod < Typ 1-1/2” T 52-1/2 ♦ ri2. shown V No. 6 Tower Section File"ustsection6 r I 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. 5 of Tower Section Properties: Code: 1994 UBC Ice: None All units are in lbs. and inches U.O.N. Tower section No.: I Face width (C.L.):19.94 Section length (ft):21 X brace? 1=y. 2=n Leg dia.:1.66 Top lap length (ft):3.75 1 5 Leg wall thk'ness:0.191 Bot lap length (ft):5 1 7 .Veb dia:0.5 No. of addt'l webs^ Web spacing: (leg 15 in lap area unsupported length)Top plate depth:5 Web “phi":14.15 Bot plate depth:6 Web bend radius:2.94 Plate thk'ness:0.25 Web clear width:18.28 Leg F-y: 36000 • Web L:18.85 Web F-y: 36000 • Projected Area: No. of diagonal webs 44 Legs (sq. ft. / ft.):0.184 Webs (sq. ft. / ft.):0.100 . Top & Bot anchor.0.070 (sq. ft. / ft.) ‘ Total P.A. (sq.ftVft.): |0.3541 1 1 Weight: i Legs:189 1 Webs:180 Anchors:47 Misc.:42 Total weight: I 458i __J rT,' 1 (1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER (209>733-2438 Sheet No. ? of Bottom strap 5”xl/8’* 1 side l/2"x2 ”xl/2"x1/8 channel 2 sides Note: All butt welds shall be complete penetration welds.No. 7 Tower Section File ’*ustsection7 i rM 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWfER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. I v> of < •US 1220 Marcin Street Visalia, CA 93291 TOWER (209>-733-2438 Note: All bull welds sholl be complefo penetralion welds. File*^usfsection8b No. 8 Tower Section Tower Base Section • »• 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. of Tower Loading. Shear & Moments: Design per 1994 U.B.C., 70 mph Basic wind speed, Exp. B, No ice. Tower Projected Analysis C-e - Section___Arej___(M C-e C-q q-s*l w .(PlO. Shear Moment Mast 0.670 72 72 1.01 3 0.162 72 0 3.2 3&4 0.356 72 0 3.2 4 0.194 72 0 3.2 4&5 0.405 72 0 3.2 5 0.211 55 63.5 0.97 3.2 S&6 0.485 51 53 0.91 3.2 6 0.274 38 44.5 0.87 3.2 6&7 0.628 34 36 0.81 3.2 7 0.354 21 27.5 0.74 3.2 7&8 0.728 17 19 0.67 3.2 8 0.374 0.1 17 0.67 3.2 8&9 0.879 0 0 3.2 9 0.505 0 0 3.2 9&10 1.157 0 0 3.2 10 0.652 0 0 3.2 rower Section Weights: Section Weight Lift cable Height C-e (lbs)force (lbs)(ft) \ntenna 200 3 139 0 0-15 0.62 4 198 0 20 0.67 5 213 413 25 0.72 6 324 825 30 0.76 7 458 1890 40 0.84 8 645 1840 60 0.95 9 863 0 80 1.04 1lO 1332 0 100 1.13 y 120 1.2 u L 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.C 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 17.8 9.6 20.5 10.6 19.7 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9 9 9 9 149 220 345 427 564 643 814 814 814 814 814 9 9 9 9 9 1343 2080 5747 7290 13730 16143 28449 28531 28531 28531 28531 r 1220 Marcin Street Visalia, CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. \Z, of Determine Max. Allowable Antenna Area: Based on Leg Compressive Strength Reference Tower Section Property" sheets for section data. Analysis Height (flX 0 D7 "“F-a””"Aliow.“p"ActuarP Allow.Artual”Panl^na _____r »—(lbs)Mom. ft-lb Mom. ft-lb (lbs)40.5 25533 8493 13 5397 - -» aJ ^ mm mm 1000042.0 25367 10996 10 8973 9 1000042.0 25367 10996 1472 10932 1343 53333.2 26276 16786 5049 19874 5747 40425.8 26970 23773 10171 33303 13730 37646.5 24870 35545 17233 59796 28449 430 0 0 0 0 1000035.2 26075 38519 13994 78530 28531 10000 0 0 0 0 1000029.2 26657 60072 11543 148480 28531 100000010000 Allow. Antenna Wind Load (lb): Allow. Antenna Area (sq. ft.): f 376 22.81 NOTE: 1. Allow. Moment = 0.866 * (face width / 12)(allow. axial load - lift cable force / 3) 2. ^low. ^tenna Wind Load = (allow, mom. - actual mom.) / (antenna hgt - analysis hot) 3. Ai< w. Antenna Area = allow, ant. wind load / (1.3 * C-e * q-s " I) 4. P-antenna column - the value of 10000 means that this tower section was not used on this tower. r r 1220 Marcin Street Visalia, CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. 1 A of Determine Max. Allowable Antenna Area: Based on Webs (Outside Lap Areas) Reference Tower Section Property" sheets for section data. Tower Analysis Web ’L*KUr F-a Allow. *P’Actual *P’Allow.Actual P-antenna Section Heiqht (lbs)_^F-h (Ibs^,Shr (lbs)—(Ibsi... ■"3 o"8.95 tbV 15830 1748 5 “ "1748 9~10000 4 0 13.01 111.0 11703 1293 6 1137 9 10000 5 55 15.10 128.9 11985 1324 93 1222 149 1969 6 38 17.58 128.6 12036 1809 210 1716 345 2628 7 21 20.56 131.6 11495 2257 336 2189 564 3227 8 0.1 27.49 140.7 10053 3084 544 2662 814 3796 8 0 140.7 10053 3084 9 0 31.46 134.2 11049 4881 523 4383 814 10000 9 0 134.2 11049 4881 • 10 0 36.40 133.1 11235'6756 499 6356 814 10000 10 0 133.1 11235 6756 Allow. Antenna Wind Load (lb): Allow. Antenna Area (sq. ft.): f 1969 lell NOTE: 1. Allow. F-h = allow. P • cos(phO. = Allow, shear in one face of tower. 2. Allow. Antenna Wind Load = 2 " cos(30) * allow. F-h - actual shear. 3. Allow. Antenna Area = allow, ant. wind load / (1.3 * C-e * q-s * I) 4. P-antenna column - the value of 10000 means that this tower section was not used on this tower. r 1220 Mardn Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No.jC, of Oetermine Max. Allowable Antenna Area; Based on Webs in Lap Areas Reference Tower Section Property" sheets for section data. Web ‘L*KUr F-a Allow. "P"“Actu'af’P”aiTowT ”Actual P-antenna-i'Q) 8.95 76;4 15830 __JLbs) 1748 1 Mom fl-lb “ 12l“l3" Mom ft-lb 9 —([bsi... 100006.51 69.4 16552 3656 1 22288 9 10000 I7.55 80.6 15379 3397 105 21737 1343 8508.79 80.4 15398 4630 437 30424 5747 60210.28 82.3 15193 5966 1022 40082 13730 45427.49 140.7 10053 3084 4758 18440 28449 10000 15.73 83.9 15011 13263 2293 82505 28531 10000 18.20 83.2 15088 18146 2188 118285 28531 10000 I Allow. Antenna Wind Load (lb) • Allow. Antenna Area (sq. ft.): NOTE: 1. Allow. Moment = allow. P * cos(phO * 8 • cos(30). 2. Allow. Antenna Wind Load = (allow, mom. - act. mom.) / (antenna hgt. - analysis hgt.). 3. Allow. Antenna Area » allow, ant. wind load / (1.3 • C-e * q-s • I) 4. P>antenna column - the value of 10000 means that this tower section was not used on this tower or the tower section is the base section) Maximum Antenna Wind Load and Wind A.niA- j(Ref. this sheet and the previous 2 sheets.) Allow, antenna Wind Load (lb): Allow, antenna Area (sq. ft.): i ! 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 ! Analysis - Tower Section No. S US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. of Shear (ib):525 Moment (ft-lb):8119 Lift Cable Force (lb):413 Panel Height (in):15 Face Width (in):13.95 Lap length (ft):4 Web Analysis:Web Analysis - Lao Area Lap shear (lbs): Dia. (in):0.375 Dia. On):0.375 F-y (psO:36000 F-y (psO:36000 Area(in^2):0.110 Area On^2):0.110 LCn):15.10 LOn):7.55 rOn):0.094 rOn):0.094 K:0.8 K:1 KL/n 128.9 KUr 80.6 C-c:126.1 C-c:126.1 Actual f-a (psQ:2971 Actual f-a (psQ:7230 Allow. F-a (psi):11985 Allow. F-a (psO:20387 |Web CSI:0.25||Web CSI:0.351 Weld size (in):0.125 Weld size (in):0.12 j Weld L On):0.75 Weld L (in):0.75 Act. weld T (Ib/in):438 Act. weld T (Ib/in):1065 Allow, weld r Ob/in):2475 Allow weld 'F' (Ib/in):2475 iweld CSI:0.181 jWeld CSI:0.431 Leo Analysis: Dia. On):1.05 Thk. On):0.154 F-y (psi):36000 AreaOn^'2):0.433 LOn):15 rOn):0.321 K:0.9 KL/n 42.0 C-c:126.1 Leg Comp, load (lb):8202 Actual f-a (psi):18921 Allow F-a (psO:25367 |Leg CSI:0.75| 2030 i X ' * ♦s " % * 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. I'l of Analysis - Tower Section No. 6 ;ihear (lb):721 Moment (ft-lb):18921 Lift Cable Force (lb):825 Panel Height (in):15 Face Width (in):16.68 Lap length (ft):4 Web Analysis:Web Analysis - Lao Area Lap shear Obs): 4730 Oia. (in):0.4375 Dia. On):0.4375 F.y (psi):36000 F-y (psO:36000 AreaCin''2):0.150 Area On^^2):0.150 L(in):17.58 LOn): •8.79 r (in):0.109 r (in):0.109 K:0.8 K:1 KUn 128.6 KL/r 80.4 C-c:126.1 C-c:126.1 Actual f-a (psO:2919 Actual f-a (psQ:11036 Allow. F-a (psO:12036 Allow. F-a (psO:20412 |Web CSI:0.241 |Web CSI:0.54 i Weld size (in):0.125 Weld size On):0.125 Weld L (In):0.75 Weld L (in):0.75 Act. weld T (Ib/in):585 Act. weld 'f Ob/in):2212 • [Allow, weld 'P (Ib/in):2475 Allow weld ’P Ob/in):2475 Iweld CSI:0.24|IWeld CSI:0.891 Leo Analysis: Dia. (in):1.315 Thk. On):0.179 F-y (psi):36000 Area(in'^2):0.639 LOn):15 rOn):0.407 K:0.9 KUr.33.2 C-c:126.1 Leg Comp, load (lb):15994 . Actual f-a (psi):25036 • Allow F-a (psO:26276 |Leg CSi: • 0.95] I r I 1220 Marcin Street Visalia. CA 93291 US TOWER (209)-733-2438 Sheet No. 1.0 of Base Connection • •#8 Base Section Shear (lbs):1190 Leg Comp, (lbs):33263 loment (ft-lbs):55889 Leg Tension (lbs):32036 .ift Cable force (lbs):1840 Leg O.D. (in):1.9 ace width (in):23.72 ab Plate to Leo:C.L. bolt to leg (in):1.25 -'late width (In):2.5 Bolt dia. (in):0.75 (A325N) Plate height (in):13 No. of bolts:6 Plate Thkn. (in):0.375 Di.st. between bc.ts:2 3oit force (lbs):7619 Weld tab to leg:Weld size (in): Allow, bolt shr. (lbs):12370 Moment (in-lbs):73178 Brig check OK Weld S-x (in*2):56.333 Bolt CSI:0.62 Weld stress (Ibs/in):1834 Allow Stress (ibs/in):3722 4x4x1/2 Anale to Base: F-y (psi):36000 KL/n 3 S-x 0n^3):1.97 F-a (psi):28629 Area (in'^2):3.75 P-allow (lb):107359 Moment (in-lbs):47080 3olt ecc. (in):1.32 Shear ecc. (in): A M - A 8 F-b(psi):28800 0.188 jWeld CSI:j bolt to base plate: ■Angle CSI 0.91 /Veld tab to base: Weld S-x (in^2): Weld stress (Ibs/ln): .Mlow Stress (Ibs/in): Weld size (in): 13.330 3955 7425 0.375 Moment (in-lbs):45461 [weld CSI: 0.53 | ^ase Plate Assembly: Top Plate: Bot. Plate: W (in): 6.000 W (in): L (in): 6.500 L (in): Thkn. (in) 0.375 Thkn. (in) 6.000 6.500 0.500 ’ Combined Plate Properties: Too Plate: Area: 2.2500 Y-bar (in): 0.6875 Bot. Plate: Area: Y-bar (in): Concrete bearing: f-p (psQ: F-p (psO: f-c (psO: 853 1867 2000 ICSI:0.46 3.0000 0.2500 Centroid: I CinM): con): 0.438 0.335 0.438 Moment - from comp (in-lbs): f-b (psi): F-b.(psi): [cSh 27026 35299 36000 0.98 J r US 1220 Marcin Street TOWER (209)-733-2438 Visalia, CA 93291 Sheet No. *2.J of Foundation Design: Anchor Rods: ASTM A36 Threaded rods Rod dia. (in):1 Bolt spacing (in) "s":28 f-y (psi):36000 Cone dia. (in) "l-c":10.5 Uplift (lbs):32035 Cone, f-c ’:2000 Allow. Tension (lbs):40087 Pullout A req'd (in^2):358 |Rod CSI:0.801 Area provided On^'2):346 |csF ^ 1.031 Footino:1 1 Moment (ft-lbs):55890 Footing analysis is based on the following soil parameters: Shear (lbs):1190 Allow. Lateral bearing (psf/ft):100 Lift Cable Force (lbs)1840 Allow. Soil bearing (psQ:1000 Square ft’g width (ft): Design Is for non-constained condition per UBC reqmt’s. 4 Allow, bearing (psQ:2200 Increased 20% for ea. ft. Footing depth (ft):7 Act. bearing (psQ:1165 H(ft):47.0 Max. mom. (ft-lbs):57556 S-1:622.22 A:0.791 Depth req'd (ft): I 6.8| Check concrete tensile stress: (neglect outer 2" of footing) S-x(in''3): 14197 M (psO: 63 F-t(psi): ______________145 I^SI: 0.441 Summary: Use 2 - r dia. ASTM A36 galvanized anchor rods, 27" long. Use heavy hex nut on both ends of rod. Weld nut. j bottom of rod with 1/8 ” fillet. Chase all threads. Use foundation 4 ft. square by 7 ft. deep (below undisturbed soil). Reinforce foundations with 5 #5 vertical bars in each face with #3 ties at 12" on center, and 3 ties In the top 5". r 1220 Marcin Street Visalia, CA 93291 (209)-733-2438 Sheet No.i-'J- of m ^^HJNCILMEETINQ • JUL 14 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ DATE: July ‘ V ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Elizabeth Van Zomeren Zoning 1 Title City Planner/Zoning Administrator Item Description: 1t #2248 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing ' Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:14,663 sq. ft. (.336 ) Application:The applicants propose restoring an existing r::,sidence and building an addition to an existing residence that is located within the 0-75' setback. Variances for side yard setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback are required. A conditional use permit is also required for land alteration in the 0-75' setback. Planning Commission Recommendation To approve variances for: 1. Side yard setback to allow a second story along the south property line where 5.3' is existing and proposed and 10' is required. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed. 3. Lakeshore setback to add structure in the 0-75' setback where none is allowed. To approve a conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve the enclosed resolution granting a conditional use permit and variances for side yard, lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. NOTE: This item was tabled from the June 23, 1997 City Council meeting. Please refer to minutes from that meeting. -Is/ ■ •' I r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (pS - H2247 Wayne Holmes - Continued) Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2247 with the understanding that the building cannot be closer than 10' to any property line or other stmcture, at a maximum of 825 s.f, with retaining walls to be approved by the City Engineer, and p ans submitted to staff prior to construction. The appUcaW asked if a separate permit was required for the retaining walls. Gaffron said it would be part of the building permit approval. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#9) #2248 - DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:40-9:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted, The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a proposal for construction of an addition to an existing cabin to square off the residence and restore an existing deck and screen porch. The .3 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district. The structure is locate m the 0-75' setback. A hardcover variance is required to increase the hardcover Ifom 9,^ to 19%. Lot area and lakeshore setback variances are required A conditional use pemut for land alteration is required for any alteration or excavation in the flood plain and 0-75’ setback from the shoreline. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the property notmg that the shoreline contour is at the 924.9* elevation. The 930* contour tbUows the lakeshore; the 932' contour traverses the property, so the middle portion of the lot is considered to be in the flood plain. The concern is where the 931.5' elevation is located. The applicant said he has lived on WUdhurst Trail s'mee 1975. He noted that the five other homes west of this property is evenly setback as proposed for this residence. There were no public comments. Stoddard inquired what the Watershed District’s comments were. Rahn said the Watershed did not require any mitigation for the entiy, deck, and screen porch as there are on post footings. Stoddard suggested relocating the structure to lessen the variances required. Rahn said his history as a contractor and building official relates to his desire to restore the cabin with the addition to square it off and has not considered relocation; more flood plain mitigation would be required, and its present location is the high spot on the property. He would like to maintain the character of the property. He noted that m order to move the structure behind the 75 ’ setback would require use of a holding area in that setback. Stoddard noted that mitigation can occur elsewhere. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) cutremly. He"oplans to get a good sense of the hyow and ro^fnSS^T “""Sa while ««ore garage would be oShetwSl T '"«'>'«• 'te he needed a 35' setback. He locate the ^ »dT4^^e?'JpiSS ^“rto'^e'S^^.b^" "* P'^n The appUcant said increase that side s^b™"; " eonstrucnon on the other side does not P'“* '*^<‘"8 io ‘his residence. She asked if he wr3 ° n expanding out. Rahn said his neightor pteli^T ‘ '= “O'V '^h a steep fori *’’'*“*' * '“PPot'oe a plan with doubling hardcover in the 0-75' and ?t a^^Mvlrtr™'!!'™ “k‘m“ ‘'’® residence next door is He noted a lot line rearrangement in 1961 deemed the property buildable. There were no public comments at this time. omS'isTm'Ts f“ f“^““8e and the T inSmuct Concern was voiced with the structure location in the 0-75' but Lindquist noted there is no other location in which the structure can be located. seconded, to approve Application #2248 for a conditional T-‘r P'^ hardcover at 19%, lakeshoresetback as existing, and side setback if necessary. to setback is required even though no changes are made due to tte ongma^ van^ce required for the property. If necessary, a side yard setback variance would be mcluded in the above motion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. I I A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.55 AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. 2248 WHEREAS, David Rahn and Jodi Rahn (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1385 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 23, and all that part of Lots 15 and 22, and adjacent vacated alley. Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of the following- described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 15, distant 75 feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a line forming an angle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly line of said Lot 22, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow additional stmcture to be added to an existing residence. Variances for side yard setback to allow a south side yard setback of 5.3' where 10' is required, hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, and lakeshore setback to allow the addition to encroach into the 75' setback the same distance as the existing residence are required. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback and floodplain is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2248. Page 1 of 4 r 2. 3. 4. 5. fhi! proi)frty is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement is one acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 16, 1997 and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit based upon the following unique findings and hardships: a. The zoning lot does not meet minimum lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. b.The existing structure conforms to the average lakeshore setback but does not meet the 75' lakeshore setback. c.The topography of the zoning lot is within the floodplain in the middle of the zoning lot. d. The Zoning Code allows 1,500 sq. ft. of structural coverage. e. The existing hardcover in the 0-75' setback is 609.25 sq. ft. (9%). The 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 properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessarv 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. T ‘ City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow land alteration in the 0-75' setback and floodplain will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 I . CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances for hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, to allow a side yard variance for the second story to be located 5.3' from the south properU' line where 5.3' is existing and 10' is required, and to allow a lakeshore setback at the same distance from the shoreline as the existing residence where 75' is required per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and grants a conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback and floodplain per Section 10.56, Subdivision 10 and Section 10.55 to permit an addition to an existing stiucture located within the lakeshore setback on a zoning lot that includes floodplain, subject to the following conditions; 1.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 14, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violatk*** of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted he .id 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jab*'''’r, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me or this 14th day of July, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of within and for said County, personally appeared ,, 199___, before me a Notary Public 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of within and for said County, personally appeared ., 199___, before me a Notary Public 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 Page 4 of 4 r I I TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planncr/Zoning Administrator DATE:June 12,1997 SUBJECT: #2248 David and Jodi Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Rd. Variance(s) and Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area;.3 acres (approximate) j Applii*ation: The applicants propose to construct an addition to an existing structure and restore an existing deck and screen porch. A conditional use permit is required for any alteration or excavation in the floodplain and 0-75' setback from the shoreline. Variances for hardcover in the 0-75’ setback, lakeshore setback, and side yard setback are required. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Section 10.55, Fl.vod Plain and Wetlands Management. Section 10.56, Shoreland Management. Subd. 10. Land Alteration & Building Permits Required. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Regulations U224S David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Pt. Rd. 6/16/97 Pag* I r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot .\rea and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .3 acres 89.86 ft.95 ft. app.5.3 on south 33 ft. app. The zoning lot does not conform to lot area, lot width, side yard setbacks or lakeshore setbacks. Variances are required for lakeshore and side yard setbacks. Structural Coverag e The applicants propose to increase the amount of structure on the lot, from 609.25 sq. ft. to 1,320.75 sq. ft. The zoning lot is allowed 1,500 sq. ft. as a lot of record. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'6,750 sq. ft.609.25 (9%) none 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) 611.50 sq. ft. 19% 75'-250'100.4 25%136.4 sq. ft.none 250'-500' 500'-l,000' A hardcover variance to add structure in the 0-75' setback is required. No variance is needed in the 75-250' setback. U2248 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Pt Rd. 6/16/97 Page 2 '-r STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants have stated that relocation behind the 75* setback would require major floodplain alteration and excavation. The applicants believe that squaring off the existing cabin will result in minimal excavation and alteration of the floodplain. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing structure was used as a cabin. It can continue to be used as a cabin. The applicant should provide testimony as to the inadequacy of the structure for year round inhabitation. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard setback requirements. The structure does not meet the 0-75' shoreline setback. Any additions in building footprint will add structure in the required 0-75 ’ setback. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for lot area, lot width, side yard, and hardcover will change the character of the lot. However, each zoning lot may have a 1,500 sq. ft. building footprint. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic Actors are not a consideration with this application. 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A residential structure is a permitted use in this zoning district. U2248 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Pt, Rd 6/16/97 Page 3 j r 8. 9. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the lots in this area are not conforming as to lot width and lot area. Several of the residences were constructed within the 0-75' shoreline setback. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Some of the zoning lots in this area do not meet minimum lot area requirements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants will need to provide testimony regarding the need for the variances based on preservation of their property rights and use and enjoyment of the zoning lot. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. *nie existing structure is located vvithin the 0-75' setback, and 5.3’ from the south property line. Much of the zoning lot is impacted by the floodplain contour. Issues 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. The existing sUiicture conforms to the average lakeshore setback but is within the 0-75' setback from the shoreline. 2. Much of the zoning lot is below the 93 1 flood contour. ^2248 David and Jodi Rahn J38SRestPt. RJ. 6/16/97 Page A r , I 3.There was a lot of interest in this property when it was recently listed for sale. Redevelopment of the lot is severely restricted by the floodplain. The applicant has proposed minimal land alteration. 4.The structure was remodeled in 1988. No previous variance requests are noted in the street file. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75' setback and floodplain. 2. A hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback to increase from 9% to 19% where none is allowed. 3.A lakeshore setback is required to add structure the same distance from the shoreline as the existing structure. 4.A side yard setback to allow the existing structure to have a second floor where 5.3' is existing and proposed where 10' is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Location Map Plat Map Hardcover Calculations Topographical Map Floor Plans Elevations Permit Record Pictures of Lot Survey Showing 931.5 Elevation U224S David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Ft. Rd. 6/16/97 Page 5 r Application if 3Ql*4S Date Received S - ZS— Amount Paid ^ A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress O O /'a Property Identification Number <T.I.D.') / Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProDcrtY. Acquired S~/^3/*77 I (do) (do^n^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use^oTproperty: p**^esidential ___other (specify). Zoning District: ^________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name Da\J»'C Address: //2^ I OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home ) _____ Phone (work ) 1? ^ City: ________Zip: Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address:City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Z.S~. Describe request in detail: -h> (attach additional s|ieets if necessary) VARIARI^CES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: Lot Width £-^"^ardcover Front Lot Coverage Side ’.ear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) S6^tXkcJ^^' HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditioris preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 7^ ----- J/Zif—_ /‘s /Xy C^ f" jC.'f'L/r-t U i f ^ • (attach additional .sheets if necessar>0 I r 7,A»REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All pf the fpllowinR information must be submitted bv the aPDlicatinn dendlinp ord^r for vcur application to be considered complete: 1. 2. J. Completeu 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, 348-3271). 4. 5. 6. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproduction. 7. 8. *** oiauiviv/ii, V,*.* 0/2 All lor reproauciion. ^ 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 include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ^ . Att AAA AAs 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 application. Please remember that vour variance anplication 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 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 j <rl Date 5/r,3/<?7 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fiirther authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of inv'estigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ot in^stigatron and verificatioi in 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. 8 ^ 2240 air\d^€s|> T6iV>f ^aaa r '■•V -I ' I I I L '■ .(63) ^ f <«. i V\X^s __ B \ a6““l",;, V \ \ \ I i«t'-i6-^ loe Tj!— I Of <\c?. z'' ,r, \ 'cu*: >-/# '^f»IS7AMA6/<®^/ V/Ma- /krsS 'flST T-» (52) •V^»VV. Ao#. •>> \« (17) 5) ''$i'^\*''/'X‘X .. f.\i,< \ {60) *\(62t^:f ^ \ ' ^<3^ te. viit 4 > \ \ Lb lA •. - » 4 } LEGAL DESCWPTION OF PREWCSrS:Lot 23. ond ol thot port of Lots 15 ond 22. ond odjocent vocoted oSey. Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Pork, Loke Minnclonko. lying Southerly of the folowing-described fine: Beginning at 0 point on the Southeasterly fine of said Lot 15. disront 75 feet Northeosterly from the Southeost- eiiy corner of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on 0 line forming on ongle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly fine of soid Lot 22, to the shore of Loke Minnetonka, and there ending. This Survey intends to sh% * the boundaries of tne obove described property, ond the lo. *'tion of on existing house or>d shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. (931.5): Spot elevation e Iron morker found o : bon marker set Beorings shown ore bosed upon cn assumed dolum. i r I I' I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEETSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250'250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length /■HiV *7 X X X Width B. Garage . C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck / n X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER IT AREA IN ZONE z< B ^7 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X 31.< B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE / -5- B X 100 V/.S^ S.F. r.9i S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ O Z.^ S.F. _ S.F. ^ % A B S.F. S.F./<■■■ '■' -A S F '■ ' Ha.f. ; , S.F. V S.F.V n S.F. S.F. S.F. f: S.F. ’• *s S.F. S.F. V 5. •. V •ij S.F. S.F. S.F. ** S.F. -ZCP. 7^ S.F. S.F. % A B M3- J ii'^m EXISTING m 8ea mrvj ROPOSED 3irrr • .* .. .1 ll' •--i-*' t.— *' ** • ^ j 8 is rJfti-iiTi':;- -- T T/Y Xy v'-. r •• S. FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION left elevation right elevation 1-- -‘ ‘ ' ^ ’ • K * ifc_ • *i •* .1^. PmmM H-r ri 1p ,v • '• - - iV^ wJ •' ■7\:. * '■>■ % ^h:: Sifi, ft t '^- > ‘* -a... ■ * '• *. ■ s«4i' is '■e^^ 'to-'. ►~v. V ;^.V•V>V«^ /.«» •• » ’ . V •< •tr.. ^-, T ■ ■“ V^' k- ^ w iii4f'fl Bt\',l / ■■■5 •khA*/ ''Vi:^K 0 5a'r-5s^ m -u; • ^-^/f j -.y; i sssp. -O^ ' . . *" «— ^ '»■• ‘ ^;V >'• ••' '• \ t'jiB:; -i'--' '. ■ i'.’ -’I 'J.. V A'; W “.y V , . r'r, '• :---. .--:i W" • '* - / -/V -. ;;>;. c » « ^^^0“*’*^ •' * ^ » * * ' '*• ‘.‘■er %■: .' . ■ ' • ‘ A 'V* - '* , ' •■ ^!r’V uiii- f» ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONDATE: June 18council MEEtINa JIJL 14 1997ITEM NO.:Department Approval: Name Elizabeth Van Zomeren Tide City Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2252 Warren and Christine Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Avenue Average Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:52,389 sq. ft. (1.2 acres) Application: The applicants propose adding 6' to the side and 4' to the entrance of an existing 2.5 car garage. The applicants have removed plastic under landscaping from previous owners so that current hardcover is 10,160 sq. ft. (34.95%) and proposed at 10,204 sq. ft. (35.1%) in the 75-250’ setback where 7,267.5 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. The proposed addition to the garage is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. An average lakeshore setback variance is also required. Planning Commission Recommendation To approve an average lakeshore setback to allow 6' to be added to the lake side of the existing garage and to approve no more than 35.6% hardcover in the 75-250' setback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution granting: 1. An average lakeshore setback. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 35.6% in the 75-250' setback. • «TO: f FROM:DATE:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City AdministratorLiz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administr atorJune 12,1997SUBJECT: #2252, Warren and Christine Bielke, 2565 Dunwoody Ave. Variance(s)—Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC .'2,389 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (1.2 acres) Application: The applicants propose to add 6' and 4' to the side and entrance of an existing 2.5 car garage. The applicant is proposing to exchange non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover. The proposed garage addition is partially located ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.25, LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, Subd. 6, Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. • Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Regulations. ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IC District Standards U2252 Warren and Christine Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Ave. 6/16/97 Page 1 Subject Property Lot Area and YardsLot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside52,389 sq. ft.164.5 >30 ft.22.5 and 43’ proposed 75' to pool 115' to houseThe property conforms to lot area, lot width and yard requirements. Structural Coverage Total structural coverage is not an issue with this application because it conforms to the requirements. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'10,935 sq. ft.220.5 sq. ft. (20%) none 220.5 sq. ft. (2.0%) no charge 75'-250’29,070 sq. ft.10,160 sq. ft. (34.95%) 1,261.5 (25%) 10,204 sq. ft. (35.1%) 2,936.5 (6.1%) 250'-500*12,384 sq. ft.1,017 sq. ft. (8.2%) (3,715.2) (30%) 1,017 sq. ft. (8.2%) no change 500’-l,000’ The applicant is proposing to increase hardcover from 34.95% to 35.1% in the 75-250' setback. This represents less than previous approvals for 35.6%. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has indicated that they desire more space to accommodate their three vehicles. i^2252 Warren and Christine Bielke 2565 Dunwoodv A\e. 6/16/97 Page 2 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship1.2.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.The residence and garage can continue to be used. However, the applicants have indicated their desire for more garage space. The plight of the landowner is due t j circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The amount of hardcover oi: -he zoning lot in the 75-250' setback exceeds the 25% requirement but is less than p:^ p iously approved. Prior to submitting the existing survey, the applicants removed the plastic under the landscaping that previous owners did not remove as directed by previous variance resolutions. # 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for average lakeshore setback and hardcover will not change the character of the area. 4. 5. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. Garages are allowed in residential districts. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. U2252 IVarren and Christine Bielke 2565 Dunwoody Ave. 6/16/97 Page 3 8.The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The amount of hardcover is specific to this zoning lot. 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or strucrures in the district in which said land is located. Hardcover requirements apply to all zoning lots along the lakeshore. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant will need to provide testimony regarding their need for a third stall and to keep the existing amount of hardcover. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely sen e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The hardship for the average lakeshore setback is created by the location of the structure relative to the adjacent structure. Issues 1.The existing zoning lot conforms to the lot requirements. The e.\isting structure is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2. 3. The amount of hardcover existing and proposed e,xceeds the 25% limit. The residence was constmcted in 1965. The residence was remodeled in 1984 and 1990. The pool was installed in 1991. Both remodeling projects required variances (#857 and #1574). Both of the previous resolutions contained precautions regarding no future increases in hardcover. ^2252 IVarren and Christine Bit Ike 2565 Dun woody Ave. 6/16/97 Page 4 r I ^ I 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION To amend or approve: 1.A variance to extend the existing garage 6' lakeward which encroaches into the average lakeshore setback. 2. A variance to increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback from 10,160 sq. ft. (34.95 ^) lo 10,204 sq. ft. (35.1 %) for an increase of 44 sq. ft. where 7,267.5 sq. ft. or 25% is allowed. Attachments A B C D E F G H I Application Location Map Plat Map Survey Enlarged Survey Floor Plan Elevation Hardcover Calculations Previous Variance Resolutions §22 Warren and Christine Bielke 256S Dunwoody Ave. 6/16/97 Page 5 ■^1 r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE #2252 WHEREAS, Warren Bielke and Christine Bielke (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2565 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 11 and that part of Lot 12, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying northwesterly of a line described as beginning at a point in the northeasterly line of said Lot 12; distant 39.5 feet southeast from the most northerly comer of said Lot 12; thence southwesterly parallel with the northwesterly line of said Lot 12 a distance of 188 feet; thence deflect right 8 degrees 35 minutes 35 seconds a distance of 147 feet, more or less, to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka and said line there terminating (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow an existing 2.5 car garage to be expanded 6' on the lake side and 4' on the entrance side to allow space for three vehicles. Variances for average lakeshore setback and hardcover are required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2252. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC, where the minimum lot area requirement is 1/2 acre. Page 1 of 4 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 16, 1997 and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed \ ariances based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The zoning lot conforms to lot area and yard requirements. B. The existing residence is partially located forw'ard of the average lakeshore setback. C. The applicants have removed plastic under the landscaping and existing hardcover is less than previously approved for the variance to allow the pool. (File No. 1574, Resolution No. 2860). D. The proposed addition to the garage will not impact lake views for adjacent property. 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 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. 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 following above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an average lakeshore setback to allow a 6' addition to the lake side of the existing garage and a hardcover variance to allow no more than 35.6% (10,348.92 sq. ft.) where Page 2 of 4 r •j' I: 34.95% (10,160 sq. ft.) is existing and 25% (7,267.5 sq. ft.) is allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, subject to the following conditions: 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the propert>’ not wth 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 (July 14, 1998). 2.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. 3.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 tliis resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 1997, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) ss. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . u ^ r t i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day ot July, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, 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 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this within and for said County, personally appeared Application #Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION O o Pt o A b >\*y SiteAddres s ^SbS OtiniAfoaJy Al/^» Property Identification Ni^ber (P.I.D.) ILQ 117 X2X! GO^j Attach legal description to appliwtion if not i icluded on required survey. 1 993 _____________Date Property Acquired,.(month/year) I (do) (do noO also own the adjacent parcels of land.. Present use of property: yC residential ___pother (specify) ZoningDistrict:_____IC____________________________ Phone (home) ________________ ______________ Phone (work ) ^2 9~ 2. Addres ^J^Sfe^ OantA/ogc^y City: [/Jcisi______Zip: APPLICANT . Name Wafren •*~C^>^ls.4^lnfc OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work)___________ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ P-0.0 00 Describe request in detail: /}dc/i ’^'on of V fee/ ^ fhe. n/iA h /a f~Ae. oP cuI^N'i MS mfluki s)nr\plt^ (attich additional s|ieets if necessary) A9t-j.eec€ ceme/\^ ( VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area rurren^ c-f ce me/) A /or ^-f-nueA/faI A.«rc/ 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 Zoning Code reouirements: c^tren hu/'t. <v gt ^ tc<r_____ \AJ*- k.Q{/e a TftC aT\(L nnJ. U/tuld hlcC. A<-‘ cJJi, fa /'A t^rkft> AAg. gftrg^. Of^ktruA^e-^ (/• Uli’K CJ>nf-jr\u^ fa ir\ i'ke <ir\Veu/^if alon^ ________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) to nC/i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; I. i/ 4^ I h ' 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, Gov1 Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\'ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi ” x 11" for reproduction. ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/:" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy S'/:" 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. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 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. 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 his/her knowledge. Date C ~Applicant’s Signature OWNER'S SIGNATURE 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 vefi^ation of this request. Owner's Signature / / y Date r~- ^3- ^7 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 n .’eting. 8 % 3 o 3iao 3 1 i \ 5 Maxwell MRMt ^stal Bay ^ ^ORONO /OOD %smaM ns ^COC NO 5^5r^■^3 160/ ?6.6^^ -'ivv' I ,[■!UV^CL^It‘1tr■—-OOC NO 5«2625S.-rfo • • • 1 i \ \V \ \ \ rrr466 \\\,T r \ ■' ••■* -* \•> V • \\\\^*\* >' ‘b 'i'X \\\ \" 'V n \ \ \ \ \ * .-<i \(4) '6> .V % \ \ % \ \ \ (19)C?)\ \ ✓ ‘^ns 0 (>7) . \ \ \ \ UO) \\ / ri. \ ''i-' " (23)\f'' ^ y .y t'\J \ V'. .-t. imJikkimm---------TZT------ ^orTf j^iwff a^ ,Shir$iry • • • ft* • • % *• -yf ♦ • *. * ■•*................... flREPAREO fOR ** • -r - A ' • t --ar r • .. . , IIAKDCOVER CALCLIl.A'HON“\VOUI\SlIEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) I EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN 7n|MF A; • House _______ Length 75-250’250-500’500-1000’ Width *7 • - B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other k/a// I I ' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _- -5- B S.F. S.F. =S.F.i.i. k t S.F.p ■ I . * Va =S.F.'' > f S.F. • • • , * ;* •-• * % •ss S.F.ll 1 S.F.1 i S.F.V. • -A 1 • t S.F.% _. p-^------------— S.F.* . P '■ •• S.F. V y \1' =S.F. =S.F. 1 S.F. S.F.A /093S S.F.B# • % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN yntsiir A. House _____________ X Length I _ Width • n* B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other • r 7 1 • S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA. IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -i- B x”l00 S.F. S.F. _ _2^ % • 41 • I • I I •' ,-i- - .“i- - '• • • • n M . r. •. r. t CITYOF[ ORONO City of OROINORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILNO. 2860A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 6 2 PILE #1574 WHEREAS, Jaunes and Sue Ronald (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2565 Dunwoody Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, Attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants ha‘'>'** applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of room additions and a swimming pool, both of which encroach past the defined average lakeshore setbaclc line, and which comprise additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone over and above the normally allowed 25% hardcover in that zone. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1574. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family La)ceshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 1990 and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: a. The proposed 4' addition to the side is lower in elevation than the neighboring residence on that side, and additionally there is existing vegetative screening such that no existing lake views enjoyed by the neighboring property owner will be encroached upon. b. Likewise, the proposed 2' expansion of the lakeside wall of the house and the raising of a portion of the house in it's existing footprint, will have no significant impact on neighbors views of the lake. Page 1 of 5 'A F 0 mOf )re 7 ...CITYOFpRONO; M City of OROTVORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILNO. 2860The-..V. proposed pool, while encroaching 71' past the ^^vsT’age setback line, is at a relatively low point in the topography as compared to both neighboring properties, and will have no impact on neighbors views of the lake.<3. The proposed pool and additions comprise additional structural and at^grade hardcover on the property of 368 s.f. Applicant proposes removals of approximately 927 s.f., for a net reduction in hardcover to 35.6% from the pre­ existing 37.5%. Planning Commission's review of the application indicated that the proposed pool would likely have some additional hardcover after it was moved a few feet l^^®'"^srd to meet the 10' deck overhang setback. Applicants noted that if that occurred, there was additional hardcover rock and plastic, and driveway, that could be removed so that hardcover would never exceed 35.6% in the 75-250' zone. 4. 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. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property &re 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 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. CONCLUSIONSr ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision ^ ® the construction of proposed additions and pool, which additions and pool encroach past the defined average lakeshore setback rio encroachment is normally allowed, and which comprise additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone above the 25% hardcover normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 • /n CITYOFORONO City of OliOlNORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2860 _________r1. Construction of room additions shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Any revisions to that plan will require further review by the City.2. The averaqe lakeshore setback encroachment by the pool shall not exceed 71', and in no case shall the pool extend into the 0- 75' protected lakeshore setback zone. Further, the pool when constructed shall be placed such that the pool water surface is at least 10* from any other overhanging structure or decks. 3. Hai dcover on the property is approved at a level of 35.6% in the 75-250' zone. The applicants are advised that all allowed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with this resolution as Exhibit B. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 4. 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 thr.': date (August 27, 1991). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, 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. Page 3 of 5 • » ) I®r'lTv^’^CIJ: r\w'xi ORONOyL 'mmM City of OROIXORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 16884. 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.5, The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properiy; 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 Co^nprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a deck which will increase hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone from 6,898 square feet (or 24%) to 8,044 square feet or (29%) where only 7,018 square feet (25%) is allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. The hardcover allowed by this variance is in excess of the 25 percent allowed in thi>^ 75-250’ foot setback zone. The applicant is hereby advised that the City will not approve any future improvements that result in additional hardcover, and that if such improvements are proposed, that they be counterbalanced with the removal of existing hardcover. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 15, 1985). page 2 of 4 Department Approval: ^ Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator COUNCLMEETINQJUL 14 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOPOnONO DATE: July 10, 1997 ITEM NO.: Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: 1997 Marina Licenses: Windward Marina Genmar Sailor’s World North Shore Marina Lakeside Marina Agenda Section: Zoning 4 List of Exhibits (For each Application) A - Application B - Site Plan Summary Complete 1997 Hcense applications have been received from all five Orono marinas. Staff has recen ly inspected each site and discussed ongoing concerns with each owner. A brief description ot each manna s current operation is included for Council review. Conditions of License Approval Section 5.43, Subd. 5(C), requires that each business licensee shall adhere to the following operation standards:mimmum 1.Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. On-land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions . • f1997 Marina Licenses July 10,1997 Page 2 for traffic entering and leaving the site. 6. Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. 7. Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. A. Windward Marina Windward M^na has 40 rental slips on Tanager Lake and 78 on Browns Bay for a total of 118. The manna sells and services boats and equipment in the facility on the Tanager Lake side of Shoreline Drive. A gazebo/toilet building is provided on the Browns Bay side. T^e site includes 26 parking stalls on the Browns Bay side, and 47 stalls on the Tanager Lake side, a portion of which are located on the adjacent residential property in which Mr. and Mrs. Rivers reside. The attached site plan was approved by the City via Resolution #2674 on August 14,1989. All aspects of the site plan as approved have been completed. The applicant has generally adhered to the seven minimum operation standards. Aspects of the operation which require ongoing attention in order to remain in compliance with the operation standards, include storage of marina equipment on the residential overflow parking area, maintaining parking spaces within the paved lot next to the building as opposed to filling it with boats for sale, and managing parking to minimize customer necessity of crossing County Road 15. we have requested and the owner has agreed to replace the rock in the parking lot stormwater baffle systems to ensure their continued functioning to remove debris and sediment from the parking lot runoff before it reaches the lake. Staff recommends approval of 1997 license for Windward Marina. B. Genmar Industries/King's Cove - Orono Site Genmar provides 66 rental slips on Tanager Lake and 48 slips on Browns Bay of which 36 are rental and 12 are used for boats for sale. Facilities include 71 parking stalls on the Browns Bay side of County Road 15, up 3 from last year. This site underwent major renovation this spring, including replacement of the old storage building with a smaller office and restroom facility, upgrade of landscaping, a slight increase in parking and a major expansion of the stormwater pond. The renovation is essentially complete, and the King's MllItJIHI ^.lirtp.TrtWsTiTfl Mlli nno IKXO w* \ • J cti [tV/5lfTOi¥'.rtIOTi]tinura rodrtmi •I^ll •i^tni ♦t ^ • 1997 Marina Licenses July 10,1997 Page 4 The site provides ample parking for customers in the summer and a large capacity for storage in the winter. Two activities on the site require a conditional use permit application. These include the caretaker dwelling unit and on-demand public boat launching (dry stack operation). Staff has met with Mr. Anderson a number of times regarding the required CUP application . Applicant has acknowledged that these two activities occurred during 1995-96 absent the required conditional me permit, and has indicated his attorney has advised him to not apply. Both activities requiring a CUP have been ongoing for many years prior to the CUP requirement. Staff is currently reviewing this issue with the City Attorney. Activities occurring on the site which require the property owner's ongoing attention in order to remain in compliance with the seven operation standards include limiting storage of boat trailers and other equipment to those areas noted on the approved site plan (specifically keeping the area between the road and the dry stack units free of storage), and keeping the site neat and orderly. As part of the 1984 variance approval for the service building, the prior owner was required to establish certmn landscaping items, which is also an ongoing concern of the City, especially in relation to screening along property boundaries. Applicant has been upgrading his landscaping over the last few years. Staff recommends approval of a 1997 license for North Shore Marina. E. Lakeside Marina Lakeside Marina has 77 rental slips on Maxwell Bay. This is a full-service operation that includes a ^at club, repair shop, ship's store, boat brokerage, charter boats berthed at the site and sometimes using it as a port of call, and to a limited extent on-demand launching of customer boats stored on site, as well as transient launching when space is available. Lakeside's 1995, 1996 and 1997 license applications each indicate that all of the five activities requiring a CUP under the 1995 B-2 Code revisions, are or will be occurring on the site. An incomplete CUP application with $300 fee was submitted by Mr. Dunn on May 31, 1996.^ Staff has had numerous contacts with Dunn since then detailing the necessary submittals to make the application complete. He has indicated his attorney has advised him to not make the CUP application. Staff is reviewing this with the City Attorney. Regarding compliance with the seven operation standards. Lakeside generally has remained V 1997 Marina Licenses July 10,1997 Page 5 in compliance. Those items which require ongoing attention by the manna operator in order to remain in compliance include managing parking in order to avoid congestion on the site, management of boat storage to avoid causing view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site, and limiting storage to those locations shown on the site operation plan. I have kept in touch with Greg Nybeck of the LMCD regarding Lakeside Marina on a regular basis during 1996 and 199/. We are attempting to coordinate our efforts where appropriate in order to maintain a higher regulatory profile with Lakeside. Staff recommends approval of a 1997 license for Lakeside Marina. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of 1997 commercial marina licenses for Windward Marina, Genmar/King s Cove, Sailor s World, North Shore Manna and Lakeside Marina. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Proposed Motion: Moved by______seconded by _, to direct staff to issue 1997 commercial marina licenses to Windward Marina, Genmar/King's Cove, Sailor's World, North Shore Marina and Lakeside Marina subject to continued compliance with the minimum operation standards. Vote: _______ayes,_____nays. received JAN 3 0 W97 CITY OF ORONO CITY OF OROt^?0. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 License Year 1997 Date application sent to Marina ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION - Date application returned to City • f T . • f f • I f ' "llMl mUHtI Rfraiti WlilijinUfl MWtJffIt] MlVi \N._ .. •lore WTOiTsI •ItlsTFfW^ MlCtl itiMtjirifltit] •JtJOl MtMiVtl •U9W%w[mm rtrtT<4»i ifiHrirtTti •»riTiimi [irtIH»sTiTil tJtJKtfsUTtl rtr«t riTiWiHIlTil [| W W« •iOl &llu^ rtHiltl aaa im^T9%T9] pawosoiTt] Fs Vi:) I fsiij [4 tl^ *nifH«f iw I DOCK CONSTRurj^niv f 14. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: - y Permanent ____ Seasonal ___ Wood ____ Concrete ____ Wood ____ Metal Flotation Method (if used): y' Foam ■> LICENSE STANDARDS ADVTSORV Pilings: Decking: __ .De-icing normally used Metal ____ Other____ Other_________________ Barrels Other B. Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following business use license standards: Ingurfflpe Required, Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. Ll<?gns?hc>ldgrt The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards. ■Op^ratipn Standards, Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. 2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. 5) On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. 6) Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2, except that when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another roning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. License Revocation. Failure to adhere to the above business use license standards shall be cause for license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY/SITE PLAN/PARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. 2.CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of the license period. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 $_________ Renewal Application @ $200.00 $ ^^or> Late Fee (if not postmarked by February 1) $100.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ RF.VTF.W PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. THF MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THF CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.43 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable time to perform safety^d code compliance inspections. Authorized Signature j; Title ____ OUltA-------' / //i - - ^Date Relationship to Owner Page 5 of 5 \ .• •> \‘ - ^liiT2 »5 ! •& C r S V .• iiiWin [•nwii ITtMwmCimi •islWtl •rctTti rami]nciiiiiiHi •iiisiac^ihi miiii raiDRTiIiHiK FniwnfliKTIVcTiTi I •Wsllil McW^i] rantm«iii riiuiJiMHiisj •HTslfliriliCi ririrctri] nriMiVii raivi lilMiIiVl^iBiri]•Idlt nr^Tiaii ij^ssnsioi raHfii ra«i [I ■ ti>m ciit^w]ram^MO aiiiTsi wi]raitfsir^iVsriTii rafsIBili^ 8. 9. 10. BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR LAKE USEa. Inside Buildings b. Outside on Racks ~ c. Outside - other means ^ Total Boats Stored on Land for I , Use ____ TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE l^SE (Add 7 and 8) OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) a. Transient boats (repair^service) b. New boats for sale (inventory) c. Used boats for sale (inventory) d. Other (list:______ Total 111 Ipgjde Btiilding Outside Rn.’Mmo ) II.OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) a. Ti^^'isient boats (repair/service) b. Contract storage (customer's boa'-) c. Inventory (new & used boats) d. Other (list: Total QEF-STREET PARKING RFQUIRF.M^jVTg Inside BuilHip^Total Outside R^ijldipg ) 6-12 50-57 Total 12. /ver 1,000 s.f.) = 8 13. SUMMER PARKING Retail sales/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 80i b. Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x HI (line 9)1 = c. Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = d. Charter boat port-of-call 1 space per each 3 seats of gross charter boat capacity [gross chaner caoacity x 0.33] = e. Total spaces required (add a, b, c, & d) 1 otal spaces available per attached parking plan WINTER PARKING REQUIRED a. 0.20 X (line 12e) spaces _ spaces _ spaces 71 spaces spaces Page 3 of 5 DOCK CONSTRUCTION 14. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: Permanent Seasonal Flotation Method (if used): LICENSE STANDARDS ADVISORY ^ .De-icing normally used Metal Other Barrels OtherPlastic Enddsed Foam Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following business use license standards: A. Insurance Required. Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. B. C. LigdPSeholder, The primary b iness operator on the property shall be the licenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zon'-.^ ■’•strict standards. Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standaras: 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. 2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. 5) On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. 6) Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. 7)Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 oam BjisingSS Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2, except that when a business use is allovved by ordinance in another zoning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. License Revocation. Failure to adhere to the above business use license standards sh?’’ be cause for license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY/SITE PLAN/PARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing fichi^ies, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storngc and required winter parking spaces. 2.CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of the license period. .ini 3. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. 4.COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 $_________ Renewal Application @ $200.00 $ 2,00.00 Late Fee (if not pr<-t»''arked by February 1) $K j.OO TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION %ZOO. oo REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.43 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable ‘ime to perform safety and code coinpliance inspections. Authorized Signature Title Date / -?/ Relationship to Owner Page 5 of 5 .«.ii N V. . V m M r* :5o RlH.’fT jijRTnr Ullf^fra r*i Q LfmsCtliTO ^iissitrti BJiMTslira noted above: List every short or long term business occupant of the property other than the Busisiness 4. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (Check all services offered): Principal Uses in-water slip rental sales of boats/motors/trailers/ / marine accessories ____ boat repair and servicing on-land boat storage winter __summer ^ marine fuel sales ____ sale of bait and fishing tackle Accessory Uses head pumpout fishing tournament site sale of pre-packaged food dive shop yf cluohc ’ise (for slip or boat club customers) X7 Conditional Uses fConditinnal IU p Pernut Js Reguirerf'i J^^djpat club ____public boat launching, on-demand ____public boat launching, transient ____charter boat port-of-call ____caretaker dwelling unit BUSINESS SCHEDULE (Check appropriate items): boat rental^ ___ sailboard sales/rental ____iceboat sales/remal ___ ice fishing tackle sales ___ cross-country ski sale/rental open all year 9 6. List proposed hours of operation: dock access retail sales & service marina security is provided by: __ CARETAKER living on site? open during boating season only AM to 2 am to 5 PM yjMo PM SLIPS AND BOAT UMTS List the maximum number of boats in each categoiy. Each slip, mooring or other space actudly used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock and site plan submitted with this application. Company Rental Rental Slips/ Other Total 7.BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) a. At dock slips Total Boats in Water Owned Boats Spaces /<? Boats P- Page 2 of 5 miliTsl lkit LtMCIt toil C*H1 DOCK CONSTRUrTfON 14. CHEQK ALL THAT APPLY: Permanent ------- Seasonal _^<be-icing normally used ^ ,. , ___^ Concrete ____ Metal Other Decking: _^\Vood ^ Metal Other ------- ~ Flotation Method (if used): ____ Foam Pilings: Barrels Other LICENSE STANDARDS ADVTSppy Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and s^Zds: “ Insurance Reqmr^d- Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage lor the duration of the license period. B. I^epgeholdgr. The primary business operator on the property shall be the hcenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards. c. .Opgratign Standard,’) Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian trariic through neighboring property. 2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. 3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10-00 pm except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4) TTie site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. 5) On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. 6) Parldng and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such sitn operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. 7) Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 ice im Business ^J§g Licen?>e.s Limited to B-2 Zone No business use shnil i.Vo ^ • License Rgvggattpn. Failure to adiiere to the above business use license standards shall he eai or license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATTACHMF.NT.<! The following must accompany this application: 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY/SITE PLAHTARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries of the manna property ^d the authorized dock use area, the location of all stmctures stoLe areas, docks, slips buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas accel areas, fencmg and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show faciliti^es, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the ^locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. liability INSURANCE COVER.AGE for the duration of the license Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. fee Khedui?'^^ marina LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City Initial Application @ $300.00 $ / Renewal Application @ $200.00 % /» Late Fee (if not postmarked by "T? February 1) $100.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION % AOP REVIEW PROCRDTIRF. y ^en a complete application is received, the City Council will review Wjjcense aDDlicariofT^d will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures ofCh^piFT^^'’^^^ BY THE CITY COTJNrn ^OF THE Authorized^ ignature Title Date /2 — J/- Relationsliip to Owner Page 5 of 5 d>A t*z> V I > t t « •• : t • \ • 5? I r-5* *i{i I ■f- • ^ 1* •.V‘. i § 4a:' n .. r*ui ’ =>••. 1 ni. S» .*i J . ‘ !• rV il«i rtBCt iroiMi hvnuhmum 'll niviii RliiltRnira I* •IiiVt] h I V II ^WM»3llWIW 7 List every short or long term business occupant of the propert>' other than the Business noted above: ^ \ 4. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (Check all services offered): TirIPrincipal Uses in-water slip rental sales of boats/motors/trailers/ marine accessories X boat repair and servicing X on-land boat storage X winter summer inarine fuel sales sale of bait and fishing tackle Conditional Uses (Conditional Use Permit is Required'i be**. Vi; b y pu{?:s .'at launching, on-demand ____put K boat launching, transient charter boat port-of-call caretaker dwellirg unit A^essory Uses X head pumpout X fishing tournament site sale of pre-packaged food ____ dive shop X clubhouse (for slip or boat club customers) lessons/teaching boat rental sailboard sales/rental ____iceboat sales/rental ice fishing tackle sales cross-country ski sale/rentalV 5. BUSINESS SCHEDULE (Check appropriate items): 6. open all year open during boating season only List proposed hours of operation: dock access^ retail sales & set vice AM to AM to MARINA SECURITY is provided by: CARETAKER living on site? ^4-11 > SLIPS AND BOAT UNITS List the maximum number of boat*, in each category. Each slip, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock and site plan submitted with this application. Company Rental Rental Slips/ Other Total Owned Boats ces Boats 7. BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) . a. At dock slips | ____ ____ Total Boats in Water \ ____ Page 2 of 5 r 8.BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR LAKE USE a. Inside Buildings b. Outside on Racks c. Outside - other means ___ Total Boats Stored on Land for Lake Use s r A TyTi-* TTOI-* 02^ 9.TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE USE (Add 7 and 8)60 10.OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) a. Transient boats (repair/service) b. New boats for sale (inventory) c. Used boats foi^ale (inventory) d. Other (list: Total Inside Building Outside Building ----- 4^ )t 11.OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) a. Transient bcx^i (repair/service) Contract storage (customer ’s boats) Inventory (new & used boats) Other (list:__________________) Total Inside Building b. c. d. Total Outside Building Ilia Total OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 12. b. SUMMER PARKING a. Retail sales/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1,000 s.f.) Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x__(line 9)] = Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = Charter boat port-of-call -spaces 95 C. spaces spaces d. e. 1 space per each 3 seats of gross charter boat capacity [gross charter capacity x 0.33] = Total spaces required (add a, b, c, & d) Total spaces available per attached parking plan spaces spaces spaces 13.WINTER PARKING REQUIRED 0.20 X (line 12e)a.a spaces Page 3 of 5 j DOCK CONSTRUCTION 14. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: ^ Pemianent Seasonal Pilings: /\ Decking: ^ Wood Wood Concrete ^ ,De-icing normally used Metal ____ Other ___ Other_________________ Barrels Other Metal ___ Flotation Method (if used): ____ Foam ____ ____ _________ LICENSE STANDARDS ADVISORY Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following business use license standards: A. Insurance Required. Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. B. Licenseholder. The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards. C. Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. 2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4) 5) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 B.y?m?SS U§g Licgnsgs Limitg<j tg B-2 Zgiie, No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2, except that when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another zoning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. Ll<??n?g Failure to adhere to the above business use license standards shall be cause for license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: F ^ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY/SITE PLAN/PARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries of >the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, ( ocks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. 2.CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of the license period. 3. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. 4.COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 Renewal Application @ $200.00 Late Fee (if not postmarked by February 1) $100.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ $ 2co- ^ % -200^ REVIEW PROCEDURE V^en a complete application is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COlPVlCir. Pursuant to Section 5.4j of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable time to perfojm safet>-^nd^.««ide compliance inspections. Authorized Signature Title Date / Page 5 of 5 w ?» \; •r •- >• !^K .. i ■ %.vwWNNvv w *.w*w> •\: ■* T'! " ' • ISl# ft* \ 5 V ^ *9 i (hV. J ? I I ? ^^ §■ «) (/\ S>^ I it ? *p •• I I I iir« Hisis wcwnuuffl t \ i i ^ \ , : t.IrttvO \•&f j. - ^ r ■cl--’]i1'%«'.' ! r I i-a; •ft •• I 4- « i C/ <.♦•• »••* \ :'®‘ •• I • • •.ft • wrv •• *j 4 • !r •’ \ : » i V Ac —-------------- perm •s. J. I •I— - - - — — , • . ! * 4 I • - •• N XI » Is ^••i •• .r •K., : >?X *• •,• fi -•• -(' ••: ' V ni •S< i.|. • • I N :••■! • 1^' I • ' • * •• t» • >••• • • • a* * *.#••• ^ f • • J • I t ro ■L. 'T ■5: c . ft f 3o isl^rj, St s ii S v\ N !iC\ 0 lu i t| N fIM T §1 i|S )!) I I I a \ 3 -3 Wn r r; 1 In Sn £ Sf ^ r•S' (A '' rp I t > Mi r:: I. ■ ? j? I ■ I 5 U 0 •’•I:--V:....;':.••••• • I • I iA c iii' ■a y\ . I I • X i* i, ir ;i^ •I I :!l. •i! I*.. !• I I .!• ft ft••< . \ I 'ni: W*r>i‘ !f !t ! I V m m- r:' • «c^’l ..^r • — •• 4.r — ! -------------------------- - f •r - '...# .#) 10; ■ f I C€>' • - • • •> $» • 0 • • \ } / •.*» li% f . .V.• •i:* 2,^/ * >\IU; •; ; 1 «V****^ \ lictZijU^ \ \ 1 I - I - t— — • / >—•*^0. • V..y----^ 7T - —------------------ I /4fi.2 - ~•• ••• «4 -- /J*.ar ------- / J 1 .1 1u 1 <(1 f T !•If /;•1 if 0 ir —————— •• >»A /i fi /t ii ;f /*/•If If 11 /t / / / X /./r- X X X / • / / / 'tr~\ * ,«✓• •• #• ■1 *•«. ;/: **.■ rr* •#If it ^.\ V I •• ?:' V ' •:. 'i'-a •jcl/ti *•> /( •• • • a. Jf ri 1 i!f« f‘ • • /* -(1 If vt */• • . —• • — ■ *s» I I i*J •' • • 'n >• I I ,... % I • • 4 •• • //-'•••^* ••••••••« ^ p —. » UCI^VlCo / * / 2 '•'•• I / / •'.; / ' ■ < ' / . / i6 ^ ^ • •• IJ! * I' .* ( J ir l{ (i ifeif h*-*■LKi I 1< I •• t • • • ••• • •«. i,0»J rr-op trtO. ilDA’^^cM ____ Co____ I \. 'W^ I; - 2 *• •.. 0. iJ )!- 9<; X X JHr 7rr-i • . '• • • # lJ:^il,V J *** IimX)yi h I Mii'i i ■ /< /< f ”f l| ^1 a 1 , a , ,, ^ • * \ /K» .1W0 I:, • «>••. % • t.’ ' •'• «•• •• « % - ^/iL.: ^ #;4**V*-f* • • • • I • • • .• *»f •*, •«, • t • L/^ sca P''^- r _ CO'-* •o .*• *' < I 11 -I ■fi _*75'^sc77M c;<j UAi6 •7^ I\ I •I •'i\ l! "I- ------g s-------' f,gn • • 0 •W,-* V- ’>i h\U'A . I'lAfiDCoVtA, fcA: f }tl5 ^ o-'fs' : vr-zso'; 2SD‘-f'0* ; ... •<^V^'A’/lt.t- > M r--50 pfioi^ mitp-trs t__<k I I « •I l! 4f.) I tt I/ =50 TD: /V/C A /»e / -^/eo/v>= 7SS~7 ^FROM : DATE: 3 l^Ol 7?^^ ■'■ *• yi PAQPQ iMm I iniKio ^ ®"T: iNauDiNG §-OTHIS PAGE: ^License Year 1997 P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 Date application sent to Marina Date application returned to City ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION - Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.43, Subdivision 2 - Licensed Reqnir<»fl it is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in business use without first haying obtainpH a license therefor from the City.CITY OF ORONO PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLE^ BY FEBRUARY 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. WAR 3 1 1S97BUSINESS INFORMATION BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME Lfirkp^rJf /Y)A^r^^ T 3. a TC • StreetAddress___b U") . /T9a/. Mailing Address C^/v> ^ a tire 4> i__________________ Marina Phone (a(X-Cf'?f^ 9c,0C, Office Phone OWNERSHIP/OPERATION Fee Owner (if different than above) Address Phone BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) ____ individual ownership ____ partnership corporation List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: ------------A04 _____________________________ Name of the marina manager responsible for daily operation: _____J^/ii u ^ 7/?-^ r______________________ List the minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating season: ____ dock attendants ____ repair or service personnel others available for sales/public information, etc. Page 1 of 5 •i! 7D in-water slip rental . head pumpout /^ sales of boats/motors/trailers/^ fishine tournament site f marine accessories [ sale of pre-packaged food \BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR LAKE USEa. Inside Buildings b. Outside on Racks c. Outside - other means ____ Total Boats Stored on Land for Lake Use 9. TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE USE (Add 7 and 8) 10. OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) a. Transient boats (repair/service) b. New boats for sale (inventory) c. Used boats for sale (inventory) d. Other (list:__________ ) Total 11. OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) a. Transient boats (repair/service) b. Contract storage (customer's boats) c. Inventory (new & used boats) d. Other (list:__________ ) Total OFF-STREET PARKING REOTIIRFlVfFt>rrQ /V Inside Building Outside RnilHing A _________ __________ Total . * / Inside Building Outside Building ______ ______ v'C Total 12. SUMMER PARKING 7.^ . v ‘ ‘ ' a. Retail sales/service customers ' 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1,000 s.f) b. Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x__(line 9)] = c. Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = d. Charter boat port-of-call 1 space per each 3 seats of gross charter boat capacity [gross charter capacity x 0.33] = e. Total spaces required (add a, b, c, & d) Total spaces available per attached parking plan 13. WINTER PARKING REQUIRED spaces y 4/ spaces C spaces yy. / spaces a. 0.20 X (line 12e)spaces Page 3 of 5 -vO f7t<JAr<. 0^? DOCK CONSTRUCTION14. CH^ ALL THAT APPLY: Permanent ____ Seasonal Pilings: Wood Concrete Decking; Wood ___ Metal Flotation Method (if used): Foam LICENSE STANDARDS ADVISORY __ .De-icing normally used Metal Other___ Other Barrels Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following business use license standards: A. Insurance Required. Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. B. Licenseholder. The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards. C.Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. 2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. 5) On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. 6) Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the aimual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoningdistrict other than B-2, except that when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another zoningdistrict, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. License Revocation. Failure to adhere to the above business use license standards shall be cause for license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY/SITE PLAN/PARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changc.s proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. (3^ / 2. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of the license F/9X oc( A/r /A, 2:.v ,.cj 3. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. 4. COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 $_________ Renewal Application @ $200.00 $ t0.oO Late Fee (if not postmarked by February 1) $100.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ o REVIEW PROCEDURE V^en a complete application is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONT.Y UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.43 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's designated employees or agents to enter upon the marina property at any e compliance inspections. 1 -------Date //^y/97 ____________________ reasonable time to perform^afety an Authorized Signature_____ Title Paju, V j 03/31/97 Pay 300.00 Relationship to Owner \ Page 5 of 5 -"S- ' •'=<Vs-:V. - . • .. ^ ?..:• -v-. V= SiA*-^:*- rvj ; o \ :/i ••^ '/i oo ; -N yy,.- N>>- tu ;rc:: ^v Vh;^::.-. oM-. ;:--v ••••0 ...... ,1.. • . -^, •., : .. .; :r», .• . y • ••• •. -. : • -A * A; • *y^• • •. . •. .• • .*M 'A. Jr. •. -.•• • *.V ** • . ’ ' •*. *\ *-. • • / • •• • . • . •• X •• • : •. #.*... . >• •: y < • *...............• . . i • • • •.• • V* • K\ . *• N*-. jt- ® ^ - c ••;.• *•-#5 ■ ■■•• ■ ■' ■;, •/ >1 r i. 70.00 '*•••. S87'52’00**E U J: n V. / / ■v^ / • ••.*».* » T-V.:-./.- / / / / /..* / / / / / / 0 / 0 // / • -r- .•■• • .•■•■ ■■•. ^‘nN; *•• •*'•■" • ->.K' ■• ’• -I •••’ <• ;• IN-.' • .; •:••=: •••• • • *. • . :\h'y :’ % i'.;: v». . .-.^V'.'••• I / i / // *••*. • > *•*!•♦ V(fX- •:-••••: X rv* ‘ A.|> :n|.. fj- f? — t 9 ■ 70.00 S87*5^'00”E - 1(1 •. • • ^ • • ^ • O •• • m I • • “S • t • •..* • u / ti ij • • / /■ V / ./ .••' / ;X.-.••••••>. •.?... r.: ’ • ‘•‘ ■••. • *. V -v.’. / ■ *.. •.••.:=:K V-:- . -iA" • • t h>i^ r. ,S' *. .<1 • w - »\ i,«\l jr j:-c Uj Q // :n i.- S ^ -V «^ o ^ • •• • A * • # •• N ■f / 3* ' • •• • I COUNCIL MEETING JUL 14 1997 request for council action CnVOFORONO DATE: July 14, 1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment #2, Old Costal Bay Road Trail Project COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ^ 1; c' "'r-j i 1/J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik end Associetes. Inc Is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik. RE. • Marvin L. Sorvala. PE • Richard E. Turner. PE. • Glenn R. Cook. PE. • Robert G. Schunicht. RE. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • Robert W. Rosene. PE. and Susan M Eberlin. C.PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Uov^ard A. Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. RE. • Robert R. Pfefferie. PE. • Richard W. Foster. RE. • David O. Loskota. PE. • Robert C. Russek. A.I.A, • Mark A. Hanson. P.E. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P. Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P. Williamson. P£.. R.S. • Robert F Kotsmlth Offices: St Paul. Rochester. Wllimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl July 8,1997 City of Orono P.O. Box 337 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Gregg Gappa Re: 1996 Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Improvements Our File No. 13985 Dear Gregg: Enclosed please find three (3) copies of request for payment 2 for the above referenced project. This portion of the work has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend payment. If you have any questions, please contact me. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC Harlan M. Olson HMO:gs Bonestroo Rosene Anderfikfi Associates Shglnctrs&ArEMlects iLfaui* IffllwaukM Owner: EISfGifvlEER'S COPY City of Orono. P.Q. Box 66, Crystal Bay. MN 55323 For Penod: June 5.1997 to July 8.1997 Date: July 8. 1997 Request No:_______2 __Buffalo Bituminous. P.Q. Box 337.2852 Co. Rd. 12 N.. Buffalo. MN 55313 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT 1996 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS FUe No. 13985 i\ SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 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 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 164,136.00 164,136.00 110,359.21 0.00 110,359.21 5,517.96 104,841.25 40,764.50 64,076.75 Reconunended for Approval by: BONESTRpO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor: Buffalo Bituniinotis Approved by Owner: City of Orono Rinriii lOl Mll-lf* ror«iri«ct»ii Simii] I :<5T^ Rft flilM ilililii ^faSTiTi RTiliXm •»:»TTOxnrr. I iTM 11 riTiTiii •Tilili SWXiTi ^•Ii ^•Ti [iliiriTi •Till#! 39 4" PE corr. perf. pipe drain LF 1,000 4.50 40 Modular block retaining wall SF 500 13.00 560.5 7,286.50 41 Install wood board fence - 6' high LF 300 15.00 120 1,800.00 42 36 ” wide solid white line • ptdnt LF 32 5.00 43 Class 3 rip rap CY 4 80.00 Total Part 1 - Old Crystal Bay Road - Trail 54,241.71 Part 2 • Old Crystal Bay Road - Trail 44 Clear and grub trees LS 1 1.00 45 Remove CMP or RCP culvert LF 100 10.00 67 670.00 46 Remove bituminous pavement SY 275 2.50 235 587JO 47 Saw concrete curb LF 3 10.00 48 Saw bituminous pavement LF 950 2.00 889 1,778.00 49 Relocate mailboxes, sign. etc.LS 1 100.00 1 100.00 50 Relocate guard post EA 10 25.00 51 Common excavation CY 400 5.00 362 1,810.00 52 Common borrow (CV)CY 1,500 10.00 1,167 11,670.00 53 Topsoil borrow (CV)CY 400 15.00 54 Subgrade preparation SY 850 1.50 813 1,219.50 55 Aggregate base, Cl. 5,100% crushed TN 40 12.00 56 Agg.base, Cl. 5,100% crushed (walk)TN 375 12.00 250 3,000.00 57 Agg.base, Cl. 5,100% crushed(dwy)TN 135 12.00 58 Type 41 wearing course mixture TN 60 45.00 60 2,700.00 59 Type 31 base course mixture TN 120 45.00 148.5 6,682.50 60 Type 41 bit mixture for walk TN 170 45.00 61 Type 41 bit. material for driveway TN 20 45.00 12 540.00 62 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 50 2.00 63 15" CM pipe culvert LF 90 30.00 90 2,700.00 64 15" CM pipe apron EA 4 125.00 4 500.00 65 22" span RC pipe arch culvert (Cl. 3)LF 16 60.00 16 960.00 66 Install 22" span RCP arch bend (Cl. 3)LF 8 100.00 8 800.00 67 Reinstall ex. 22" span RC pipe arch apron EA 2 300.00 2 600.00 68 18" RC pipe culvert LF 25 35.00 25 875.00 69 Reinstall ex. 18" RC pipe apron EA 1 250.00 1 250.00 70 12" PVC pipe culvert. SDR 26 LF 20 20.00 20 400.00 71 Adjust frame & ring casting EA 2 250.00 2 500.00 72 Adjust traffic control handhole EA 1 150.00 1 150.00 73 Concrete curb & gutter. Design B618 LF 900 10.00 800 8,000,00 Spruce Colorado Blue • 4’ Ht B & B Spruce Colorado Blue - 6' ht. B & B Maple Sugar • 3” CAL B & B Ash Sununit - 3' CAL B & B Silt fence, preassembled Roadside seeding Seed. Mixture SOO Sodding, type lawn Mulch material. Type 1 Disc anchoring Commercial fert. Analysis 20-10-10 4’ P£. corr. perf. pipe drain Total Part 2 - Old Crystal Bay Road • Trail Change Order No. 1 Subgtade preparation Type 41 wearing course mix Roadside seeding Seed, mixture 500 Mulch material, type 1 Disc anchoring Commercial test, analysis 20-1048 Total Change Order No. I Change Order No. 2 Part A Saw bituminous pavement Remove bituminous Remove curb Salvage existing Class 5 Class 5. aggregate base Type 41 bituminous for driveway Common excavation Bituminous material for tack B618 concrete curb and gutter Total Part A PartB B618 concrete curb and gutter Type 41 bituminous fordriveway Total Part B Total Part A Total Part B EA 2 160.00 EA 2 175.00 EA 2 250.00 EA 2 250.00 LF 200 3.50 AC 0.7 1,000.00 LB 70 10.00 SY 500 3.00 TN 1.4 500.00 AC 0.7 500.00 TN 0.14 1,000.00 LF 600 4.50 • 46,492.50 SY 1,350 2.00 1,100 2,200.00 TN 160 45.00 45 2,025.00 AC 0.75 1,000.00 LB 0.30 10.00 TN 0.60 1,000.00 AC 0.30 1,000.00 TN 0.06 1,000.00 LF 130 2.00 0 SY 275 2.50 0 LF 120 5.00 0 SY 275 2.00 0 TON 75 12.00 0 TON 50 45.00 0 CY 50 20.00 0 GAL 12 2.00 0 LF 120 12.00 0 LF 60 12.00 60 TON 8 45.00 8 4.225.00 0.00 720.00 360.00 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS E Owner Project No. FUe No. Contractor CityofOrono 13985 13985 Buffalo Bituminous CHANGE ORDERS PAYMENT SUMMARY No. Period 1 Stan 06/05/97 06/05/97 07/08/97 Payment 40.764.50 64.076.75 5,517.96 Material on Hand Total Payment to Date Retainage, Payment No. Total Amount Earned $104.841.25 5,517.96 $110,359.21 Original Contra ct Change Orders Revised Contract $164,136.00 COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY CF OBONO DATE; July 14, 1997 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment #1, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer 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 #1, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $195,908.86 ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik£i Associates Engineers & Architects Boncitroo. Rosene. Anderhk ?nd Assoc^^tes. Inc. ts en Afftrmauve Aevon/Bquat Opportunity Employer Principals: Otto G Bonestroo. RE • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE, • Marvin L. Sorvaia. PE. • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R. Cook. PE. • Robert G Schunicht. PE. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • Robert W. Rosene. Pc. and Susan M. Eberlln. C.PA.. Senior Consuitants Associate Principals Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. RE. • Robert R. Pfeffcrie. RE. • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O. Loskota. PE. • Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. RE. • Michael T. Rautmann. PE. • Ted K.FIcId. PE. • Kenneth R Anderson. PE. • Mark R. Rolfs. RE. • Sidney P. Williamson. PE . R S. • Robert F. Kotsmith Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl July 7.1997 Mr. Greg Gappa City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066 Re: Pay Request No. 1 North Long Lake & Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer Improvements File No. 13988 Dear Greg, Enclosed please find Request For Payment No. 1 for the North Long Lake / Long Lake Country Club Sanitary Sewer project. The work has been satisfactorily performed and we recommend payment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 604-4863. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. /OT)i Tom P. Kellogg Enc. M H 9 HK9 B H B 1 ffl B 1BB B H Ri^H H •iini raiiire riTiTiTi" •Ti^ •TiXiIi :fJKi 71 Improved pipe fhd. in 6" increment depth LF 595 0.01 72 Remove existing CMP culvert LF 450 2.00 73 Furnish and install 15" CMP culvert LF 450 12.00 74 15" CMP flared end EA 30 100.00 75 Riprap, Class m hand placed CY 12 30.00 76 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 28,000 2.25 77 Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer AC 2 1,550.00 78 Erosion control fence LF 1,000 2.50 79 Wood fiber blanket SY 750 1.50 80 Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high EA 6 225.00 81 Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4' diameter EA 6 500.00 82 Remove and replace wood or chain link fence LF 600 15.00 83 Remove and transplant bushes EA 12 75.00 84 Remove and transplant tree - Desiduous EA 12 150.00 85 Remove and transplant tree - Coniferous EA 15 150.00 86 Salvage and reinstall wood guard post EA 11 50.00 Total Part 3 - Restoration Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Duplex submersible grinder station 2- HDPE. SDR 11 Connect to existing manhole 2" HDPE 45 degree bends Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation Temporary controls, pumps and piping for interim conveyance Lift station demolition New pumps, piping, valves, top hatch and slab New control panel, base slab, dialer, and miscellaneous electrical Sod 8" Class 5 aggregate base LS 1 18,600.00 LF 1,160 6.00 EA 1 1,000.00 EA n 2 50.00 LS 1 2,000.00 LS 1 5,000.00 LS 1 35,000.00 LS 1 24,000.00 SY 50 2.25 TN 75 12.00 128.00 800 2,000.00 $41,649.05 $0.00 C0UNCLMEET1NQ JUL 14 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: July 14, 1997 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services ITEM NO.: /O Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Engineer's Report The Navarre Water Treatment Plant provides iron and manganese filtration, and softening for the Navarre water system. This plant was constructed in 1971 and is in need of rehabilitation. One of the three softening units has been shut down for several months because of corrosion problems causing loss of filter media into the water supply. In October 1995, a report was prepared by Bonestroo Engineers that described the rehabilitation work required for the plant. Data on water samples from the two wells was also included in this report. The samples from the main well number 1 showed an Iron concentration of 0.44 ppm (parts per million) and a Manganese concentration of 0.74 ppm. Recommended drinking water standards are for a maximum Iron concentration of 0.30 ppm and a Manganese concentration of 0.05 ppm. The main well has concentrations of both Iron and Manganese that exceed recommended drinking water standards. My understanding is that in the fall of 1995 this issue was discussed by the Council but no action was taken then. Since this time, staff has conducted a survey of the Navarre water system users to determine how many households have water softeners. Approximately 50% of the homes do not have water softeners. This means that if softening is discontinued these homeowners would have to pay for the installation of water softeners if they wanted to have softened water. Many homes in the Navarre area are older and smaller which can make softener installation more difficult. The 1995 report also included costs for either rehabilitation or replacement of the filter and softening units because there was some uncertainty about the internal condition of these items. We have recently conducted ultrasonic metal thickness testing and have determined that the condition of the units is conducive to rehabilitation and total replacement will not be necessary. We would like to present this issue to the Council for consideration again. Attached you will find an updated report on rehabilitation of the treatment plant prepared in the City's Capital Improvement Report format, with an additional explanation of issues outlined during our review of the initial CAP report. % •. I I: : 3.5% to 4.0% in water rates to fund this project over a 15 year period. The actual rate increase required is dependant on the schedule used for depreciation. The issue of depreciation for ihe water system needs to be discussed further with the Council. It would be desirable to make any changes in depreciation schedules with rate increases for the plant rehabilitation, so rates would only have to be changed once. State Statutes require a public hearing for any changes in utility rates. Our recommendation for a first step in this process is for the Council to tour the water treatment plant to gain a better understanding of the functions of the treatment plant, and the proposed project. This tour would provide an opportunity for the Council to inspect the present condition of the facilities, view a demonstration of the plant operation, and obtain more information on the proposed rehabilitation. To minimize the number of meetings, a suggested time is to meet at the water plant at 6:00 PM before the July 28th Council meeting. The next step would be a discussion with the Council on depreciation schedules and funding options. This could possibly be in conjunction with upcoming work sessions for the 1998 budget. The third step in the process would be to hold a public hearing to solicit public response for the proposed project and water rate increases. The ideal time for completion of the rehabilitation work is during the winter and spring months when water use is lower. An initial proposed schedule would be for project approvals in early fall, project engineering fall of 1997, with construction during the winter and spring of 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Review of the attached information and scheduling a tour of the Navarre water treatment plant ^ 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ^ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Andertik end Assoeistes. tnc. Hen Afflrmetive Actfcn/iQoel Opportunity Hrpfoytf Rnncipstv Olio C Sonesiroo. PC. • Joseph C Anderlik. Pt. • Mervtn U. Sorvaie. PS. • Richard C. Tbmer. PS. • Glenn R. Cook. PS. • Thomei S. Noyes. PX • Rodoft G. Schunkhc. PX • Jerry A. lourdoa PX • RoOerc W. Rosertc. PX and Susan M. Sdertin. CPA.. Senior Consultants Assoetete RnnetpeH: Howard K Sanford. PX • Keith A. Gordoa PX • Rodert R. Pfefferte. PX • Richard W. Poster. PS. • David O. Loskoia. PX • Rodert C Russek. A.I-A. • Mark A. Hansoa PX • Michael T. Rautmann. PX • Ted KPield. PE. • Xenrscth P Anderson. PX • Mark R. Rolfs. PX • Sidney P Williamson. PC.. LI • Rodert P. Kotsmith Offices: St Paul. Rochester. Wlllmar and St Cloud. MN • Mequors. W1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT Water Treatment Facilities Improvements Orono, MN City Project No. WTR97_ BRAFUeNo. 13975 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is the rehabilitation of Orono’s existing water treatment facility. Improvements will include: refurbishment of the existing filter unit and softening units, replacement of softening unit automatic controls, relocation of chlorine solution water line, cleaning of brine storage tanks, addition of flow meters on softening units electric system improvements, and replace SCADA system. REASON FOR PROJECT/BENEFTTS OF PROJECT Recent Federal and State regulations regarding concentrations of lead and copper in the distribution system and the age and condition of the existing water treatment facility had prompted the City of Orono to have a water treatment facility needs and improvements study done. This report identified several items where improvements to the system are needed. 1) The filter cells and media have received very little maintenance other than back washing since the original construction. Measurements of filler media proved that dynamic forces are at work during backwash cycles that allow the filter media to be moved around unevenly and lost over the wash trough, side-walls or down through the cell underdrains. To remedy this problem, the filter unit will be taken out of service and the condition of the cell underdrains and buried filter wall surfaces observed and repaired as necessary. The interior and exterior coatings will be removed (including the filter face piping), the wash troughs will be patched from the bottom or replaced entirely, and the entire unit will be recoated. The filter support gravel will be inspected, regraded and reinstalled or replaced if needed. • ^ • 2) The softening units have been providing widely varying effluent water qualities from very soft to very h^d. The automatic controls will be replaced with a proper functioning control system to eliminate the discharge of brine water into the distribution system. The regeneration cycle of the new system will be altered to regenerate one (1) unit per day on a continuously rotating basis and have a greater bypass flow rate to ensure that a more uniform quality of softened water is produced. 3) *^e chlorine solution water line will be relocated inside the filter room to avoid corrosion by the fluoride and freezing up from a loss of heat in the chlorine room. 4) The bottom of the brine tank contains a layer of mud from the years of salt deliveries. Brine storage tanks will be cleaned to remove the mud from the tanks. 5) The softening units have aged and are in need of renovation. a) The existing zeolite media will be replaced. b) The interior and exterior surfaces (including face piping) will be sandblasted and recoated. 6) Discharge from the softening units to the sanitary sewer cannot be measured. This means that operation of the process cannot be monitored and no accountability for the amount of water discharged exists. To remedy this problem, discharge flow meters on each softening unit will be installed. 7) The electrical system consists of nearly all original equipment. The original motor starters and incandescent lighting systems will be replaced for enhanced reliability. 8) The existing automatic control valves on the softening units are original equipment and no longer function reliably. These valves will be replaced. 9) The interior ferrous metals show signs of corrosion due to condensation. Increases in the amount of ventilation and dehumidification inside the facility to control the problems associated with condensation will be made. 10) The facility’s control systems are at the end of their useful life. This equipment will be replaced with a new supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. 11) The piping within the water treatment plant is all original. As renovations takes place all related piping will be inspected and replaced as necessary. PROJECT COSTS* L 2 a 4 5 6 Filter Refurbishment Softening Unit Control Replacement Chlorine Solution Water Line Relocation Brine Storage Cleaning Softening Unit Renovation Softening Unit Discharge Meters 7. Electrical Systems Replacement & Automatic Control Valve Replacement 9. Ventilation/Dehumidification Improvements IQ Controls Replacement (SCADA) IL Piping Replacement 12 Engineering and Contingency TOTAL Costs have been adjusted to reflect 1998 construction costs. $220,900 17.000 8,500 8,000 79,900 23,400 43.100 9,600 102,500 73.100 30.000 123.200 $739,200 SOURCES OF FUNDING The preferred financing would be to obtain a loan through the new state revolving loan program. The second option would be to obtain an internal loan from the sewer fund and pay this back with interest. LOCATION MAP City of Orono Water Treatment Facility. OTHER PROJECTS AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT None. OUTSIDE AGENCY CLEARANCE OR COORDINATION Plan and specifications approval will be required by the Minnesota Department of Health. No action has been taken at this time. PROJECT TRACKING/CERTIFICATION The City Engineer will oversee this project. The project requires coordination between the Public Services Director and the City Engineer. ^ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\j| Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. AnaerUk end Assooetes. Inc. Is »n Af/,rmetive Action/Equfi Opportuniy Employer Otto G. Boneitroo. P.E. • Joieph C. AnaerUk. P6 . Marvin L. Sorvaia. PE. • B 1 .f; "• G Schunicht. PE, . Jerry A. Bourdon PE • Robert W. Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberiin. C PA.. Senior Consultants ^ Sanford. PE • Keltn A. Cordon. PE. • Robert R Pfefferle. P.E. . Richard W. Foster. PE.. Oavid O. Loskota. PE . Robert C. Russek. A,l A.. Mark A Hanson. RE . Michael T. Raut inn. PE. • Ted KEield. RE. • Kenneth R Anderson. PE. . Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidney R Williamson. PE, R.S. • Robert F. Kotsmith Offices: it Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St. Cloud. MN . Milwaukee. Wl / Xo June 16,1997 Mr. Greg A. Gappa, P.E. Public Services Director City Hall F.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Navarre WTP Dear Greg: This letter is being written as a formal response to your April 25, 1997 comment memo. An item-by-item response to your comments will follow: Item 1. Based on the results of the ultrasonic thickness testing that was conducted by American Engineering Testing on May 29, 1997, the sidewalls and the aerator hood of the filter haven t lost metal section due to corrosion. When the filter is rehabilitated, a header- lateral underdrain system will be grouted in place. This measure will eliminate the false bottom underdrain plate. Because of the grout, the condition of the filter base plate is no longer a deciding factor on whether the filter can be rehabilitated. The ultrasonic thickness testing of the heads and shells of the three softeners did not detect any loss of metal section due to corrosion. In fact, the testing sho^ved the shells to be Vi inch thick and the heads to be 5/8 inch thick. Both the shells and heads are 1/8 inch thicker than new softeners would be. Because the shells and heads have not lost section, the softeners can be rehabilitated for less cost than replacing them. Based on the results of the ultrasonic thickness testing and the comments made above, both the filter and softeners can be rehabilitated. Therefore, there is no need to determine replacement costs. Item 2. aoThe Navarre water treatment plant (WTP) was constructed in 1971. Because the buildin^ is only 25 years old and in overall excellent condition, it should provide service for another 25 years. Therefore, the building should easily “outlast” the rehabilitated filter and softeners. ' h w Mr. Greg A. Gappa, P.E. Navarre WTP Page 2 June 16,1997 If &e City discontinues filtration and softening, there would be little use for the existing building. At some point in the future, the City would likely demolish the building and replace it with a wellhouse to minimize maintenance costs, particularly heating. It should be noted that the City should undertake the following improvements, even if filtration and softening were discontinued: Chlorine Solution Waterline Relocation: Electrical Systems Replacement: Controls Replacement (SCADA): $8,500 $43,100 $73.100 $124,700 In addition, the City would also incur the cost of a polyphosphate feed system that is the topic of Item 3., below. Eventually the City would be looking at demolition of the existing building, replacing it with a wellhouse. Demolition of the existing building and replacement with a wellhouse would cost approximately $250,000 over and above the approximate $125,000 outlined above. Therefore, even if filtration and softening were discontinued, the City would still be looking at an eventual expenditure of $375,000. Of course, a major portion ($250,000) of this expenditure could be delayed indefinitely. If filtration and softening is discontinued and polyphosphate feed is initiated, iron and manganese staining, and taste and odor complaints due to iron bacteria are anticipated. These likely problems will be discussed under Item 3., below. As noted in your memo of April 25*, 50% of the homes on the Navarre system do not have softeners. If softening is discontinued, most of these homeowners will eventually install their own softeners. Based on 350 homeowners in tl,ia situation and $850 for a no-frills Culligan water softener, your customers will be expending approximately $300,000 to install their own softeners. By way of comparison, the cost of rehabilitating all elements of the City’s softening system is estimated at just under $150,000. The City can buy salt :n bulk for 25% of what a homeowner can buy it for in bags at Cub Foods. Continuing to soften at the municipal level will save customers of the Navarre system over $10,0c 0 per year in salt costs alone. Item 3. Polyphosphates are utilized for controlling low levels of iron anH manganese and for Mr. Greg A. Gappa, P.E. Navarre WFP Page 3 June 16,1997 Although the use of polyphosphates can be beneficial for low concentrations of iron and manganese, their effectiveness diminishes with increasing concentrations. Polyphosphates do not remove iron and manganese. Rather polyphosphates sequester or “tie up ” iron and manganese, preventing then from oxidizing and precipitating. The ability of polyphosphates to sequester iron and manganese is a function of the type of polyphosphate, the concentrations of iron and manganese in the water supply and time. All polyphosphates lose their ability to sequester iron and manganese with time. The longer the time period between application and when the water is consumed, the less effective the polyphosphate will be. This is a particularly valid consideration for systems that are not looped because of the long residence time in dead-end watermains. Pol3^hosphates are not effective in sequestering high concentrations of iron and manganese. The City’s Well No. 1 contains 0.44 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of iron and 0.74 mg/L of manganese. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) does not recommend sequestering for the control of iron and manganese for waters with combined iron and manganese concentrations greater than 1 mg/L or for water wi*!' a man,c mese concentration greater than 0.1 mg/L. The water from Well No. 1 r ;nirr. iron and mangwese, in combination, greater than 1 mg/L. The manganese conccjUi aiion of 0.74 mg/L is several times greater than the recommended 0.1 mg/L upper limit. Feeding a heavy dose of polyphosphates could help reduce iron and manganese related problems and complaints. However, the effects of iron and manganese in the water supply would still be experienced, particularly, in long dead-end watermains. There is also a potential drawback to feeding polyphosphates. With time, polyphosphates will break down to an orthophosphate (fertilizer) form. The combination of iron, manganese, and orthophosphate, in absence of a chlorine residual can result in a “bloom” of iron bacteria out in the distribution system. The iron bacteria, in turn, create red and black water discoloration and taste and odor problems as they grow, die and decay in a distribution system. In recogmtion that polyphosphates can accelerate the growth of iron bacteria, the Minnesota Department of Health made chlorination mandatory when polyphosphates are being fed. Several years ago, I personally experienced what can happen if pol^hosphates are fed without chlorination in Eagle Lake, Minnesota. For a six-week period, their chlorination system was inoperable but they continued feeding polyphosphates. The resulting iron La''teria became so severe that I was called in to devise a *'super-chlorination ” and hydrant-flushing scheme to bring the iron bacteria under control. One of the town’s residents was standing nearby when a hydrant was Mr. Greg A. Gappa, P.E. Navarre WTP Page 4 June 16, 1997 After the resident observed the yellowish-green water with black clumps coming from the hydrant her comment was “Do we actually drink that water.” If the City of Orono were to discontinue water filtration and start feeding high doses of polyphosphates to control iron and manganese related complaints, a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L should be maintained out to the extremities of the distribution s} stem to cc .itrol iron bacteria. To accomplish this, a higher concentration of chlorine must be fed at the wellhead because iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide in the well water “consume ” chlorine over time. If Orono discontinues filtration, I suspect that the City will experience the same problem that I have seen several times before. Those customers near the wellhead will complain of excessive chlorine if sufficient chlorine is added to mtdntain a 0.5 mg/L chlorine residual in the far reaches of the distribution system. Therefore, a “balancing act” between minimizing chlorine complaints and taste and odor complaints results. In summary, the high combined iron and manganese concentration and, in particular, the high manganese concentration makes the water pumped from Well No. 1 a poor candidate for sequestering with polyphosphates. Also, considering the City’s investment in the water plant and the good serviceable condition of the building, it is prudent to continue filtering the water from Well No. 1. Item 4. In my May 23,1997,1 reported that Mr. Milan Thorson of tlie Public Facilities Authority feels that adequate loan ftinds will be available to satisfy all loan requests this year. Mr. Milan’s opinion is based on the higher level of loan funds available this year ($50 million). Next year and for subsequent years, only $12 million in loan funds will be available. As explained in my May 23"* letter, loan ^nds should be available on or about November 1,1997. Item 5. The rated capacity of Well No. 1 is 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). After filtration, all but 75 gpm is routed through the softeners. Immediately after recharge, the softeners are producing 925 gpm of water with virtually no remaining hardness (calcium and magnesium). Even after blending with the 75 gpm hard water sidestream, the water leaA'ing the Navarre WTP has virtually no hardness. A totally soft water tends to be an Mr. Greg A. Gappa, P.E. Navarre WTP Pages June 16,1997 t A better operating method would be to recharge one softener per day rather than recharge all of the softeners at one time. This measure would produce a more uniform softened water. An additional measure would be to increase the amount of hard water that is bypassed and blended with the softened water. The goal being to produce a finished water with approximately 80 ppm of hardness. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) categorize*! a water with 80 ppm of hardness to be soft water. However, the remaining residual hardness causes the water to be less corrosive which, in turn, will lower the copper and lead levels that are being leached from home plumbing systems. If you have any questions regarding my responses to your comments, please feel free to call me at 604-4897. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Thomas A. Roushar REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COI>NCILMEEnNQ JUL 14 1997 CITYOFORONO Date: April 7,1997 Item No: j / Department Approval: Name: Gary Cheswick Administrator Reviewed: Title:Chief of Police Agenda Section: Item Description: Resolution Proclaiming August 5,1997 as National Night Out Exhibits:See Attached DISCUSSION The North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition is coordinating a community "Night Out" event to be held on Tuesday, August 5,1997. The event will be an ice cream social in the parking lot of Ricks' Super Value in Navarre. In recognition of this event as part of the "National Night Out", the Crime Prevention Coalition has requested the City adopt the attached resolution proclaiming Tuesday, August 5, 1997 as "National Night Out" in Orono. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt a resolution proclaiming Tuesday, August 5, 1997 as "National Night Out" in the City Orono. V A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING NATIONAL NIGHT OUT 1997 WHEREAS, the National Association of Town Watch (NATW) is sponsoring a unique nationwide crime and drug prevention program on August 5, 1997, called "National Night Out"; and WHEREAS, the 14th Annual National Night Out" provides a unique opportunity for the City of Orono to join forces with thousands of other communities across the country in promoting cooperative, police/community crime prevention efforts; and WHEREAS, the North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition plays a vital role in assisting the Orono Police Department through Joint crime and drug prevention efforts in the City of Orono, and is supporting "National Night Out 1997" locally; and WHEREAS, it is essential that all citizens of Orono be aware of the importance of crime prevention programs and the impact their participation can have on reducing crime, drugs, and violence in Orono; and WHEREAS, police/community partnerships and neighborhood safety and awareness and cooperation are important themes of the "National Night Out" program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby call upon all citizens of Orono to join the North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition and the National Association of Town Watch in supporting the "14th Annual National Night Out" on August 5, 1997. FURTHER, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, the Orono City Council does hereby proclaim Tuesday, August 5,1997 as "NATIONAL NIGHT OUT" in the City of Orono, Minnesota Adopted at a regular Council meeting July 14,1997. When land is subdivided and platted, the City rei along existing roadways contiguous to the platted pi to serve the subdivided property aS well as to mei been to only require additional right-of-way to th Plan based on road classification. This is often 1( requests at the time land adjacent to a County road i policy was made a part of the Comprehensive Plai The standards for roadway design Municipal State Aid (MSA) and C more right-of-way width. The County's cost-sharing policy n roadways within a city requires tha of any required right-of-way acquisi costs can be substantial. The County has adopted a Bicycle 1 for cities to be responsible for 1009^ trails where right-of-way was initial plat review and was declined by th( Staff Recommendation All of these changes suggest a revision of the particularly a revision of the right-of-way widths in( roadway classifications. These need to be updated due to the existing roadway design standards. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize staff to draft a revised right-of- for additional right-of-way for both roadways and I i ^ it rtriwo&m ro^sTirgnirtTiT:! mm rtrnra JRANSPQRTATION JUNE, 1980 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL A Principal Arterial is a grade-separated, high capacity, controlled access highway designed to move vehicles through an area, not within a community. Principal arterials have no local land use access. The only principal arterial near Orono is that portion of State Highway 12 that becomes limited-access east of Orono's eastern boundary with Wayzata. INTERMEDIATE ARTERIAL An Intermediate Arterial is a controlled-access, moderately high capacity highway designed to move vehicles between cities and, in Orono's situation, between the free-standing growth centers and out-state cities west oi Orono into the metropolitan area. Intersections are limited and controlled. Land use access is intended to be limited to major traffic generators without direct access to residential properties. State Highway 12 is an Intermediate Arterial through Orono although many access and intersection characteristics are typical of a minor ».rterial or collector. JURISDICTION: STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 100 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY MINOR ARTERIAL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A Minor Arterial is a controlled access, moderate capacity street or highway designed to move vehicles within planning subregions and between adjacent subregions. The Lake Minnetonka Ring Route is a minor arterial functioning to move, principally commuters and truck traffic, from the western Lake Minnetonka communities into the urbanized areas of the Twin cities. The minor arterial route channels traffic away from Lake Minnetonka to State Highways 12 and 55, and in the near future, to a direct intersection with Interstate 494 in Plymouth. Land use access is intended to be limited to major traffic generators and local street Intersections without direct access to individual residences. JURISDICTION: HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 80 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY COLLECTOR A Collector street functions to collect traffic from local streets and move it to neighborhood activity centers or to intersections with minor or intermediate arterials. Local land use access is permitted but is regulated as to location and number with direct access to be avoided whenever alternative local street access is available. Intersections with other collectors are often controlled with signals or with four-way stop signs. Traffic usage is moderate. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY * RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 60-66 FEET TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 SCENIC PARKWAY Scenic parkway is a designation and classification used by the Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul and applied by Orono to those roads which traverse especially scenic and environmentally significant areas of the City. The scenic parkway is typically a narrow, curvy, slow speed road which provides access to recreational areas and special vistas of scenic attractions. High volume through traffic and commercial traffic is not appropriate on scenic parkways because these users do not benefit from the attraction and because the physical nature of the roadway is not conducive to efficient through traffic movement. Because of environmental sensitivity, scenic parkways cannot be rebuilt into higher capacity collectors or minor arterials without adversely affecting the natural setting, the scenic quality of the road and/or the property rights of abutting landowners. Because of the natural topography of the area, scenic parkways also provide some of the traffic and local access functions of both local and collector streets. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 50-66 FEET LOCAL STREETS Local streets are public streets that function to provide direct access to abutting properties. Local streets carry traffic within neighborhoods rather than through traffic between neighborhoods. Inter­ sections with collector streets are controlled by stopping the local street traffic. JURISDICTION: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 50-60 FEET DEAD-END: LENGTH WILL BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ROAD A private road is a privately owned and privately maintained road, located in the rural area or within a planned development, that functions as a local access street. The City will require that private roads be constructed and maintained to City standards. The Citj' will acqi'ire an easement for public ingress, egress and access to all properties, but the City will allow the property owners to limit normal use of the road to the benefitting landowners and their invitees. Private roads will be located on platted outlets intended for joint and several ownership Ly all the benefitted property owners. JURISDICTION: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH UNDERLYING EASEMENT TO CITY MAXIMUM SERVICE: APPROXIMATELY TEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 30-50 FEET DEPENDING UPON NUMBER OF USERS DEAD-END: LENGTH WILL BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS I- -J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETINGJUL 14 199^ CrTYOFORONO It'DATE: July 10,1997 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Scheduling of a Work Session to Review Rural Land Use and Sewer Issues Recently several issues have arisen which directly relate to the City's vision of protecting Lake Minnetonka through limiting housing development to rural densities. These issues are as follows: 1.Increasing interest by property owners in the rural residential areas regarding having sewer service extended to them. 2. Consideration of cluster-type housing developments in the rural areas to retain contiguous open space. 3. The need to meet with the Met Council staff to reinforce the City's vision of rural density and protection of Lake Minnetonka. These are key policy issues for the Council to address. The Council has discussed scheduling a work session to consider these issues. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select a date and time for a work session to discuss issues related to rural density, and to identify any information staff should provide to assist the Council in addressing these issues. RURAL WS ‘Y ^4X1 iilll iilllp HiTi [•ISSlii ^sA!fsURiqr^CT7i riMtTiTtVirtl MlVil r«Tira^»i WIWllW r«iMC«mvAi MiVATOil TjWT awjT m •nsm miMT wire REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEET int JUL 14 1997 DATE: July ITEM NO.: / Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Resolution Approvi^ Participation in Cooperative Minority Recruitment ________________Activities of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System_______ As part of the Judge's ruling in the Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS) discrimination law suit, he required the MPRS cities to develop and carry out a program of minority recruitment activities. This could be done either individually by each city or jointly. The majority of the MPRS cities have jointly developed a minority recruitment program. The City Council at a February 26, 1996 Executive Session -proved the City's participation in a joint minority recruitment program. In order to participate in the program, the City needs to adopt the attached resolution of participation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing participation in cooperative minority recruitment activities of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System. •Kurti r«BC«Ki nail] wiirp?a«tanainT5i [•IfVtlWifslIst] rtiiitnfri^ rtaiiTsi [tI«JiW¥^ riTor^MililllM t^urt] 2. The city is authorized and directed to take such actions as are necessary to participate in the MPRS program. 3. Data provided by the city to the MPRS are to be administered in accordance vith Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and 'Jie MPRS shall maintain data on individuals in accordance with statutory provisions applicable to that data. 4. The city clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the president of the MPRS. Adopted ‘his_____Jay of , 1997. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk STEM Draft of 1/30/97 TION ACTIVITIES iystern (MPRS) and thirty- civil actions in Hennepin s V. MPRS, et al.. District lectively referred to as the 995 in the Action, thirty- lirmative Action Program y the court with certain Jce certain other activities order of the Court dated Board of Directors has indertake certain of these dant cities who wish to le to time by the MPRS indertake to provide for is determined that it is •vide any one or more of •iting. ng Cities checklists and in the Program and the >dicals, publications and career opportunities ployment or participation is materials to specified iaison officers, etc. 1 Mira •ICtWifti rtT?«:l MlVOMtlTt]•it^ifra tiiBra rtst][•MCI Mull rtT«:1 rtvirifii [•inriVtra iii^icrtriicvsTirti l«?:Mra nvira ■•ra •iti^iura •HUMlVll •S«(t MfVt MiVil rtnriT^nti •Ktvirtnii^ •isura r«isi%vmRi \smi [•Hira MlWt •it»iirtriicstT«tT¥*^.i •7:ura Mira MlVtMira IMI KTiia nri [tJiVC riTivi •}sUliI»J rtiira rtWiTilViTinT^ rtvp.i Wtlilil WIftJHP.l l•J•JCtJtJ^Kl rtiiu] •llliMlVC Milt [•maoftoaiM [9mm [•■CC [•rivcm WsTOl LtliJlUFllM •isiiroivsiirtvspj [t» wo tftITtnTi niT^ •ioi«sr»rtroi 5. 6. 8. to the MPRS are unpaid and delinquent. Such termination shall not release the city from its obligation to meet its financial commitment to the MPRS. Allocation of Costs and Payment. All costs of providing services shall be shared by the Participating Cities on the following basis: twenty (20) percent of such costs shall be divided equally among the participating cities and eighty (80) percent of such costs shall be divided pro rata on the basis of the population served by the cities’ police departments as of April 1, 1993 (population to be determined on the basis of Metropolitan Council estimate for cities in the metropolitan area and on the basis of the State Demographer ’s estimate for cities outside the metropolitan area.) Costs include but are not limited to consultant fees, printing and publication costs, insurance premiums, accounting and audit fees, attorney’s fees, and administration costs incurred by the MPRS in connection with such activities and services. Invoices from the LMCD to Participating Cities shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of mailing of such invoices. Withdra wal from Participation . Any City may withdraw from participating at any time by filing with the President of the MPRS a resolution of its city council providing for such withdrawal, stating therein the effective date of withdrawal which may be any date on or after the date of adoption of the resolution. Such resolution shall be filed within ten (10) days of its adoption. The obligation of a withdrawing city to pay its share of costs incurred by the MPRS will cease beginning with costs incurred by the MPRS on or alter the next January 31st occurring sixty (60) days or more after the effective date of withdrawal; a withdrawn city will be obligated to pay its share of all costs incurred by the MPRS prior to said January 31st. Any city may elect to provide its own representation in court or to make substitute or supplementary reports to the Court either by withdrawing from participation or without withdrawing from participation. Compliance with Minnesota Data Practice Act. Data provided by Participating Cities or any of the defendant cities shall be administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and the MPRS shall maintain data on individuals in accordance with statutory guidelines. The MPRS will not undertake to represent cities which are defendants in the Action but which are not Participating Cities. 11 T ^ f rjJjjrnFT ::iT imi]i ^.ViTtI44iNiIi^ MQ (5®\mwr R;TiTi^^4t r%m\u ^TiTiffnro fn MiTt fTTK^Wj ItlOli] rtBCt riwii«j TO ran nVnVsTiliTTO r5Tfgil5Tgrtiv]»siti«J nraiBt] \ TOTiliraj •■tisi [•nm.'iWL wmtjMwi •MlTt liKUiTtl l>2sUH*m^l^lQC»gtRl rtiimii It^.Uii iiT^irfi •llftlUMWiKi Fsl»il iii^i •iirt(!4 ^4Tiri m^[inira \ •iir«r*^ •liTlTil 9lWU jsmi City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 Dollar 1997 YTD YTD Increase % Budget E^qpenditures (Decrease)Increase City Council fiudaet 06-30-97 06-30-97 From YTD Bucket (Decrease) Personal Services Other Eqjenses 19,670 32,300 10,819 22,610 11,170 22,144 351 (466) 3.25% -2.06% Total 51,970 33,429 33,314 014)_______-034% Administration Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Service Other Expenses 183,845 200 3,000 10,250 92,842 200 1,650 4,613 93,277 403 1,990 3,635 436 203 340 (977) 0.47% 101.46% 20.61% -21.19% Total 197,295 99,304 99306 1 0.00% Elections Personal Service 0 0 0 n 0.00% 0.00% -100.00% Supplies & Maintenance Other Expenses 0 20 0 10 \J 338 n u 338 OO) Total 20 10 ‘V*.328 3275.00% Assessing Professional Service 78,065 45.278 45,601 323 0.71% Total 78,065 45,278 45.601 323 0.71% City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 Dollar YID YTD Increase % 1997 Budget E?q)enditures (Decrease)Increase Budp.et 06-30-97 06-30-97 From YTD Budget (Decrease) Finance Personal Services 147,220 75,082 74,828 (255)-034% Supplies & Maintence 50 25 0 (25)-100.00% Professional Service 3,500 350 350 0 0.00% Other E:q)enses 2,170 1,085 851 (234)-21i)5% Total 152,940 76,542 76,029 (513) Leeal Professional Service 97,700 43,%5 41,870 (2,095)-4.76% Other Expenses 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total 97,700 43,965 41,870 (2.095)-A.167o Central Services Supplies & Maintenance 49,470 24,735 21,241 (3,494)-14.13% Professional Service 10,900 4,360 4,738 378 8.67% Insurance 43,600 2,180 1,650 (530)-2431% Capital Outlay 3,080 0 0 0 0.00% Other Erases 61380 39,283 39,702 419 1.07% Total 168,430 7C.558 67331 (3,227)-437% Human Services Other Expenses 16,155 6,947 7,010 63 0.91% Total 16,155 6,947 7,010 63 0.91% City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 Dollar YTD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget E:q)enditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 06-30-97 06-30-97 From YTD Budeet (Decrease) Police Personal Services 1,063,000 531300 527,781 (3.719)-0.70% Supplies & Maintenance (1)92,000 46,000 48,856 2,856 631% Professional Services 10,700 5350 5329 179 334% Insurances 23300 2,330 2,775 445 19.10% Other Dqpenses 52,8!. 0 29,068 28,898 (170)-05S% Capital Outlay 66,320 43,108 42,657 (451)-1.05% Total 1,308,170 657356 656,496 (860)-0.13% Fire Professional Service 218,600 142,090 144,085 1,995 1.40% Total 218,600 142,090 144,085 1,995 1.40% Plannine & 2^nine Petoonal Services (2)303,910 158,033 174,986 16,953 10.73% Supplies & Maintenance 1,810 905 375 (530)-58.61% Professional Services (,3)3,500 1,750 2,539 789 45.07% Other Expenses 5,650 3,955 4,344 389 9.84% Total 314,870 164,643 182,243 17,600 10.69% 1 City of Orono1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 Dollar YTD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 06-30-97 06-30-97 From YTD Budget (Decrease) Emereencv Preparedness Supplies & Maintenance 1,200 600 0 (600)-100.00% Other Expenses 1300 650 207 (443)-68.23% Total 2,500 1,250 207 (1,043)-83.48% Animal Control Personal Services 13,085 6,543 5,642 (901)-13.77% Supplies & Maintenance 800 400 0 (400)-100.00% Professional Services 1,000 500 93 (408)-8130% Other Expenses 250 125 0 (125)-100.00% Total 15,135 7,568 5,734 (1,833)-24.22% Engineerins Professional Service 14,420 3,605 3364 (241)-6.69% Total 14,420 3,605 3364 (241)-6.69% Street Maintenance Personal Service (4)245,290 125,098 130,539 5,441 435% Supplies & Maintenance 212,000 57340 55,895 (1,345)-235% Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0.00% Other Eiqpenses 37,880 13,258 12,696 (562)-4.24% Total 495,170 195396 199,130 3,534 1.81% iriM, .Jh -. ,V f City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 Dollar YTD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget Expenditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 06-30-97 06-30-97 From YTD Budaet (Decrease! Parks & Recreation Personal Services 23,025 11,513 9,583 (1,929)-16.76% Supplies & Maintenance 22,600 11,300 9359 (1.941)-17.17% Professional Service 1,200 600 620 20 333% Other Es^nses 5,730 2,865 901 (1.964)-6834% Total 52,555 26,278 20,464 (5,813)-22.12% Recvcling Personal Services 1,635 409 206 (203)-49.61% Supplies & Maintenance (5)250 125 2,125 2,000 160030% Professional Service 65,920 27,027 27,115 87 0.32% Other Expenses 6,000 600 564 (36)-5.96% Total 73,805 28,161 30,010 1,849 637% Special Services — Consulting & Police Personal Services 8,850 4,415 4,314 (111)-230% Professional Services 33,200 16,600 16,799 199 1.20% Total 42,050 21,025 21,113 88 0.42% Special Proiects & Contingencies Personal Services 0 0 0 0 0.00% Professional Service 7,000 3,500 3,500 0 0.00% Other Ejqpenses 1,055 264 226 (38)-14.49% Transfers 95,000 0 0 0 0.00% Contingency Items 44,700 11,175 5,921 (5,254)-47.01% Total 147,755 14,939 9,647 (5392) -35.42% Total General Fund 3,447,605 1,638,542 1.643.292 4,750 0.29% .11 i! 1 i- City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 Dollar YTD YTD Increase % 1997 Budget E}q)enditures (Decrease)Increase Budget 06-30-97 06-30-97 From YTD Budget rDecrease) Special Revenue Funds Park Fund 109,000 59,950 62,272 2322 3.87% Improvement & Equip. Outlay 148,040 112310 113350 1,0.39 0.92% Building Capital Outlay 139,800 13,980 2,006 (11.974)-85.65% Total 396.840 186.440 177.828 f8.6121 -4.62% Total General & Special Revenue Funds 3.844.445 1.824.982 1.821.120 f3.8621 -0.21% Debt Service Funds 1982 Improvement Bonds 19,165 17349 17360 112 0.65% 1991 Improvement Bonds 404,900 289,504 289,814 .311 0.11% 1992 Improvement Bonds 191,790 143,843 148,069 4,226 2.94% 1995 (1985) Refunding Bonds 75,150 64,629 67,210 2,581 3.99% 1995 (1989) Wtr Improv. Bonds 31,065 15333 15,866 .333 2.14% 1995 (1989) Swr Improv. Bonds 30382 15,191 15,496 .305 2.00% Total 752,452 545.947 553.814 7.867 1.44% Capital Protects Funds MSA Fund 806,000 32,240 27,044 (5.196)-16.12% PIR Fund 128,700 37323 36,205 (1.118)-3.00% Total 934.700 69363 63.249 163141 -9.08% Water Operating Fund Personal Service (4)80,710 41,162 45,781 4,619 11.22% Supplies & Maintenance 50,760 12,690 12,145 (545)-430% Professional Services 5,900 3,540 3,892 352 9.94% Insurance 7,950 795 225 (570)-71.70% Other E:q}enses 107370 53,685 49,224 (4.461)-831% Total 252.690 111.872 111.266 f6071 -0.54% I 2 i Sewer Operating Fund Personal Services Supplies & Maintenance Professional Services Insurance Other Eiqpenses Total Golf Operating Fund City of Orono 1997 Combined Fund Expenditure Report As of June 30,1997 1997 Budeet YTD Budget 06-30-97 YTD Eiqpenditures 06-30-97 Dollar Increase (Decrease) From Y'l'D Budget 145,190 60,295 20,600 10,800 489,445 72,595 9,044 5,150 1,080 244,723 68,833 7,080 4,777 525 245,496 726330 332,592 326,712 (3,762) (1.964) (373) (555) 773 15J80) % Increase (Decreased -5.18% -21.71% -7.25% -5139% 032% -1.77% Personal Service Supplies & Maintenance Professional Service (6) Insurance Other E^nses 70,830 2^465 1,800 14,125 39,115 .35,415 9,209 1,440 1,413 19358 35,669 6,810 2,207 1,575 14,608 254 (2,399) 767 163 (4.950) 0.72% -26.05% 53.26% 1130% -2531% Total 146335 67.034 60.869 (6.165)-930% 1995 (1989) Water Revenue Bonds Principal Payment 123,945 123,945 123,945 0 0.00% 1995 (1989) Sewer Revenue Bonds Principal Payment 121,055 121,055 121,055 0 0.00% Total Combined Funds 5.967.252 3.127.427 .3.118.780 (8.647)-038% Jfk r4^- \ [ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 1997 ITEM NO; j ^ Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE Westonka Sanitation 3146 Island View Drive Mound COUNCIL MEETINQ JUL 14 199T CITY OF ORONO COUNCIL ACTION REQL’ESTED Motion to approve/deny above listed license. •t.- • • •CITS' OP ORONO License Year 7- _ _ _ _ P.O. Box 66 Date Received 6 'S<0 -^7 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 .. Fee Paid _ Initials ^ 473-7357 ^ ^ GARBAG^^^IlEKrfi^COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATIONX . .The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. • Business/Finn ________^^/i/ . Address '7T»>g?/a^ . ><yZ^z/x2gf /////- y^S~3^ v: (Street) . (City) (State) (Zip Code) Business Phone Niuober —/^^ ^________ Applicant's Name ____\//!? /7/V .xr ------- v - Address _______^^^ (streetT (City)(State)W-P Code) • ‘ Phone Number _________—J?a </ ^____________ Check One; X Individual _ _ _ _ Partnership _ _ _ _ Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono ^ Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Year Mfgr. Gross Wt. .Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number ^9^0/^ 2^2^ ^2£i/ /S'ooi> /£> ^ y'^ Schedule of Collection charges/ dates } /C Approximate nximber of customers in Orono _____________________________ Location of dumping area _____' A/S^ _______■■___ IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance.in the amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause., i^nual fee rs a $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable). I eim tl^ owner and operator of the abovf* business and I have paid all license fees and^ta3es required by law. The above information is correct. fp«f 1 ^ D3.t0. FOR CITY USB ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: _ y* Approval _ _- Denial _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify)' Si^aturey of City' Official/ Date ! 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Number Check Number 54185 Check Register City of Orcno Page 2 Date Name 54185 BAYSIDE FLORAL 14-Jul-97 BAYSIDE FLORAL Totals Check Number 54185 BAYSIDE FLORAL Check Number 54186 BEACK, SCOTT 54186 14-Jul-97 BEACK, SCOTT Totals Check Number 54186 BEACK, SCOTT Check Number 54187 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 54187 14-Jul-97 BENEFITS DESIGN Totals Check Number 54187 benefits ncsinK Check Number 54188 54188 54188 54188 54188 BIFFS INC. 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. BIFFS INC. Totals Check Number 54188 BIFFS INC< Check Number 54189 BLACKOWIAK k SON 54189 54189 54189 54189 14-JU1-97 14-Jul-97 14-Jul-97 14-JU1-97 BLACKOWIAK & SON BLACKOWIAK & SON BLACKOWIAK k SON BLACKOWIAK k SON Totals Check Number 54189 BLACKOWIAK k SON Chtck Number 54190 BONESTROO 54190 14-Jul-97 54190 14-Jul-97 54190 14-JU1-97 54190 14-JU1-97 54190 14-Jul-97 54190 14-JU1-97 54190 14-Jul-97 54190 14-Jul-97 54190 14-JU1-97 54190 14-Jul-97 BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE Totals Ciieck Number 54190 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC Check Number 54191 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 54191 14-Jul-97 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC Totals Check Number 54191 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC Transaction Amount Comments 47.93 FLOWERS-CARPENTIER 47.93 228.00 GOLF BALLS FOR RESALE 228.00 OUP X,727.92 JULY OUP 1,727.92 130.52 JULY SERVICE-BEDERWOOD 130.52 JULY SERVICE-SUmiT BEACH 130.52 JULY SERVICE-HACKBERRY 65.26 JULY SERVICE-GOLF COURSE 456.82 152.99 JUNE SERVICE-BEDERWOOD 70.46 JUNE SERVICE-GOLF COURSE 134.18 JUNE SERVICE-BY LAKE 168.58 JUNE SERVICE-CITY HALL 526.21 ASSOC.1,252.50 WELL #2 MAINT PLANS/SPECS ASSOC.2,516.50 NO L.L/LLCC EASE./ASMNTS ASSOC.44,253.37 NO L.L/LLCC SWR IMPROV. ASSOC.397.57 OCB RD IRAIL INSP-APR ASSOC.700.50 L.S. ns REBIDDING-APRIL ASSOC.139.50 L.S. #28 RENOVATION ASSOC.10,820.0C RFPf5 STORMWTR MGT PLAN ASSOC.504.75 OCB RD BRIDGE CLOSE-OUT ASSOC.151.50 REVIEW OCB RD FUNDING ASSOC.2,960.70 APRIL CC KTG ASSOC.63,096.89 : INC.282.84 RIP RAP 282.84 ■# 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Number Check Number 54192 54192 54192 54192 54192 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 54192 BUDGET PRINTING 14-Jul-97 BUDGET PRINTING 14-Jul-97 BUDGET PRINTING 14-Jul-97 BUDGET PRINTING 14-Jul-97 BUDGET PRINTING 14-Jul-97 BUDGET PRICING Totals Check Number 54192 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 54193 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. 54193 14-JU1-97 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Totals Check Number 54193 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Check Number 54194 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-JU1-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-JU1-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-JU1-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 54194 14-Jul-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Totals Check Number 54194 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Check Number 54195 CITV OF MOUND 54195 14-JU1-97 CITY OF MOUND Totals Check Number 54195 CITY OF MOUND Check Number 54196 CITY OF WAYZATA 54196 14-JU1-97 CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 54196 CITY OF WAYZATA Check Number 54197 CITYVIEM PLUMBING & HEATING 54197 14-JU1-97 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING Totals Check Number 54197 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k IffiATING Check Number 54198 CRYSTEEL 54198 14-Jul-97 CRYSTEEL Totals Check Nufnber 54198 CRYSTEEL 4 r ‘ Transaction Amount 510.34 64,076.75 64,076.75 4,500.00 4,500.00 Page 3 Comments ANIMAL IMPOUND FORMS BUS CARDS-MOROWCZYNSKI ENVELOPES SPORT SHIRTS MISC PRINTING PAY REQUEST #2 82.13 MOUNT SHOT GUN 13.49 #178 TIRE REPAIR 58.66 #177 REMOUNT RADAR 31.63 #173 OIL CHQ, TUNEUP 36.80 #174 OIL CHQ, TUNEUP 55.11 #174 REPLACE FUSE 71.58 #175 OIL CHANQB, ROTATE 19.35 #176 MOUNT k BAL TIRES 35.59 #170 BRAKE LIGHT SHITCH 31.63 #178 OIL CHQ, TUNEUP 48.07 #170 FRONT SOCKET, PLUQS 484.04 CAMERA’ORONO SHARE 2ND QTR HTR CONSUMPTION REPAIR WIRE-UNIT ill PANEL MOUNT PLATE SET . 157.30 BEER FOR RESALE 136.20 BEER FOR RESALE 17.20 BEER FOR RESALE 310.70 I 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54224 54224 HINZB BUSINESS MACHINES 14-Jul-97 HINZB BUSINESS MACHINES Totals Check Number 54224 HINZB BUSINBSS MACHINES Check Number 54225 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE 54225 14-Jul-97 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE Totals Check Number 54225 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE Check Number 54226 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. 54226 14-Jul-97 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. Totals Check Number 54226 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. Check Number 54227 INDUSTRIAL FLOOR MAINTENANCE 54227 14-Jul-97 INDUSTRIAL FLOOR MAINTENANCE Totals Check Number 54227 INDUSTRIAL FLOOR MAINTENANCE Check Number 54228 JOHN R. DUBOIS 54228 14-JU1-97 JOHN R. DUBOIS Totals Check Number 54228 JOHN R. DUBOIS Check Number 54229 LOGIS 54229 14-Jul-97 LOGIS Totals Check Number 54229 LOGIS Check Number 54230 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 54230 54230 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 54230 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 54231 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 54231 14-JU1-97 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 54231 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Oieck Number 54232 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 54232 14-JU1-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMOTT Totals O^eck Number 54232 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Transaction Amount 35.00 102.10 20.97 20.97 1,113.78 1,113.78 57.56 57.56 2,075.00 2,075.00 1,803.95 1,803.95 2.56 33.39 35.95 381.17 381.17 79.10 79.10 1Pat, 7 Comments CLEAN FAX MACHINE FLOOR MATS METERS, WIRE MISC TOOLS IM STUDY-SPRINT PCS APR, MAY DATA PROCESSING MISC PARTS MISC PARTS WEED WHIP OIL i i- " 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54233 54233 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING 14-Jul-97 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING Totals Check Number 54233 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING Check Number 54234 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI & CO 54234 14-JU1-97 MAIJX)Y MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI & CO Totals Check Number 54234 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOWSKI & CO Check Number 54235 MEDICA CHOICE 54235 54235 54235 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 14-Jul-97 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 54235 MEDICA CHOICE Check Number 54236 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 54236 14-Jul-97 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Totals Check Number 54236 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Check Number 54237 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 54237 54237 14-JU1-97 14-Jul-97 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS ^ffiT COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 54237 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 54238 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 54239 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 54239 54239 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Totals Check Number 54239 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO Check Number 54240 MILLER, CHRIS 54240 14-Jul-97 MILLER, CHRIS Totals Check Number 54240 MILLER, CHRIS Check Number 54241 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Transaction Amount 196.81 196.81 7,800.00 7,800.00 262.03 112.29 10,590.37 10,964.69 45.00 45.00 940.50 20,320.00 21,260.50 276.55 365.75 642.30 65.41 65.41 Comments PREMIRA AUDIT RFP #3 JULY INSURANCE JULY INSURANCE JULY INSURANCE DRUG SCREENING SAC CHARGES AUGUST SERVICE 54238 14-Jul-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT 215.64 ASPHALT PATCH 54238 14-Jul-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT 217.11 ASPHALT PATCH 54238 14-JU1-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT 188.53 ASPHALT PATCH Totals Check Number 54238 MIDWEST ASPHALT 621.28 POP FOR RESALE POP FOR RESALE Page 8 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT V - ■*>' .."j.-": •• - i .*- 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck Number Check Number Date Name S4241 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 54243 MN CITY/CODNTY MGMT ASSOC. 54243 08-OV-.-96 MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC. Totals Check Number 54243 MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC. Check Number 54244 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 54244 54244 02-JU1-96 02-Jul-96 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 54244 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Qieck Number 54245 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN 54245 16-Jul-96 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN Totals Check Number 54245 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN Check Number 54246 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM 54246 14-Jul-97 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Totals Check Number 54246 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Check Number 54247 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC. 54247 14-Jul-97 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC. Totals Check Number 54247 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC. Check Number 54248 NAVARRE HARDWARE 54248 54248 54248 54248 ll-Jul-96 ll-Jul-96 ll-Jul-96 ll-Jul-96 NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE Totals Check Number 54248 NAVARRE HARDWARE Check Number 54249 NORTH STAR TURF Transaction Amount 72.52 72.52 3,165.00 20.00 3,185.00 165.00 165.00 80.55 80.55 35.00 35.00 112.22 35.17 56.64 220.79 424.82 Page 9 Comments 54241 14-JU1-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 13.50 MEDICAL OXYGEN Totals Check Number 54241 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 13.50 ick Number 54242 MINNEGASCO 54242 14-Jul-97 MINNEGASCO 15.29 JUNE C3AS CHARGES 54242 14-JU1-97 MINNEGASCO 168.27 JUNE GAS CHARGES 54242 14-Jul-97 MINNEGASCO 210.35 JUNE GAS CHARGES Totals Check Number 54242 MINNEGASCO 393.91 MEMBER DUES SALES TAX-JUNE SALES TAX-JUNE MILLER-MNGFOA CONFERENCE 1ST,2ND QTR 1997 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MISC PARTS MISC PARTS MISC PARTS MISC PARTS 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name I Check Number 54249 54249 NORTH STAR TURF 14-Ju1-97 north STAR TURF Totals Check Number 54249 NORTH STAR TURF Check Number 54250 NORTHERN BNVIR TAL 54250 14-Jul-97 NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL Totals Check Number 54250 NORTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL Check Number 54251 NSP 54251 54251 54251 54251 14-JU1-97 23-Jun-97 14-Jul-97 23-JUX1-97 NSP NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 54251 NSP Check Number 54252 O'SOLLIVMIS AITTO REPAIR 54252 14-JU1-97 O'SUU/IVANS AOTO REPAIR Totals Check Number 54252 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Check Number 54253 OFFICE DEPOT 54253 14-JU1-97 OFFICE DEPOT Totals Check Number 54253 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 54254 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. 54254 14-JU1-97 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC, Totals Check Number 54254 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC, Check Number 54255 OTTEN BROTlffiRS 54255 14-Jul-97 OTTEN BROTHERS Totals Check Number 54255 OTTEN BROTHERS Check Humber 54256 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 02-JU1-96 PERA LIFE INSURANCE54256 Totals Check Number 54256 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Check Number 54257 PIONEER 54257 14-Jul-97 PIONEER Transaction Amount 9.20 9.20 823.75 823.75 217.59 1,064.03 2,977.06 2,188.98 6,447.66 34.60 34.60 519.73 519.73 18.48 18.48 9.59 9.59 156.00 156.00 106.75 Page 10 Comments GAS CAP SPRING HILL EAW REVIEW NSP CHARGES NSP COSTS NSP CHARGES STREET LIGHT BILL OIL CHANGE MISC SUPPLIES CHIPS FOR RESALE FLOWERS august INSURANCE land USE APPLICATIONS I f 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PH Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54257 54257 54257 PIONEER 14-Jul-97 14-JU1-97 PIONEER PIONEER Totals Check Number 54257 PIONE^ Check Number 54258 PORTICO COMPUTERS INC. 54258 14-Jul-97 PORTICO COMPUTERS INC. Totals Check Number 54258 PORTICO COMPUTERS INC. Check Number 54259 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 54259 14-Jul-97 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number 54259 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Check Number 54260 PROLAWNS 54260 14-Jul-97 PROLAWNS Totals Check Number 54260 PROLAWNS Check Number 54261 REED VENDING 54261 54261 54261 14-JU1-97 14-Jul-97 14-JU1-97 REED VENDING REED VENDING REED VENDING Totals Check Number 54261 REED VENDING Check Number 54262 ROTO ROOTER 54262 14-Jul-97 ROTO ROOTER Totals Check NUfober 54262 ROTO ROOTER Check Number 54263 SCHOENHOFP, JOHN 5426J 14-Jul-97 SCHOBNHOFF, JOHN Totals Check Number 54263 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN Check Number 54264 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION 54264 23-Jan-97 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Totals Check Number 54264 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Check Number 54265 SNYDER DRUG STORES 54265 14-Jul-97 SNYDER DRUG STORES Transaction Amount 1^.25 31.50 164.50 292.76 292.76 1.693.35 1.693.35 260.00 260.00 150.90 35.60 94.30 280.80 155.00 155.00 6.38 6.38 35.00 35.00 24.18 Page 11 Comments APPL. #2269 AD FOR BIDS-IRRIGATION SY MONITOR REPLACEMENT JUNE SERVICE SPRAY WEED KILLER CANDY FOR RESALE CANDY FOR RESALE CANDY FOR RESALE FREE-UP MAIN EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT VAN ZOMEREN-97 DUES FILM« FRAMES r 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 54265 54265 SNYDER DRUG STORES 14-JU1-97 SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number B4265 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 54266 STREICHERS 54266 54266 54266 54266 54266 54266 14-Jul-97 14-Ju1-97 14-Ju1-97 14-Ju1-97 14-Ju1-97 14-Ju1-97 STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check N'lmber 54266 STREICHERS Check Number 54267 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. { S4267 54267 14-Jul-97 14-Ju1-97 STS CONSULTANTS LTD. STS CONSULTANTS LTD Total. Check Nuntoer 54267 STS CONSULTANTS LTD Check Number 54266 THEISEN, BARBARA 54268 14-Jul-97 THEISEN, BARBARA Total. Check Number 54268 THEISEN, BARBARA Check Number 54269 THORPE DIST CO. 54269 14-Ju1-97 THORPE DIST CO. Totals Check Number 54269 THORPE DIST CO. Check Number 54270 TRI STATE PUMP 54270 54270 14-Ju1-97 14-Ju1-97 TRI state PUMP TRI state PUMP Totals Check Number 54270 TRI STATE PUMP Check Number 54271 TRI-K SERVICES 54271 14-Ju1-97 TRI-K services Total. Check Number 54271 TRI-K SERVICES Check Nut^r 54272 TMIN CITY STRIPING 54272 14-JU1-97 TWIN CITY STRIPING Total. Check Number 54272 TWIN CITY STRIPING Transaction Amount 3.72 27.90 114.44 106.45 90.47 59.70 57.14 9.00 437.20 5.046.81 643.50 5,690.31 255.40 255.40 204.30 204.30 697.44 831.78 1.529.22 Page 12 Comments MISC SUPPLIES 194.84 194.84 6.580.00 6.580.00 jtJNE PURCHASES gun lock ASSEMBLY gun holster dog spray gun lock FLASHLIGHT REPAIR engineering services geotech-SPRING HILL ROAD REFUND application #2245 BEER FOR RESALE G.S. i3 REPAIRS G.S. #5 REPAIRS BLACK DIRT STREET STRIPING 1 I 10 Jul 1997 Thu 2:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check I?unber Date Name Check Number 54273 54273 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED ll-Jul-96 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Totals Check Number 54273 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Check Number 54274 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 54274 54274 54274 54274 02-JU1-96 02-Jul-96 02-JU1-96 02-JU1-96 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE Totals Check Number 54274 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE Check Number 54275 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD 4 D 54275 54275 54275 54275 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 14-JU1-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE AD 6 D AD & D AD 6 D AD 4 D Totals Check Number 54275 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD 4 D Check Nuii^r 54276 US WEST COf^WNICATIONS 54276 54276 54276 54276 14-Jul-97 23-Jun-97 23-Jun-97 23-Jun-97 US WEST CO^WUNICATIONS US WEST COmJNICATIONS US WEST COWUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 54276 US WEST COhMUNICATIONS Check Number 54277 VAN ZOMBREN. ELIZABETH 54277 14-Jul-97 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 54277 VA^I ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Check Number 54276 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 54278 14-Jul-97 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Totals Check Number 54278 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Number 54279 W.W. GRAINGER INC. 54279 14-Jul-97 W.W. GRAINGER INC. Totals Check Number 54279 W.W. GRAINGER INC. Check Number 54280 WATERPRO 54280 14-JU1-97 WATERPRO Totals Qieck NUnO>er 54280 WATERPRO ^ansaction Amount 155.33 155.33 293.32 88.18 123.08 689.92 1.194.50 34.97 34.97 35.21 35.21 93.10 93.10 559.60 559.60 Page 13 Comments MISC. UNIFORMS 0.70 JULY LIFE INSURANCE 2.97 JULY LIFE INSURANCE 1.27 JULY LIFE INSURANCE 354.10 JULY LIFE INSURANCE 359.04 0.15 JULY INSURANCE 0.64 JULY INSURANCE 0.27 JULY INSURANCE 65.79 JULY INSURANCE 66.85 US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT #712 MISC PARTS WTR COOLER. SHOVEL CURB BOX STOPS Frnt^^roir*PTr>»aE^i ^ iWi I Wil I ^ r^ii TTSTl un:uir. aii: iilOlin*rtTiwt] rtsc%i OMtIt ralmuuti ■ i RTililM ^TtSirticiiv:rnirc rtiliuuii mm •imrtmw »*v- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#1 - #2232 Walter Holzer - Continued) Smith asked if Holzer had plans for electricity, heating, and cooling of the building. Holzer said he planned to construct a bathroom due to the far distance to the residence. He will use in-floor heating on the main floor and forced air upstairs, which would require that water be connected to the building. Holzer said he understands that having water connected may be a problem. Lindquist informed him that plumbing would create the problem and would require further approval. Holzer was informed that the water connection would be allowed. Lindquist said he was satisfied with the application at a size of 1000 s.f Smith agreed with Lindquist and asked the applicant if he would clean up the property. Holzer said he has already cleaned out the majority of the materials on the property and would complete that task once the building is erected. Smith noted that the lot is lovely and the building would provide storage of any materials. Van Zomeren noted that the height of the building is an issue requiring a variance. There were no public comments. Stoddard su ggested the building height would decrease if 5’ were taken off the dimensions of the building. He noted the property is heavily wooded and neighbors support the proposal. Holzer said the hei^t of the building would not change. Smith noted that if the principal structure was of typical height, no height variance would be required. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2233 for a detached accessory structure with a variance allowing a 30' height maximum provided the footprint of the building be limited to 1000 s.f. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda Item #2 was moved to the end of the agenda after item #14 to see whether the applicant would be present at the meeting in order to discuss the application.) (#3) #2242 - WAYNE A. JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVBEW AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:11-7:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 (#3 - #2242 Wayne Johnson - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the RR-IB Zoning District requiring 2 acre lot size. The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The proposal is for construction of a 569 s.f addition to serve as a garage. A front yard setback variance is required to allow a 34.06' setback as currently exists from the 50' requirement. There are no further variances created by the proposal. Wayne Johnson said he would like to increase Ins garage size from a single to a two*car garage. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2242 for a front yard variance to allow the proposed garage to encroach into the front yard setback the same distance, 34.06', as the principal structure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2243 - JOHN D. BLACK, 4030 DAHL ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:13>7:21 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the property is located in the one family lakeshore requiring one acre size lots. The lot is .87 acres and of an unusual shape. The proposal is to change the lakeside of the existing residence to replace a deck and 12*xl 8' screened porch. Variances required include 0-75' hardcover, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The hardcover would increase by 13.5 s.f Van Zomeren said the hardships include the unusual lot shape and the fact that the structure is existing. John Black said he would like to replace the existing deck with a new deck that is farther from the lakeshore. He indicated the distance using a tape measure on the ground is over 80'. The additional room proposed would be located off the kitchen with a screened porch below over the existing deck that is to be replaced. Black indicated that he would be wilhng to decrease the size of the driveway if necessary. Lindquist informed Black that the Planning Commission does not favor any hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Black noted that his property is screened from the neighboring properties. Lindquist, Smith, and McMillan indicated that the variance for the average lakeshore setback is not an issue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 I (U4 - #2243 John Black - Continued) Lindquist asked the applicant if there was any change that could be made to the proposal to result in no increase in hardcover in the 0-75' setback. Black said he was surprised when the survey showed the slight increase. He noted that the addition would be located over what is rock now. He indicated that he would make some change to maintain the 555 s.f of existing hardcover. Van Zomeren said the hardcover calculations were revised on June 5. The 0-75' setback hardcover is 25'x.75 or 19 s.f with landscaping underlain with pl^tic. I he Planning Commissioners indicated they did not want to see hardcover within this setback. Black said he had originally planned to rebuild the walkway but is no longer planning on doing so. He questioned whether the walkway was included in the calculations. McMillan clarified that the patio deck and screened porch were included in the calculations. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2243 for a variance to the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback to rebuild the deck and add a screened porch. The motion included that no additional structure would be allowed in the 0-75 setback and the 0-75' setback hardcover must be maintained at its existing level. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#5) #2244 - WILLIAM W. WEAR, 2160 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:21-7:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a request to install a canopy over an existing gas pump island at the Orono Mall. The property is located in the B-1 Zoning District. The proposed canopy is located 3.6' from the highway right of way where 20' is required. Electric^ wires are located overhead. NSP was contacted by Van Zomeren but have not made any recommendations. Van Zomeren reported Mn/DOT said they would support the proposal as long as the canopy was not in the right-of-way. Van Zomeren said staff was concerned with lighting and creation of problems for westbound drivers from the lighting underneath the canopy. She noted there are lighting standards that would have to be met. Signage is also indicated on the plans. Van Zomeren said she did not know what additional signage would be indicated on the sides and back of the canopy. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#5 - #2244 William Wear - Continued) Van Zomeren indicated that the hardship for the application is the highway right-of-way that was taken from the front yard of the applicant ’s property. Lindquist indicated that the Planning Commission would require further information on lighting and signage. He asked how close the canopy is to the curb. Mr. Wear estimated the distance to the sidewalk at 6' and 9.5' to the curb. Wear said the canopy would not extend over the sidewalk. He indicated an alternative to the canopy desi^ would be^ angling the comers of the canopy to further the off-set 4' from the road side. Lindquist believed that would be a good idea to lessen the encroachment. Stoddard inquired where the support columns are located. Wear said the support columns were 14' back. Smith was informed that the canopy would be of a metal material. Lindquist received confirmation from Wear that he understood the approval of the variance would be subject to approval of plans, signage and lighting. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2244 to install a canopy over existing gas pump island subject to staff approval regarding height, signage, and lighting plans, with comers to be angled to further off-set the canopy 4' from the roadside. The approval is contingent on fevorable consideration from NSP and Mn/DOT. The applicant must remove the portable sign and reinstall the pylon sign in compliance with zoning code requirements. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Wear reported that he was currently in the process of removing the portable sign and reinstalling the pylon sign. (#6) #2245 BARBARA THEISEN AND CLAYTON F. FREEBURG, 4465 NORTH SHORE DRIVE AND 4485 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VACATION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:58 P.M. The AflBdavh of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Barbara Theisen was represented by her two sons. Clayton Freeburg was present. .- i- * ■ minutes of the orono planning commissionMEEl lNG HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 ns (#6 - #2245 R;»rharfl TTiftisen and Clav'ton Fr^hurg - Contini.iftd) Gafiron reported that the request is for vacation of an alleyway paralleling North Shore Drive. It has existed since 1889 as a public dedicated right-of-way as part of the Bergquist's Addition to Saga Hill. The request is to vacate the portion as noted with an option to vacate to North Shore Drive. Stoddard was informed that the vacation request docs not include the &rther distance. Gaflfron indicated that the parcel between the platted right-of-way and alley, known as Lot ^ Tonkaview Gardens, is a tax forfeit parcel acquired by Hennepin County for future right-of-way purposes. The Freeburg garage is located in this area. The alleyway is also used to gain access to the Theisen property. Gaf&on reported that staff is concerned with any approval of the vacation as the alley might be needed for future expansion of the County road to correct the curve radius. If it is vacated, there is a possibility that Hennepin County would then have to repurchase it for road expansion. There is also a drainageway at the shoulder of the roadway with a County catch basin and outlets. Gafiron reported that a significant amount of stormwater runs through this area, and the County may need the property for drainage improvements in the fiiture. Gafiron said the utility companies have been notified. No response has been received yet, but easements are normally maintained when vacations are approved. Gafiron informed the Commissioners that any approval would require meeting the findings 1-4 as indicated in the staff memo. 1 he three possible public purposes were also noted which are included in the memo as well. Gafiron reported that impacts are both positive and negative. The five impacts as noted in the staff memo were reviewed. Gafiron noted that while the homestead lots would gain in area, they would still be substandard. Gafifron said staff" does not recommend approve of the vacation. He noted that a withdrawal of the application by the applicants would allow a tee retimd less staff and notification costs. ivnNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEE l lNG HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#6 - Thfiise.ii ?|nH Clayton Frfifibnrg - ContinnfiH) Clayton Freeburg, owner of lot 6, indicated that even with having built the rock up around his garage, water still runs through it. He said Hennepin County intbnned him that they would correct this problem. Freeburg noted that it was difficult to drive out of his garage with the few feet available now. Freeburg said the alley could never effectively be used as such due to the steep banks. He said he was informed by his title company at time of property purchase that his garage was located on his property and the alley was included in his property. He would like to straighten out the problems with the question in ownership. He was notified that he did not own the property under his garage and the alley when he attempted to refinance his property. Freeburg said grassing over the area would improve the drainage. The curb and catch basin have recently been installed. Tom Theisen, son of Barbara Theisen, who owns lot 5, reported that his family has owned the property for 40 years and are only now finding out that they do not have legal egress to their property. They must cross Lot A, the tax forfeit parcel, in order to access their property. Theisen reviewed the requirements for the vacation as noted in the staff memo. He indicated in response to finding #1 that the rural ambiance of Orono would be changed it County Road 19 was made straighter thus creating a raceway. He noted that the vacation affects only the Freeburg and Theisen properties. He is concerned with the access coming across public property. Any improvements to the road by the County would result in creating more traffic and higher speeds according to Theisen. He felt finding #4 was self- evident and only finding #3 was subjective. Theisen questioned whether he has the right to go across Lot A to access his property. Lindquist said he did not have the answer to that question. Theisen said the access and road condition were his concerns. Lindquist indicated if Lot A is owned by the County, the City has no control over it. He suggested the applicants speak with the County. Lmdquist said he has to consider the staff recomm- ndation regarding public purpose noting future needs are difficult to determine. Stoddard noted that this vacation was more complex as it involves drainage and future County plans for the roadway. He also suggested the applicants contact their attorney regarding access through Lot A noting the long use of the lot for access possibly might provide them the right to use it. Stoddard asked staff if a vacation has been previously approved which grants future permission to reacquire the property for a nominal fee. Gaflfon said it has not been done to his knowledge and would be problematic. It would limit what the applicant could do with the property. Theisen informed the Commission of an incident regard'mg a County truck dumping salt and killmg grass and trees. 1 his resulted in their determining that they did not in tact own the piece of property used for access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (U6 - #2345 Barbara Theisen and Clayton Freeburg - Continued) Stoddard told Theisen the Commission would like to assist them but the circumstances made it difficult. He felt the first step for the applicants to take would be to find out if they had any legal recourse and to contact the County regarding their needs. Theisen asked Commission for direction regarding whether the City would approve such a vacation. Freeburg added that the County told him to contact the City first. Lindquist, Smith, and McMillan all agreed that they could not approve the vacation. There were no public comments. Lindquist informed the applicants that a denial would move the application to the Council for consideration. Theisen questioned what could be gained by contacting the County. Freeburg said he would like to have his garage in conformance and on his own property. The additional property would also bring his lot closer to conformity. Lindquist suggested Freeburg may have action against his title company who did not recognize the garage was not on the applicant's property. Smith suggested moving the garage. McMillan indicated that the garage still straddles the alley and Lot A presents another problem. Snuth cited a past example of an alleyway located between two homes with the City maintaining the right-of-way and a utility easement. This application is more difficult as it involves a road with expansion possibilities in the future. Lindquist asked the applicants if they would like the Commission to deny the application or if the applicants would like to withdraw their request for vacation. Gappa noted that if Lot A is owned by the highway department, a driveway permit may be sought. Theisen questioned whether Lot A is a right-of-way. Gaffi’on indicated that it has apparently never been designated as such. Gaffron said Lot A is shown on a 1921 plat of property that became Tonkaview Gardens extending across it. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (U6 - #2245 Barbara Theisen and Clayton Freeburg - Continued) A brother to Tom Theisen asked if any of the special conditions involved in this application have been reviewed. Lindquist said he has not reviewed similar issues in the past. McMillan indicated that the stormwater drainage issue is of vital concern. McMillan suggested the issue be taken up with the County. Gaffron said the application could be tabled to allow the applicants to speak with the County first and then come back before the Planning Commission. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2245. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) #2246 - DONALD J. CURWER, JR.» 60 CYGNET PLACE - VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:5»-8:24 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by his wife, Peg Currier. Van Zomeren reriewed the proposed variances. A setback variance is required to locate the antenna closer than 70' to the property line. The antenna is proposed at a height of 70' which exceeds the 65' maximum height allowance. A conditional permit is required because the proposed antenna does not meet the requirements for an accessory antenna. The antenna is proposed to be located 55.26' to the side yard. The side yard requirement of a distance which is the same height of the antenna is due to failure of the structure and where it would fall if it does fiul. Van Zomeren said the applicant has indicated that the determined location was made due to the trees on the property. Currier indicated his neighbor supported the antenna location. Van Zomeren said she spoke with the City's consultant. Information on the construction drawing, information citing legal cases and handouts on ic>ca1 regulation regarding reasonable accommodation of amateur radio operators is included. The survey does not note the trees on the property but Van Zomeren said staff has viewed the property. Van 2^meren informed the Commission that the antenna caiuiot be denied based on aesthetics. Peg Currier informed the Commission that the antenna is on a nesting support structure that is retractable resulting in a 35' height when not in use. Lindquist received confirmation from Gafiffon that another application had been denied due to its location closer to the property line than what was required. Height had not been an issue. Lindquist questioned whether the retractability of the antenna makes a difference. Gaffion said it would depend on whether the antenna was extended if it failed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 - H2246 Donald Currier - C-onfinued) Smith questioned how the height issue should be decided. Van Zomeren reviewed the ordinance. The old code of 65' maximum height was maintained when the ordinance was recently redrafted. Van Zomeren said the consultant had recommended a maximum height of 55*. Council maintained the 65’ height requirement as stipulated in the original ordinance. Staff was unaware of any existing antennas that exceed the 65' height requirement. Smith questioned where technology was going. Peg Currier indicated that 66' was required to allow for international communication. Lindquist said he would support a 65' height and side setback of same distance. Currier said that distance would be impossible with the lot layout as it would require major tree removal and placement in the front yard to meet the lot line setback requirement. Van Zomeren indicated that 140' width would be needed and optimal location is where the trees are positioned. Lindquist questioned whether the 35' height when retracted results in a 35' high antenna. A member of the public noted that most antenna towers fail at mid point and would not require any more setback than that distance as it would be self collapsing. Lindquist said he would need more information or would deny the application. McMillan noted the support of the neighboring property owner but could become problematic if that property should sell. Stoddard noted the recent review of PCS antennas and new ordinance adoption attempting to limit the number of variances required. He supported a 65' height. John Bellows indicated he was assisting Mr. Currier with information on antennas. The 70' height needed is to allow the transmission over the height of the trees. Communication would be lost at a lower height. Stoddard questioned what occurs when the trees grow taller. Bellows said the trees are mature and are at their maximum height. Bellows indicated that the front yard is the only place that would meet the setback and is not allowed for such use. He noted that the code calls for reasonable allowance of such structures. Bellows said a least visible location is also preferred for aesthetical reasons. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#7 - #2246 Donald Currier - Continued) Bellows said the rules ^plying to PCS are different than those of amateur radio operators. He noted PCS structures are not retractable. The applicant's antenna would only be extended when in use. Bellows said the setback restriction regards failure of the structure. Such failure would most likely occur during stormy weather. The antenna would be retracted at that time as it is not used during stormy weather. Smith was informed that the retraction process did not create excess noise. McMillan questioned whether the antenna height was restricted by trees on the property or surrounding properties. She suggested pruning the trees when intbrmed that the restriction was from trees on the property. The large number of trees present a problem for pruning to satisfy the suggestion. Smith asked what occurs when the property sells. Currier said the antenna would be removed and taken with them. Stoddard was informed by Bellows that the cost of a retractable antenna is 75-100% more than an unretractable antenna. Bellows said the special rules applying to amateur radio operators would be negated when the property is sold. Gaffron noted a similar discussion involving an antenna on Woodhill road. He indicated the array of the tower spanned a 25-30' width. Bellows said the 1" aluminum tubing creates little visibility and blends in with the sky. The 30' diameter width of the antenna would result in a loss of many trees. Van Zomeren said she would like to review the construction plans with the City's consultant regarding the break-off point of the antenna. The applicant was asked to survey the property for the canopy of trees to know tree interference and hardship. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2246 for a conditional use permit and variances for an accessory antenna subject to the antenna being of a reti-actable type, at an extended maximum height of 70', located 55.26' from north property line, with staff review of construction plans and sketch plan of tree canopy provided prior to Council review. McMillan questioned why a sketch plan would be required if located at this height. The plan would assist staff in determining hardship and horizontal eff ect. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, l.indquist; who did not support the location of the antenna 55.26' from ihe property line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#7 - #2246 Donald Currier - Continued) Van Zomeren informed Bellows that the Council review of the application would occur on July 14. She asked that requested information be supplied by July 3. (#8) #2247 WAYNE A. HOLMES, 1390 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:24-8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of PubUcation and Certificate of MaUing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the appUcation is a request for lot line and side street yard setback variances for construction of a detached 920 s.f. accessory storage building. The property is located on Park Drive adjacent to an undeveloped 60' right-of-way with potenti^ to be used as an access to Highwood Park. Gaffion said there are no plans to develop the right- of-way but it may be needed in the future. If so, this would cr^te a problem with the proposed 2-1/2' setback. The building size is proposed at 24.5'x37.5'. (Schroeder arrived at this time.) Gaffion noted that the topography of the property presents problems with locating this •accessory structure. He reported that the house was replaced l^t year. The garage is intended to be tucked into the slope, and during the house grading a terrace wns created and fill pushed down into the right-of-way. Gaffion said there is a flat area • 'ding from Park Drive for a possible driveway. He indicated there is a large oak iu'4c ajVu a row of lilac bushes next to the garage which applicants wish to preserve. A 35' side street yard setback is required. An accessory structure of this size requires a 15 setback from any lot line. Gaffion said stall'recommends at least a 10' setback in this case. The proposed side street setback and lot line setback is at 11' at the front of the proposed building and 2.4' from the rear. Gaffion suggested the applicant pivot the building into the slope. It may result in the loss of the lilac bushes. He noted there is no home to the rear that would be impacted. Gaffron reported that the hardcover (35% allowed) currently exists at about 21% and with additional building at 26%. llie addition of a driveway to serve the new building would still meet the hardcover requirements. The building size is pennitted under the code as well. Gaffion said the issue for the proposed building is its location. He is concerned with the grading and recommends no fill be allowed to fall within the City's right-of-way. He asked the applicant to present a grading plan that would not impact the right-of-way. City approval of a second curb cut would also be required if a driveway was installed. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#S - #2247 Wayne Holmes - Continued) GaSron said the building is fairly high but will be tucked into the hill and meets the height requirements. He indicated that the hardship with the size of the building for a 15* side setback is created by the land owner. The issue of the unimproved street cannot be resolved at this time. Gaforon said the oak tree is worth saving but the lilac bushes may not be. He noted no neighbors are impacted by the proposed building. Wayne Holmes said he prefers to build a boulder wall near the property line at the back side of the proposed building. He would then pull the building forward 6* to 8', angle it 4' on the back right comer, and cut 2' off the side resulting in a 10' back comer setback and 10'+ in the front. Gaffron reported that the building inspector would not approve a boulder wall at a height noted by applicant to be at 6'-8' high. He noted that it is difficult to build a boulder wall to standards that would satisfy an engineer. The applicant said railroad ties tvith drain tile was another suggestion. Lindquist stated there are other alternatives foj a wall which would be approved by the engiiieer. Gaffron voiced support for the proposed location changes noting the 10' separation must be maintained to the house. There were no public comments. Holmes informed the Commission that he does not intend to add a second driveway. It would be grassed over and the building used for storage only primarily for his 27' motor home, trailer, fishing boat, classic car, and other seasonal items. He has a pad along his other garage that he uses for seasonal items. Smith suggested expanding his existing garage instead. Holmes said his motor home would not fit. McMillan was informed that the applicant would not plow out the area by the building in the winter time and would use the accessory pad for his snowmobiles. Smith said she was originally concerned with the location of the building but supported the changes proposed by the applicant. The applicant indicated that the building size would be 22’x37.5' or 825 s.f. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 I (JfS - H2247 Wayne Holmes - Continued) Lindquist moved, Simth seconded, to approve Application #2247 with the understanding that the building cannot be closer than 10' to any property line or other structure, at a maximum of 825 s.f, with retaining walls to be approved by the City Engineer, and plans submitted to staff prior to construction. The applicant asked if a separate permit was required for the retaining walls. Gaflfron said it would be part of the building permit approval. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2248 - DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:40-9:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Moling were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application is a proposal for construction of an addition to an existing cabin to square off the residence and restore an existing deck and screen porch. The .3 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district. The structure is located in the 0-75' setback. A hardcover variance is required to increase the hardcover from 9% to 19%. Lot area and lakeshore setback variances are required. A conditional use permit for land alteration is required for any alteration or excavation in the flood plain and 0-75' setback from the shoreline. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the property noting that the shoreline contour is at the 924.9' elevation. The 930' contour follows the lakeshore; the 932' contour traverses the property, so the middle portion of the lot is considered to be in the flood plain. 1 he concern is where the 931.5' elevation is located. The applicant s^d he has lived on Wildhurst Trail since 1975. He noted that the five other homes west of this property is evenly setback as proposed for this residence. There were no public comments. Stod Vd inquired what the Watershed District's comments were. Rahn said the Wateished did not require any mitigation for the entry, deck, and screen porch as there are on post footings. Stoddard suggested relocating the structure to lessen the variances required. Rahn said his history as a contractor and building official relates to his desire to restore the cabin with the addition to square it off and has not considered relocation; more flood plain mitigation would be required, and its present location is the high spot on the property. He would like to maintain the character of the property. He noted that in order to move the structure behind the 75’ setback would require use of a holding area in that setback. Stoddard noted that mitigation can occur elsewhere. minutes of the orono planning commissionMEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 («9 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) T^?"‘ has no plans McMill^ noted the currently driveway to be about one car's length. Rahn said he would locate the garage and driveway further uphill and close to the 35* setback. Lindquist inquiry about having a bathroom located in the flood plain. The applicant said he was not altering anything in «'ie flood plain. McMill^ inquired about the side yard setback. Rahn said the structure would be located 5.3 on the closest comer. Van Zomeren said the constmction on the other side does not increase that side setback. Smith w^ informed that the applicant plans on reading in this residence. She asked if he had considered a two-stoiy design rather than expanding out. Rahn said his neighbor expressed concern with a two-story design. The proposed design is one story with a steep pitched roof. Smith said she had a problem supporting a plan with doubling hardcover in the 0-75* and asked for less impact in this setback. Rahn said the current house is 600 s.f and the proposed is at a minimum at 1,300 gross floor area. He noted the residence next door is at a 29% coverage and was built in 1983 which has the same standards as currently exists. He noted a lot line rearrangement in 1961 deemed the property buildable. There were no public comments at this time. Lindquist noted that buildable properties are allowed 15% stmctural coverage and the propose is at 1328 s.f Concern was voiced with the stmcture location in the 0-75' but Lindquist noted there is no other location in which the structure can be located. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2248 for a conditional use permit for land alteration for setback in the flood plain, hardcover at 19%, lakeshore setback as existing, and side setback if necessary. Schroeder inquired if a side yard setback is required even though no changes are made due to foe original variance required for the property. If necessary, a side yard setback variance would be included in foe above motion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15 f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#10) #2249 - KEIJ,Y SinXIVAN FOR U.S. MARSHAI., 2245 FRENCH LAKE ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:02-9:06 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gafifron reported that the application is for a lakeshore setback variance for construction of an on-site sewage treatment system. The property abuts French Lake, which is a Natural Environment Lake requiring a 150' setback. The septic site evaluation determined that the location at 97’ tfom the OHW is the only feasible site that meets the septic requirements. The existing system does not meet the 3' separation. The new system would meet that requirement. The prior setback for the septic system, which would have been adhered to prior to 1992 was 75'. Gafiron said staff recommends approval of the proposed location for the septic system and finds the 97' setback appropriate. Kelly Sullivan said the proposed plan was determined to be the best way to remove the old system and tie it in with the new system. There were no public comments. Sullivan noted that the U.S. Government owns the property which was seized through a narcotics violation. It is their attempt to bring the property up to code in order to sell it. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2249 as submitted. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2250 - MAUREEN BELLOWS FOR ELLEN AND STEVE POLANSKY, 1900 FOX RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:07-9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant and representative were present. Van Zcmeren reported that the 1.32 acre property is located in the RR-IB Zoning District where two acres are required. The applicant requests a rear yard setback variance to extend a porch by 5 and add a third stall garage. The zoning lot conforms to lot 'vidth and side yard requirements. The existing residence encroaches into the front and rear jwds. Van Zorneren indicated that the shape of the lot creates the hardship. There is a utility easement in the area and steep topography to the rear. Staff recommends approval. Maureen Bellows reported that the proposed location for the third stall was the only viable location creating the hardship. She noted the porch needs reconstruction, '•'he septic system location also creates a problem in locating the garage. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#11 - #2250 Maureen Bellows for Ellen and Steve Polansky - Continued) There were no public comments. McMillan adced if the neighbor to the south was notified. Van Zomeren said the neighboi was going to come and review the plans. Bellows said she talked with the neighbor on this date. The neighbor was concerned that the proposed improvements would affect a possible subdivision for the neighbor. Bellows informed her it would not. McMillan asked if there would be a retaining wall by the garage. Bellows said a retaining wall would be located by the comer of the garage at about 4.5'-5 ’ height down to 3.5 ’ to maintain the driveway. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to recommend approval of the application due to the unique nature of the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2252 - WARREN AND CHRISTINE BffiLKE, 2565 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:12-9:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.2 acre property is located in the LR-IC, 1/2 Acre Lakeshore Residential District. The propos^ is to add 6’ and 4' to the side and entrance of an existing 2.5 car garage replacing non-structural hardcover with structural hardcover. Van Zomeren said staff had been unaware that the ^pUcants had removed plastic under landscapmg and had not been ^ven credit for doing so. A previous owner was to have removed said plastic as a condition of a prior application v^ch increased the property ’s hardcover to 3.5.6%, The current proposal is to increase hardcover of 34.9.5% to 35.1%, or 2936.5 s.f Schroeder noted that the plastic should not have beon there in the first plac« and does not satisfy reasoning for excess hardcover. Lindquist asked if the applicants were aware of the restrictions reg^ing future hardcover increase limitations on the property. The applicant said they have lived there four years and were aware that the plastic should have been previously removed. Tb^ then removed? the plastic in order to submit this proposal in order to come vnth an application that included the hardcover amount for variance granted in 1991. Mrs. Bielke s^d they removed more hardcover than had been required. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#12 - #2252 Warren and Christine Bielke - Continued) Mrs. Bielke indicated there is a large turnaround space, and they are taking a 4 wide driveway section and 6' dog kennel and turning it into structure. The net gain of 44 s.f. is the sidewalk which will run around the edge of the garage in area that is currently rocked. Schroeder inquired if there was any other hardcover that could be removed. Mrs. Bielke said the only other hardcover is the house itself McMillan noted that the sidewalk is to provide access around to the driveway, and the garage is being set back for aesthetic reasons. There were no public conunents. Schroeder noted that the Planning Commissioners periodically place conditions on applications requesting no additional hardcover be allowed in the future. He indicated that this application is a result of such a request. Smith questioned how' it should be handled. Lindquist responded that the hardcover requested is less than what had previously been allowed by the variance approval in 1991. Schroeder agreed with Lindquist citing the hardcover calculations. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2252 for a hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback subject to the hardcover not exceeding 35.6% in the 75-250' setback area for construction of 6' and 4' additions to the comers of the garage. No additional hardcover variance will be allowed in the future. Smith questioned whether that was already s^d in 1991. McMillan reiterated that the hardcover amount was less than allowed in 1991. Stoddard noted that in the future if any improvements are requested, the same amount of current stmcture to new stmcture would have to be removed to accommodate the request. He noted that no structural coverage variance is required. Smith noted the fine line being drawn but acknowledged that no future hardcover would be allowed and an equal amount of structure would be removed for any additional structure. Stoddard said the application conforms to the 1991 application conditions. Schroeder agreed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A 5 minutes recess occurred at this time.) 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 SKETCH PLANS (#13) #2240 - JIM WATERS^ LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., WILDHURST TRAIL - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Tim Waters was present. Gaffron reported that this was a continuation of a sketch plan review. The Planning Commission had previously requested the applicant to consider clustering. The applicant has submitted two additional sketches providing open space preservation and future connection to West Branch Road. Sketch plan 3 involves the creation of 19 lots averaging less than one acre. The properties are located in both the one acre and two acre zoning and are within and outside the MUSA boundary. The plan would require sewering, a MUSA amendment, a PRD, rezoning for density, and a comprehensive plan amendment. Sketch plan 4 involves 28 smaller lots averaging 80’ in width, 1/3 acre in size, in a linear clustering format with open space around the perimeter. A longer open space area is provided along the park boundaries. The homes would be closer together. Sewer would be required and a comprehensive plan amendment. The plan would provide a corridor to West Branch Road. Waters said he found the clustering concept interesting. He noted sketch plan 4 would provide substantial open area, preserve the slope, provide tree and woodland cover, and a potential access to West Branch Road. He noted there would not be room for flexibility within the lots, and it would require more cutting of swaths of ground cover to achieve this clustering. He does not believe this plan makes sense and prefers a more modified clustering as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters said sketch plan 3 preserves open space and undisturbed areas allowing for wider lot widths averaging 140' and and one acre lot averages. There is also more flexibility in siting homes. Open space would be created on the south, along the road perimeter, the back and side areas, and preservation of dense wooded areas and slopes would be preserved. He suggested conservation easements be considered. Waters said this plan also allows for more movement of the homes to preserve the side lot treed areas. Clear cutting would not be necessary except for the- roadway. The access to West Branch Road would be preserved. The sites would allow for sewering. It would allow elimination of the problem with access to the park from the north. Access to the Hennessey parcel would be from the other proposed subdivision property. Plan 3 would eliminate unnecessary traffic through the park. He noted while the plan requires MUSA amendment and comprehensive plan amending, the layout makes .sen.se. 19 ‘ ■ %4' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGHELDON JUNE 16, 1997 (#13 - #2240 Tim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) Waters indicated that the use of sketch plan 2 would not require a PRD. Lindquist and Smith felt sketch plan 3 made most sense. McMillan said she preferred either sketch plan 3 or two acre septics. She did not support mixing two acre and one acre zoning. Lindquist said he felt all of the lots should be sewered or not be sewered. Waters said he would need to speak with the City Engineer. He noted that the septic ^sterns would not serve the public. McMillan said she was concerned with removal of trees and creating more traffic. Schroeder said the perimeter buffering is reminescent of Sugar Woods in maintaining the trees. He saw sketch plan 3 as having similarities to the Sugar Woods development plan. He would prefer less lots but understands the economical ramifications. Schroeder said he would prefer 16 sewered lots versus following the MUSA boundary. Stoddard indicated that this would follow the concept presented in sketch plan 1 with MUSA and 17 lots. Schroeder agreed but said he would prefer to see more clustering and open spaces as shown in sketch plan 3. Waters acknowledged that more is accomplished under sketch plan 3. Stoddard inquired whether there would be demand for homes shown in sketch plan 3 versus sketch plan 1. Waters said he feels that plan would work and either plan would sell. He felt the difference came to tree preservation and sewer in the street that would not be used in the immediate future. McMillan noted that three lots in sketch plan 3 were less than 40,000 s.f. and asked the reasoning behind it. Waters said the lots could be enlarged by diminislung the outlot, but he was trying to create more common areas with walking paths and eliminate creating one riparian lot. He does not wish to see a boat dock but possibly a fishing dock only. Schroeder indicated that a homeowners association might request such a dock for boats. Gaffi'on said the Shoreland Ordinance would prevent that fi’om occurring. Schroeder asked if Waters was considering walking trails. Waters said he would not want hard surface trails. 21 minutes of the orono CO^SSION meeting HELD ON JUNE 16.1997 (#13 - #2240 Jim Waters Sketch Plan - Continued) ^th qiM^oned what "undisturbed areas" were and how they would be controlled. Waters said this could be done through conservation easement, association regulations coven^ts depending on the level of restriction desired. Smith said she would not want to see ball fields or uses that would deviate from the open space concept. Lindquist said the controls could make that determination. Smith said other applications where such mtentions were made resulted in other uses. She requested controls be placed that would maintain the open space. Undquist received confirmation from Waters that he would meet with the Council and the homeowners in the area. Gafiron asked for clearer direction regarding MUSA, zonipo clustering, noting the Park Commission's review indicated requesting park fee or land would depend on the plan. Lindquist said he preferred all of the property be within the MUSA under a PRD. McMillan questioned whether accessory structures should be allowed. Schroeder indicari’ed that two acre zoning with sewering could acconunodate accessory structures. If a PRD was used, the City could insist on covenants. Gafifron said the developer could be asked to restrict the use in the PRD. Schroeder said he preferred the property all be within the MLISA, use of clusterine concept at a density level less than 19 lots (preferring 14 or 15 maximum), traii.s tied in to the surrounding area, noting sketch plan 3 as the preferred plan. Smith .said .she agreed with the comments made by Schroeder and Lindqui.st. As a second choice, Smith said she would recommend all lots be 2-acre zoning with both MUSA and non-MUSA. She would like to see controls placed on the open spaces, undisturbed areas, outlet, and stormwater pond. Schroeder questioned whether the 1 acre lots could be required to be changed to 2 acres. Gafiron said such a "downzoning" might create potential problems, getting into the issue of a "taking". Stoddard said he preferred all lots be within MTJ.S.A, with sketch plan 3 preferred with one acre minimum lot size. He supported sketch plan 1 if all were within the MUSA at general 1.5 acre lots sizes. Stoddard said he appreciates the clustering concept. Gaffron noted that the Council will review the sketch plan at their upcoming meeting. .iLZ. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (/^i4) //2251 - TRy\C\' WHITEHEAD, 1220 LATVIAN A\TBNTJE - SUBDIVISION/SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. & Mrs. Whitehead were present. Gaffi-on reported that this sketch plan is similar to the plan reviewed for a subdivision six years ago. That review wen* through the preliminary plat process with many recommendations but stopped at ihat point. He indicated that the dedicated portion of Lyman Avenue ends and a private gravel road continues to a partially dedicated cul-de-sac which has not been constnicted. There are wetlands on the property, an easting house with driveway that runs through the neighboring property with easement rights, steep and hilly topo^aphy, and a small man-made pond. Gaffron «wid the main concern with the plan is the narrow roadway and maintenance He noted that much of the area has slopes of 18+% which would not allow for mound septic systems. He noted these lots were most likely buildable but voiced concern with erosion control. The proposal caUs for th. :e new lots in addition to the lot with the existing residence that nins north and south. A driveway outlot would be created for lots 1 and 2 but has to cut across steep slopes. Gaffron indicated that there is an issue with the amount of acreage noting the back lot requirement of 150% standard. He said the code does not specify whether the 150% back lot acreage must be all dry buildable but is usually spoken of as such. The back lot would then not meet the area requirement. Lot 2 would be 2.23 acres including the wetlands. Lot 1 would be 3.9 acres. Lot 4 could access Lyman with a house located on the hill. Gaffron said septic siting is critical. Septic locations have been, found but are very restrictive The exi.sting house has a new septic system with alternate site. One septic site location for Lot 4 may conflict with the needed right-of-way for the existing road. 1 he wetland at the north end of lots 1 and 2 is in the National Wetlands Inventory and would require buffering. Gaffron indicated that the cut for the driveway would require filling, retaining w^ls and be close to the dredged pond area. Gaffron said staff believes the road should continue with a cul de-sac at the end but is not within the applicant's control noting the applicant's driveway comes through the neighboring property via an easement. For the short term for this developm' Gaffron said a cul-de-sac could be located outside of the proj^rty line but would im the septic sites if located within the property. A cul-de-sac within the property woula also cut into the hillside. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#14 - #22 Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Gafiron noted that during the earlier review, it was suggested there may be only two additional lots instead of three. That review did not reflect the septic site used for the existing house. Recommendations b«ien made to eliminate the narrow driveway and the back lot. He presented a sketch of how two additional lots might be oriented. He noted all lots would abut the road but require a width variance at the cul-de-sac. He questioned whether access to the house could be accomplished across the pond. Gaflfron suggested a roadway with cul-de-sac would impact the neighbor as well as impacting the nird feel, hence, this sketch might not be practical. Smith noted the attempt in balancing the needs questioning the cul-de-sac and use of existing driveway. She noted that there may only be two additional lots. Gaffron agreed that this may be the case with the existing residential lot and two additional lots Mrs. Whitehead reported that they currently have two separate tax parcels. Mrs. Whitehead indicated th?J the reason for abandoning the project before was due to a heavy work load. They aic stow pursuing the issue as they are being relocated. She said they would like to create a development with the least amount of impact maintaiiung the park atmosphere. Whitehead said they do not want to impact the existing house. She noted the property is heavily wooded. Whitehead said they reviewed the codes in 1991 in order to present a plan that would be in compliance. She said all lots would have two septic sites (designed for 5 bedroom homes), two acre dry buildable, and meet required setbac' Lindqui.st was by Mrs Whitehead that they preferred the road being improved without adding ;• C4:i-de-sac. She felt the road could come up around on the west side and include a driv . ;ay. Mrs. Whitehead suggested that the focus had been on Lyman Avenue previously. With the plans approved for Highway 12, Whitehead suggested a cul-de-sac could be placed on the property further back that will be taken for Highway 12. It was noted that McMillan lives in the neighborhood as dues Smith. Whitehead said their home was the second one built on the road, but they are facing consequences from being the last to develop their property. Schroeder indicated that there is an issue of the road serving the number of lots. Whitehead said one property was subdivided into three Iocs. 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 : A \t* L t X 1 uv'jr r I AixiV'AiV'UVi v.'Oaaii71ij McMillan ssad she had two concerns regarding Lyman Avenue. She noted the problem with the curve radius presenting a blind comer and adding more traffic on the road. McMillan said cuLde-sacs are more a priority than widening the road. She felt the suggestion of using the lot lost by Highway 12 project for a cul-de-sac is interesting. McMillan noted that the correction to the radius of the road would require use of the Whitehea: j. roperty. Whitehead agreed. Mrs. Wlntehead asked about the road width. Lindquist indicated that the road would be 24-30’ wide. Gaftron said the City Engineer suggested a 20' paved surface with changes made to the curve. It would be widened to accommodate a fire truck and equipment staging which presently cannot be done. McMillan was informed by Whitehead that the wetlands have nr»t been delineated. Gaffix>n said the Wetland Conservation Act protects the wetlan and will have an impact. Schroeder asked the applicants why they need to make four lots instead of three. Mrs Whitehead said it was a financial matter in maximizing the number of lots adding that she thought the olan would meet the code reouirements. McMiUan said the wetland delineation may result in the lots not meeting standards. Mrs. Whitehead said she would move forward on having the wetland delineation to make that determination. Schroeder was informed by Gafiron that the back lot does not meet the 150% standard. Gafiron questioned how the wetlands would affect the back lot. Mr. Whitehead said the wetlands are taxed and are then part of the parcel. Gaffron indicated that other parts of the code have to be considered. The Planning Commission will need to review the code and determination whether the wetlands are included in the amount credited for the extra back lot acreage requirement. Schroeder asked Gaffron what variances are involved. Gaffron noted there is the back lot issue and whether Lot 3 abuts a public road. He indicated that the lot areas and widths are probably satisfactory otherwise. The 50’ front and 30' side setbacks should be met. Gaffron said the driveway on the slope may require an easement as this driveway probably cannot be constructed within a 30' corridor. Retaining walls would also be required. Gaffron said septic sites must be located 75 ’ from wetlands and some sites are questionable. He also Questioned whether the seotic sites would meet setbacks from the radius of the road. Whitehead asked that Gaffron provide them with a list of the variances. Gaffron indicated that tliis is not usually done in the sketch plan review but would provide such a list. Mr. Whitehead said he had not thought there would be any variances. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNII n IG COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 //225! Trac>’'AT'Jtehead Ccntinued) Schroeder asked that neighbor comments be gathered. McMillan s»d she is concerned with runoff, the woods, and wetland areas as well as removal of trees, access, and increased trafSc. McMillan noted there is a substandard lot adiacent to the orooertv. She believes there mav be a more creative aooroach to a subdivision and three additional lots to the one existing will be difficult without requiring a large number of variances. Mrs. Whitehead said she believes the requirements will be met by the proposed plan. Schroeder inquired about the road. The applicant said two lots would be accessed from a driveway and all four lots from Lyman Avenue. Schroeder questioned whether the road is capable of handling this degiee v.f de .clopment. Gaffron said the road is in need of an upgrade, and the radius should be changed. He questioned how the area would be affected by the development with three additional houses on a narrow road. Lindquist asked who would oav for the uoerade of the road. Gaffron said the develooer would pay for improvements on his property. It has not been determined how the upgrade would affect other properties. Smith asked if one less lot would substantially help, Gaffron said it would make the subdivision easier. He is not sure how critical the variances will be. The concern is with the acreage for the back lot and how to bring the road across the slope. He questioned if the road was brought to the west whether th. ^. ptic sites could be avoided. Mr. WWtehead indicated that there was some flexioility in the septic sites. Lindquist asked Gaffron to put together a list of potential prot’ems for the applicant. Schroeder noted the list of variances A-G noted in the 1991 review. Stoddard informed Whitehead that the list is included in the memo of February 14, 1991 on page 9. Schroeder indicated that the property is subdividable but questionable as to how many lots. He noted the road will be a consideration. Lindquist said if requirements are met, the lots are buildable. Stoddard said wetland delineation should occur next and be used as a tool to determine if the septic sites are adequate. It will also assist in determining the number of lots. The road issue would then remain. r« ■ rtTtfHTi IT? rroiTiTi rtiv«rc ^.lnWl¥^T«r<Wil tT.r«4 ^ rtl f :1 |T« HI S:l lit P.TiIiBiO ^liItKlTt rtini iiT:Ttl« RT?¥iTtrtr^IJiinili7i¥tfiTOHW^ riiCiiir^ III ^iiCtltlhUOllll^t •Iflt p:l #1 iJ I rti I»; H ri rtKivi Milt [Ti ■ il ij I Ct^AIM lEii • 1 n» iwiili liMlC^t rtBiimfiit oi till rn w MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (Jf 15 Planning Commission P^eport of Council Meetings Continued) Van Zomeren will supply copies of the memorandum that was directed to Council regarding accessory structures, the minutes of the Council meeting relating to the topic, and the notice of publication. (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION A member of the audience indicathe was disappointed with the sketch plans presented under agenda item #14, A'^plication #2251 , He is concerned with the roadway. Stoddard indicated concern with allowing the cabin improvements (agenda item #9) to be made within the 0-75' setback and possibly setting a precedent for similar situations to follow. (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1997 MEETING McMillan moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 19, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 23,1997 AND JULY 14,1997 June 23 - Schroeder July 14 - Stoddard ADJOURNMENT Stoddard moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at U: 10 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. T inrlnnict P^rcrm mm rimTni'f'J r. IK. Wli^mAm(^9jnnnsm feiW r«ii ii« h «ll^l K ii|i iHh iK. I ; rt[i r«Ttr^#ra [Z19W9U9H] Mils • Iii:(; I ^tltlfTcSsTtlf iimiT1;j BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair. Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound Bert Foster Secretary, Deephaven Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Tom Gilman Excelsior Gretchen Maglich Minnetonka Eugene Fartyka Minnetiista Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood Orono Victoria LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3500 SHADYWOOD ROAD, SUITE 19 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE 612/471-9588 • FAX 612/471-0632 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECLiTIVE DIRECTOR July 7, 1997 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors, I would like to thank you for coming to the 6/25/97 Board meeting. Your attendance was greatly appreciated and we understand the City of Orono and the LMCD have some philosophical differences. Despite these differences, it is time to move forward. Your opening comments were very positive. We look forward to City of Orono s input by either appointing a Board member or having future discussions regarding a Board member being appointed to the LMCD. It is very important to this organization and the lake that the City of Orono have representation on the LMCD Board. The LMCD Board passed a resolution unanimously to respond to your request by this letter and invite Orono to appoint a director to the LMCD Board. In closing, I agree there is no better time than now to have cur organizations look to the future. Working together, we will make for a better Lake Minnetonka in the future. Sincerely, AKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Douglas Babcock LMCD Board Chairman o 60% Recycled Content 30% Post Consumef Waste cc: LMCD Board Web Page Address: http://www.winlernet.com/-lmcd/ E-mail Address: lmcd@winternet.com Jomn Scmeiu 4807 WAinnowN R oad MAItf ruui^ MN 85350*088 1 8t2<vM0*8082/rAX-449*92l8 iNTOMCn D0C@SK-MN.00H 7 July, 1997 Conunissioner Penny Steele 2400 Government Center St. Paul, MN. 55487 BECE1VE9 JUl 1 0 1997 Q\f V Of ORONO Re: C.R. 6 Proposed Expansion Dear Peony, iA behalf of my wife Joan, daughter Kade, and myself, I would like to extend our warmest thanks with great t4)precition to you and your entire staff for saving the aged and historic trees that front our property along Hennepin Oxinty State Aid Highway 6 (A.K.A. Watertown Road). In over eighteen (18) months of inquiry and negotiation with officials from the City of Orono, Ifeimepin County arid the State of MN, your actions (and those of your staff, particularly Mike Amery) were the only ones which cut through die red tape and bureaucracy sUelding (traditional) government from the voter. It was amazing to discover how simple these tasks become when public officials work with the community rather than around it. I doubt Jim Grube’s intervention and assistance would ever have taken pl^ without your help. I will keep you informed of all activity and progress on the upgrading of C.R. 6 as the project develt^, and look forward to the opprotunity to work with you and your staff in the future. Thank’s again for your concern and assistance. Serena JFS/ss Cc: Mike Amery Jim Grube Norm Coleman H.C. Board of Commissioners Orono City CounciK^ The Drimeyer Uroup, Inc. EXECUTIVE SEARCH TKCONSUITUNC 904 Main Street, Suite 205 Hopkins, MN 55343 (tl2) 945-0246 Er io C2i^111 »' Nurturing Governance Route: ___Colleagues ___File in notebook Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 The Brimeyer Group Assignments Rccent/Current; •Council Administrator— City of Red Wing, MN • County Administrator— Rice County, MN •City Manager — City of Spencer, lA • City Administrator— City of Cottage Grove, MN •City Manager- City of Maquoketa, lA • Coordinator—Bryant Village Initiative, Minneapolis, MN Applying the Strategic Planning Process Repreaentalive Searchl^: • Marketing Manager-s«. BWBR, Architects • -s. •£^y Administrator—'^ — -City of.Storm Lake, lA'^ •County Administrator— St. Louis County, MN • County Economic Development Director— Becker County, MN • City Manager —City of Benson, MN • General Manager of Municipal Utilities— City of Elk River, MN • City Administrator— CityofNorthfield,MN • Director of General Services/Deputy City Manager —City of Mankato, MN •Executive Director— Metropolitan Library Service Agency The spring issue of The Brim Report described the Strategic Planning model used by TBG Consulting to assist orga­ nizations in their Strategic Planning process. This planning model has been successfully applied on several TBG assignments in the public sector and was recently very effective in assisting a financial services institution determine its strategic position in the competitive marketplace. "The model was first used to attain a consensus agreement as to where the firm wanted to be in the future," said Jim Brimeyer, President. "A four point mission statement was developed and then expanded into a timetable of specific actions to be completed, by whom, and during what time period." During the initial planning session, the mstituhon identified four groups that needed to be considered to successfully plan for the future: the customers, the surrounding community, the employ­ ees, and the shareholders. Their result­ ing mission statement pledged to provide the following to each group: — Customers Superior personal service A choice of quality pr yducts — Community Rnanded support Volunteer leadership from staff — Employees • A challenge to grow • Rewarded as a valued asset — Shareholders • Success and enhanced value • Financial integrity and fairness The following specific projects were then identified as necessary to attain these long range goals: • Expand fhe physical plant management sbuctiue ;e use of technology , kv, competitive services - •Establish profitability ratios/goals "Decision points were documented for each strategy, individuals were as­ signed to follow up, and completion dates were established," said Brimeyer. Management now has a specific plan of where they are going and what steps they need to complete in order to ac­ complish their goals. At this point, many managers feel that the toughest part of the job has already been accom­ plished." To obtain additional information on TBG and all services offered, contact Jim Brimeyer at (612) 945-0246, or by e-mail at brimgroup ©aol.com, or visit the TBG Home Page at http:// members.aol.com/brimgroup •* i •-.I ! The Brimeyer Group, Inc EXECUTE SEARCH TK CONSULTING 904 Main Street, Suite 205 Hopkins, MN 55343 voice: (612) 945-0246 fax: (612) 945-0102 e-mail:brimgroup@aoI.com web: http://members.aoI. com/brimgroup Summer Issue July 1997 Vol. 5, Issue 3 Nurturing Governance By James Brimeyer—President An article in the June edition of Govern­ ing magazine titled "The Politics of Ugliness" makes reference to an "epi­ demic of incivility", particularly in local government across the country. Indeed, it does appear that local government has taken a turn towards rudenesj m scores of American communities ail over the map. Most public meetings do not display the courtesy, respect, and decorum that was used in the past. Instead, we have a new behavior of hostility, antagonism, and mistrust. The Governing magazine article px>ints out that "Civic rudeness has risen to new levels in the 1990's and the sources lie outside the Co\mcil chambers. They are found in the complexities of a changing political system and a larger culture." Below the surface of incivility, are cultural cornets of a fundamental kind that didn't exist during prior p>eriods of American life. Many elected officials do not seem to "view policy ­ making as anything other than a mad scramble for a piece of the pie." Qty Hall has often become a convenient venue to exercise political influence or to vent frustration with government. So how do governing Boards maximize their effectiveness while minimizing unacceptable behavior? Appointed staff can help. In the June edition of Public Management, Michael Letcher, City Manager of Sedona, Arizona states in his article "New Administrative/Political Symbio ­ sis" that elected officials like to be involved in getting something done and they want to be partners in "bringing about the positive influence for their policy iiutiatives". Appointed officials need to recognize that there are a new set of rules in the policy-administration dichotomy. As Mr. Letcher points out, "Appointed officials need to nurhire their relationship with elected officials and spend more time with individual Council members. They need to focus on outcomes and not so much on the rules of bureaucracy and reporting relation­ ships. Recognition that elected officials and dlizen volunteers have something to offer is essential. Appointed officials need to be ready, willing, and able to share information; get input; and de­ velop consensus. This leads to assisting, coaching and teaching the political body to understand an issue before trying to manage the issue. Past editions of The Brim Report Yave discussed the Carver Governance model and how governing boards can be more effective when they think in terms of "ends" statements rather than "means" statements and when they effectively utilize their CEO or staff to accomplish the desired results. Again, the principles of this model, together with an apprecia­ tion of administration and politics, can make everybody's role more easily understood and help to restore civility to local government proceedings. Brimeyer Presentation: Council/Staff Relations Jim Brimeyer, Steve Perkins and Don Frederick made a joint presentation to the League of Minnesota Cities annual conference held in June. AH three indi­ viduals are current or former elected officials, appointed administrators, and small business owners—and they drew on these combined experiences to present their insights on improving Council/Staff Relations. Their message, directed to board mem­ bers was: Gain a historical perspective of the organization and its policies. Spend most of your time listening to fellow Council members and staff. Think in terms of ends and results. Their mes­ sage, directed to staff was: A major portion of your job is to deal with board members, both as a group and one-on- one. Board members don't intend to micro-manage. They are just trying to help facilitate the process—and staff can help them. The summary message to both was: Strive to practice communica­ tion, respect, and trust. •ZSkltlfl •ZSKill Mi IIP. MlAVtllhfftTt MiilffUi MliiT^ MOLitllljliliVi LtJlfTlUWlSu riErtn^•rMM [•JTlT^Ct]M»TiI¥^ ruiTfi Murt tniiCQ mMm rUitMtTUSrU nTifnUiMti liKMdiMiLnrtmfinrii ^nwii mMWJmWfRTii Miicirti rtvnn^rtriiXfi Mrciit] rtWisTifi riTilT^C Marina CUPs July 10, 1997 Page 2 ordinance, were defined as Conditional Uses by that ordinance, presumably requiring that a CUP be obtained in order for those uses to continue. Four of these five uses are conditioned on the provision of adequate parking. All of the uses are subject to demonstrated conformance with landscaping and screening requirements. Jim Dunn of Lakeside Marina and Ritchie Anderson of North Shore Marina have both told me that their respective attorneys advised them to n<2l make formal CUP applications for uses which they have historically operated. The history of such uses is as follows: In the case of North Shore Marina, the On-Demand Launching (Dry-stack) and Caretaker Dwelling Unit uses are well-documented as being in place prior to the 1995 ordinance. North Shore claims to be not operating the other 3 conditional uses. - Lakeside Marina is operating all five conditional uses to some extent. The documentation as to history of these uses is less clear: a. The extent of the boat club operation prior to 1995 is unknown, but it probably was advertised and operated to some degree. b. While no dry-stacking racks are at the site, on-demand boat launching of customer-owned boats stored on trailers at the site may have been occurring prior to 1995. c. The site has long had a ramp suitable for transient boaters to use, and Dunn advises he for many years has, if the marina has space available for car-trailer storage allowed launching for a fee, typically on weekends when the public accesses are full. d. The extent of charter boats picking up passengers at Lakeside is not documented in City records. Dunn claims it has been occurring for many years. e. Dunn indicates he has established an apartment for his own occasional use within the marina building, and he on occasion has stayed overnight for security purposes or when he is in town for only short stays. Both Dunn and Anderson claim their uses as noted above are 'grandfathered', i.e. that they were established prior to the 1995 ordinance and therefore are not subject to the CUP requirement. It was the clear intent of the City that these two marinas would be subject to the CUP requirements. It might be argued that Boat Clubs are merely a form of boat rental, and therefore that the boat club use was a permitted use prior to the 1995 ordinance. However, it is clear that the other four conditional uses were not specifically allowed in the code prior to 1995, and it might then be argued that those uses w'ere not legal. It appears somewhat problematic that the City apparently took no specific action to eliminate or regulate those four uses prior to 1995. Marina CUPs July 10,1997 Page 3 The issue ot gr^dfathering' is presenting a problem. Staff has requested that the City's prosecuting attorney detennine how best to gain compliance of the two marinas who refuse to apply for CUP’s. Ihe prosecuting attorney has indicated to me verbally that in their opinion this matter should not be prosecuted criminally, for the following general reasons: 1. We would be citing the m^nas for operating each of the conditional uses without the required CUP. The City prevailing in a criminal citation does not necessarily compel action, but merely results in a fine up to $700 and/or 90 days in jail. It is likely that either marina would plead not guilty and request a jury trial, which is their right. 2. In a criminal proceeding, the City bears the burden of proof. The City would have to prove that the m^nas are operating without the required CUPs. In the prosecuting attorneys opinion, it is likely that the marinas would argue they are grandfathered. If just one juror agrees that they should not be subject to the CUP requirement the City would lose. 3. Apparently, in the prosecuting attorney's opinion, converting an existing use that is not identified in the old code, to a conditional use requiring specific approvals, is the same as converting a previously permitted use to a non-permitted use. This then becomes the typical case of continuing a non-conforming use', which is difficult to eliminate unless there has been a one-year lapse in the use as well as an intent to let the use lapse. I am therefore asl^g that Barrett review this situation and assist me in determining a course of civil action to gain compliance (or, determine that the code is unenforceable and define strategies for changing it). 'Die City's primary goal with marinas is to minimize their impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. A secondary goal that has perhaps become significantly less deeply defined over the last 20 ye^ is to reduce the overall impact the marinas have on the lake environment. Our specific goals in gaining compliance with the CUP requirement include the following: a. b. c. Compliance merely for compliance's sake; i.e. the code requires it, one other marina which was required to comply did so, and all should be treated equally. Establishing a documented plan by which each of the marinas in question has defined how it will meet parking needs for the various uses, and which the City can use as a tool to ensure that parking doesn't become a problem. Establishing a landscaping/screening plan for each of the marinas in question, which can include maintenance of existing landscaping/screening and/or the addition over time of additional landscaping/screening. mpg r t Mayor Jabbour and Orono Councilmeinbers FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE; July 11,1997 SUBJECT: Highway 12 and County Road 6 Interchange Concept Plans wasI have attached a concept pl^ for an interchange at County Road 6 and Highway 12. This plan . _ prepared as part of Hennepin County’s effort to obtain a grant to construct the interchange on an earlier schedule than the rest of Ae Highway 12 upgrade project. The one important element that is missing from this concept plan is an entrance ramp directly ^m east bound County Road 6 to east bound Highway 12. I will try to contact the engineer who developed the concept plan to determine whether he has a plan that includes the entrance ramp, or whether an entrance ramp can be added to this plan without major revision to the remainder of the plan.