HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1997 Council PacketrI • «►
Public A ttendance
Meeting D ate I I - lO ' i '1
C ouncil
Planning C ommission
Park C ommission
Other
Please nLL out the information
REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
NAME (please print)ADDRESS
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME OR NUMBER
5..
6..
7,
8..
9.
10..
11.
13. __
14. __
15.
091395.4
r
To;
From:
Date:
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator
November 6,1997
Subject! Fence at 2570 Thoroughbred Lane
Attached is a letter fix>m Steve Filips of2570 Thoroughbred Lane regarding the fence which recently
was constructed. Also attached are my letters of October 22 and 31.
I met with Mr. Filips on October 27 and advised him that a variance is unlikely, given that the fence
w^brou^t to staffs attention by the Council. However, I also advised that he could discuss this
with the Council under Public Comments at the November 10 meeting. His November 4th letter
suggests a temporary variance, for which he could potentially apply , r» eview by P*anning
Commission in January. I indicated the fence can remain as-is for the moment pending'fiirther
Council du^ction on November 10.
r
s I
1 I' 1
I
BEceweo
m 0
CVVI 'J'"
oaoNO
November 4,1997
Michael P. Gaffron
Senior Planning Coordinator
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323-0066
Re: Fence ~ 2570 Thoroughbred Ln.
Dear Mr. Gaffron:
I am writing in response to your request for a summary of the reasons I would like to propose for
consideration of a variance at the upcoming co uncil meeting.
The primary reason for the fence is to partially block the road noise and headlights from
Watertown Road and Truffiila Tr. Of particular nuisance is the direct headlight glare from
i. rfrila Tr., which approaches my property at a 90 degree angle, shining in all of my rear
windows. The fence was erected to give temporary relief while the vegetation along my rear
property line matures. At that future time 1 would prefer not having a fence.
1 am requesting this consideration because I called the City Offices several months before
erecting the fence. 1 gave my name and address and told the lady answering I was considering
putting up a privacy fence along the rear of my property. I ask if there were any restrictions or
permits that 1 would need to comply with. I was told the only restrictions were that rear fences
could be a maximum height of 6 feet and front fences could be 3 feet maximum, and there was
no permit requirement. I then contacted Tony Eiden to check on any homeowners' restrictions
and was told there were none.
I feel that because I did use diligence in proceeding with the erection of the fence and
considering the cost involved, I should be given consideration for a variance at least until the
vegetation grows to obstruct the above nuisances.
Since^y,^
itevenj^lips
2570 Thoroughbred Ln.
r
k
GITYof ORONO
Municipal
Stmt Address:
2750 Kelley Partway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066
October 31,1997
Steven N. Filips
2570 Thoroughbred Lane
Long Lake, MN 55356
Dear Mr. Filips:
Thank you for meeting with me on October 27 to discuss your fence. This letter is to confirm that
you may appear at the City Council meeting on Monday, November 10,1997 to review this matter
briefly with the Council. The goal of such a discussion would be to gain some insight as to whether
a request for a variance (or perhaps a temporary variance) would have any Council support.
It would be helpful if you could provide a short letter to the Council describ’mg the reasons the fence
is needed at its current location and height. If we receive this by Thursday, November 6 it can be
included in their meeting information packet and give them some background prior to the meeting.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-7357.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Gaffroh
Senior Planning Coordinator
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510
r
%0'GITYof ORONO
Municipal Offices
Stmt Address:
2750 Kelley Partmay
Orono, MN 55356
Mallinf Address:
F.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
October 22,1997
Steven N. Filips
2570 Thoroughbred Lane
Long Lake, MN 55356
Re: Illegal Fence
Dear Mr. Filips:
It come to the attention of the City that you have constructed a fence approximately 6 feet in
property boundary. This fence as constructed is in violation of Orono
mng Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 which limits the height offences to 3-1/2 feet within
both street yards of through lots ’ (lots that abut streets at both the front and rear).
Additioiwlly, it aj^ars that this fence may be located within a wetland protected by the State of
Minnesoto Wetland Con^rvation Act, and if so, is in violation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit which was issued for this subdivision, per the attached covenants.
The fence must be brought into compliance within 30 days. Correction of all violations may
require one or more of the following actions: ^
1. Remo ve it from the defined wetland area and reduce the height to 3-1 /2 feet if it is
to be located less than 50 feet from your north lot line.
2. Remove it from the defined wetland and place it at a location at least 50 feet from
your north lot line if it is tc remain at its current height of approximately 6 feet.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Gaffron
Senior Planning Coordinator
end.
Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
• • • *
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF
COVENANT OF nEPiCATIOlV
#
The undersisned, Orono Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Pannershrp and
Coffin Corners Partnership, a Minnesota Partnership now stipulates to the follow ns
r^T agrees to restrict the use and title of 2
■ . f . tlocument (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit A) inaccordance witli tlie terras and conditions set forth herein.
STlPULATtON.S OF FACT
I., P . “"‘*«signed Orono Limited Pannership is the applicant for a Corps
number re/tTd' ^4-02434 N\V JDf. 33 CFR330 - App. A. NaUonwide perSt
numoer (-.6) to develop wetland; and that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has
use ° 3°?4r'’^'^'"'°" of*' Clean Water Act (33
Vendor of ‘''f Comers Partnership is the Contract for Deed
Rnv Rood e. " d'xdd" ''5 ‘ - 4 inclusive. Block 4. Old Crystal
PanntsHols thfovv . ‘°r r""!'"" ""'•'ragned Orono LiS^^ted
and Lo? 1 ° w •“If “ I-°« > - 5 inclusive. Block 1.
Countv nU a'nd ffheT’ Second Addition Hennepin
Lots ■ ’ d'tc'ulive n!/°f L*' • - «inclusive. Block 3. Lii
.\1N. " ' ■ ® Bny Ron<* Second Addition. Hennepin County.
“ '’'T'f" d'seribed above is a wetland under the
regulatory junsdtct.on of the St. Paul District of the U. S. Army Corps of Seer^
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ^ ^ engineers
• ^
_ f''® un'l'csisned applicant and the St. Paul District of the U S Army
oeriritted m deveL^r* “ “Sreement whereby the undersigned applicant will be
of Corns of Enirineer?°^*°"° ' ® *'ccordance with the terms and conditionsof Corps of Engineers Permit number 94-02434 MW JJY. 33 CFR 330 - App A.
rv^oLt, hv dM- “'® environmental effects resulting frorn thedevelopment by dedicating the easements as defined in the attached Exhibit A for perpetual
f I
r I5. That the above mentioned dedication shall consist of the execution of this document by all parties necessary to restrict the use and title of the easements as defined in
llie attached Exhibit A; and that this document shall be recorded in the OfSce of the
County Recorder for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
6. That a permit to develop the wetland above described would not have been
granted but for the dedication of the easements as contained on Exhibit A for use as
conservancy area; and, that upon receipt of a certified copy of this document, as recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the District
Engineer of the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue a validated
permit, number 94-02434 NW JJY, 33 CFR 330 - App. A. Nationwide permit number
(26), to the undersigned applicant; and that said permit shall be issued in consideration for
the execution of this Covenant.
7. That the terms and conditions of this Covenant of Dedication shall, as of the
date of e.xecution of this document, bind the undersigned to the e.xtent or their legal and/or
equitable interest in the property described in Exhibit A; and that this Covenant shall run
with the land and be binding on the undersigned and their heirs and assigns forever.
8. That the terms and conditions of this Covenant shall be both implicitly and
explicitly included in any transfer, conveyance, or encumbrance of the property described in
E.xhibii A or any part thereof; and that any instrument of transfer, conveyance or
encumbrance affecting ail or any part of the property described in Exhibit A shall set forth
the terms and conditions of this document either by reference to this document or set forth
in ruil te.xt.
DEED AND USE RESTRICTIONS
I
#
The undersigned. Coffin Corners Partnership warrants that it is the Contract for
Dees \ endor as recited above and Orono Limited Partnership hereby warrants that they
are the Owner in fee and Contract for Deed Vendees as recited above of the realty
described as Exhibit A; and that the easements recited in Exhibit A are hereby dedicated in
pe.”pe:uity for use as a conservancy area.
m
The unde.'‘signed Orono Limited Partnership and Coffin Comers Partnership hereby
agree to restrict the use and title of the easement area as recited in E.\hibit A as follows;
1. No dredged or fill material will be placed in the easement area of E.xhibit A
e.\cept as provided pursuant to permit number 94-02434 NW JJY. 33 CFR 330 - App. A.
Nationwide permit number (26).
• •
2. No commercial, industrial, agricultural or residential ‘developments,
structures or buildings shall be allowed or permitted in the easement area of Exhibit A.
O'*#..I* •
r
f'
i:
f' r-
r r
U^h
itI
v(-
F
’!
II -1^' lumbennij, mowing, drainage, burning, plowing or filling shall be
sheen or other r ^ 1 area of Exhibit A. No domestic cattle, horses,
SI po livestock shall be kept or grazed on the easement area of Exhibit A.
uMfreaterf srnrm^!^ dumping, burning, grading, excavation, direct introduction of
untreated storm water, and mowing or other vegetation removal shall be allowed without
written approval trom the Corps of Engineers^
Dcrmiitee subsennenr^ unauthonzed prohibited activity in the conservation areas by die
/lolaiion. and lha the property owner and responsible parties may be »he subject of administrative, civil or criminal action e f ^ mi/ .... suojecc or
6. This Covenant of Dedication may be changed, modified or revoked onlv
Corps of Engineers. To be effective such approval must be witnessed, authenticated and
recoroed pursuant to the law of the State of Minnesota autnenucatea ana
. . . ^*’1* Covenant is made in perpetuity such that the present owner and its
heirs ana assigns torever shall be bound by the terms and conditions se( forth rlerein.
«
ORdNO LIMI=rED PARTNERSHIP
Presid1 int of James Development
Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, a
General Partner of Orono Limited Partnership
STATE OF MINTS’ESOTA )
COLTsTY OF HENNEPIN )
n-.ee*
in....... .....
* • • -
ll
I'.K^
^ ..
t
COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP
by
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknawledged before me tliis lltr^ day of
Cc^f>W . 1994, bv
COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of the p
lawiedged belorc me tins llt^v day of
K,- General Partner of
ehalf of the paiWer^Wt.
This instrument was drafted by:
SAHR. KUNERT i TANIBORNINO
tSUU Soo Line Building
Minneapolis. .MN 55402 •
(6i:o:oo2:5)
■•V, ‘
NOTAR^UBUG ? MwSeSOTA
RAMSEY COUNTY My conunlMlon npUM 1<a>-S8
------------------------------------------------------->
Cc^dciijc
) ---------
• /V^: ??!0P. TAXES PAID
TAX=* ce^VlCSS
TR.n.:Sr^7* £r;TE?.ED
’OCT 2t 1S94
c .*:usty !<in *n .
A - r- ^ OcP JTY
4 ♦
ti
•V '
1^.31
M I •
V>| •
A slower
approach to
traffic woes
gains speed
Engineer: Building bigger
roads worit work anymore
By Laufie Blake
Star Tribune Staff Writer
The asphalt rebellion has arrived in the Twin
Cities.
Fueled by concern about speeding traffic, streets
are being narrowed to slow cars down: bike and bus
lanes are growing by the mile, and on-street parking
is m^ng a comeback.
^ding the uprising is Walter Kulash, a consulting
engineer with the unorthodox view that drivers mav
be happier on streets that don't move as many cars
as possible as fast as possible.
In growing demand nationwide by urban plan
ners looking to rejuvenate aging cities and suburbs,
Kulash, based in Orlando, Fla., has become a regu
lar consultant in the Twin Cities area. He prescribes
slower speeds, prettier streets and the construction
of iight-rail transit for the traffic problems here.
“For years, all we heard from the cities and
towns that are our clients is, ‘More asphalt, more
streets, Kulash said. “Now a lot of the very same
cities that thought their mission was to get people
in and out as fast as possible have begun to realize
what a mistake that was. “
Many cities now see the enormous value of
neighborhoods, and they want streets to support
them, he said. Some cities are looking for designs
that make a street a prestigious corporate and retail
address. Some are ooking for street designs that
make the most of natural features.
Turn to TRAFFIC on B4
TRAFFIC from B1Consultant advises adding space for walking, cycling
Kulash said he used to share
the widely held professional view
that traffic must move at the
highest possible speed and .
that almost nothing else mat
tered."
Now he believes that traffic
engineering must balance the de
sire to move cars against the
needs of pedestrians, bicyclists
and shoppers. “We are still veiy
much in favor of traffic moving as
well as possible." he said, "but
our idea of what is 'as well as
possible’ has really changed."
Kulash has been hired by St.
I’aul to help redesign Shepard
Hoad; by Roseville and six other
northern suburbs that want to
serve their communities better
with local roads and transit, and
by the University of Minnesota
Uesign Center for American Ur
ban Landscape to help first-ring
suburbs cope with the aging of
their communities.
Roads are big enough
His opinions are arresting.
He says, for example, that
I here is not much to be dnnp
about Iree^ay congestion""
ters. ‘They would much prefer to
be going slower but without long
delays in a nice environment."
If speed and absence of inter
ruptions aren't the most impor
tant things to drivers, it may be
possible to improve conditions
for motorists while also improv
ing the streets for cyclists, pedes
trians and shoppers. Kulash said.
“An example is changing a
sh; '•by, blighted strip area into a
vib;.: town center that makes
most t‘, vers think that the traffic
servii has improvetl even
though it may be slower." he
said.
L
ry:
«•;
*ir ■ ‘ •*
Consultant Walter Kulash
prescribes slower speeds
for traffic woes.
Hoads and freeways — their
1Hits come and gone, essem"
tjally.•• he satd. “We can't keen
mtiking them bigger because they
■<!re_at a reasonable maximum
VVe think that light rail is
definitely what’s next for a city
the size of the Twin Cities."
1-ighi rail would not greatly re
duce traffic congestion. Kulash
concedes, because "as soon ac
you rpffiif^p ffaffir nr m.-iku mnpp
room for it, traffic just expanse to
riiLitup.." -------
Rut it s a huge, huge trans
portation soiutiott for people who
(wouldl now have the option (of)
traveling by something other
than silting in their car." he said.
Something to look at
People who are silting in a car
iire hungry for a better environ-
■nient. Kulash says. As proof, he
•points to the motorists who cut
through neighborhoods.
' "We all thought that was
short-cut traffic." Kulash said.
But we found that a good num
ber of drivers ... can’t stand to
be out or. the ugly, blighted
streets" or waiting for traffic me-
People want livability
The notion of "livability.”
however that’s measured, is the
part of the asphalt rebellion
catching on quickly in the Twin
Cities area.
"All over the couniry, traffic is
an issue — a huge issue." said St.
Paul Public Works Director Stacy
Becker. It s an issue that people
care about and that they com
plain about. You have to start
experimenting with something
new because there is a demand
out there."
St Paul slowing traffic
St. Paul is experimenting with
several traffic-shaping strategies,
some with and some without Ku
lash’s help.
Kulash is helping the city rede
sign busy Shepard Hoad, which
runs iilong the Mississippi River,
to make it safer and more invitir.g
to development, pedestrians and
cyclists.
The question. Becker said, is
how can the road be designed to
enhance the riverfront "and how
can it be part of the urban fabric
rather than a road that races
through it?"
On Wabasha Street, one of
downtown St. Paul's tho
roughfares, the city has made two
dozen low-cost improvements
over the past two summers, in
cluding the addition of «0 on
street parking spots, a bike lane,
flower beds and banners, brighter
street lights and tiilier operations
by store owners.
The goal is to a make the street
a more pleasant place and em-
jthasix.e it as downtown's main
stieet, said citv engineer Tom
Lggum.
Pedestrians have told the cii\
in a survey that they feel more
protected from moving cats iiou
that Wabastia has mure on-street
parking, and "the ptirked cats
serve to frame the street a bit.
make it look a little more pleas
ing, a little busier atid a little
more lull of people." nggutn saitl.
What has been the impact on
traffic?
"It takes longer, but it s not
stopped." Eggum said. "If it takes
a couple more minutes to get oitt
of town and the tradeoff is that
pedestrians feel that their walk is
a lot tnore pleasant — that's not a
bad tradeoff," Eggum said.
1 hat s the thinking behiiul the
asphalt rebellioti. But where is
the slower traffic heailed?
loward a transpoitation s\s-
tern more like Europe s. wnl.
more public transit, bike parking
and pedestrian crosswalks, said
*fob Works, assistant director of
the pepartnient of TransporTa-
lion’s advanced transpon.iTmn
systems.
“There is a real awaren.-ss ihai
it's not physically possible or ei-,i
way out o
said. The department is wurki;ig
toward making biking, walking
and transit as viable in the ne.xt
centuf)' as highways have been in
the 20th century, he said.
This squares with Kulash s
view that people should never
have to get on an "ugly, bliglited.
six- or seven-lane street' to do
such ordinary things as shopjring
for groceries, taking cliildreii to
day care or picking up something
at the dry cleaners.
4I
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 27,1997 COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL
MalorTh'-T/ '"'"‘'"“‘I the following members
Wehard Film Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley! and '
AH • • ♦ Peterson was absent. Representing Staff were Citv
Gaff[on “ Pl'^‘”'!5 '’’“^"8 Coordinatorn Planner/Zomng Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public
(#1 Consent Agenda follows Planning Commission Comments)
OFwA™ MCNALLY, PART-TIME POLICE
Ron Moorse administered the Oath of Omce to Steven Allen McNally a newlv
appointed part-time police oflice: for the City. McNally was introduce to th! Council.
Newly appointed Sergeant, James Morowczynski, was present and received
congratulations on his promotion.
(#3 Ciystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trail System follows Consent Agenda)
approval of MINUTES
(*#4) REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 13,1997
S«torof otto'lT, ~Vot'e “ Tyr;. Nay^a“'“
PARK COMli^nssiON COMMENTS
wo* onT mi", Commission is continuing to
^ fltd'd i“ "itH“kb“s
Commisrbn will be discussing long term funding for parks at their next
on where tte i^rCoZiSi™ She asked for Council direction
Council to maintain contact v/ith Doug Bryant of Hennepin Parks
1 .
rI »MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(Pkrk Commission Comments - Continued)
Jabbour informed Wilson that a meeting was recently held with Doug Bryant. Moorse
indicated to Bryant that the City would like to complete an agreement regarding the trail
leading to Baker Park by the end of the calendar year and continue w orking in the future
with Hennepin Parks on other joint ventures.
Jabbour told Wilson that the Council will be reviewing the City's philosophy towards
parks in their Comprehensive Plan update. The Council has determined that the focus of
the Commission should include open space and trails. The Council feels the
Comprehensive Plan does not accurately reflect the current plans of the City in its regard
to parks. Jabbour asked Wilson to maintain close communications with the Council
regarding park issues. He noted that a consultant may be needed to aid in determining
the future goals for parks.
Jabbour informed Wilson that the Council is not interested in pursuing the purchase of
public ice time at the Orono Ice Arena at this time.
Goetten introduced Wilson to those in the audience.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Lili McMillan, Orono's Representative to the LMCD, submitted an outline of activities
over the past six weeks she has been on the LMCD Board. One issue being discussed is
that of special events permitting. Permits for these activities are currently handled by
the Water Patrol. The LMCD is considering becoming involved in the process.
McMillan asked for Council’s direction regarding this. McMillan is concerned with a
duplication of paperwork and permit fees.
Jabbour told McMillan that the LMCD has thought permits should be done in-house and
enforcement of the permits contracted with the Water Patrol. The LMCD gains benefit
from using the Water Patrol, but the Water Patrol is not always meeting the needs of the
LMCD as their priorities differ. Jabbour said licensing by the LMCD would be a
duplication.
Kelley said the permits should be handled by the Water Patrol only.
Goetten would like all cities to be informed of planned special events.
Kelley asked why the LMCD is interested in pursuing special events permits. McMillan
said the LMCD has been criticized for not being aware of all that is occurring.
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(LMCD Report - Continued)
Jabbour noted that the LMCD lacks the manpower and funding to administer these
permits. The Water Patrol has this responsibility but places safety above all. Jabbour
said the Water Patrol considers special events as a more routine matter than how it is
considered by the LMCD. The LMCD’s main focus is on controlling the exotic
matenals and should work with the Water Patrol and DNR to follow the guidelines.
McMillan reported another issue of concern voiced at the LMCD meeting was
commercial launching of boats and spread of exotics. Kelley asked the definition of
commercial launching. McMillan said it referred to boats brought in by marinas and for
co^ercial launch. Kelley said he sees no difference between that and boats being
trailered onto the lake. McMillan said zebra mussels can be carried in through the
commercial launching, but agreed it can occur by trailering boats as well.
Kelley reported that he has viewed boats pulling out at the Maxwell Bay access dripping
water and milfoil with little concern for cleaning off the material. He feels this is the
biggest problem and needs to be patrolled.
Jabbour indicated that control of zebra mussels is 15 years behind. The State has laws
about transportation of zebra mussels and milfoil into lakes and for cleaning of boats.
He suggested the LMCD develop a pamphlet for distribution to educate people on these
concerns ^nd transporting species from contaminated waters. He noted there is no
mechanism in place to ensure that boats are being cleaned. He would like to see the
LMCD support what laws are in effect without adding more. He feels there is no
difference between marinas leaking gas or introducing zebra mussels into the lake.
Jabbour would like an education program begun and asked McMillan to introduce this
idea to the LMCD. He felt this could be tied into the licensing of the marinas. Jabbour
said Ae m^nas end up being legally non-conforming and get relicensed without any
additional information given to them. A workshop on the laws and consequences would
assist in this effort.
McMillan citified with Jabbour that he would like to see more educational focus rather
than new ordinances. Kelley encouraged the education seminars to be tied into the
licensing. Jabbour indicated that the marinas should be held responsible for this
knowledge and at minimum, have a wash available at the marinas. McMillan told
Jabbour that the LMCD is keying some of their issues off of the concerns that have been
voiced by Jabbour.
'cMillan said the LMCD has just begun reviewing their Comprehensive Plan and will
be discussing the topic each month. She felt this process will take about a year to
determine what changes and amendments are required. McMillan will notify Council of
any changes that are considered.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(LMCD Report - Continued)
McMillan reported that the Lake Minnetonka Association recently held a forum on
personal watercraft operation. Many ideas were generated. She reported that more quiet
water areas will be initiated as the lake is made up of so many smaller bays where noise
from these personal watercraft present a problem. No decisions were made at that
meeting. Jabbour said he had been unable to attend that meeting but is concerned that
momentum picked up by this organization seems to loose its energy quickly. McMillan
said the Lake Minnetonka Association will be working with the LMCD and would like
to see stickers distributed with rules of personal watercraft operation.
Jabbour informed McMillan that he was told by Martha Reger of the DNR that a
consultant has been hired to review the issue of public access. He noted the City had an
agreement with the DNR to pursue public accesses in the 13 other cities on the lake
before requesting another access in Orono. Jabbour said the consultant hired is Gordon
Kimball. McMillan said she would like to see a count taken of parking spaces available
for public access.
PLANNING COM^^SSION COMMENTS
Commissioner McMillan had no comments at this time.
(*#1) CONSENT AGENDA
Items #6, 8,9, 10, 15,16,18,19,20,21,22, and 24 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote:
Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#3) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ADDITION AND SECOND ADDITION -
INTERNAL TRAIL SYSTEM
Moorse presented background on the development of internal trails in this subdivision.
An easement was taken by the City for the trails when the subdivision was platted. No
agreement was made as to how the trails would be developed. The lots were then sold
and developed, and the new homeowners may or may not have knowledge of the trails.
A meeting was held last year where resident feedback was heard regarding this issue.
They were informed that the City would further review the matter and schedule another
meeting to discuss the trails and to make a determination by the Council whether the
trails will be developed.
Jabbour indicated that the Council has extensively investigated the trail system noting
Dick Flint is the City's expert regarding trails.
i
■ %
H
1 f.
i
r
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#3 - Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trail System - Continued)
The meeting was opened for public comments.
Bob Tunheim, 2755 Countryside Drive West, is an attorney and delegated spokesperson
for the residents of the subdivision. He reported that there is tmanimous opposition to
the development of the trails. This was determined at a recent meeting held by the
residents. Tunheim said the last two residences are currently being built which will
complete the subdivision.
Jabbour reported that the majority of the Council members were involved in the
decisions regarding this recent subdivision. The City has been reviewing their entire
comprehensive trail system and feel that all voices should be heard on this issue.
Jabbour said he sees there being three issues involved: 1) whether the trail is vital to the
over-all trail system; noting whether it goes from point A to point B; 2) whether the City
was given park dedication credit for the trail property during the subdivision; and 3) if
#1 and #2 are no, then is the City giving up any of their fiduciary responsibility to the
City residents at-large if the trails are released back to the ownership of the homeowners.
Jahboiu' reported that the Council will do what is right for the City at-large regardless of
the opinion of the residents themselves.
Tunheim said there is a bike trail on Old Crystal Bay Road to Watertown that connects
to the Luce Line for use by the residents. He did not believe any park dedication credit
was given for the trails.
Moorse reported that there is not a significant public benefit in having a set of public
trails in this location, as they come off of a private drive. He thought it may make sense
to have the trails private for circulation by the residents in the subdivision. He noted the
residents' petition voiced concern with public use and bringing additional traffic into the
area.
Jabbour responded that if the trails were to become private, it would be the concern of
the homeowners to address it, and not that of the City.
Keith Bares, 2655 Countryside Drive West, reported that the trails would not go
anywhere other than to a wooded area and to an outlot. He indicated the homeowners
did discuss private trails. He asked if all of the members of the Council have viewed the
property. Jabbour reported that the Council was very familiar with the property.
r
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#3 - Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trail System - Continued)
Flint voiced concern that the vacated trails would give benefit to the adjoining property
owners and w'ould not enable the other residents of the subdivision to gain access to the
park if the trails were vacated. Flint said he sp)oke with one homeowner who thought the
proposed trails were great, and noted there was no way to get access to the Luce Line
from his property without using the trails. Flint said the intent was never to bring in the
general public to use the trails, but allow those in the neighborhood the ability to use the
trails and get to the park. He was concerned with losing this ability.
Flint asked Dick Putnam, the original devel "per, if he thought the trails should be given
to the neighborhood instead of being vacated. Putnam questioned whether there was a
legal way for the City to convey the trails to an entity. Jabbour asked if there was an
entity to which to give the trails. Putnam reported that the residents are in the process of
setting up a homeowners association separate from the other subdivision across the
street. Flint was told the other development had one developer with different builders
while this subdivision was sold to a developer, who built all of the homes. Putnam said
documents were provided to Tony Eiden, the developer, to allow for a homeowners
association.
Jabbour asked who does the maintenance of the roads. Tunheim said the 14 residents
share in the cost of maintenance. He indicated they are currently in the process of
breaking away from the other homeowners association and have an easement for the
road. Once the documentation is in place for the new homeovvTiers association, they
would have the legal entity to which the trails could be conveyed ownership. Tunheim
explained the different homeowners associations and what homes are in each
association. He indicated it is an extensive process to make these changes as the
covenants are filed against the land.
Jabbour questioned whether the City would have to sign off on the covenants. Tunheim
did not believe so. Barrett said he would have to review the covenants. He indicated the
City has a stake in seeing the homeowners association continue. Jabbour said he had a
concern with moving forward on such an activity and then finding out it cannot be done.
Kelley asked if the road was private and owned by the homeowners. He was informed
that it was. Kelley questioned what right the City has to bring traffic onto a private road.
Barrett responded that the City has a public easement over the road but may allow it to
remain private with maintenance performed by the homeowners. Kelley questioned
whether the general public could be ticketed for trespassing. Barrett said that was
possible. Kelley asked what would prevent him from getting ticketed for using the trails
to gain access from the roadway. Barrett si’id the misdemeanor offense would have to
be seen by a police officer. Kelley clarified that the general public coes not have the
right to use a private road. Barrett confirmed that the private homeowners have the right
to place an objection to the use by the general public.
r
\
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#3 - Old Ctystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trail System - Continued)
Kelley then questioned how the City can have a public trail from a private road. Barrett
confirmed that there would be no value in the trail if the access was from a private road.
Jabbour indicated that the city does have the right to the road. Barrett noted a
homeowner can eject a stranger from private property.
Kelley asked what happens if the road is kept as a public easement and the trail is given
up for a private trail. Barrett said if the access is from a private road, there would be the
right to exclude others from the trail but with an underlying public easement and a
public trail, it could open the road to being public.
Kelley asked what makes a road public. Barrett said it was done by deeming it as public
and taking over maintenance.
Jabbour said he views the trails from the perspective of the future vision of the City and
of its trails. If there was a mechanism for use by the public and included park
dedication, Jabbour said the trails should remain public. He questioned who would be
served by the trails. Jabbour noted that Flint suggested the trails would be used by the
private homeowners, and the decision should be made what will then be done. Flint
agreed.
Flint again asked that if a homeowner whose property does not connect to the public
park on Outlot A wants to access it and the trails are vacated, theii how would that
homeowner achieve access. While the general public will not be served by the trails, the
homeowners should be able to use it.
Jabbour asked Council if the public interest should be vacated. Kelley, Goetten, and
Flint agreed, but Flint asked to have a vehicle by which the other residents in the
neighborhood can use the trails
Jabbour received confirmation from Council that a vehicle should be in place by which
the residents in the subdivision can access the park. Kelley said whether that use is
available should be left up to the homeowners. Kelley said he would want all of the
homeowners to be informed and make that determination. He questioned what happens
if not all of the homeowners want access to the park. Flint said the easement would be
there, and those wanting to use it can do so.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#3 - Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trail System - Continued)
Barrett reported that if the City were to abandon their interest in the trails, the tiail
property would revert to the ownership of the adjacent property owners. He suggested a
condition be put in place, whereby, if the City agrees to withdraw their interest in the
trails, the contiguous property owners must provide the same easement for the benefit of
all of the homeowners with the property title held by the homeowners association. The
trail development itself would be at the discretion of the homeowners association. Those
adjacent homeowners to the trail property should be made aware that these residents are
not trespassing.
Bares questioned with three homeowners' associations, if all would be able to access the
trails. The trails within each association's development would make determinations on
their trails.
Bob Gehrman, 4300 6th Avenue North, asked what happens if the homeowners
association is abandoned. Jabbour said the easement would be on the deed indefinitely.
Jabbour said it was inherent to preserve the right of that community to use the trails. He
noted there is a differing opinion on what parks should be used for.
Dwight Se>vard noted the park parcel is mentioned as a passive park and sees no need to
access it. Seward said there is only brush in the area that has been cleared out and no
amenities. Flint informed Seward that parks are developed by asking neighborhood
groups what they would like to see in their parks. He noted changes made at French
Creek Preserve due to desires of the neighborhood.
Bares reported that there is benefit to green area. He indicated there does not have to be
any amenity in place for people to enjoy it. Kelley agreed noting children need to have
space to explore, where exploration is the sole piupose.
Council discussed whether the trails should be vacated to the homeowners association.
Tunheim will work with the City Attorney towards that goal.
Jabbour asked Staff if any funds were allocated to the trails or value placed on them.
Moorse said no.
Tunheim said no park dedication was credited according to the resolution of 4/25/94.
Kelley moved to vacate the public trails providing a homeowners association is in place,
but he was informed by Barrett that such vacation would require a public hearing before
the Planning Commission. Kelley withdrew his motion.
Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to direct Staff to prepare the necessary documents
and schedule a public hearing for the City to relinquish their interest in the internal trails
provided a homeowners association is in place to which the easements are conveyed.
8
. Ik
minutes of the regular orono city council
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#3 - Old Crystal Bay Road Addition Internal Trail System - Continued)
mentioned to the residents of the subdivision. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
(#5) No item for this agenda number
GERALD MCCOURTNEY, 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD
VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3987
The applicant was present.
a gate access within 75 of the lakeshore and in the right-of-way. Legal combination of
the properties cannot occur until court action has resolved the ownership of property in
question. Gaffron noted that the apron will match the other side of the driveway
a owing or better approach. The landscaping will be an arborvitae hedge set at 15-17 ’
from the paved roadway. The right-of-way is 66’. The gated access will remain grassy
and allow for entry by private maintenance personnel.
Gaffron said the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the two tax
parcels being legally combined once the court action has been finalized. The
Commission felt the removal of the house more than off-set the additional hardcover for
e apron, which greatly exceeds the allotted amount for a garage apron Per prior
variance approval, an apron is allowed at a 40' width, which provided extra parking
space. Staff agreed with recommendation subject to a hold harmless agreement signed
by applicant for the improvements within the right-of-way.
r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#7 - #2301 Gerald McCourtney - Continued)
McCourtney had no additional comments.
Goetten questioned the location of the gate. McCourtney said it is on the 75 ‘ line.
Goetten asked if the trees removed in the 0-75' setback will be replanted. McCourtney
said the trees were removed after receipt of permit. A landscaping plan consisting of
approximately 60 arborvitae and 8-10 trees and submitted to the City has been approved.
Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3987 per Planning Commission
recommendation.
Gaffron commented that the legal combination cannot occur at this time but the
applicant would like to proceed with the projects. Barrett viewed the application as
having no relation to the court action and advise allowing the applicant to go forward
wth the improvements if there is no contention regarding the property on which the
improvements will be made.
Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(*#8) #2303 ANGELA WOODHOUSE, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -
RENEWAL VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3988
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3988. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(*#9) #2304 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE -
RESOLUTION NO. 3989
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3989. Vote: Ayes 4, Navs 0.
(*#10) #2306 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH - RENEWAL
OF CLASS HI PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 3990
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3990. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#11) #2307 ELLEN PETERSON, 3355 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCE -
RESOLUTION NO. 3991
Van Zomeren distributed a photograph of the property.
The applicant was present.
r
i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#11 - #2307 Ellen Peterson - Continued)
Van Zomeren reported the proposal is for construction of a 282 s.f. carport addition with
a deck above over existing non-structural hardcover. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of all variance.,. A side % ariance is required for the carport
located 3.8' from the property line where 10' is required. The existing side setback is
6.2 . There will be a 10 encroachment of the lakeshore setback for the carport at 65'
from the lake. Van Zomeren indicated that the 21.25% of hardcover is the street itself
and must be eliminated from the calculations. The applicant is willing to remove 150
s.f. of plastic under rock in the landscaping to allow the increased hardcover for the
carport. Hardcover variances are required for both the 0-75* and 75-250' setbacks.
Van Zomeren showed the elevations of the property and improvements. She said further
clarification will be required in the resolution regarding the amount of hardcover for
Crystal Bay Road. The road is 612 s.f as noted in Exhibit H.
Ellen Peterson received clarification from Jabbour that rock without plastic is
satisfactory as long as it is not compacted by vehicles.
Goetten questioned whether the portion of driveway that encroaches onto the
neighboring property is a problem. Van Zomeren said the applicant could be directed to
remove that portion as there is most likely enough turning radius. Van Zomeren said
this portion was not included in the hardcover calculations and noted that driveways are
required to be 5' off the property line. Goetten said she would not add that
recommendation but wanted to ensure that Peterson was aware of the encroachment.
Goetten asked if there was a garage for the house. Van Zomeren said there was not. It
appears that the original tuck-under garage was converted to living space at some point
m time.
Jabbour noted that the size of the house is limited.
Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3991 with the change noted
in the resolution regarding the square footage of roadway.
Goetten indicated that she had no problem with the application itself but because there
will be an increase of hardcover in the 0-75', she would not support the motion.
Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Goetten.
r
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Jabbour noted the joint meeting held on this date with the Planning Commission was
fruitful.
Flint said he is concerned with the Saga Hill development recently reviewed by Planning
Commission and the ability to build on the property given the topography. He asked the
City Engineer to review the application to ensure the development will not create
drainage problems for properties downstream. Jabbour received confirmation from
Gaffron that both the Planning Commission and Staff have scrutinized the application
and are reviewing resident concerns.
ENGINEER REPORT
(#12) DAKOTA AVENUE MAINTENANCE
Gappa reported that Dakota Avenue is a 600' long dead-end road with seven homes
accessing off of it. The road had been gravel but was recently paved as part of the sewer
project. The road has been privately maintained but there are no records showing the
history of why that occurred. Gappa said the residents have requested the City make a
determination regarding the maintenance of the road. The sewer project is now
complete, and Gappa asked Council to make the determination regarding responsibility
for maintenance.
Gappa justified the road becoming public because it fits within the category of public
roads as it is adjacent to Long Lake Boulevard, which is maintained by the City, all the
other roads in the sewer project are public and maintained by the City, and the road now
has sewer in the street. Gappa said he understood that development in rural areas
usually hold to private road status, but he feels this road is more urban in nature, setting
no precedent.
Jabbour asked Gaffron for confirmation of the area's classification as rural. Gaffron said
the Comprehensive Plan needs to determine the differences between urban and rural
areas. He said sewer is not necessarily the guideline. What makes the neighborhood
different from the rural area is the lot sizes being less than 2 acres, averaging 1/2 to 1
acre in size. Gaffron views this as an urban cluster within the rural area of the City.
Jabbour said a distinction needs to be determined between this road and others to allow
the road to become public.
Barrett indicated that the road was platted public. This does not distinguish it, however,
as platted public roads are not necessarily made public.
Flint said his opinion of the area is one of being an urban area with how it is set up.
i k
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#12 - Dakota Avenue Maintenance - Continued)
Jabbour said the road is designated rural in the Comprehensive Plan.
Kelley said Gappa's arguments are correct. The newer roads are platted, but it is
understood they will be private when developed. Kelley said the distinction is clearly
made today but has not always been in the past.
Jabbour said he would like to be sure that the Council is not acting on an item-by-item
basis. He said he understands that Gaffron is thoroughly aware of the situation. Jabbour
said he would like to change the classification and tie up any loose ends involved.
Gappa reported that there was only three cases of similar roads, Casco Cove, which has
recently been determined for public maintenance. Shore Hills Drive, and Dakota
Avenue. Shore Hills Drive is a very short street and still unpaved. Gappa said he
reviewed all of the sewered areas and hot spots and found all of the other roads to be
public.
Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the public maintenance of Dakota Avenue.
Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#13) STUBBS BAY PUBLIC LAKE ACCESS
Jabbour noted that the City Attorney just received the information regarding this issue.
He asked that Barrett be contacted earlier in the process in the future.
Gappa reviewed the background of the Stubbs Bay public lake access. He noted how the
access has been used the past 20 years. Rock was hauled in for use by the City with a
seasonal dock. Gappa reported that the 30' wide right-cf-way was platted as Oak Street
and showed where it is located and the location of the Olsen property, which is two
separate tax parcels. Access has been over a portion of Lot 48 of the Olsen property.
The Olsen's purchased the property in November of 1996. The previous owner never
brought forward the issue of use. The dock was moved this summer onto the area
surveyed as the City ’s access as requested by the Olsen ’s.
Issues of concern include the City ’s parcel dropping off quickly in topography, and
containing wetlands which are different to traverse. He noted the Olsen property is
gradual in its slope, and was determined by the public at some point to be a better access
point. Gappa said to access the City dock, the public must cross over the Olsen
property. Gappa explained how the dock is installed.
Jabbour questioned whether there is room to get to the lake access on the City property.
r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#13 - Stubbs Bay Public Lake Access - Continued)
Goetten noted the problem with travel on tlie access during the winter months. Gappa
confirmed that there is alot of snowmobile traffic and difficulty in enforcing the use of
the City property rather than that of the Olsen's. Gappa said it is problematic getting to
the City access with the steep bank.
Gappa suggested the City consider acquiring the land owned by the Olsen's for access or
make improvements to the City property to make it more desirable to use.
Jabbou’’ said the City and general public have used the land owned by the Olsen's for
many years, noting it is used for parking, an occasional boat launch, and exercising of
animals. Jabbour received confirmation from Mrs. Olsen that she does not want the City
using her property any longer and is planning on barricading it.
Jabbour asked Barrett what the City’s legal position is regarding the access.
Barrett said, according to Minnesota law, the City has acquired the right-of-way through
dedication, as it has been openly used and maintained by the City for more than 6 years.
Barrett noted the improvements are obvious to the eye when viewing it. He suggested
the Olsen's may have recourse with their title insurance company for the loss of the
property and cost of the survey.
Barrett said the City does not have fee title but does have a road easement. Gappa said
the Olsen's are objecting to this opinion.
Jabbour said, assuming the City has ownership, is the City interested in maintaining it.
If so, what should be equitably decided regarding the Olsen's. If it is determined that it
is not essential for the City to maintain the access, how can the City return the propertj'
to the Olsen's if they now have the right to the property.
Barrett said a formal vacation would have to occur to return the property to the Olsen's.
Jabbour said that would include a public hearing. He questioned whether the DNR
would have to be notified. Gaffron said any change to a piece of right-of-way along the
lakeshore requires contact with the DNR. Jabbour noted that all parties concerned have
an interest in solving this issue as soon as possible.
Lisa Olsen, 3580 Bayside Road, referenced her letter, which includes information on the
property and the outcome from the meeting she attended with the Park Commission.
Olsen questioned whether the Council feels the information is in contrast with what
Gappa has in his report. She distributed a photo of the property. She noted the dock was
placed on City property this summer.
r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#13- Stubbs Bay Public Lake Access - Continued)
Olsen said the City property could be usable if the weeds were contained and would
provide incentive for those to use it who wish to. In response to Barrett's comments
regarding Minnesota law, Olsen noted that it is common knowledge that the gravel was
added in the last five years. Since the gravel was added, traffic has accelerated and
caused the slope in the bank.
Olsen said she is unaware of where the dock has been located over the last 20 years but
feels it was placed arbitrarily. Gappa noted the property was surveyed and staked this
summer. Olsen indicated the access is only seasonally used. Olsen said it was her goal
to make the property more residential in nature with plantings.
Jabbour said it would be possible to document the use of the access back to the
beginning of aerial photography. He indicated he has personally used the property
himself to gain access. Kelley said he has used the property since 1979 noting the dock
is usually located to the left of the trail. Jabbour felt confident the City will be able to
show use over the past six years. Jabbour said he would like to solve the issue without
having to involve other agencies.
Susan Wilson said the Park Commission is in favor of maintaining the access as the
community does use it. She noted the access has been an amenity to the community but
she would not like it located on the Olsen property. It was questioned whether access
can be totally provided from the existing City property and whether the portion used by
the City and owned by the Olsen's can be vacated.
Goetten indicated if it is the desire of the Council taking the facts presented by Barrett to
continue the use of the property, she would like to be fair to the Olsen's and reach some
agreement. She noted the Olsen's understood the property was theirs when it was
purchased.
Kelley asked Olsen if the title search revealed the use by the public. Olsen said it did
not. Kelley said he felt Olsen would have recourse with the title company.
Olsen said she does not believe the ONvnership by the City is established on that parcel.
Barrett said if the City uses the property and comes onto her portion of the property, that
would be the claim for ownership. He said it appears that the property has been
dedicated. Olsen said she then questions the facts.
Jabbour asked what it would take to establish the facts for Olsen to be satisfied with
ownership by the City. He encouraged Olsen to consider the facts and protect the rest of
her proj)erty. Jabbour noted he would personally be furious if he lost some of his land,
but indicated that the City has their hands somewhat tied as the use has established the
City's right to the property. He voiced concern with involvement by the DNR and a
possible request for a designated trail resulting in further loss.
r
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(^I j - Stubbs Bay Public Lake Access - Continued)
Kelley asked if Olsen would like to have further time to review the information. Olsen
said she would like to further discuss the matter. Barrett said he would be hapov to
participate.
Jabbour reviewed Olsen's options: I) to challenge the City by court action to retrieve the
property, noting the City can document its use; 2) note the piece of land removed from
her total land and be reimbursed by the title insurance and buffer the remaining property.
Jabbour said the portion lost is about 5-6' but a major portion remains and should be
protected. Jabbour and Kelley agreed that the Olsen's should pursue recourse from their
title insurance company.
Jabbour asked Gaffron to become involved in the issue and determining what has
occurred. He asked Gaffron to review aerial photo^'raphs.
Kelley reported there is also an issue of liability notir.g the possibility of problems with
the ditch. Kelley said the issue may take time to resolve. He noted changes have
occurred on the property and could create problems for snowmobiling this winter with
the stakes, tree branches, etc. Olsen noted that concern for liability is what brought the
issue to this point.
Flint said if the property is public, the liability lies with the City. Kelley agreed but
noted that the Olsen's could become tied up in the issue as well.
Flint noted the importance of distinguishing the property to eliminate further
encroachment. He suggested the use of posts and plantings.
Jabbour said the issue will be revisited at the next Council meeting. Meanwhile, Olsen
will meet with Gappa, Gaffron, and Moorse to review the information.
Jabbour asked whether fencing was an issue for Mrs. Olsen. He asked Gaffron to clarify
what can be done in the lakeshore. Gaffron said no fence can be placed in the 0-75'. He
noted that staff needs to review fence issues with Mrs. Olsen. A 3-1/2 ’ high fence is
allowed outside the 0-75'; no fence or storage can occur in the 0-75' setback. Olsen
received clarification on the ordinance regarding where fences can be located, the height,
and the problem with overlapping zones. Olsen indicated that they have repaired a fence
at the same height as existing with removal of one section that was located within the 75'
setback.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#13 - Stubbs Bay Public Lake Access - Continued)
Olsen questioned whether it would be best to wait for further action until the City takes a
formal position regarding the access property. Barrett said the property is a City road.
Jabbour said the information relayed to Olsen is the City's formal position. Jabbour
asked Olsen if she would prefer the Council vote on the matter. Olsen said she would
like to take the time to evaluate the information before the Council takes a formal vote.
Jabbour informed her the Council will reverse their decision if the review determines the
findings to be other than what has been noted.
Kelley asked Olsen to review dock locations with Staff.
(#14) BURNING PERMITS - STAFF REPORT - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Gappa reported the Council reviewed the issue of burning in August. Staff has
concluded that the existing burning policy should be confirmed regarding the size of
fires allowed; namely recreational fires of logs and charcoal 3' in width, and log fires of
piles 4' wide, 4' high, and 8' long. Staff believes the size of fires as stated is appropriate
to the density in Orono. Larger fires would be problematic.
Gappa noted the brush disposal site provided this summer was well received. Gappa
indicated that the burning permits are currently for 30 day time periods and renewable.
Staff proposes annual permits requiring inspection of site, informing the police
department when a fire will be lit, and reinspection if a new permit is requested. No
changes in fire size with the density of development. He feels the larger areas will be
subdivided and should adhere to same regulations. Gappa noted that fires must be 50'
from any building. He indicated that the permits can be revoked.
Jabbour asked about protecting trees on properties where burning occurs. Gappa said
inspections are required to review the sites for such items as tree location.
Goetten asked if fires are limited to recreational only. Gappa said recreational, log
disposal fires, and the use of enough brush to get the fire started. Goetten asked if any
thought was given to larger log fires. Gappa said the concern is with grass fires
beginning and damaging homes.
Gappa reported that brush disposal sites will still be used. Goetten asked Staff to
consider at least two disposal times for brush or in cases of special circumstances.
Jabbour cautioned that the brush disposal site be used for residential brush only and not
commercial, noting the high dump costs.
r
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#14 - Burning Permits - Continued)
Bob Gehrman said his neighborhood would like the issue of brush disposal and burning
better addressed. Gehrman said his intent is to work within the system first. Gehrman
said the City and its residents should be in partnership on the issue. Gehrman feels there
are different needs for different lot sizes. If the City does not provide adequate disposal
sites, Gehrman said more burning should be allowed. Gehrman said he has a concern
with smoke and wild fires, but these concerns can be issued with adequate inspection
and understanding liability. Gehrman noted that more than a little brush is required to
enable a fire to get started and bum hot.
Jabbour asked for special provisions and administrative judgment for larger fires with
inspection and increased fees. He is concerned that burning occurs without obtaining
permits. Jabbour said people should have the prerogative of having larger fires and have
a disposal site available.
Gappa said the yearly permit makes it easier to hav e fires and suggested opening up the
burning with use of brush for larger log fires.
Gehrman reported the City of Medina has a disposal site available all year long and
suggested a cooperative effort. Jabbour said the City would review options in an
economical manner.
Flint said he has several brush piles on his property, and it would be impossible to
remove all of it due to its location. He w'ould support 8' fires including brush. It was
noted that removal of brush in wooded areas cause damage to smaller trees too.
Jabbour said he would support an expanded ordinance.
Kelley said he is concerned with fires on smaller properties and feels the Council needs
to include lot size in their review of the burning policy. He said brush piles would
increase the size of fires.
Moorse reported that cities have burned brush themselves but will have a fire truck
standing by if control is necessary. He suggested the fire department provide
information on the issue. Moorse noted the State fire code requires a certain disUince
from a building for any fire. Moorse thought regulation of fire size for a particular lot
should be considered as well as what is located on the lot. A provision could be
included allowed a different size of fire through the inspection process. Gappa said an 8'
fire should be adequate.
Kelley asked if an applicant is responsible for notify his neighbors of a fire. Jabbour
agreed with notification of neighbors a certain distance away.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#14 - Burning Permits - Continued)
Jabbour directed Staff to take a more extensive review on burning and provide disposal
site. He asked Staff to concentrate on solutions.
Kelley said he would be in favor of finding another solution that is safe that included
notification, lot size, what is on the property. Jabbour noted that a fire should be
attended at all times.
Gehrman noted that fires can be burned during the winter months.
Goetten asked about costs. Gappa said the City paid $1,600 this year for chipping the
large pile of brush collected. He noted the number of storms increased the size of the
pile. Gappa said wood chips were available to the residents on a couple of Saturdays
and chips were given to a developer as well. Jabbour said they could be used on trails;
though, few of Orono's trails use wood chips.
Goetten reiterated that lot size is important and what is on the property.
Gappa reiterated an 8' fire is sufficient.
(*#15) ORDER PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SANITARY
SEWER IN EDGEWOOD HILLS AREA - RESOLUTION NO. 3992
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3992 ordering the preparation
of a feasibility study for the Edgewood Hills Sanitary Sewer Project. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
(*#16) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #3 - BAY RIDGE AND BRACKETTS POINT
SANITARY SEWER
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 3, Bracketts
Point/Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of
$94,305.55. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
(#17) WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION ENDOWMENT
PROPOSAL
Moorse reported that the City is involved with a joint powers organization for curbside
recycling with other cities. The budget for the organization has been underspent,
resulting in a reserve of about $20,000. A suggestion from the West Hennepin
Recycling Commission is to provide an environmental endowment as a memorial to the
past Independence city clerk. The amount is larger than what had been expected.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(#17 - West Hennepin Recycling Commission Endowment Proposal - Continued)
Moorse indicated the response to the suggestion on the reserve use has not been totally
positive and asked for Council feedback.
Jabbour questioned whether the reserve came from fees charged to residents.
Moorse said the City of Maple Plain's Attorney supported the use of the fund as noted.
Barrett questioned the ability of the City to establish an endowment and the educational
purpose. Moorse clarified that the reserves came from grant money provided to assist
the recycling program. The grant money pays for the Commission's coordinator and
information provided to residents. The fees collected are not involved in this.
Goetten suggested an endowment be sought from friends and family and questioned
whether government should be involved.
Jabbour said he also felt there was a legal question. Barrett agreed. He questioned
whether the City can provide an endowment and use funds received in this manner.
Kelley suggested the amount of reserves credited to Orono be reduced from the fees
charged.
Jabbour said the money can be used to malce the next contribution to the Commission.
Jabbour asked Moorse to send a letter regarding the question of policy and legality of the
City's ability to participate in this proposal.
(*#18) BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER PROJECT ASSESSMENT
ROLL - RESOLUTION NO. 3993
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3993 adopting the
assessment roll for the Bracketts Point Sewer Project. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(*#19) BAY RIDGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT ASSESSMENT ROLL -
RESOLUTIONS NO. 3994
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3994 adopting the assessment
roll for the Bay Ridge Sewer Project. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(*#20) ORONO ICE ARENA SEWER AND WATER ASSESSMENT ROLL -
RESOLUTION NO. 3995
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3995 adopting the assessment
roll for the Orono Ice Arena Water and Sewer Project. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
t
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
(*#21) RENEWAL OF LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT PARTICIPATION -
RESOLUTION NO. 3996
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3996 renewing the City ’s
participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentive
Program for calendar year 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(*#22) APPOINTMENT OF JAMES MOROWCZYNSKI TO SERGEANT
POSITION
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to appoint James Morowczynski to the position of
sergeant, effective October 14, 1997 at a pay rate of $24.13 per hour. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
(*#23) 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE - RELEASE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY TO
ADJACENT OWNER - RESOLUTION NO. 3997
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3997 releasing the tax forfeit
parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive for sale to adjacent property ovvTiers. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
(*#24) CITY ADMINISTRATOR PAY INCREASE
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve a 3% salary increase for the City
Administrator effective September 9,1997. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(*#25) THIRD QUARTER EXPENDITURE REPORT
Information only; no Council action required.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Barrett had no report.
(*#26) LICENSES
There are no licenses.
(*#27) BILLS
Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote:
Ayes 4, Nays 0.
If'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1997
ADJOURNMENT
Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to adjourn at 9:53 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
ATTEST:
I i
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
I
J
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: November'6/1997
C/..
Item No.:
'\'0
Department Approval:
Name: Michael P. Gaffron
Title: Senior Planning Coordinator
Administrator Approval:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description: Wllimmi Marc & Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue
Proposed Revisions to Prc' minary Plat Approval Resolution #3966
- Park Fee Appeal
Update on Screening & Drainage Issues
List of Exhibits
A - Revised Resolution #3966
B - Comparison of Original vs Revised Resolution Language
C - Winston Letter to Barrett 10/28/97
D - Gaffron Letter to Winston 10/31/97
E - Gaffron Letter to Whiteheads 10/30/97
F - MCWD Letter of Approval 10/29/97
G - Notice of Council Action 9/30/97
H - Letter from Brano & Margret Stankovsky 11/4/97
A. Revised Resolution
Council granted preliminary plat approval for the Whitehead subdivision on September 22, subject
to a number of language revisions to reflect additional or changed findings and conditions of
approval. 1 met with Tracy Whitehead and her attorney, John Winston, on October 14 to review the
draft revisions and we mutually agreed on a number of corrections and revisions.
The revised resolution is attached for Council confirmation.
II
B. Park Fee Appeal
The City Assessor has established a value of $22,000 per acre for the Whitehead subdivision. This
results in a park fee of $13,376 for the 7.6 acres comprising the two new lots.
Mr. Winston s October 28 letter to Tom Barrett challenges the amount of the park fee and offers to
settle at a total park fee of $3,344, one-fourth the amount established by ordinance. Upon conferral
with the City Administrator and the City Attorney, I responded via my letter of October 31.
r
#2279/80 - Whitehead Subdivision
November 4,1997
Page 2
The applicants or their counsel are expected to be present for discussion at the November 10 Council
meeting. Staff is recommending payment of the full $13,376 park fee as established by ordinance.
C. Update on Drainage and Screening Issues
The MCWD has determined that no stormwater ponding will be required lor this subdivision, and
has granted a variance to Rule B and waived any contribution for regional ponding.
Public Services Director Greg Gappa has inspected the roadway drainage system and has concluded
that it appears adequate to handle the additional anticipated stormwater from the proposed driveway
and home to be constructed on Lot 2, hence no drainage upgrade is required.
On October 21 1 met with the neighboring property owner ai 1290 Lyman, Brano Stankovsky, to
discuss impacts of the driveway proposed to ser\ e Lots 1 and 2. We concluded that any portions of
proposed driveway heading directly south within Lot 1 have a potential for headlights shining onto
his back yard, and that the most effective method to screen them will likely be a combination of
berm and plantings at strategic locations adjacent to the driveway in Lot 1. The Stankovskys have
sent the City a letter regarding this (Exhibit H). The Whiteheads have been advised to add a berm
to the driveway plan for City review and approval.
I anticipate the final plat approval for this subdivision will be scheduled for either your November
24 or December 8 meetings.
Council Action Requested
1. Motion to confirm language of the revised preliminary plat approval resolution.
2. Provide staff with direction regarding the Park Fee.
J
« *,#
V< fi-z\: {.!
r
A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1220 LYMAN AVENUE
- FILE NO. 2279
WHEREAS, G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead (hereinafter "the subdividers") on
July 25, 1997 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a four lot
residential plat of property legally described as:
Kefer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHFRFAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 462.35 j • > a«3id the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono
Plaiming CommisMo: V.d a public hearing on August 18, 1997, at which time all persons
desiring to be heard cou .ning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, after
which the Hearing was continued to September 15, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing on
September 15, 1997, at which time applicants' revised proposal for a 3-lot subdivision was
reviewed and all persons desiring to be heard concerning the revised application were given the
opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 22, 1997, the Orono City
Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings
of fact:
1.
2.
Tlw property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning
District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within
each newly created lot and 2(X) feet of lot width.
The property contains a total of approximately 11.1 acres of which approximately
8.6 acres is dry buildable land as defined by City ordinances.
Page 1 of 8
3.
4.
5.
6.
The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum
requirement of two acres of dry buildable area. Lots 1 and 2 meet the required lot
width of 200' at the rear of the 50' front/street setback line. Per Zoning Code
Section 10.28 Subd. 5B, Lot 3 requires a variance of 20' or 10% because it is only
180 in width at the rear of the 50' front/street setback line. Lot 3 contains an
existing residence.
Lot 1 is by definition a 'back lot’ and meets 150% of the lot area requirement of
the RR-IB Zoning District. By definition the east line of Lot 1 is the front lot line,
which for a back lot normally requires 150% of the 50' RR-IB front setback for
die principal residence, or 75’ per Subdivision Code Section 11.31 Subd. 5. At
its September 15, 1997 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval
of a front setback variance for Lot 1, finding that due to the orientation of Lots 1
and 2, there will be no impact on Lot 2 by constructing a residence on Lot 1 only
50’ from its front lot line rather than the required 75', and this relaxed setback
requirement will allow construction of a residence on Lot 1 to minimize impacts
to the steep slope to the west of the proposed house site. The south line of Lot 1
is its side lot line, and the subdividers have agreed to a minimum 50' setback for
construction along that line where a 45’ setback would normally be required for
this back lot, as additional buffer to the adjacent property.
All three lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site
sewage treatment s> stems. The On-Site Systems Manager has approved a variance
for setback to the wetland on Lot 2 for three of the six identified drainfield sites.
Lot 3 will continue to be served by the existing easement driveway access to the
private segment of Lyman Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 will access the public portion of
Lyman Avenue via Outlet B, a shared private driveway corridor. This requires a
variance to Subdivision Regulations Section 11.33, Subd. 4 which would require
a 3-lot subdivision to be served by a 24’-28 ’ paved road system. The public
portion of existing Lyman Avenue is paved at a 12-15’ width currently serving 8
homes with a potential of 3-4 additional homes. The private portion of Lyman
Avenue, which will continue to be used by Lot 3, is a 12' gravel driveway serving
5 homes with a potential for 1 or 2 additional homes. Planning Commission at
their September 15, 1997 meeting concluded that the two new building sites can
Page 2 of8
r
i
I
best be served by a shared driveway accessing the public portion of Lyman Avenue
based on the following findings:
a. Due to topography, wetlands and site layout including the location
of the existing residence and its septic system, the only feasible location for
a private road and cul-de-sac within the property is along the southwesterly
property boundary directly adjacent to the residence at 1290 Lyman
Avenue.
b. Because the house at 1290 Lyman is only 30 feet from where such
a road would be located, its east side setback would become non-conforming
as a result of such a road because tne RR-IB district requires a 50 foot side
street setback.
c. A private road would have negative impacts on the residence at
1290 Lyman Avenue du: to traffic noise, lights, etc. which would reduce
the privacy enjoyed by that property.
d. A private driveway serving only Lots 1 and 2 could be constructed
to have relatively minimal impact on 1290 Lyman Avenue, especially in
conjunction with creation of a 20 foot buffer outlot (shown on the
preliminary plat drawings as Outlot A) between the proposed 30 foot
Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Outlot A is intended to remain
undisturbed and function as a separation and vegetation buffer, subject to
restrictive covenants. An option, but not a requirement of this approval,
is sale or transfer of Outlot A to the owner of 1290 Lyman for legal
combination with 1290 Lyman.
e.
f.
The subdivider should pr-^vide an acceptable grading and drainage plan for
the shared driveway in Outlot B prior to final plat approval. The driveway
when constructed by future owner(s) of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to the
approved plan, unless the City approves an amendment to that plan.
At the time of building permit approval and driveway construction for Lot
1, the owner of Lot 1 should provide additional screening near the southeast
comer of Lot 1 sufficient to minimize and reduce vehicle headlights shining
into the rear yard of 1290 Lyman Avenue.
Page 3 of 8
r
7.The existing private easement road at the southeast comer of the property has a
curve radius that does not meet City standards and as a result has poor sight
distance due to existing topography and vegetation. The primary mound drainfield
site for Lot 2 is near the inside of this curve. Planning Commission on September
15, 1997 recommended that public right-of-way be dedicated over this portion of
private road to allow a future upgrade of this curve. Planning Commission further
recommended that the City grant an easement over the newly dedicated right-of-
way in favor of Lot 2 for septic system use; and recommended that the subdivider
make sight distance improvements to the existing curve. Council finds that there
is no public need at this time for this section of private road to be dedicated to the
public, and because this is part of Orono's defined rural area, it is appropriate and
consistent to have the developer plat a private road outlot rather than dedicate right-
of-way. Council further finds that no upgrades to this curve shall be required as
part of this subdivision approval. Further, the City will allow the septic system to
be located within 5 feet of Outlot C via an administrative variance.
8. This subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
9. The subdivider shall not be required to upgrade Lyman Avenue as part of this
approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the
findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat
application of G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead per plat drawings by Walter J. Gregory of Media
and Associates dated September 5, 1997, and grants variances to Section 11.33, Subdivision 4;
11.31, Subd. 5; and 10.28, Subd. 5B based on the unique findings and hardships set forth above,
subject to the following conditions:
1.
2.
Applicant to dedicate the standard 10’ drainage and utility easements along
perimeter prop'irty lines, and 5' either side of interior lot lines.
If a retention pond or other stormwater facilities are required by the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD), any such facilities to be developed on the site
shall also be designated on the plat as drainage easements. The final plat
application shall not be presented for City Council approval until all MCWD
Page 4 of 8
r
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
approvals have been obtained by the subdivider.
The City protected wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be subject to a Flo wage and
Conservation Easement to be granted to the City by the subdivider.
Applicant shall develop a covenant for Type 1 wetlands located within Lots 1 and
2. The purpose of the covenant is to alert all future property owners of the need
to protect the area and if alterations are proposed to first obtain the necessary
approvals from the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District before applying for approvals from the City of Orono.
The principal structure on Lot 1 shall be set back at least 50 feet from the easterly
lot line and 50 feet from the southerly lot line of Lot 1.
Lot 3 may continue to use the existing easem^^nt driveway for access to Lyman
Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to Lyma»i Avenue via a shared private
driveway in Outlot B. Lot 2 shall not have direct access to Lyman Avenue other
than via Outlot B. The subdivider shall submit an acceptable grading and drainage
plan for the shared driveway prior to final plat approval; such plan shall include
drainage improvements within the right-of-way of Lyman Avenue as deemed
necessary by the City Engineer. The driveway when constructed by the owner(s)
of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to the approved plan unless the City approves an
amendment to the plan.
Prior to final plat approval the subdivider shall submit a screening plan acceptable
to the City for additional screening near the southeast comer of Lot 1 to minimize
and reduce vehicle headlights shining into the rear yard of 1290 Lyman Avenue.
Such screening improvements shall be carried out at the time of building permit
approval or driveway construction for Lot 1, whichever occurs first.
Subdivider shall draft for City approval, and execute, restrictive covenants to be
placed on Outlot A to prevent uses of said Outlot for all purposes except as a
vegetative and separation buffer between Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue.
Septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be staked and protected prior to any land
alterations on this property.
Page 5 of 8
10.Subdivider shall designate the private road portion of Lyman Avenue as Outlot C
on the plat per the sketches by Merila & Associates labeled "Exhibits C-1 and C-2,
9-21-97, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, 97-104". Subdivider shall grant to the City the
standard underlying Road and Utility Easement for Outlot C.
11.Applicant to execute Developer's Agreement to ensure all
grading/drainage/stormwater improvements are installed to City’s specifications
and satisfaction. No land alterations can take place until erosion control is
established and septic sites fenced and the City is in receipt of a final grading plan.
No improvements can begin until City Engineer has approved all improvement
plans. A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully executed Developer's
Agreement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed site improvements. No
building permits will be issued until all drainage facilities have been installed and
approved.
The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two
weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the
month. These submittals are as follows:
1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's
records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1"
= 200'. Drawing to include:
A.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Walter J. Gregory of Merila
and Associates dated September 5,1997, subject to private right-of-way for
Lyman Avenue at the southeast corner of Lot 2 being platted as Outlot C
per the sketches by Merila & Associates labeled "Exhibits C-1 and C-2, 9-
21-97, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, 97-104".
B.Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along boundaries of the
property and 5' along all internal lot lines.
C.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention areas and
City-protected wetlands.
D. Naming of plat.
Page 6 of 8
r
2. Legal documents required:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or
others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all
other documents affected by such interest.
The applicant must provide certified copies of ail recorded easements
currently affecting the property.
Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over any retention
ponds required by MCWD (see sample enclosed).
Signed and executed Conservation and Flo wage Easements to be taken over
the City-protected wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Signed and executed Developer ’s Agreement and Letter of Credit for site
drainage and stormwater improvements.
Signed and extxuted Declaration of Private Covenants covering upkeep and
maintenance of shared private driveway (Outlot B).
Signed and executed Restrictive Covenant over Outlot A. As an altemaiive
at the applicant's discretion, provide a purchase agreement between
subdivider and owner of 1290 Lyman Avenue for transfer of Outlot A.
Completed private covenant for lots involved with protected wetlands not
included within City-protected area. Covenants should include map and
metes and bounds descriptions. Covenants should be in a form suitable for
filing.
I. Signed and executed Road and Utility Easement over Outlot C.
Page 7 of8
r
I :
I
r r
3. Fees to be paid: Total due: S400.QQ*
A. Final plat fee = $200.00
B. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents =
$200.00
C. ♦Park dedication fee. The Park Commission reviewed the proposed plat on
August 4, 1997 and recommended payment of a park fee in lieu of land
dedication for parks. The City Assessor shall be directed to establish the
the fair market value of the property (Lots 1 and 2) for park fee purposes.
The park fee is 8% of the fair market value as defined in Code Section
11.62, Subd. 5.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting
held this 22nd day of September, 1997.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of
September, 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 8 of 8
r
i
fe
& ’•/’ !P b. I''.;
pr^'ia. (f r/^*^A -11 ^ ^ /V)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1220 LYMAN AVENUE
- FILE NO. 2279
WHEREAS, G. Marc Tracy S. Whitehead (hereinafter "the subdividers") on
July 25, 1997 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a four lot
residential plat of property legally described as:
Refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono
Planmng Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1997, at which time all persons
desinng to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, after
which the Hearing was continued to September 15, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing on
September 15, 1997, at which time applicants' revised proposal for a 3-lot subdivision was
reviewed and all persons desiring to be heard concerning the revised application were given the
opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 22, 1997, the Orono City
considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings
1.The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning
District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within
each newly created lot and 200 feet of lor width.
2.The property contains a total of approximately 40:6 11.1 acres of which
approximately 0t4 acres is dry buildable land as defined by City ordinances.
Page 1 of9
3.
4.
5.
6.
The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum
requirement of two acres of dry buildable area. Lots 1 and 2 meet the required lot
width of 200' at the rear of the 50’ front/street setback line. Per Zoning Code
Section 10.28 Subd. 5B, Lot 3 requires a variance of 20’ or 10% because it is only
180’ in width at the rear of the 50’ front/street setback line. Lot 3 contains an
existing residence.
Lot 1 is by definition a ’back lot’ and meets 150% of the lot area requirement of
the RR-IB Zoning District. By definition the east line of Lot 1 is the front lot line,
which for a back lot normally requires 150% of the 50 RR-IB front setback for
the principal residence, or 75’ per Subdivision Code Section 11.31 Subd. 5. At
its September 15, 1997 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval
of a front ^tback variance for Lot 1, finding that due to the orientation of Lots 1
and 2, there will be no impact on Lot 2 by constructing a residence on Lot 1 only
50’ from its front lot line rather than the required 75’, and this relaxed setback
requirement will allow construction of a residence on Lot 1 to minimize impacts
to the steep slope to the west of the proposed house site. The south line of Lot 1
is its side lot line, and the subdividers have agreed to a minimum 50’ setback for
construction along that line where a 45’ setback would normally be required for
this back lot, as additional buffer to the adjacent property.
All three lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site
sewage treatment systems. The On-Site Systems Manager has approved a variance
for setback to the wetland on Lot 2 for three of the six identified drainfield sites.
Lot 3 will continue to be served by the existing easement driveway access to the
private segment of Lyman Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 will access the public portion o
Lyman Avenue via Outlot B, a shared private driveway corridor. This requires a
variance to Subdivision Regulations Section 11.33, Subd. 4 which would requ^e
a 3-lot subdivision to be served by a 24’-28’ paved road system. The public
portion of existing Lyman Avenue is paved at a 12-15’ width currently servmg 8
homes with a potential of 3-4 additional homes. The private portion of Lyman
Avenue, which will continue to be used by Lot 3, is a 12’ gravel driveway servmg
5 homes with a potential for 1 or 2 additional homes. Planning Commission at
their September 15, 1997 meeting concluded that the two new building sites can
Page 2 of 9
best be served by a shared driveway accessing the public portion of Lyman Avenue
based on the following findings:
a. Due to topography, wetlands and site layout including the location
of the existing residence and its septic system, the only feasible location for
a private road and cul-de-sac within the property is along the southwesterly
property boundary directly adjacent to the residence at 1290 Lyman
Avenue.
b. Because the house at 1290 Lyman is only 30 feet from where such
a road would be located, that residence its east side setback would be made
become non-conforming by as a result of such a road because the RR-IB
district requires a 50 foot side street setback.
c. A private road would have negative impacts on the residence at
1290 Lyman Avenue due to traffic noise, lights, etc. which would reduce
the privacy enjoyed by that property.
d. A private driveway serving only Lots 1 and 2 could be constructed
to have relatively minimal impaci on 1290 Lyman Avenue, especially in
conjunction with creation of a 20 foot buffer outlot (shown on the
preliminary plat drawings as Outlot A) between the proposed 30 foot
Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Outlot A is intended to remain
undisturbed and function as a separation and vegetation buffer, cither
suuject to restrictive covenants^ er-fbr An option, but not a requirement of
this approval, is sale or transfer of Outlot A to lh£ ownership in common
with of 1290 Lyman Avenue for legal combination with 1290 Lvman.
e.
f.
Tha subdivider should provide an acceptable grading and drainage plan for
the shared driveway in Outlot B prior to final plat approval. The driveway
when constructed by future owner(s) of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to the
approved plan, unless the City approves an amendment to that plan.
At the time of building permit approval and driveway construction for Lot
1, the owner of Lot 1 should provide additional screening near the southeast
comer of Lot 1 sufficient to prevent minimize and reduce vehicle headlights
from shining into the rear yard of 1290 Lyman Avenue.
Page 3 of 9
7.The existing private easement road at the southeast corner of the property has a
curve radius of app roxima tely 100 feet that does not meet City standards and as a
result has poor sight distance due to existing topography and vegetation. The
primary mound drainfield site for Lot 2 is just 15 feet from near the inside of this
curve. Planning Commission on SeptemberlS, 1997 recommended that public
right-of-way be dedicated over this portion of private road to allow a future upgrade
of this curve to conform-as dosciy as possible to the rcqutfed-275 foot curve radiu s
for a 30 mph road. Planning Commission further recommended as follows;
ar ------That that the City grant an easement over the newly dedicated right-
of-way in favor Lot 2 for t.onstruetfdn; use a nd maintenance of
a septic system use, with the stipula tion-tha t the City will not
upgra de the road in a manne r that imp.>ets the septic system until
such time that the system is no longer in user ; and recommended
hr That ihal the subdivider be financially responsible for make sight
distance improvemepf*' to the existing curves—subject to
rccomnacndatiors from oversight by the Public Services Director
and City Engineer. S improvements ma y include but a rc not
limited to selective vegetation clea ring and -regrading the hillside
slope a* he inside of the curve while meeting the intent of item a.
Con . .il finds that there is no public need at this time for this section
of private road to be dedierted to the public, and because this is part
of Orono's defined rural area, it is appropriate and consistent to have
the developer plat a private road outlet rather than dedicate right-
of-wav. Council further finds that no upgrades to this curve shall
be required as part of this subdivision approval. Further, the City
will allow the septic system to be located within 5 feet of Outlet C
via an administrative variance.
8 This subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
The subdivider shall not be required to upgrade Lyman Avenue at -this time as part
of this approval .
Page 4 of 9
2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the
findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat
application of G. Marc and fracy S. Whitehead per plat drawings by Walter J. Gregory of Merila
and Associates dated September 5, 1997, and grants variances to Section 11.33, Subdivision 4;
11.31, Subd. 5; and 10.28, Subd. 5B based on the unique findings and hardships set forth above,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to dedicate the standard 10* drainage and utility easements along
perimeter property lines, and 5' either side of interioi lot lines.
If a retention pond or other stormwater facilities are required by the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD), any such facilities to be developed on the site
shall also be designated on the plat as drainage easements. The final plat
application shall not be presented for City Council approval until all MCWD
approvals have been obtained by the subdivider.
The City protected wetlands in Lots 1 , 2 and 3 shall be subject to a Flowage and
Conservation Easement to be granted to the City by the subdivider.
Applicant shall develop a covenant for Type 1 wetlands located within Lots 1 and
2. The purpose of the covenant is to alert all future property owners of the need
to protect the area and if alterations are proposed to first obtrin the necessary
approvals from the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District before applying for approvals from the City of Orono.
3.
The 3ubdiviLef shall bear the co8t of Sightlinc ifnpfovcnficnts within the newly
^icated^right -of way, subject to recommendation and oversight of the Public
Services Director and City Engi neer. Such improvements may include but arc not
limited to selective vegetation removal and regrading the hillside slope at the inside
of the curve.
The principal structure on Lot 1 shall be set back at least 50 feet from the easterly
lot line and 50 feet from the southerly lot line of Lot 1 .
Lot 3 may continue to use the existing easement driveway for access to Lyman
Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to Lyman Avenue via a shared private
Page 5 of 9
driveway in Outlet B, Lot 2 shall not have direct access to Lyman Avenue other
than via Outlet B. The subdivider shall submit an acceptable grading and drainage
plan for the shared driveway prior to final plat approval : such plan shall include
drainage improvements within the right-of-way of Lyman Avenue as deemed
necessary bv the City Engineer. The driveway when constructed by the owner(s)
of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to the approved plan unless the City approves an
amendment to the plan .
^2*. At" the time of building permit approval or driveway constnietion for Lot 1. the
owner of Lot 1 shall provide Prior ti < final plat approval the subdivider shall submit
a screening plan acceptable to the City for sufficient additional screening near the
southeast comer of Lot 1 to prevent minimize and reduce vehicle headlights from
shining into the rear yard of 1290 Lyman Avenue. Such screening improvements
shall be carried out at the time of building permit approval or driveway constmetion
for Lot 1. whichever occurs first.
Subdivider shall draft for City approval, and execute, restrictive covenants to be
placed on Outlot A to prevent uses of said Outlot for all purposes except as a
vegetative and separation buffer between Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue.
Sr&t Septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be stake.* .id protected prior to any land
alterations on this property that may include a ightline improvernem s within the
newly dedicated right of way, driveway construction, etc.
^JiL. Subdividcr shall dedicate addi tional public right-of-way fot Lyman Avenue on the
plat m order to allow future upgrade s of Lyman Avenue -to conform as close aa
possible to the required 275* curve rad ius for a 30 mph roadway.Subdivider shall
designate the private road portion of Lyman Avenue as Outlot C on the plat per the
sketches bv Merila & Associates labeled "Exhibits C-1 and C-22. 9-21-97. Sheets
1 and 2 of 2. 97-104". Subdivider shall grant to the City the standard underlying
Road and Utility Easement for Outlot C
4Br The-€ity agrees to grant an casement over the newly dedicated right of way in
favor of Lot 2 for construction, use and -ma intcnancc of a septic system, with the
stipulation that the City will not upgrade the road tn a manne r that impacts the
septic system until such time that the system is no longer in use.
Page 6 of 9
I
11. Applicant to execute Developer’s Agreement to ensure all
grading/drainage/stomnwater and road improvements are installed to City's
specifications and satisfaction. No land alterations can take place until erosion
control is established and septic sites fenced and the City is in receipt of a final
grading and road plan. No improvements can begin until City Engineer has
approved all improvement plans. A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully
execu^ Developer's Agreement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed read
and site improvements. No building permits will be issued until all drainage
facilities have been installed and approve d-a nd satisfactory road baae completed.
The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two
weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the
month. These submittals are as follows:
1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's
records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1"
= 200'. Drawing to include:
A.
B.
Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Walter J. Gregory of Merila
and Associates dated September 5, 1997, subject to an expanded private
right-of-way for Lyman Avenue at the southeast comer of Lot 2 a» noted
betewr being platted as Oiulot C per the sketches bv Merila A
labeled "Exhibits C-1 and C-2. 9-21-97. Sheets 1 and 2 of 2 97-1 fU"
Dedication of drainage and utility easements" 10' along boundaries of the
property and 5' along all internal lot lines.
Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention areas and
City-protected wetlands.
^ dedicatio n of public right ofway for Lyman Avenue subject to approval
by the City Engineer.
ErH. Naming of plat.
Page 7 of 9
2. Legal documents required:
A.
B
C.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or
others with property interest indicated therein shall sign die plat and all
other documents affected by such interest.
The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements
currently affecting the property.
Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over any retention
areas and drainagcways within plat ponds required hv MCWD (see sample
enclosed).
D. Signed and executed Conservation and Flowage Easements to be taken over
the City-protected wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and Letter of Credit for site
drainage and stormwater improvements and eonstruetion of
Signed and executed Declaration of Private Covenants covering upkeep and
maintenance of shared private driveway (Outlot B).
Signed and executed Restrictive Covenant over Outlot A-. ■ OR , As an
alternative at the applicant's discretion, provide a purchase agreement
between subdivider and owner of 1290 Lyman Avenue for transfer of
Outlot A.
Completed private covenant for lots involved with protected wetlands not
included within City-protected area. Covenants should include map and
metes and bounds descriptions. Covenants should be in a form suitable for
filing.
Signed and executed Road and Utility Easement over Outlot C.
Page 8 of 9
I
j »
J
; i
3. Fees to be paid: Total due: S400.0Q*
A. Final plat fee = $200.00
B. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents =
$200.00
C. ♦Park dedication fee. The Park Commission reviewed the proposed plat on
August 4, 1997 and recommended payment of a park fee in lieu of land
dedication for parks. The City Assessor shall be directed to establish the
the fair market value of the property (Lots 1 and 2) for park fee purposes.
The park fee is 8% of the fair market value as defined in Code Section
11.62, Subd. 5.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting
held this 22nd day of September, 1997.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of
September, 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 9 of9
I
WINSTON LAW OFFICE
4420 IDS CENTER
80 SOUTH 8TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TEL (612)341-9800
FAX: (612)338>6351 IOHN 8. WINSTON
DIRECT; <6121 )41-«^13
October 28, 1997
Thomas J. Barrett (334-8838)
Hinshaw & Culbertson
Piper Jaffray Tower. Suite 3200
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: G. Marc and Tracy $. Whitehead
0
1220 Lyman Avenue
Application Nos. 2279122^0
Dear Tom:
You will recall our settlement of the park dedication fee dispute with respect to
the Fullerton property, pvursuant to wh’ J‘ the Fullertons paid 25% of the amount
initially claimed by the City for a park deurcation fee due upon tlie subdivision of the
Fullerton property. I now represent the VS'niteheads, who, like the FviUertons, are
faced tvith an unreasonably high and, for that matter, illegal claim of $13,376 for a
park dedication fee due upon tlie subdivision of the Whiteheads' property. Like the
Fullertons, the Whiteheads are adding only two new lots, ai\d, like the Fullertons'
lots, the Whiteheads' lots are large acreage lots. Each lot will be 3.8 acres or larger in
size. For that reason, and others, the demands placed on the Orono park system by
reason of this subdhision will be nil.
Continuing the Fullerton comparison, 1 propose that we settle the Whitehead
dispute at the same 25% rate, or upon payment of S3.344, a not insignificant sum. I
could have proposed a settlement for $1,000 per lot and negotiated up from there,
but, with the Fullerton precedent, I tliought we could both save ourselves some time
and our clients some money in reaching a prompt resolution of this matter.
I would appreciate your presenting this to the Orono City Council at your
earliest convenience so that I know whether our settlement offer is acceptable. If wc
are not able to agree, then 1 propose that, as with tl\e Fullertons, the full an\ount be
paid into escrow pending resolution of a lawsuit, arbitration or other dispute
20/10’d 15E9888819 ’ON XOd 301dd0 m NOiSNIK 95:91 301 16-92-100
{
t
i
October 28, 1997
Page 2
resolution procedure, so that plat approval can go forward. That was what Mayor
Jabbour proposed to move the Fullerton plat forward, had w’e not been successful in
settling that matter. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John B. Winston
JBW/kra
cc: Mr. and Mrs. G. Marc Whitehead (473-8278)
Michael P. Gaffron (473-0510)
20/20'd l9e98E82l9 ’ON X9J 30Idd0 nyi NOiSNIM 95:91 am 16-82-100
r I
GITYof ORONO
Municipal OfUces
StTMt Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
John D. Winston
Winston Law Office
8440 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, Miniiesota 55402
Re: G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Application #2279/2280
Dear Mr. Winston:
We are in receipt of your letter of October 28 regarding the park dedication fee for the Whitehead
subdivision. Your proposal of a $3,344 park fee, as compared to the fee of $13,376 established by
City code, is somewhat perplexing on two counts.
First, based on City records, the value established by the City for the two Fullerton lots was
$750,(^, for which the 8% fee established by code would have been $60,000, or $30,000 per lot.
The City settled with the Fullertons for an amount of $10,250 per lot, or 34%, not the 25% rate you
quote.
Secondly, we fail to see the logic behind using a percentage as the basis for any settlement. It was
and is the City s understanding that the $10,250 amount per lot accepted by the Fullertons reflects
the property's reasonable share of the costs related to providing a system of parks, trails, and open
space to meet the needs and desires of the community. The park fee of $6,688 per lot to be paid by
the Whiteheads also reflects the property’s reasonable share of the cost of providing parks, trails and
open space to serv'e the community.
This item will be presented to the City Council for review on Novemher 10. It will be staffs
recommendation that the full park fee be collected.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Gaffron
Senior Planning Coordinator
cc: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator
G. Marc Whitehead
MPG/ch TelcpboiK (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
GITYofORONO
Municipal Offices
Street Address:
2750 Kelley Parttway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
October 30, 1997
Marc and Tracy Whitehead
1220 Lyman Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
Re; Subdivision Application #2279/2280 - Park Fee; Screening Requirement; Drainage
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Whitehead:
Per the attached memo from the City Assessor, the Park DedicaUon Fee for Lots I and 2 of your
subAvision will be based on a pre-development Fair Market Value of $22,000 pet acre, or $ 1 67 200
for the 7.6 acres composing those Lots.
The Park Dedication Fee is 8% of $167,200 = $1.^76 which is due at the time you request Final
Plut Approval. We are m receipt of Mr. Winston's October 28 letter and will be responding shortly.
^ review the proposed driveway location in Outlet B and
methodej for screening auto headlights to limit their impacts on his rear yard. He will be requesting
m wntmg that the plans to be approved for that driveway include a berm and plantings within Lot
, such improvements to be constructed or established at the time the driveway is built. Such berm
M p antings should occur adjacent to the driveway within Lot 1, where the minimal amount of
bermmg wil do the most good. The exact location of the berm and plantings need not be strictly
driveway and site plan for a house on Lot 1 are known. The goal is to block
headh^t b^s m sections of the driveway where they would be aiming into the Stankovsky's back
a^eptance"^ "^°'**'* ^ driveway plan and submitted for City
It is my understanding that the MCWD has concluded that no stormwater ponding improvements
will be required due to the minimal runoff expected from the site and based on the drainage to
existing wetlands bemg continued. Public Ser/ices Director Greg Gappa has likewise concluded that
drainage along and over Lyman Avenue is sufficiently channeled such that no improvements appear
necessary to accomodate the runoff from a future residence on Lots 1 or 2.
The preliminary plat approval resolution language is being revised to reflect out October 14
discussions and will be submitted for Council acceptance on November 10. While the language
Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510
Marc & Tracy Whitehead
October 30,1997
Page 2
revisions appear to be minor in scope, they are a change to the document which will require Council
approval.
Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have questions on any of the above.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Gaf&on
Senior Planning Coordinator
end.I
cc: Greg Gappa, Public Services Director
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
r
»
[
o o
* ’ V . .*■»
^ ^n>.f .-l, f/
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
Crystal ^Mb!!^^i^SS23-006£
TO: Orono Zoning Department
FROM: Rolf Erickson, City Assessor
DATE: Oc'{. /9 ^ 7
RE: Park dedication fee of:
tO111 ■!■ ea j Solo o W I 3 low L o'l~s / f-Z
3S-I/S'-Z3-3H- bOOO
7.4 Acres @ $ Z Z OGO . j I Q7 ZOO
received
OCl 2 4
QV ,'i Of OnONO
TELEPHONE-47>73S7 • FAX-47W)S10
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone:(612)471-0590
Fax (612) 471-0682
Email:
adminOminnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.org
Board of Managers:
John E. Thotras
President
C. Woodrow Love
Vice President
Pamela G. Blixt
Treasurer
Monica Gross
Secretary
Thomas W. LaBounty
Thomas Maple. Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Ottice:
Diane P. Lynch
District Administrator
Pnmid on rtcycUd iMptr conumwig
<1 itast 30% post consumtf wun
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District F
Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life
October 29, 1997 3 '
Marc and Tracey Whitehead
1220 Lyman Avenue
Orono. MN 55391-8800
RE: MCWD Permit Application No. 97-176
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Whitehead:
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the above
mentioned permit application at their Board meeting on October 23. 1997. It was the
action of the Board to approve this application with 'he following conditions:
• The Board of Man.Vi:*''S granted a variance from MCWD Rule B in that a
contribution to the regional stonnwatcr ponding fund will not be required for your
project. Due to the nature of the terrain and presence of wetlands on the site it was
determined that most of the stormwater runoff would infiltrate on-site. Therefore
stormwater treatment would not be required.
Payment of Rule J fees in the amount of $347.00
Reimbursement of mailing costs in the amount of $24.76.
Due to the size and complexity of certain projects, the Board, by Rule J, requires that site
inspections be conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District, a
fee equal to the actual costs of analysis of the project, field inspection, engineering
services, legal services, and any subsequent monitoring of the work. These costs are
referred to as Rule J fees.
Once the above conditions have been met staff will Issue the permit. You are reminded
that work on the project cannot begin until the permit has been issued.
Please call me at 471-0590 with any questions.
Sincerely.
District Technician
c:Mike Gaffron. City of Orono
James R. Merila, Merila & Associates, Inc
Steve Schmunk. Wenck Associates
r (S
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
473-7357
APPLICATION NO. 2279/2280
NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
Date of Notice: September 30, 1997
TO: Marc & Tracy Whitehead
1220 Lyman Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
COPIES: John B. Winston
4420 IDS Center
80 South 8th St.
Mpls., MN 55402
Walter Gregory
Merila & Associates
8401 73rd Avenue N.
Suite 63
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision
DATE OF MEETING: 9/22/97 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST
COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:
To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you, with a
number of revisions (see attached revised resolution).
Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval - Applicant must provide to the City all information and/or
improvements required for final plat approval as noted in the preliminary plat approval resolution.
Preliminary plat approval expires 1 year after the date of the resolution. Note that prior to filing
of the fmal plat after final subdivision approval, all taxes for the current year must be paid.
If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City
Clerk after review and approval by the City Council.
If you have questions regarding the preliminary plat approval resolution, please contact Mike
Gaffron at 473-7357.
r r’1
T'
V :
H'
.'M
iM
received
NOV 0 6 199/
CiTY cr C.IC; .O
November 4, 1997
Mike Gaffron
Senior Planning Coordinator
City of Orono
Orono MN 55456
Re: Screening for backlot in the Whitehead subdivision as it relates to the property at 1290
Lyman Avenue, Orono.
Dear Mr. Gaffron:
Thank you for taking the time on Tuesday, October 21, 1997 to meet with myself and Rae Pesek,
It was a good recommendation by you to visit the area that the proposed driveway would follow
to Lot I of the Whitehead subdivision.
During our walk over the proposed area it becomes evident that the issue of screenage will
largely depend on the placement of the driveway and how the driveway exits the immediate area
of the proposed home. In the worst case scenario (and as shown in one of the Whitehead maps)
the driveway, as it exits the proposed home would have vehicles traveling directly south towards
the backside (northside) of the property located at 1290 Lyman Ave. The northside of the 1290
Lyman Ave property is where the bedrooms and living room areas are located. In the late fall,
winter and spring the headlights of the vehicles would be pointed directly at these areas as they
left the new home. In addition to the driveway, there is a natural rise or elevation gain as you
would drive south away from fne proposed new home. This rise would also help point the
headlights up at the house at 1290 Lyman Ave as a vehicle leaves the proposed new home. The
good news is that good planning for screenage could alleviate much of any potential headlight
problems. With all the earth that will need to be moved because of the driveway, a reasonable
berm with evergreens could provide a economical solution.
Therefore, the residents at 1290 Lyman Ave. respectfully request that the City of Orono require
Lot 1 of the Whitehead subdivision carry a stipulation or requirement that either tlie Whiteheads
O' the new owners be required to provide ample and substantial screenage to block the headlights
as vehicles leave the new property and approach the north side of 1290 Lyman Ave. That this
requirement is gauged for the winter season and in regards to daylight savings. That what is
considered ample and substantial be determined by the proper employees of the City of Orono
page 2
screenage during the late fall, winter or spring months.
Thank you for considering our request and in following the rules and/or regulations regarding
screenage when a backlot is created.
Sincerely,
Brano & Margret Stankovsky
Residents at 1290 Lyman Ave, Orono
cc; City Council
Planning Committee
i
il
r
II
f
1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
%>DATE: 11/4/97 ‘X/v ^
%
ITEM NO.4
Department Approval:
Name Brad Dressier
Title Planning Assistant
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:#2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum
2695 Kelly Avenue
Variances-Public Hearing
Zoning District:LR IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District
Lot Area:49,509 s.f
43,295 s.f.
1.14 acres (total)
1 acre (contiguous)
Application: The applicants wish to renew elapsed variances granted in 1987 to allow Lot 1 to
be considered a buildable lot. Variances for lot area and lot width are required for both lots.
Lot 2 also requires a hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 1 vote to:
1.Approve the following lot area variances:
1
2
Size
.52 acre (.38 acre contiguous)
.62 acre
2.Approve the following lot width variances: Lol at 75 ’ setback
1 98 ’
2 106’
at OHWT
111*
65'
3.Approve a hardcover variance of 3.6% to allow 28.6% hardcover to remain on Lot 2
where 25% is allowed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To approve or amend the enclosed resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5,
FILE NO. 2283
WHEREAS, Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum (hereinafter "the applicant") owners of
the property located at 2695 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City")
and legally described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Carman Cove (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow the lot area to remain at .52 acre (.38 acre
contiguous) for Lot 1 and .62 acre for Lot 2 where 1 acre is required and lot width variances
of 42' for Lot 1 to allow the lot widths of 98' at the 75' lakeshore setback and 111' at the
929.4' ordinary high water mark are required. A lot width variance of 75' for Lot 2 to allow
lot widths of 106' at the 75' lakeshore setback and 65' at the 929.4 ordinary high water mark
where 140' is required. A hardcover variance of 3.6% to allow the existing 28.6% hardcover
to remain where 25% is allowed to allow Lot 1 to be considered a buildahle lot is also
required.
•> t •
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2283.
2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one acre in area. Lots 1 and 2 together consist of
49,504 s.f. or 1.14 acre (43,704 s.f. or 1 acre contiguous). Lot 1 is .52 acre
(.38 acre contiguous) and Lot 2 is .62 acre.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 20, 1997
Page 1 of 5
r
4.
and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following
findings:
1. The lots of record were platted prior to current zoning district
requirements.
2. The lots are separate tax parcels.
3. Both lots have been assessed separately for sewer and water.
4. Variances for lot area for Lots 1 and 2 and a hardcover variance for Lot
2 was granted in 1987 to allow Lot 1 to be considered buildable.
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants v^ances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24,
Subdivision 5 to permit Lot 1 to be considered a buildable lot as shown on Exhibit A*
Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1. No fluther variances shall be granted to either Lot 1 or Lot 2.
5.
2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the
Page 2 of 5
r1
applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a
building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance
will expire on that date (November 10, 1998).
3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
4.The undersigned s^)plicants 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 City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 10th day of November, 1997.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of
November, 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
Page 3 of 5
- ■ ’—
I
J
♦
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of 199_before me a Notary Public within and for
said coun^, 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 anH deed.
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of 199_before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared ____________________________
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBUC
Page 4 of 5
- ^ ..
0'^75from 1^, ^^9 S .f .Tt>M Aft<» Lof I'- 'Z2^5‘t‘> ^•^• To^a* lo+ Z' Z4, *^^0 s.f.TbT/L ArW - ‘^^/So‘» s-.f.'" {on^taMUS . a«A :5,^oO T-Z->2f A«|BtACK«Mrk: To if NtAMpt* C ••SC ctmtr 9» N Clt««li««> SSI iSBtannft Ai« AuwaitU
fi.
•i- .
S,^cO
Scott: /•*JC7'
0«iiim*N G VO Iftf Adt
8inelwn««li: T«# tf Ntnnepiii C
•I 8 t. C«mtf •! N
CitvcIiM* 891.85
Btorinft Art AM«Mt8
FROM:
DATE:
C»-‘ssio„ Me.be.
Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant
October 15, 1997
SUBJECT: #2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimb
2695 Kelly Avenue
Variances-Public Hearinp
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
lr -ib One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre)
43,295 (total) square feet (.1 acre contiguous^
»midei*dabuMlble ‘iot “^L?frbT^i^d^^ ' ‘“I*Lot 2 requires a hardcover variance This snnf .■ ® Lor both lots. Additionally,
Commission pendinn an ...vts...t application was previously tabled by Planning
Pertinent Ordinances;
Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lalteshore Hardcover Regulations
Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements
yariances
9/15/97
Page I
ANALYSIS
h :
)e
y,
>g
' ‘
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.75 ft.
Subject Property Lot Area and Yards
Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside
Lot l=,38 acres 98 ft. at 75’nidi n/a n/a
contiguous (no setback 79 ft.9.3 ft.85 ft.
structure 111 ft. at OHW
Lot 2=.62 acres 106 ft. at 75’
(Birnbaum setback
residence)65' at OHW
The subject properties do not meet lot area or width requirements. The updated survey reveals
that Lot 1 has been reduced in size due to lakeshore erosion. The lot area for the portion of Lot I
that has access to Kelly Avenue is .38 acres. The surveyor did not indicate how much land is
adjacent to the Lydiard Beach area. Additionally, Lot 1 does not meet lot width requirements
and Lot 2 does not meet the side yard requirements.
Structural Coverage
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage
16,335 s.f.none none
26,960 s.f 2,510 s.f 9.3%
Structural coverage is not an issue with this application.
i^2283 Gary and Bonnie Birnbaum
2695 Kelly Avenue
Variances
9/15/97
Page!
r
1 I.
Hardcover :
Distance
from
Shoreline
Total Area in
Setback
Existing
Hardcover
Allowed
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Variance
Requested
0'-75"Lot 1: 8,722 none none none none
s.f.(1987
figure)
Lot 2: 6,025
s.f.
none none none none
75'-250"Lot 1:8,035
s.f.
6 s.f. (.007%)2008.8 s.f
(25%)
6 s.f (.007%) none
Lot 2: 20,935 6,394 s.f.5,233.75 s.f 5,848 s.f 614 25 s.f
s.f.(28.6%)(25%)(28.6%)(3.6%)
Lot 2 (Bimbaum residence) does not meet hardcover requirements in the 75' to 250' lakeshore
setback. The previous resolution allowed for 30% hardcover to remain. Lot 1 is undeveloped.
STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP
Attachment J is a letter from the applicant expressing hardship. Applicants should also be asked
for their testimony regarding this issue.
Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship
1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
aiiowed by the official controls.
Lot 1 has been used as part of Lot 2 to date because both are held by the same owners.
Lot 1 is not buildable without lot area and width variances.
2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The lots of record were approved prior to current city zoning ordinances. The
configuration of Lot 1 along a protected body of water limits hardcover and building
area to a greater extent than if the parcel was entirely contiguous. The updated survey
reveals that the lot area, as well as contiguous area of Lot 1 is less than the lot size
approved previously. Rock was added along the fence by the city several months ago.
i^22S3 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum
2693 Kelly Avenue
Variances
9/13/97
Page I
r
I i 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The variances for lot size, lot width, and hardcover would change the character of the
area. A residence could not be built upon this vacant lot without the granting of
numerous variances.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter.
Economic factors may be a consideration with this application. The propert>’ may be sold
to a future owner who wishes to separate the parcels.
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.
Lot area and width variances are commonly granted in this zoning district to allow lots of
record not meeting current zoning requirements to be buildable. The lack of contiguous
area on this lot does distinguish it from many other lots to which variances have been
granted, however.
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 shape and proximity to water of Lot 1 limit the potential building envelope, as well
as how much of the lot can be considered contiguous. Both lots of record are less than 1
acre, which is the ciurent minimum lot size requirement.
The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district
in which said land is located.
if2283 Gary and Bonnie Btrnbaum
2693 Kelly Avenue
Variances
9/15/97
Page 4
The projwsed lot sizes are consistent with the majority of the lots in the area. This is a
umque situation due to the decrease in lot size attributable to lakeshore erosion. Both lots
^e also considered to be comer lots. This further limits the allowable building pad
Lot 1. ® ^on
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The subject properties are separate tax parcels and have been assessed separately for
sewer and water. Lot 1 has never been built up>on, however.
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.
^e lots were platted and approved prior to current zoning requirements. The request for
bt area and bedcover variances have previously been approved by resolution. It should
• i"oo^ f Planning Commission had unanimously denied the previous application
in 1987 for the reasons cited on the attached notice of Planning Commission action
(Attachment 1).
Issues
1.Lots 1 and 2 combined consist of approximately one acre total. If the lots were
combined, the lot area, width and hardcover requirements would be met.
2.11 ^ variances and Lot 2 was granted a hardcover variance to
I 1987. The resolution is attached (Attachment H). The issue of
lot width for both lots was not discussed. No other variances have been granted.
3.If Ae variMces^e renewed, lot width variances would also be required as both lots do
not meet the 140 requirement.
4.The non-conforming side setback of 9.3 ’ for Lot 2 is not an issue with this appiication.
^2283 Gary and Bonnie Birnbautn
2695 Kelly Avenue
Variances
9/15/97
Page 5
^ * ifv
r -[ I 5.While the previous application was approved by the City Council, the Planning
Commission unanimously voted against it.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the renewal of lot area and lot width varainces for both lots
and a hardcover variance for Lot 2.
Staff recommends the hardcover variance to allow the existing hardcover on Lot 2, in
excess of 30% be denied. If the lots are legally combined, the hardcover requirements
would be met.
Staff recommends the applicant be directed to legally combine the two non conforming
lots into one tax parcel, which would conform to the zoning district requirements.
Staff recommends denial of the application for the above reasons.
Attachments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
Application
Plat Map
Location Map
Topographic Map
Permit Record
Survey of Lots
Hardcover Worksheets
1987 Resolution
1987 Planning Commission Recommendation
Statement of Hardship
! I
M2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum
2693 Kelly Avenue
Variances
9/15/97
Page 6
r AppUcaUon # a,
Date Received ^ 7
Amount Paid id
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION >6/7^ Xs<-/
Initial Application Fee $220.00
($50.00 per each additional variance) / /
Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ ^
(no change irom original application) r'"-’ ,
Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 *
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
SiteAddress ^SJS ^K.LCy /^UC/J0<_____________
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Zo - i/7- 0007
Attach legal descript.on to application if not included on required survey
________________________(month/y.ar)1 (do not) also own th^adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of property; y residential ___pother (specify)
Zoning District:_______ 2,^- / R_____________ ______________
APPLICANT Phone (home ) ^7/- ^
i- M',j£ffUVl Phone(woik)ZmZiI
Address:. KiLLy City: _______Zip: SSSi i
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Address:City:
Phone (home)
Phone (work)_
Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail; of LOT I
Estimated Constmction Cost $
,/g /i)BoVC P^oP^^r/'. pL€/QJl S€Z L^iR
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
^ Lot Area Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:
-----Uc^Tfot^ - ^S€f fn-rnrHrJ) Uirre/^
_____________
---- ^ S^esr/^mjFiL p/^r>P€Rr~y
/
s
a
tr»
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
r
J
o ^ ICCcc
c
r 9SS.6 SPOT ELEV
I*
TOO
NET/4 sec
T117N.R:
HENNEPIN C
FOR
OroAO*’
D»l«
HORIZON
aerial HAi»Pl**C PRO'
■.,.4 Cl.. M
J
Permit Ko.
^3'no
Z2£Z
397?
U b'i
iisn
/5S
\3L}ID—
PERMIT RECORD
Date Type of Permit
-SK,
/o-3o-S~S’
tj 1
4-g-^/
O • / 'Cf ^
kkhA Iflfhi 'i mirLyo
I ■( J?JL /HwxJ^
dcTY—vxjPf]L>*>>^
L> c-/<
F
I
J
■AIttOOVEIt CALCULATION MONKSHBBT>ff Icinl* «M| O-W*
wlAtli
a
a
a
a. ttiaaiitf
A. aifcwU
•• fMl«/
r.
lala
hr HMtta
• f.
6 tMAL nitVIM n Mai
a.r.
a.r.
a.r.
a.r.
«_____..f.
•.r.
a.f.
a.f.
a.r.
a.r.
a.f.
a.r.
a.f •
a.r.
a.f.
a.r.
a.r.
a.r. m
Lot 1, Block 1 CARHAN COVBBalatlof Tatai iatatlaa Batieaiiag « t90803S a.r*4* a lit MUila O.I t lOID
ID • •
ill
**4
ttaa It—til ■
aa la aaaai
MOtk •
m
— - It
n
m0
Calatlaa iiat
wvMk o.r. ID ae j
iaaaaa to ka iiaaoi
kaeaa _
»0. ir aaya
Itaa ^ It—til «MOtb •
• - -- ■
. _ ■
____ ■
m
1sMtM. a.r. ID aa B
Mr rraraaalt •
fUaa III « Uaa Cai -Uaa IS||•
t ■alallaa
4
• afa
s.r.
Ill
lO
Ui
•-*
(D
-4
lO
s
a.r.
a.r.
a.f.
_ Ul
I - _ a.r. t4l
riaal
Maa 141 ■ 100 •
Llaa III
A«r.
CN
10
%
a.r.a too •
☆
iAPid%-/-- T____________,r^
IIMIOOOVBII CALCULATIOW WOKESIIECTiatkftdi Wmmt ttltUHL!Iclvcl* OMl 0-7S* l« to—L ot 2. B uck 1 (o^)C^RMKN C0»/£2SO-9M* SM-IOM'a. tao €m >(3.3 . qss a.flaoftbirlOth3.4 >6 ■30.1 . fto3 o.f3.3 s 1.1 74
«
m 0
m
b. Oaraao 34 m 77 . I4d
a. OalvacaT ItltKCOtOHi • \|I4 a*
a
O
a.
4. oiOaoalk a U - ao4 a«
36 m 4- . livi a«
I ItgCSUt^a
m.ft
1.T ■ .r
r. tMi<Nc —^ ^»S m ^ V*
laia
bf plastic
•bCCtiMf
r. Otlwc
RtK •
CftMPin5MCir
3C
. 43S
21
0 fMAi, gsitTiin wmoBMn in mmb • 59 48 •
AiUUaf Mr4c«vcr « • Total Bclatl — ■ar4coccr a 100t«t Jkraa HltbiaSIM ...—. «tototoT«4-«5 a.f.I a 100Miltlcaal ■arOcaaar to bo aiiai io a in■nI
Itaa
0
ai __ • WUkt Oofo
® ___ * ^ AoCo
__________m______________-______________Oofo
^
__________ 121
m
H*
KJ
CaI
•>1
CD
•sj
IO
K
a
lOTM. a.r. to M Mtm
gaiatif ibricwc to hm Ifgaaip If anyi
liSL taaatfc a
a
0 Tovbi. o.r. TO 00 oaovm
riaal ■aaOcoao frapoaalt
bMtb • TOTAL a.f.
_______-___________ a.f.
■ ■ •_______________________a.#.
_________• t-f.
ni
S
et-i
lUoo III * Liao 12) >Lioa I2|| -
I I -
Oalstlof TO bo 040*4
OarOcooor t ••
a.f. Ml
To bo OaooTaO riaal t.
Uoo Ml a 100
Lina 111
^ a.f.
' a.f.
a 100 •
☆
1C
#
Ad)*^Hiy||NTW:SfrB%^ ■ COMMUWCATlONSJiEDIADI^^
ORIGINAL DOCUMGNT
OR OOOR OUALITV■» iTLyy-' - iw um
• •
City of OROIVO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO 1
_______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2
AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (U)
PILE iiiaa
WHEREAS, Sheldon »-nd llolcno Knplan {hereinafter "the anplican^s'')
ore the cwr.cro oJ tie property iocatod at 269S Kelly Avenue within the C.ty
of Orono (hereinafter "City") aticl legally described as Lots I and 2, Block
1, Cerran Cove, he.-.nopi'i County, Minnesota (here i na .* ter "the pro[>erty");
WHEHEi 1, the applicants have applied to the City for a variar.cff
to f.ar.icit ai 3o.:inq Code Soot ion 10.22, Subdivision 2 to approve an oxv.r.s
of e/iMjnq imr<lcov*-r of 0,130 s.f. or v;hero only S,lO0 r,.f. or ?0 ’. 's
allcwe-i on ! i 2 ,.r.d per .‘.ecticn 10.24, fadai i v ii on 0 (h) to approve .’i.
a rei V... r ! ..nci tor hot 2 con.,ii;tinq of 20,060 s.£. or .02 aen.s of lot ar'-..
wti..-tc -.^,^,0 r;.l. Of 1 acre is required and per that sore septic:, lo
uppro-.e ur. or...j variance for unde vr. lop*, d hot i consi nti n*j of u conti;CJi.
ouixfiii.': . r.velope oi 10,, 7 S 7 s.f. or .30 acres whe.’-o 43,SOU s.f. cr I aere
IS roU: for!.
•'i r;r.‘/HOW, VIIEREPOKR, DR IT RESOLVED by the City Crv.ne;! c. b: n ,
FINDINGS
....... -pp:i. .tier. v.oj. revitvM-d ii:. i’or.ir.c; ‘•lie fcll66.
: rop.-r-y iicc^ted in the IP-lh f:ir.r|lc Fai.ily ?.o •'..-.r.ho.a-
:. 1 o ^
•:r.
« • ■ m :;.<leve 1 op-• i and fij;. b.- n a.nsessed fer !. t..A» ,* t *.4 • • V •
•• ••'■••e br r. retuineu as i..dep.vn Jej.t p.icels
V.V‘^ purposes; ea-ih. lot is •. •Ives' .arat-*-; y Ly 1 !.e State.
ir •», .. -..h. fnk ■ ------ _t.r. .. e.o.i.lf:.. vO Lot J if tiC-Ve I i>[ie-:
E.ir'c'or'*" '* ** '*” ‘*cre-.s has boon rs-vj,v^r.q j,y td.r. Publ i : Lork:.
• covelopment of Lot 1 at .39 acres appears rcnsistcn:
of surrounding development of the Carran i;ca-!
V a‘^>>C-'or.t to Caman houd ..re-.miiitr in urea ranging from .2 to .4 acres.
Page 1 of S
rniiMl 1WICATIONSJIEPI^DlVlSiON
DOCUMIr* -n^
City of OROINO
,*6r6^W^
a
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
7. 4>Oih the proposed new buildinq site- and the nite with existing
residence arc similar in area to other common - ownership lots which
have been approved as building sites since 1984 within the LR-lIi
zoning district as follows:
M'-nesi-oad
L.91#G30 Smiley, 2720 Pheasant Road .65
Vacant
Lot
.59
11051 Clcsne, 1475 Cherry Place .68
11084 M.ixficld, 4175 North Shore Drive .57
#'.24 Lange, 4160 Forest Lake Drive . 40
.64
.46
.45
h.. Tho iotr. were created in tlie eariy 50's prior to the City's
doption of ordinances that v/ould have provided standards for the
devciop.r.er.t of rots.
9. Tho applicants have owned tho rots for approximately 30 year_.
10. Lot 1 contains no accessory structures an.d would aj.pe »r to seivi,
moreiy as aoditicnal area rcceivinn minimal ir.aintc.-.ir.c*.-.
n. Clcnn Cook, tho City engineer, is a rcpcit dated October 6, 1987
ntat«jG t.ho following:
I
Development of Lot 1 on Kelly 7vvcnue will not re.sult in any
<lrainage problems for adjacent resident.
The run-off from the neighborhood is currently directed ro t i.*.-
ov/.ned property South of Lot 1. Development of thit, lot v;i i i
rer.Jit in ^;dditicnal run-off to the lake because cf an increase'
ir. hardcover, 'do do not anticipate that this increase i:. run-ofl
will cause any significant adverse effect on the lake.
12. 7:.e City Council has considered this applic-ation ir.cludit.g
reports I.y City staff, consmonts by tho applicant and the uffest of the
proposed vaiiancos on the health, safety u.nd welfare of tho rcnir.unitv.
• %^ ^ m The Ci-y Council fir.:ls that the c.ondi i ion s existing on this
property are j/C-culiar to it and do not apply genera ily to otner
ih this zoning district; that grunting the variances would
not adversely affect traffic conditions, liglit, air nor pose- a fir*"*
hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not rereiy serve
as a convenience to tho applicant, but f r. necessary to alleviate a
ceir.or.strable hardship or difficulty; i«. n<;ccssary to preserve a
substantial property right of the applicant; and woulf] bo in keeping
V*! t.'i th(. spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan
:>f tCity.
Page 2 of 5
i
• ' n’* ' I,v-/5CiT>r^;;.l
,»>
WdNC
City of OROIVO
RtSOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. - :m 1
ISCONCLOSIOMS, ORDER AND CONDITION!
°^rlnts7/;ia°n^es^o'"u:r °-ono
-io. ,,, ,, ,, r eo
Jot *’ P^ior to cal. o«
he''‘co.-sr;uc^°T'*'^''‘^’^ District/ -fpon'^.'^V;.
///V ^-‘ ^^koshoro untij a‘c//,1 • V ^ot
J'. ca.l.c,.. aucwt. .at.covoc lot ..ct I It l,oo. c.l. oc nt.
3« liiirf.covor on int- o
inr»rcvt,-r. ort or 4.1,.. '- •^ i £ »ipprcvc<.i at 6,10o '• *' or- •>'^.
ovor Mo / * P*"opcrty that win r/-future
-Pprovou 30% iray r.oco'-c-i. V^ r. icr..: l '.anir-ovc-r
-^>iu.ion of cxistino har^icovo/ ^ *’*“* °'' r^<'trhing accounts cf
"-■ -f’»" ''ariancc.
-■■ o, M..-. t. .-,- ,.„
i;;';*::'' ‘/“'//if •-^^toratir/'V///*-;/^'’^'-*- •> •--r,:...,;; ;.,;
.......... '"•' •’■•^^' puniM.nc ‘ir^-r.M..,:
. r, . ^Ppi -car.tr. h.ivo r<-*c> i-. »-r . •■•irr. r;j v},!-; fiT.fi I i*f i ^ n ... , -"•» <•■-•'r;. r ur '; ,;nr; i. •r<’-:.y aaroc*'
•'■•‘rs, succesrto-'- . . F • •'^•>’' ' » of m .............. ^ .V•-‘■COJuMc- .n /“' / ‘"-•'^1 Sr.:-, l:or.;t-. ,^<-.c- tf. ^ t JuM r
- -n t.,c- chain of title- «.f the- r-rc/F v.* »-core i o! ,hi:;
Iu<jf. 3 cf S
*^«’;v.;>
?/^:;0F', :-jms^.
City of OROINO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL
NO. -'-HJ
1987.
attest :
A<ioptea by the otono clf, council on this .«th aa. of Cctoher.
Pago 4 of S
r
•^^c'ClTY
Lobono
p ^
■ ‘V
City of OROINO
%
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2283 __________
STATE OP MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )
^\ynx.»rT>J>><A 1987On this _______\(c^_______ day of . -_______________________
before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally
appeared U.c. known to me to be
the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument,"lind acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as
his (their) free act and deed.
KATHLEEN M. HOLTON |
NOTARY ^UaUC^MMNCWrA |
DAKOTA COUNTY
•lyrnwaliiiiiaiiiiiiAi^tt
notary public
as,
MY commission EXPIRES
STATE OP MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )
On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» 198__, before me
a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the
person(s ) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Page S of 5
i II
f
i :
i
: *
• 1
. COMMUNICATIONS.MEOU DIVISIONleiNAL DOCUMBNT OP BOOR eUAMTir
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
ZONING PILE NO. 1188
NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/9/nv
TOt Sheldon 6 Helene Kaplan
2695 Kelly Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
COPIES TO:
TYPE OP APPLICATION: XX Variance
DATE OP rriNG:9/8/87 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against
Planning CoHBission recoaaends the following:
XX Denial for reasons noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to deny ••
application using one or more of the following findings:
1. The total nrr.i of the two lots is 49,622 s.f. or 1.1 nr-rf* in •
acre zoning (h«5ttict.
2. The two pnr' -'lr have bo»’'n developed using Lot 1 as additional ’
and yard 3pac»’ to. hot 2. The location of the two docks .tIso sue •
this type of Inr.d u.se,
3. Lots 1 an»! ? could be legally combined to form one conforni* :
(1.1 acre).
4. The intent of the application is contrary to the intent r:
Orono Comprehensive plan for a LR-IB, 1 acre zoning district.
5. The property has not been improved and might, at a later
apply for additional variances.
6. In 1982, Hennepin County lowered the land asscesment value £-••
1 because it did not meet current zoning standards.
7. 15% of the lots in the area arc less than .4 acres in size.
8. Only 2,009 s.f. of hardcover would be allowed on Lot 1 inci’
the house, driveway and other lot improvements.
9. D'*ainage in the area seems to be an issue.
Applicant's next scho'.?uled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council September 28, 1987; meeting starts at 7:00 p.p.
If you desire certified copies of the official Plannino Comm I'
minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder aft^r
approval by the Planning Commission.
r
■ .*City of ORONO
p^'ClTY 'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2283
"V '
•ORONO
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this 198?
before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally
appeared \lo.jaSi^^ 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.
.......------rrfffff ffiiji
I
KATHLEEN M. HOLTON
WOTAKV rutuc - lltNNtaorA
DAKOTA COUNTY
My ommhim anpiMt A«^ i& m
.............................................................................................
cj^ccthiLta^’^~TT> . ^Wi-LfcvL.
notary public
QL*. <w<)yOuQ^
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» 198_, 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 foregoinginstrument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Page 5 of 5
A •
r
-t* ‘- ' ■■■ -.. •«-at.;sr
J:i • *\
•r
Gary Bimbaum, M.D.
2695 Kelly Ave.
Excelsior, MN. 55331
August 20, 1997
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Ru-kway
Orono, MN 55336
RE: Renewal of Variance as per Resolution of City Council #2283; File #1188
Dear City Council:
We arc seeking a renewal of the above noted variance for Lot 1 of our property. We were
unaware until recently that this variance required renewal on an annual basis.
We arc in the process of selling our homestead and do not intend to build on Lot 1. Nor do
we plan to sell this lot separately from Lot 2 of our homestead. Renewal o( the variance is
sought to preserve a substantial property right of the owners of this property, as cited in
Paragraprii 13 on Page 2 of the above noted “Resolution of City Council.”
, i
! !
We hope our application for renewal for this variance will be acceptable. Please let me
know if there is additional information you may need.
i
! I
■ !
i
r
COUNCIL MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE;
ITEM NO
NOV lO 1997
9[^/3fORONO
• ^• •
Department Approval:
Name Liz Van Zomeren
Title City Planner
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description: <1^310 Richard Bury, Classic Car Sales
3850 Shoreline Drive
Request for Clarification/Finding of Substantially Similar TJse
Zoning District: B-S Limited Neighborhood Business District
Lot Area:40,808.81 sq. ft. (.93 acres)
Application:The applicant is requesting clarification of the intent and purpose of the
BS zoning district. The applicant is asking the City Council to fmd that
an office and showroom for classic car sales is substantially similar to
other uses in the zoning district, specifically, an antique store or a museum.
Planning Cmnmission
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommended on a 6-0 vote to find that classic
car sales were not consistent with the intent and purpose of the BS zoning
district due to display of vehicles outside. Please review the draft
minutes from the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL
ACTION REQUESTED:
Direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve or deny finding of
substantially similar use to allow classic car sales in the BS District.
New Attachments:
Letters from Mr. Bury and Mr. Katainen
Draft minutes from 10/20/97 Planning Cononission meeting
r
•p
^'
r
11-03-19'?? U:TI h M FPOtl FUPfl.m B h V 612 471 S'?14
BAY FURNITURE
3850 So. Shoreline Drive
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
4730310 P.Ol
-n
'■mP
1 am biingiiiig to you a buyer for my Bay Furniture building who is a perfect
ht for the business strip known as Navarre In City. He is Mr. Richard Bury and
II * k
his Classic Car Company.
His product is clean, attractive and carries a large enough sales ticket to
generate frie income required to maintain the property in the same responsible
i have done for the past decade. There have been a few prospective
buyers who would automatically qualify under the permitted uses listed in
! I ‘ j
itta^hment “A". None of them would have been able or (in my opinion) willing to
I i i !
l^e^P the property well groomed and paid for promptly.
There are twenty three permitted uses on attachment 'A' from *A' to •W.
OniV ONE Item ("B" offices) Is currently in operation on the strip. There are then
eigm conditional uses listed on the attachment. All conditional uses, except for
I ! •
thef shoe shine parlor, are doing business here now.
In addition, there are other uses which are not on either list. Namely,
Ryd^r truck rental; auto repair, sand and gravel storage and a vast array ofi i I • ;
perjsonal watercraft. All of these either display or store on their business
: Jj- •Rreniises.
I '
; !! i
I :
TOTAL P.Ol
r
\
i
'll
11-03-1 ll:?3»^'l FFOl FUPri.f-ttl B h T 612 471 8? 14I ! Ii i • . i; i 47310510 P.Ol
I *
I
I
• ' iI have enclosed photographs of the Bay Furniture property and those of
. . ; ' :I my immediate neighbors. I hope they in no way denigrate these successful
enl erprises. They are included in the hope that you will see that the Bay property
j is! already in excess of current standards. It is wished that the council would not
irppose an javen ^igher standard. This would be unfair given the fine
custodianship both Mr. Bury and I bring to the area.
i i •
Thera are| many reasons Classic Car Company is a perfect fit here in
Navarra. Itj fits better than most of the other enterprises because it incorporates
so much of I both the letter and the spirit of the use doctrines set forth In
attachment;“A". !
I •
I •
1 Not a high traffic generator.
2 Not opfen evenings (Closes at 4:30)
3. Only selling occurs in the building.
4. Service and repairs are done off premises.
5. Bluildinp is adequate without expansion.
6. pemodraphics are perfect for the neighborhood.
7. No pollution.
8. No littw by patrons.
9. A|ttiacti|ve product.
10. Incorporates many aspects of the permitted uses.
e.g. Ol[fices, gifts, hobby, as well as antiques and cdlectibles.
I
In cohclusipn, It is fair to say that .nost things must be considered on an
individual basis. My furniture store was not a permitted use. I found more
resistance than fi^r. Bury does now. He wilt ue a good custodian and bring an
element of class tb the area.
Thank you. I /
^lephen Katainen
•'i
• I
'
TOTrt. P.Ol
flu
i- :
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I^D |
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997
13) the developer would be required to plan boulevard trees; and 14) sewer and drainage
calculations would be submitted by November 3.
Schroeder said it would be incumbent upon Saga Hill Society to be proactive regarding
any irregularities by having an expert view the site. The City suggested Saga Hill Society
make the initial contact but were not requiring it. Lindquist reiterated that the
responsibility lies with the Saga Hill Society, not the City or developer.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(A short recess occurred.)
(#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASS CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE -
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
USE 9:13-9:31 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted,
The Applicant was present.
Van Zomeren reported that the applicant was asking for clarification of use in the B-5
Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a showroom and office for classic cars at the
noted location which meets the lot area and width requirements. Bressler performed an
analysis of the B-5 Zoning District. Staff recommended a discussion be held for
clarification. If such use is found similar to that of an antique store. Staff would support
the application with conditions that prevent the future use of the property for a used car
lot.
I
planning commission
meeting held on OCTOBER 20,1997
with noRichard Bury reported he has conduced similar operations in rtvo oUter locations wi..
P ems. fic presented photographs ofcars typical ofwhat would be sold. He indicated
some newer models would also be for sale. Ute vast majority of the cars would be
located inside. Buor has another facility for storage of cars in order to rotate stock.
Bury said he is interested in purchasing the Bay Furniture building for such use and feels
the area residents would be interested in this type of vehicles. He anticipated open hours
to be from 8:30 nm. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and possibly some Saturday
hours.
(Smith arrived at this time.)
Buiy said he would display some cars outside during good weather conditions. No
repairs or restorations would occur at this location except for a possible changing of a
battery or the like. There would be a museum area and sales area. Buoi did not feel the.
ould be any parking problems since customers appear randomly. The building would
have to be modified with doors to accommodate the cars and change the loading dock to
ramp.a
Lmdqmst asked if the property would be used as a used car lot Bury said he employees
rivo people and most of the business would be by mail or phone. He indicated he needed
ate outside exposure to promote the business. Lindquist asked if it would present a
problem if Bury could not run the property like a used car lot. Bury said he would need
to have 5-6 cats outside, but tt would not be a typical used car lot with the majority of
business conducted inside.
If^
t...
t’*
minutes of the orono planning commission
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
Van Zomeren referenced Bressler*s report reviewing the purpose of the inning the
permitted uses, and conditional uses. The types of permitted uses would not utilize a
building such as the Bay Furniture Building. Van Zomeren said it would be difficult to
find an appropriate use for the building. Van Zomeren said a conditional use would
operate similar to that of retail while the permitted use are generally service type
operations.
Berg noted there was limited parking as well. Berg felt this and the building size was a
problem.
I^ury said the State required approval of the City for licensing in this location 'fc
informed Schroeder he could not operate without open lot sales. Schroeder uuoimed
Bury that the problem was that no zoning existed for such use. If Bury did not require
cars be located outside, there would not be a problem. The location of cars outside deems
the use as a used car lot.
Bury informed McMillan that he would require 10 cars located outside with the other two
spaces for parking of customers.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Applicadon #2310 based on non-conformance
with code due to outside sales. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Schroeder informed Bury that the application could be taken to the Council for their
review.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator
Octobers, 1997
SUBJECT: #2310 Richard Bury, having an interest in
3850 Shoreline Drive
Request for Clarification/Finding of Substantially Similar Use
Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District
Lot Area:40,808.81 sq. ft. (.93 acres)
Application:The applicant is requesting clarification of the intent and purpose of the B5
zoning district and asks that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that an office and showroom for classic car sales is substantially
similar to other uses in the zoning district, specifically, an antique store or
museum.
Pertinent Ordinances:
Section 10.44 B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District
U 2310 Classic Car Sales, Richard Bury
3850 Shoreline Drive
October 20, 1997
page—I
r
k i
ANALYSIS
Lot Area and Yards
B5 District Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
20,000 sq. ft.100 ’20'10 ’30’
Subject Property Lot Area and Yards
Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
40,808.81 sq.ft.175.03'68 ’ from center
line; 35' from
edge of right-of-
way
15* on east side 80’
The subject property meets all of the lot area and lot width requirements.
Setback Requirements
Front Rear Side
35’35’15 ’
The subject property meets the setback requirements. The property also meets building design,
construction, height and drainage requirements for the B5 district.
U 23 W Classic Car Sales. Richard Bury
3850 Shoreline Drive
October 20. 1997
page—2
zoning district. The hardware distributor, sign shop, and luto/boat service do not conform. A
third use, Com-Tek may conform if it functions as an office. Staff, how ever, is not familiar with
its operation for purposes of zoning classification.
The applicant has stated that his business operates in the same manner as a museum and antique
store. The applicant has indicated that much of his business is conducted over the telephone and
through the mail. The proposed location would provide the applicant more indoor storage space
and is designed as a showroom.
ISSUES
1.The proposed use is not allowed in the zoning district as either a permitted or conditional
use.
2.The existing furniture store was approved in 1986 at which time the Planning
Commission and City Council found that it would operate similar to a gallery.
3.The current uses in the B5 district in the vicinity of this property generally do not
conform to the list of permitted and conditional uses.
4.The size of the building, 6880 sq. ft. and amount of available parking, 9 spaces, limits
the reuse of the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission finds that the use is substantially similar to the intent and purpose of
the B5 district, staff would recommend that a resolution be drafted for Council consideration that
addresses the use for classic car sales vs. new or used vehicles. The resolution may also include
standards for outdoor display of vehicles, parking, signage, and landscaping.
Should the Planning Commission find that the use is not substantially similar to an antique store
or museum, then the Commission should provide the applicant further direction *%garding the
possibility of a zoning amendment to the B5 district to revise the list of permitted or conditional
uses.
U 23 10 Classic Car Sales, Richard Bury
3850 Shoreline Drive
October 20. 1997
page —4
r
AttachmeDts
A
B
C
D
E
F
Application
Applicant's letter
Intern's report
1986 staff report re: Furniture Store
Previous 1986 minutes
Old site plan
#2310 Classic Car Sales, Richard Bury
3850 Shoreline Drive
October 20, 1997
page —6
r
Application H
Date Received A
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address "ShOyfel I’ng _________
Property Identification Number (P.1.dVi<1- I1-1- ^ 31^ QaX'
Cc&c.
I ^ CL Phone (home) 3^051
—1» ICJOtl^fTP OLL/Lj ___________ Phone (work) Q3C3 — TTlII
Address_M*to P/i<yvdnrT>^____City ^^lm^ Ayt Mio Zip S^HJILC.
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Address
Phone (home)
Phone (work)_
City Zip.
Date Property Acquired___________________________________
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
_____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
_____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
_____$250.00 Land Alteration
____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more
____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
_____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
_____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
_____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
_ (month/year)
OTHER APPLICATIONS
_____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
_____$300.00 Vacation
_____$200.00 Easement Vacation
______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
_ $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ $100.00 Appeals
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District ________
Present Use of Property______Residential
fef Cia»^»*f^c^L^nJsv^/f^vY±uv^ of-
X__0‘^er (specify>FrAynUuyv»
r
SALES
REPAIR
STORAGE
Distinguished Motor Cars
CLASSIC SALES INC.
P.O.BOX 258
HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
Offioe and Showroom (612) 922-8711
3840 EOGEWOOO AVE.
ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 55426
P
FLEET & LEASE
AUTO WHOLESALERS
Sept 26, 1997
Mrs. Elizabeth Van Zomeren
City Planner
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minn 55323
Dear Mrs. Van Zomeren,
With this letter I hereby request permission from the City of Orono
to operate a collector car museum and sales store on the property at 3850
Shoreline Drive.
As a requirement of the State of Minnesota Transportation and Licensing
Department, the City is required to sign my application for the transfer of
my Used Car Dealers license from my present location to the new one in Orono.
We presently are located in St. Louis Park, and have operated for 3Js years
without incident or problems. Our present hours of operation are 8:30-4:30
Mon thru Fri.
^ We anticipate the display and sales of collector cars at this location.
Im including some pictures of previous sales to show the type of cars that
we may have at any given time. We also anticipate limited sales of newer
JDodern cars and probably limited Saturday hours.
The present building meets all requirements of yourSec 10.44, B-5
Limited Neighborhood Business District as far as I know. We have a purchase
agreement signed on the Bay Furniture store contingent on Orono's permission
for us to move in as of Nov 1st. Should the planning Commission recommend
and the Council approve on Nov 10th, the owner will extend the closing date
until after approval.
Please advise me if you need any further information for this request.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter, I remain.
truly yours
Richard B. Bury P.E.
President
rb:RBB
MEMORANDUMDATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
9/17/97
Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator
Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant
Uses in the B-5 Zoning District
ATTACHMENTS: A; B-5 District Information
B: Property Owners List
C: Plat Map of Zoning District
D: Zoning Map of District
Today (9/17/97) I completed the visual survey of the B-5 zoning district to review what types of
business is located there. All B-5 zoned properties are located on Shoreline Drive. The following
are my findings.
Address Name of Business Nature of Business
3495 Applied Communications of
Minnesota, Inc.
Data Communication
Hardware Distributor
3502 The Sign Age Sign Shop
Com-Tek Comprehensive
Technical Sales, Inc.
Electronics Manufacturing
Representative
3542 Pronto Auto Parts Auto Parts
3572 Lake Minnetonka Animal
Hospital, Inc.
Veterinary
3574 Dairy Queen Restaurant-Drive Thru
3800 n/a Single Family Residence
3850 Amish Heritage Furniture Furniture Sales
3860 Shoreline Service Center Auto/Boat Service
The intent of the B-5 district is to provide limited services to the surrounding neighborhood. As this
list suggests, some of the uses currently in place do not conform to the zoning. The proposed classic
car dealership would fit with the character of the neighborhood and not negatively impact other uses.
1
r
S 10.43
E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be
nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot
line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line
Street; except when abutting or across the street from
an R District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line.
♦ I \
„ - , Fencing. Wherever a "B-4" Office and
Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side
or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than
50% opaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three
feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected
along the abutting lines except within the required front yard.
^ . 9* Building Design and Construction. See Section
10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G.
H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use
shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods,
erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage
plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as
required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the
City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and
Council approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly
channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or
other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water
runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in
compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be
consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code
provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having
jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage.
I.
2-1/2 stories or
Section 10.75.
Height. No structure or building shall exceed
thirty feet in height except as provided in
SBC. 10.44, B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT.
„ . Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood
Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses
that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for
residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not
generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount
"®^^cover. The district may adjoin residential districts or
other business districts which are subject to more restrictive
controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate
highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the
B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the
the uses see limited in order to limit the hardcover in that
area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that
property in that use district since there is already a traffic
problem in Navarre.
ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84)
S 10.44
nArmi-«. • All applications for a buildinq
Limited Neighborhood Business District shall b« *
revlir ^ referred to the Planning Commission fo^
n<Bi. t u Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business
structure or land shall be used except for one of the
. following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council:
Municipal buildings.
Offices.
Clinics.
Art and school supply store.
Book and magazine store.
Office supply store.
U3T
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
estate office.
:
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
Banks, loan company, insurance company, real
Barbership, beauty shop.
Camera and photograph supply store.
Locksmith.
Hobby shop.
Gift store.
Glassware and pottery.
Antique store.
Jewelry store.
Watch repair.
Library.
Museum.
U2&
Usr^
S. Record shop.
T. Music store.
U. Tobacco shop.
V. Galleries.
W. Pet shop.
Subd. 4. Conditional Use.
"B-5" Limited Business District, no
fK shall be used for one of the following usesexcept by conditional use permit:
.. ^ Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozendesserts, soft drink score.
2. Drycleaning store.
Tailor shop.
Pressing and shoe shine shop.
Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations.
Home and garden equipment rental.
Veterinary clinic.
Kennels.
3
4
5
6
7
8
ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84)
O.!" 4%r
r
§ 10.44
B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the
principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in
another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the
land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as
set forth in Section 10.61. Subdivision 4 and other such conditions
as found necessary by the Coincil.
C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not
limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as
telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated
tanks, lift stations and electric power substations.
Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any ”B-5*' Limited
Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be
permitted accessory uses:
A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street
parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter.
B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter.
C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily
located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period
of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction.
D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features.
E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter.
F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or
processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided
that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of
the principal building.
G. Public Telephone Booths.
Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements
and Design Requirements.
square feet
feet.
feet.
A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100
C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20
u
D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30
feet; side yard adjacent to ”R” District shall be 15 feet; side
yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet.
E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be
nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear
lot line, 15 feet frou any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line
adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an
"R” District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot
line.■*.1
ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84)
'v;
T. DIVISION: See Previous
.Wayzata 55391
SHORELD«: DRIVE CON’T
Name No.PID Fi P/H sm S/W Zng
Scott, Lyle & Joyce (Duplex)3-T.0/72 17-117-23 43 0094 Mo 2/43A 277 Sew/Wtr LR-IC
'j Scott, Lyle & Joyce (A.O.)3480 17-117-23 43 0093
Village Prof. Bldg. - David Bie, Owner 17-117-23 43 0091 B-5
2 store fronts 1st floor
ofEices 2nd floor rear entry
3496
Navarre Elect. Shop 2nd floor rear entry
Lowell ’s Auto Parts
Rod McCharles, Owner
3502 17-117-23 43 0114
LNR Properties 3542 17-117-23 43 0113
Richie, Robert 3572 17-117-23 43 0151
Navarre Dairy Queen 3574 17-117-23 43 0149
Evert Geyen, Owner
G & P Cabinets 3596
17-117-23 43 0107
B-1
Kullberg Building - Robert Harding, Owner 17-117-23 34 0012
Ronnies Cleaners 1st floor 3600
Bjorkland Dentist 2nd floor
(see 2389-2395 Blaine Ave)
N.W. Bell Telephone 3605 20-117-23 21 0028
Mtka A-1 Rental 3607 20-117-23 21 0029 •
Wagner Building ’609 20-117-23 21 0029
Balboa of MN (L.O.)<0 17-117-23 34 0008 LR-lC-1
Casco Run Offices (Crear))1 20-117-23 21 0033 B-4
Balboa of MN (L.O.)3/40 17-117-23 34 0006 LR-lC-1
Good Shepherd Luther?; Church 3745 20-117-23 21 0025 LR-IC
Balboa of MN (L.O >3760 17-117-23 34 0005 LR-lC-1
Shons, Matthew 3770 17-117-23 34 0003
Larson, Paul W.3790 17-117-23 34 0004
Olson, Melvin J.3800 17-117-23 33 0007 B-5
Furniture Minnesota 3850 17-117-23 33 0006 •
Shoreline Service Center 3860 17-117-23 33 0005
Oberhauser, L .R. (A.O.)3865 20-117-23 22 0007 LR-IC
Oberhauser, L.R. (A.O.)3875 20-117-23 22 0007
Oberhauser, L.R. (A.O.)3877 20-117-23 22 0006
Hennepin County 3880 17-117-23 33 0002 LR-IC
Held, Edward & Marsha 3890 17-117-23 33 0004 LR-lC-1
Rauschendorfer, J./Locken S.3895 20-117-23 22 0004 LR-IC
Scheibel, Laura 3905 20-117-23 22 0003
Kruger, Konrad 3915 20-117-23 22 0005
Ovadia, Clifford 3925 20-117-23 22 0001
I Bedell, James E. (S.P. 55384)3935 20-117-23 22 0002
Office And Professional Limited NeighborhoociGiined Urocn 0*jvelO
industrial District
Adopted by Or
Effective
As amended by
Ordinance 18f^
Ordinance 1P9
Ordinance ?01
Ordinance 206
Ordinance 213
Ordinance 21^
Ordinance 22t
Ordinonce 23C
rj TOl
I i
PROH:
DATS
SUBJ:
Mayor ButlerMark Bernhardson, City Administrator
Orono Council Members
Jeanne A« Mabusth» Zoning Administrator
April 10, 1986
•1013 Furniture Minnesota, 3850 Shoreline Drive
Commercial Site Plan
Soning District - B-5
Area - 40,808.81 s.f. or .93 acres
20,000 s.f. required
Application - Commercial site plan review for proposed 80' x 84' structur
(6720 s.f.) to house furniture sales/storage operation.
$
. ■*
i' 0**
List of Exhibits - I
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - City Engineer Cook's Letter
D - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Report
E - Planning Commission Minu|:es;3/l|/86
F - Drainage Study .
G - Landscape Plan
H “ Site Plan
I - Watershed - local
J - Building Plans & elevations
Steve Katainen, owner of Furniture Minnesota, has purchased the site
construct a "qallcry- furniture store - "gallery- operation
defined by Katainen as a satellite store handling limited ^1 inr.
furniture. The furniture store would be operated as Katainen s lartr
store in St. Paul but on a much smaller scale. The store would car-
limited brands or special linos in limited quantities. Katainen w;M ma-
such determinations as soon as the needs and tastes of the local communr
are determined.
Furniture sales use is not specifically addressed under D-5 zoninq. Sta*
asked the Planning Commission to determine the compatibility o
proposed use in relation to the intent of the B-5 zoninq .listtitt a
pattern of surrounding existing commercial development.
The intent of the district is to provide a district for busin-sr.es th
supply comn.oditios or perform a service primarily for resident, and
not g-nerate high traffic and excessive amounts of hardcover.
Planning Commission found the proposed use compatible not
special zoning amendment. The use would be a low traffic
fSr hardcover the B-5 district has no hardcover ^r..
will generate less hardcover than the mixed use facility
"owVll Zitzloff in 1979 on the some site. Review the .s»te pl..n -
- there is adequate green area around the building, structure an<
pond.
$ *
I
1 .
r TOl
PROH:
DATBs
SOHJs
Mayor ButlerMark Bernhardson, City Administrator Orono Council Members
Jeanne A. Mabusth# Zoning Administrator
April 10, 1986
•1013 Furniture Minnesota, 3850 Shoreline Drive
Commercial Site Plan
Zoning District - B-5
Area - 40,808.81 s.f. or .93 acres
20,000 s.f. required
Application - Commercial site plan review for proposed 80' x 84' structur*
(6720 s.f.) to house furniture sales/storage operation.
7
' I
. <
List of Exhibits -
A - Application
B - Plat Map
C - City Engineer Cook's Letter
D - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Report
E - Planning Commission-Minu ses*3/1'/86
F - Drainage Study .•
G - Landscape Plan
H - Site Plan
I - Watershed - local
J - Building Plans & elevations
Steve Katainen, owner of Purnituro Minnesota, has purchased the site
construct a "gallery" furniture store - "gallery" operation has be.
defined by Katainen as a satellite store handling limited ^1ines
furniture. The furniture store would be operated as Katainen s larn--
store in St. Paul but on a much smaller scale. The store would car-
limited brands or special lines in limited quantities. Katainen w; 1 m.v
such determinations as soon as the needs and tastes of the loca communi
are determined.
Furniture sales use is not specifically addressed under D-5joninq. Sta'
asked the Planning Commission to determine the
proposed use in relation to the intent of the B-j zoning .li.ttut .
pattern of surrounding existing commercial development.
The intent of the district is to provide a district for j
supply comn.odities or perform a service primarily for resident . and
not g-nerate high traffic and excessive amounts of hardcover.
Planning Commission found the proposed use compatible ^
special zoning amendment. The use would be a low traffic Vor»o«!oi r
for hardcover the B-5 district has no hardcover controls. The pi epos. d i.
will generate less hardcover than the mixed use facility * '
lowell Zitzloff in 1979 on the same site. Review the site plan - exhili
“ there is adequate green area around the building, structure an« rot on i.
pond.
r
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14 r 1986
#1010 DUANE H. HALL
1860 SHADYWOOD ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the
request for a subdivision and variance at 1860 Shadywood
Road in which properties are legally combined.
Applicant is requesting to a subdivision of a lot line
rearrangement to create a new building site and
variances of lot arear lot width, and hardcover.
Planning Commission recommended denial of this
application. He noted that Mr. Hall has notified staff
and Council in his letter (attached to memo) that he
would not be able to be present at this meeting but
requests Council to act on his application in his
absence.
Mayor Butler asked Attorney Blatz her opinion regarding
action on this application without applicant's presence.
Attorney Blatz stated her recommendation would be to
defer action until applicant and/or a representative for
applicant is present.
Based on Attorney Blatz's opinion, it was moved by
CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek,
to table this application.
#1013 STEVE KATAINEN
3850 SHORELINE DRIVE
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW
Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the
application for a commercial site plan reveiw for
proposed 80'x84' structure to house furniture
sales/storage operation. He noted that the furniture
store use is not currently addressed in the B-5 zone,
however the Planning Commission has found the use to
meet the intent of the B-5 zoning district. Applicant
has provided all necessary information and has agreed to
enter into a developers agreement to assure completion
of certain site improvements.
Steve Katainen was present for this matter
Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the City
Engineer and M.C.W.D. has confirmed that the property
will have no drainage problems and are satisfied with
the hydrolic information submitted by applicant's
engineer.
Mr. Katainen. indicated that the proposed building would
be finished on all four sides with brick & wood siding,
however the actual building drawings have not been
finalized.
8
r
[ i
! ’
MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986
#1013 STEVE KATAINEN continued
Because Council would like to see the final plans before
giving final approval, it was moved by CounciImember
Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to grant
preliminary approval of the Commercial Site Plan and
upon receipt of the final plans for signage, lighting,
landscaping, and exterior finish of building will grant
final approval; and developers agreement to be provided
before issuance of building permit. Motion, Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
1986 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE*
SANDY BEACH PLACE
RBSOLDTION #1980
It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by
Counci Imember Hanuricrel, to adopt Resolution #1980
approving a Joint Use Dock License to Sandy Beach Place
for the period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986.
Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
ORONO MWCC INTERCEPTOR UPDATE
City Engineer Glenn Cook introduced Michael Lynch of
Bjnertroo & Associates who is working for the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission on the Metro Waste
Interceptor in Orono.
Mr. Lynch reported that the infiltration/inflow study
done in 1981 indicated that it would not be cost
effective to eliminate the infiltration/inflow to extend
the life of the interceptor system. At that time, Orono
* told MWCC to increase capacity or there would be a
problem in the near future. He noted that in April 1985
they reached capacity in which 15,000 gallons of sewage
overflowed into Lake Minnetonka. At this point, he was
hired by MWCC to study the system to determine the areas
that were under capacity and present a preliminary
design report. Upon approval of the report by MWCC they
anticipate improvements to begin in Spring 1987.
Mr. Lynch explained the findings of the study which
contained present and future daily wastewater flows,
future flow summary, and lift station & interceptor
analysis. He pointed out that most of the lift stations
were currently over their respective rated capacities.
He presented three alternatives to improve the system
taking into consideration cost efficiency and causing
minimal disruption.
Because this project is only at the preliminary stage.
Mayor Butler requested Mr. Lynch to keep them informed
on this miitter.
r ff:I -*[MIITBS OP TBB RB60LAR ORONO COtJllCIL HBBTING BBLO OCTOBER 27, 1986mOlVSTBVB RATAINBN
3to0^8B0RBLmB DRIVE
FINAL APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL SITE PLMI
Steve Kateinen was present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained the plan whiv:
was conceptually approved by the Council on April 1 ;
1986. Applicant has fulfilled all requirements.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the on .
outstanding concern was the type of outside lightir
proposed.
-w 1 • i* - *•’*'*»** •
• * • •• ^
Mr. Katainen stated that he proposes a light above cor
of the 3 side windows in the portico, 1 coach light c
each side of the door and a light above the door, sp<
lights on the building facing the parking lot. i.
stated the type of lighting for the sign has not y»-
been determined.
‘ r^‘
• . -
i • •
I
Zoning Administratoj^ Mabusth noted that the spot light
should be directed !to shine down. She stated that r.h
fee is assured that staff and Mr. Katainen can woi
together on the appropriate lighting.
It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded .*
CounciImember Adams, that the Council approve the fin.:
and amended commercial site plan and prelimin.nr
building plans for Stephen Katainen for a propose
furniture store on the property located at 3 0!’.
Shoreline Drive, subject to staff approving th
lighting. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0,
11064 CITY OF ORONO
SPATES AVENUE - LIFT STATION
CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT
City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the is'-;
regarding the requirement for conditional use permf
for lift stations, an ordinance that has been on * ’
books since at least 1968, however »he City has nev*-:
previously filed a formal condtional use per»;;i
application for construction of a lift station. When
issue was raised this year, staff had two courser. ‘
action to recommend to Council:
a) obtain an after-the-fact conditional use permit;
b) request an ordinance amendment to dolot'^
requirement never utilized.
Staff chose the former as it felt that location revi
of such facilities is appropriately a land use iss>.''.
r
SALES
REPAIR
STORAGE
Distinguished Motor Cars
CLASSIC SALES INC.
P.O.BOX 258
HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
Office and Showroom (612) 922-8711
3840 EDGEWOOO AVE.
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426
FLEET & LEASE
AUTO WHOLESALERS
Sept 26, 1997
Mrs. Elizabeth Van Zomeren
City Planner
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minn 55323
•
Dear Mrs. Van Zomeren,
With this letter I hereby request permission from the City of Orono
to operate a collector car museum and sales store on the property at 3850
Shoreline Drive.
As a requirement of the State of Minnesota Transportation and Licensing
Department, the City is required to sign my application for the transfer of
my Used Car Dealers license from my present location to the new one in Orono.
We presently are located in St. Louis Park, and have operated for 3Ja years
without incident or problems. Our present hours of operation are 8:30-4:30
Mon thru Fri.
We anticipate the display and sales of ctillector cars at this location.
I m including some pictures of previous sales to show the type of cars that
we may have at any given time. We also anticipate limited sales of newer
iTOdern cars and probably limited Saturday hours.
The pi^sent building meets all requirements of yourSec 10.44, B-5
Limited Neighborhood Business District as far as I know. We have a purchase
agreement signed on the Bay Furniture store contingent on Orono's permission
for us to move in as of Nov 1st. SH'' ’d the planning Commission recommend
and the Council approve on Nov 10th, che owner will extend the closing date
until after approval.
advise me if you need any further information for this request.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter, I remain.
truly your^ ^
Richard B. Bury P.E.'
President
rb:RB6
To:
cc:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor Gabriel Jabhour
and Council Members:
J. Diann Gothen
Charles Kelly
Barbara Peterson
Richard Flint
Dale Lindquist, Chairman Planning Committee
Richard B. Bury, Owner
Classic Sales, Inc.
Request for license transfer and approval of use of building at 3850
Shoreline Drive for display and sale of classic and collector
automobiles. See copy of attached letter to City Planner dated
September 26,1997.
November 3,1997
Background : Classic Sales was founded by the present owner, Richard B. Bury in 1987
and was originally located in Eden Prairie. The City gave a conditional use permit and
Classic Sales operated for six years without any problems or complaints whatsoever!
In 1993, Mr. Bury moved Classic Sales to its current St. Louis Park location for more
showroom area. His request for a license transfer was readily handled by city staff, and
he has operated at this location for 4 years, again without any complaints or problems.
Classics' business has now grown, and it needs a larger indoor display area and more
drive-by exposure, thus this request.
The business presently operates from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. In
Orono, Classic would add limited Saturday hours, otherwise the hours would stay the
same. Weather permitting, we would anticipate display of no more than 6 automobiles
outside. "Display" should not be construed as "storage", as we don't plan on any storage
at this site. The building provides enough room to allow the movement of cars to the
inside during inclement weather and overnight.
The site will be completely pollution, noise and odor free, as Classic subcontracts all
service and repair work out to others. The building, landscaping and parking lot would
be kept clean, and aesthetically pleasant to the eye. There will be absolutely storage
of cars or parts on this site.
Classic's customers typically stop by one at a time for short periods, so we are not a big
traffic generator. There have never been any kind of congestion or parking problems at
any of our locations.
I i
\
I
There is quite a large grassy area in the front of this building that could possibly be used
for display of special cars on nice days (see Picture A). Although the size of this area has
room for approximately 10 cars, no more than three cars would ever be placed there, and
they would then only be there for short periods.
Due to its size and location, this building has very limited uses. We feel our proposed
use is one that would work very well and is within your discretion to allow under a
conditional use permit. The appreciation of collector cais is very unique to all of us, as
everyone reminisces in the past. We also know many collector car hobbyists live in the
western suburban area. To date, 1 haven't found one person that finds our business
offensive. We see absolutely NO difference in the display of 4 - 6 cars at this site (see
Picture B) than you see with 4 - 6 cars belonging to employees or customers parked at a
lot nearby as shown in Picture C. We see little difference between a gaUery selUng old
pictures and furniture or one selling old cars, except in the size of the antiques.
Although someday we may become a museum, the only difference is that a museum
charges admission.
This request, I realize, requires some imagination on the Council's part. If all proposals
were cut and dried, and read to the tetter of any ordinance, there would be no need for
commissions or councils, as everything could be handled by competent staff.
Please see our request as an excellent opportunity to add an attractive business to your
Navarre commercial area. We would be a great asset to your community.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Bury
1
r
PICTURE A
r
/'
‘ i .■' fii
•/ ^ '*•
:-;-r . .-■ .V..- , .vV...;' .
PICTURE B
I 4A
I |; '
i»>t
■mm
PICTURE C
I !
J !
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 11/4/97
' 0 iS97
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed:
Name Brad Bressler
Title Planning Assistant
Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:/jr2309 Paul Larson
3865 Shoreline Drive
Variances-Public Hearing
Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Residential District
Lot Area:15,193 s.f. .35 acre
Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of an 1,800 s.f. house with a porch,
attached garage and driveway on a lot of record that does not meet minimum zoning district
requirements. Variances are required for lot area and width. Exhibits A1 and B1 are the updated
survey and hardcover calculations showing how the 25% hardcover requirement is being met in
the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback as Planning Commission has recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Conunission reconunended by a 6 to 0 vote to:
1. Approve a lot area variance of .15 acre to allow the .35 acre lot to be considered
buildable where .5 acre is required.
2. Approve a lot width variance of 38.5' to allow the existing lot widths of 61.5' at the 75'
lakeshore setback and 34' at the OHW where 100' is required.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
To approve or amend the enclosed resolution.
r
k-
r i- f'
E^bii Al
1
ctrrincATt o# suwviy «)h
PAUL LARSON
IN LOTt I ft 2. tlOCIC IL TOWNSITf LANOOOW MIW
NtNNtFM COUNTY. MINNCSOTA
r# 4/# // 000^i
legal OeSCMIRTION
TUN part of Leu 1 4 2. Btocft t. To«fNti tf PM.
TMa Mjrwvy ihoiM tia flf paapaaad hauaa. garapa and ««»« an tia I
daaciMpraparty. KtfaaftnotpufpaitlaNiaaranyatiarlavmmanbav
ftan(
dtfc/Wfl. Mt
•#»*«« 0m^• #• . #
COFFIN k GRONBFRC. INC.
i-*: f.mur.\W Awpuv « Lrojj LiVi-^ \l.\ 5^
61247)^141 '
I ItiiN nfNt N Wf
•w ilM I • Mr ivpnmg I livnrTf Virm..
daUiwNa>yWl»Nll<MwiMM
— — 4*'J.
U«i H »»iWiw »*j Isrow \mip4%« I.T'*
T-T
iMrf
• « «« •
f
rrtP*M setback ZO.NT: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ’ (TS^^'
EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE
A. House X _______
Length
B. Garage -
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Patic^De^
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
G. Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A_ _ _ _ _ _ _- B
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House 2 V X
Length
2 6
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Paliio(De^/6
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A 2^57 _ - B .
250-500 ’500-1000 ’
Width
X 100 =
s.fJ-
s p' Exhibil f
S.F.
• I.
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.
fo
zy
Width
2 8
/ 0*f
S.F.
SJO S.F.
/i /?2,_
9^
ZiL
S.F.
S.F.
/O /€o S.F.
S.F.
2?SJ
S.F.
S.F;
S.F.
• i*
S.F.
S.F.
/4 ^50 X 100
/A *iSO S.F.
29.
A
B
A
B
r
F
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 6(B),
FILE NO. 2309
WHEREAS, Paul Larson (hereinafter "the applicant") having an interest in the
property located at 3865 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
See Exhibit A for the property description (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 6(B) to allow the lot area to remain at .35 acre where
.5 acre is required and a lot width of variance of 38.5' to allow lot widths of 61.5' and 34' at
the 75' lakeshore setback and the 929.4' ordinary high water mark, respectively, to permit the
construction of an 1,800 s.f. residence with a porch, attached garage and driveway.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1.
2.
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2309.
The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The property consists of 15,193
s.f. or .35 acre.
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 20, 1997
and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following
findings:
1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning district requirements.
Page 1 of 5
1
r
2. The proposed residence and driveway will meet all setback and hardcover
requirements.
4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a subs^tial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 6(B) to permit
construction of an 1,800 s.f. residence. Approval was subject to the following conditions:
1 . The 25% hardcover requirement in the 75' to 250’ lakeshore setback shall be met
2.A vehicular turnaround area at least 12' wide and 16' deep is required for safety
reasons, per the City Engineer.
3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the
applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a
building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance
will expire on that date (November 10, 1998).
4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
Page 2 of 5
r -> I
I
5.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.I
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular
meeting held on the 10th day of November, 1997.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Property Owner (s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of
November, 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
Page 3 of 5
! i
I !
I
I
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBUC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for
said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregomg instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBUC
Page 4 of 5
i 1
wit
••
UgGAL fc)ESCRIPT!ON
•nwllift of LOS 1 & 2. Block 8. ^.t!S?loQ to^JSILtSrty
B^BOhmlng it • poirt In tho
Wm iho Northeast owner of m. North Ihi. of said
comer of eald Lot 2; 37 dMrees04 minutes West to the shore qU)t2 a distance of 168.001^ thei^so^S^^Mmi^^^ ^ ^
1 .1^ fhAncA southeasterly elono seid shor nm
running soutt
of said Lot 2; thence
I mu IjHp
>
INi
‘i
4
^ %
j::r:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant
October?, 1997
SUBJECT: #2309-Paul Larson
having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive
V ariances —Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
LR-IC
15,193
One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre)
square feet (.35 acres)
Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 1,962.2 s.f. house and corresponding
driveway on a lot of record not meeting current zoning requirements. Variances are required for lot
area, lot width and hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback.
Pertinent Ordinances:
Section 10.02, Definition 43: Lot Width Definition
Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations
Section 10.22, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements
^2309 Pau! Larson
having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drtve
Variances
10/20/97
Page I
Kills
ANALYSIS
T.ot Area and Yards
LR-IC District Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard
.5 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.75 ft.
Subject Property Lot Area and Yards
Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside
.35 acre 61.5'at 75'
setback
34' at OHW
41.5 ft.
(proposed)
11.5 ft.
(proposed)
75 ft. (proposed)
The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements.
Structural Coverag e
Structural coverage is not an issue with this application.
Hardcover
A hardcover variance is reqtiired in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback.
U2309 Paul Larson
having an inurest in 3S65 Shoreline Drive
Variances
10/20/97
Page!
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage
15,193 s.f.1,975.2 s.f. (proposed)13%
Distance
from
Shoreline
Total Area in
Setback
Existing
Hardcover
Allowed
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Variance
Requested
0'-75'3,743 s.f none none none none
75'-250'11,450 s.f none 2,862.5 s.f
(25%)
3,360 s.f
(29.34%)
497.5 s.f
(4.34%)
J
STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP
The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Also see the attached
application (Attachment A).
Criteria for Hgter mining Undue Hardship
1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
alb wed by the official controls.
The (>: would be considered unbuildable without granting a lot area and width variances.
^ ith minor alterations to the house and decks, the hardcover variance can be eliminated.
2. fhe plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The substandard lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements which now make
the lot non-conforming as to zoning requirements. It is a lot of record..
3.The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variances for lot area, lot width and hardcover will improve the character of the
area which is currently undeveloped..
4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter.
Ecciiomic factors 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 cr 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 single family residence is a permitted use in this zoning district.
H2309 Paul Larson
having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive
lar lances
10/20/97
Page 3
r
7.
8.
9.
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.
Most lots in this area were platted prior to current zoning requirements and do not meet
current lot area and lot width requirements.
The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district
in which said land is located.
Most lots of similar size in the area are developed.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
The lot cannot be built on without lot area and lot width variances.
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 nqt 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.
The substandard lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. Lot area and lot
width variances are necessary for the zoning lot to be deemed buildable. Staff has
demonstrated on Attachment F that hardcover requirements can be met.
Issues
1. The lot area is .35 acre where .5 acre is required. The lot width is 61.5' at the 75'
lakeshore setback and 34' at the OHW where 100' is required. The lot progressively
widens to 146' at the 30' front setback.
^2309 Paul Larson
having an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive
yariances
10/20/97
Page 4
r
1
2.
3.
There is an existing curb cut on Shoreline Drive that can serve this lot. Staff has sent the
proposal to Hennepin County tor review.
A sewer line easement has been granted on the lake side of the property for 10* on both
sides of the line.
4. A lot line rearrangement was approved in 1996 for reducing the lots at 2405 Dunwoody
Avenue and 3865 and 3877 Shoreline Drive into 2 lots which were more compliant with
current zoning requirements. However, the owner decided to sell the three lots as
originally platted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a 1,969.2 s.f. residence with an attached garage and
driveway on the .35 acre lot.
Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance of .15 acres to allow the .35 acre lot to
be considered buildable where .5 acre is required.
Staff recommends approval of a lot width variance of 38.5* to allow the lot width of 61.5'
at the 75* lakeshore setback and 34* at the OHW.
Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variance of 4.65% to allow 29.65% hardcover
where 25% is allowed as staff has demonstrated this requirement can be met.
Staff recommends that the applicant be required to submit a drainage plan prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to compliance with hardcover
requirements.
K309 Paul Lanon
having an interest in J863 Shoreline Drive
Variances
10/20/97
Page 5
r
Attachments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Application
Plat Map
Location Map
Topographic Map
Permit Record
Survey-Staff Proposal
Survey-Applicant Proposal
Legal Description of Easement
Views of Proposed Residence
Hardcover Calculation Worksheets
i^2309 Paul Larson
haying an interest in 3865 Shoreline Drive
Variances
JO/20/97
Page 6
r V
Application ^ ?a/o^
Date Received^ - c3. fe> 7
Amount Paid ^ .og
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 $220.0
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
SiteAddres s 39 S//0/i£a/'j£: M/j/f ___
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_________//7Z3 Z'2-
(month/year)
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired__________ __________________
I(i[d^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. *
Present use of property; ___^residential ___pother (specify) [/fiCfiUi
Zoning District;________^ /f — /CL_____________________________________
: Hfi -
Phone (home ) V 7/ 3 Z_APPLICANT
Name __________________________ Phone (wnrk) V 7 /~ Z
Address; 3 y?~7 >e City; €/tOJJC? Zip;
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name //*^
Address; 7^/ ^
Phone (home)_
Phone (work)_
City; {A/A^TMTf^_ Zip;
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /t CCpO
Describe request in detail; B^/cb /'JBW ___________________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width
Setback;Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Other (specify)
Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements;
(jsTT Of- ^BCoRP . _____________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
vf SEE MAP 51Jenninf:\
! SEE MAP 8H
c:
r “iffCeS S(^rdiA<
PERMIT RECORD
Permit No.Date Type of Permit
HCoicuP
(.-/<?■ 7g-.Ur^azs&.j!i£i:EE^tH
"■y^’TL
7'7V^
• • •
• •lii • # ••
<
/ /*y *i,*^*^
\/ *y/
c*.
'S,
^ 6liO s.f.
W5*.<yUo(A ^ (9 S C
(?iAViP ; ^:. t .C
U£t. wiJptvA(?-.-2,?5*J '
2hS
• •
f /'cj^’O'it.!
E3' pO|^s?t/ l^J/J^(^f/^
^prr^
>
*1 . ^ \•J' ^ \1 ^ t\
1 ^1 •• \-
\1 * \
^ • W
• \>A
;.;;> *>
xl......M r#/ Y •
N \*l
L WW -*
% ^
\ V
p V
K Vr VL m^ 1 IW V/V ^ X
/
//^
j^SfUr/f^
.u-*'
r
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
•UnVKYINO. KNOINUmNO AND LAND MANNINO
««a.A TAMAHACK AVINUI
LONO LAKC, MINN. ASat*
473-4141
October 3,1997
Sanitary Sewer Easement Description
for Paul Larson
in Lots 1 & 2, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park
Hennepin County, Minnesota
A 20 foot easement for sanitary sewer purposes over, under and across that part of the
following described property:
That part of Lots 1 & 2, Biock 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2 distant 5.00 feet
southeasterly from the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence northwesterly 5.00
feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West
along the North line of said Lot 2 a distance of 163.00 feet; thence south 37
degrees 04 minutes West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence southeasterly
along said shore to an intersection with a line running southwesterly from the point
of beginning and parallel with the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence
northeasterly along said parallel line to the point of beginning.
virhich lies within 10 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning
at a point on the southerly line of the above described property distant 246 feet
southwesterly from the most easterly comer of the above described property: thence
northwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of the above described propei^
distant 139 feet southwesterly from the northwesterly corner of the above described
property.
i
r
f
llAKiJLUVLK LALl_L L.-V i io.» . i v/ivivoi ii-i-t //•/^
setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) fO^TS^ 75-250* 250-500’
^/ll' ^ •'1'^ /O'i'^'7
500-1000’ '
EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE
A. House _____________
Length
B. Garase
C. Dnvewav
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ _ B
PROPOSED H.ARDCOVER IN 70NF
A. House _ _ _ _ _ X
Lcn|ih
B. Garaee
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E, Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A O_ _ ^ B
Width
X 100 =
Width
J*7VS X 100 =
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
• I •
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
I
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.
S.F; .
S.F.
I i*
S.F.
3 7VS S.F.
(O %
A
B
O S.F. •A
B
I
i
«
}
r
S'
1 •
»f<i
bETB.ACK 20.NE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’
EXISTING HARnrnvnER IN 70\T
A. House
Lcneih
B. Garage
C. Drivcwav
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Pati(^Dec^X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other
total hardcover in zone
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A-
• • •-i- B
PROPOSED H.ARDCOVTR in ZONT:^^ •—/
A. House ____X
LcngU)
yp
B. Garage
t
C. Driveway
20
'l£>
X
X
X
>
X
X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio(De^X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A :??//
(T5^'250-500’
WiJl.*)
X 100 =
2V
Z6
V
<4
^ B ///V5<3 X 100 =?
V
*1 f
500-1000’
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
j.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.
A
B
fo
ZL2__sT^
? ^
S.F.
S.F,
;.F.
Po
(0 L
S.F.
S.F.
I
5^/ S.F.
S.F.
^ g y S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F; .
S.F.
• I*
S.F.
S.F.
/4 ^SO_ S.F.
f.
A
B
r,
r
. hardcover CALLLLAliU.N ^ ^;> c^->
. /r'rDn r nVF^ 0-75* 75-250* ^50-50^ 500-1000* ^ 7SETBACK ZO.NTE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75
FA’ISTING HARDCONTR IN ZONE
A. House _____________
LsngUi
X
X
X
B. Carase
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plasiic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ - B .
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X
Length
X
X
X
B. Garage •
••
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F.Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A * B .
Wldlfl
X 100
Width
ra
c:
S20 X 100 =
"72.0
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
• I.
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.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
A
B
.• *
S.F.
S.F; .
S.F.
I I*
S.F.
O S.F.
_S.F.
%
A
B
1
r COUNCIL MEETING
i ‘
N
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 10, 1997
NOV lO 1997
cmroFono^
ITEM NO.: f
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engineer's Report
Item Description: Feasibility Study for Shoreline Drive (West of Heritage) Project
The area along Shoreline Drive west of Heritage Drive, and the Heritage Drive/ Heritage Lane
area were included in the recent MUSA expansion for sanitary sewer installation. The residents
of Shoreline Drive have sent a letter requesting that the City begin the process for a sanitary sewer
project. It is proposed that a sewer project for this area will be funded by assessment of all the
costs to the benefiting properties. A City cost contribution for this project is not envisioned.
There are six properties along Shoreline Drive that would be served by the proposed project. Five
of these owners have signed a letter requesting sanitary sewer. Four of the five residents who
signed the letter have non compliant systems. One of the drainfields is failing which requires
frequent pumping of the system, another system is very marginal. The sixth property has a new
home constructed in 1994 with a conforming mound septic system. This property owner did not
sign the letter requesting sewer, and may not be interested in a sewer project for many years.
The City Council recently approved a new policy providing that a property with a fully compliant
septic system can be excluded from a sewer project. They would then pay a full connection charge
at the time of future hookup to the sewer. The Council will need to make a determination if a
request from five of the six affected property owners is sufficient to proceed with this project.
A feasibility study was just ordered for a sewer project in Edgewood Hills. These two projects
are located approximately two miles apart and it would be feasible to complete both projects under
one contract, similar to Bay Ridge/ Bracketts Point. This would result in a reasonable sized
project to obtain competitive bids.
A SEPARATE PROJECT V.S. A COMBINED PROJECT
When the recent MUSA expansion was completed, preliminary engineering designs were
prepared, by Bonestroo Engineers, for all of the project areas in the City. This proposed project
area was shown as one project. Fox Hill, which included Shoreline Drive, Heritage Drive, and
Heritage Lane, (See attached map). According to this preliminary design, the Shoreline Drive area
can be served by a gravity sewer. A lift station will be required to serve the Heritage Drive/
Heritage Lane areas. This lift station would pump into the Shoreline Drive sewer. It is possible
to complete a gravity sewer project for Shoreline Drive, and then complete a future project with
a lift station to serve the Heritage Drive/ Heritage Lane area.
them would te approximately $11,000 per unit. The cost of the remaining FOJ«<
D^e^d Heritages Lane area would be approximately $18,000 per unit. The reason for the cost
diSLce is that Ln die project is done as a combined project, th-ost of jhe im statmn^s s . d
among all properties. When the Shoreline Drive area is separated out, that area can be served
without a lift station so the project would not include the lift station cost.
Althouirh a combined project would enable lower costs for the Heritage Drive/Heritage Lane area
difresfdents on Shoreline Drive would probably question paying for the lift station which is not
required to serve the Shoreline Drive Bre^
^^iTntT*rtamX^R i^toion, for this area, has been contacted atout a possible
sewe^r project The area residents have dUcussed this situation. Seven residents favor a project
wrsevefr^sidL opposed to a project. This area has four homes with newer conforming
systems and five homes with non conforming systems. The remainder of the
systems that meet the 3-foot separation requirement, but are not totally
factors such as system size. In general, these systems are ftmctiomng adequately. With th
system conditions it is veiy difficult to predict when a substantial majority of the property owners
will favor a sewer project.
consider a fiill assessment P™J«t for^ Shorrfi« tove t«a
based on five of the six affected property owners requesting a project, |he timng o P J
is important because of the one failing system and one very marginal system^ Th P P
schedule would be for construction of this project in 1998, in conjunction with the Mg'«^
Hills project A future prcject could be completed for the Heritage Drive/ Heriuge Lane area
upon rl^S by a subsuntial number of the project area resident. The “
ordering^ the preparation of a feasibility study is presented for consideration by the Council
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consideration of the attached resolution to order preparation of a feasibility study for a saratary
sewer project on Shoreline Drive west of Heritage Lane.
110697.4
r
I
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER TO SERVE THE
SHORELINE DRIVE (WEST OF HERITAGE LANE) AREA
WHEREAS, project area residents have submitted a letter indicating interest in obtaining
sanitary sewer, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has provided preliminary cost estimates for a sanitary
sewer extension however additional information is needed in order to establish the feasibility of
such a project, and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that municipal sanitary sewer trunks and/or laterals be
constructed to serve the area on Shoreline Drive west of Heritage Lane and that the benefitted
property(s) be assessed for all of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 429.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that
the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study Md that he is instructed to
report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to
whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible and whether it should
best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the estimated cost
of the improvement as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 10th day of November, 1997.
ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
s.virH
2 - FOX HILL
ORONO, MINNESOTA
[^1,0
M6^ SiMM'tUp.t
. i• i
^joneslroo
ftoaeno
Anderllk 4
Associates
r
August, 1997
Orono City Council
c/o Mike (iattron
City Zoning Administrator
2750 Kelly Pkwy
Urono 55356
RECEIVED
SEP 2 6 1997
I Y Ur ORONO
Dear City Council
I he following property owners are mterested in a municipal sewer project connecting the
Shoreime Dnve properties on Smith's Bay, east ot Spates Avenue to the municipal sewer;
Name
Cl <». (3^
Ar/j£
ddress
/ ?3(; .5horeh>'e Pr.
_ ---------------^
Uw/5 ShJc. mo tu-i-tnf-k)<M
1 hese laketront properties and the surrounding envuoninent would be better served by a
municipal sewer than separate septic systems, it’a feasible project can be developed.
Thank you for addressing our concerns.
Smith's Bay Property Owners
fun 66C t>p-i uu /? bc/Lf I, ime
5F-WEH P)U(?JE<^T
1860 Shoreline Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
ocr ,
cily.0 Ijif^
October 5,1997 <390
Greg Gappa
City of Orono
Orono, MN
Dear Mr. Gappa;
We, the undersigned, owners of property along Smith's Bay, want to hook up
to dty sewer and understcind you need this information in writing. Please
consider this our formal notification to the City. Please advise us if there is
any other action we need to take before you can proceed with hookup.
Owmers Address Signature
/ /ciUktin (CT/ni;fal ,cy. ^/'(SI |5T
■J^^OUis HJf Q/iol£r/I /3locf{
mo timTA6e ^
^ C/tfi-Oi£ /t-BloOp
leso
um 1
Sl6/Ji1U»LE Ftfti-IUIS pppriiiS hO'\ m UllElI
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^Oly
DATE: Novem^qe.199/^'^''
ITEM NO X
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engbeer's Report
Item Description: Request for Payment #2, Navarre Well Number 2 Repair 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 #2, Navarre Well Number 2 Repair Project to E.H.
Renner & Sons in the amount of $17,707.22
•■•a
ri
{REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %
DATE: Nover^08^199/'^‘^/^
ITEM NO = i
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engineer's Report
Item Description: Request for Payment #2, Navarre Well Number 2 Repair 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 #2, Navarre Well Number 2 Repair Project to E.H.
Renner & Sons in the amount of $17,707.22
i
r
I Bonestroo
Rosene
Andcriik &.
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo. Rosene. Anaeruk and Associates me is an Affirmative Action Equal Opfoortunity Employer
Principals Otto G. Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik, PE • M^rvm L SorvaM. PE •
Plch^rd E Turner. PE • G»enn R Cook. PE • RoOert G Schunichi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE •
Rcterr W Rosene. PE and Susan M EOerim. C PA Senior Consultants
Associate Principals. Howard A. Sanford. PE. • Kcith A. Gordon. PE • RoOert R. Pfeffcrie. PE. •
Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskoca. PE • Robert C Russek. A.I A. • Mark A Hanson, PE. •
Michael T Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field PF • iffrineth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE •
Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith
Offices St. Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. WI
October 22,1997
City of Orono
PO Box 66
2750 Parkway
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
0 4OC'
, O-r
Attn: Mr. Greg Gappa
Re: Well No. 2 Maintenance
BRA File No. 13993
Dear Greg:
Enclosed is Payment Request No. 2 & Final and also the State IC-134 Form for the Well No. 2
Maintenance project. The construction cost estimate, including previous work, increasing the pump
capacity to 500 gpm and replacing the pitless unit was (28,696.15 ($23,696.15 + $5,(XX)). The
actual electrical work was a little higher than estimated; however, the pitless and pump repair costs
were less. The final project cost of $28,205.75 is less than the total estimated cost. We recommend
that final payment be made to E.H. Renner Sc Sons.
The well pump was started September 26 and the capacity checked by timing the fill rate in the
gravity filter. The pump operated at 562 gpm. The pump should produce closer to 5(X) gpm when
operated over longer period due to lowering of the water level in the well.
The record documents on the well and pump will be sent within the next 2 weeks. We recommend
that final payment be made to E.H. Renner & Sons.
Yours very truly.
BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Richard W. Foster. P.E.
RWF:tla
Enclosures
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 - 6I2-636-4600 - Fax: 612'636-1311
i
L
Bonestfoo
fN AndBfl(&
Assxbte
h^MniVMace
IBrii iBiiin I
Owner City of Orono. P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
For Period: July 29.1997 to October 3.1997_____________
_____Date; October 10.1997
Request No: 2 & Rnal
Contractor E.H. Renner & Sons, 1S688 Jarvis St N.W., Elk River. MN 5S330
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
WELL NO. 2 MAE^TENANCE
FILE NO. 13993
ORONO, MN
1997
SUMMARY
I Original Contract Amount
Change Order - Addition
Change Order - Deduction
Revised Contract Amount
Value Completed to Date
Material on Hand
Amount Earned
8 Less Retainage.
9 Subtotal
10 Less Amount Paid Previously
II amount DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
$
2 & Final
$.
$.
$
$
$
$
$
$
Recommended for Approval by:
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Approved by Contractor:
E.H. RENNER & SONS
Approved by Owner:
CITY OF ORONO
Specified Contract Completion Date:Date:
i:\139M 3993\REQUEST2.WB2
28.696.15
28.696.15
28.205.75
0.00
28.205.75
0.00
28.205.75
10.498.53
17.707.22
r
Contract Unit Quantity Amounti Na Item Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date
Part 1 • Pump Repairs & Clean Casing
Perform pump work at the following prices:
, 1 Remove and reinstall submersible
turbine pump and motor LS 1 1,322.15 1.00 1322.15
2 Test pump performance LS 1 350.00 1 350.00
3 Brtish casing and screen, bail well HR 8 135.00 8 1,080.00
4 Shop time for cleaning and repairing
the pump HR 15 30.00
5 4* X 20*, Sch. 40, column pipe EA 3 120.00 8 960.00
6 4* X S', Sch. 40, column pipe EA 1 60.00
7 4* column couplings EA 3 29.00 8 232.00
8 Furnish colunui check valve EA 1 479.00 1 479.00
9 Furnish and install complete set of bowl
bearings LS 1 120.00
10 Furnish new stainless steel bowl shaft EA 1 175.00
11 Machine bowl and impeller and install bronze
wear ting per stage EA 3 140.00
12 Reassemble bowl assembly LS 1 150.00
13 Furnish pitless spool seal LS i 75.00
14 Replace 3 conductor motor power cable
including splice LP 250 2.20
IS Paint column, bowl assembly, and motor LS 1 150.00
Total Part 1 $4,423.15
Part 2 - Work on WcU Screen
Perform Well Work at the following prices:
16 Setup equipment for jetting well casing
and screen LS i 1,500.00 1 1,500.00
L.High pressure jetting of screen HR 30 155.00 30 4.650.00
Total Part 2 •$6,150.00
1
t Part 3 - Test Well
18 Install test pump LS 1 2,000.00 1 2,000.00
19 Test pump well HR 16 90.00 9 810.00
1
Tctal Part 3 $2,810.00
r
1
Part 4 - Increase Pump Capacity
20 New Pump Bowl LS 1 2.200.00 1 2,200.00
! 21 New Motor LS 1 2,850.00 1 2,850.00
- 22 Submersible Motor Cable LF 230 3.62 230 832.60
l;\139M3993\REQUEST2.WB2
r
24
25
Electiical Work
Total Pait4
4,400.00 4,400.00
$10,282.60
Part 5 • Replace Pitless Unit
Pitless Unit
Install Pitless
Total Part 5
LS
LS
1 2,690.00
1 1,850.00
2.690.00
1.850.00
$4,540.00
Total Part 1
Total Part 2
Total Part 3
Total Part4
Total Part 5
Total Work Completed to Date
$4,423.15
$6,150.00
$2,810.00
$10,282.60
$4,540.00
$28,205.75
LM39M3993«EQUEST2.WB2
r
PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS
Owner
Project No.
FQeNa 13993
Contractor
CHANGE ORDERS
m V
1
----- 1/cscnpaoD Amount
2
3
Total Chanae Orders
PAYMENT SUMMARY
1 Start to 07/29 10.498.53 552.55 11.051.08
2 07-29-97 10-03-97 17.707.22 0.00 28.205.75
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Material on Hand
Total Payment to Date $28,205.75 Original Contract
Retainatte. Payment No. 2 &0.00 Change Orders
Total Amount Earned $28,205.75 Revised Contract
l:\139M 3993\REQUEST2.WB2
COUNCIL MEET1NQ
NOV 1 0 1997
request for council action
DATE: November 10,1997
ITEM NO • •
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engineer’s Report
lum DescripUon: Request for Payment ^4. Bracketts Point/bay w oam.ary Sewer Project
We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering ftrm and recommend
approval of this Request for Payment
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve Request for Payment #4. Bracketts Point/Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project
to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $24,270.12
r
F
P :
Rosm
nAnderfl
|\||Assoda
Owner __ City of Orono. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ___________Date: November 4.1997
For Period:October 15. 1997 to November 4.1997 Request No: 4
Contractor Barbarossa & Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo, MN 55356
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
BAY RIDGE AND BRACKETTS POINT
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
File No. 13990
SUMMARY
I Original Contract Amount
Change Order • Addition
Change Order - Deduction
Revised Contract Amount
Value Completed to Date
Material on Hand
Amount Earned
8 Less Retainage 5%
9 Subtotal
10 Less Amount Paid Previously
II AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
S
55,538.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Recommended for Approval by:
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCUTES, INC.
Approved by Contractor:
Barbarossa & Sons
Approved by Owner:
City of Orono
Specified Contract Completion Date:Date:
523.740.00
579,278.00
424,547.75
0.00
424,547.75
21,227.39
403,320.36
379,050.24
24,270.12
l:\139\1399(AREQUEST4.WB2
r M. +•
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14A
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Item
8" PVC, SDR 35, O'- 8' deep in place
8" PVC, SDR 35,8’-10' deep in place
8- PVC, SDR 35,10*. 12' deep in place
8" PVC, SDR 35,12'-14' deep in place
8" PVC, SDR 35,14'-16' deep in place
8- PVC, SDR 35,16'- 18' deep in place
8" PVC, SDR 26, 12'-14' deep in place
8" PVC, SDR 26,14’-16' deep in place
8- PVC, SDR 26,16'-18' deep in place
8" DIP, 8'-10' deep in place
8" DIP, 14'- 16' deep in place
Std. MH 8' dp., 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg.
MH depth greater than 8' deep
Force main access manhole
Outside drop
Directional bore 8" HDPE SDR 17
3" HDPE, SDR 11
Directional bore 3" HDPE SDR 11
Connect 3" HDPE to exist. MCES FM stub
Connect 3" HDPE into existing manhole
Lightweight aggregate
3" X 3" HDPE tee with cap
2" X 1-1/2-HDPE reducer
3" X 45 degree HDPE bend
8" X 4" PVC service wye branch
8" X 2“ wye
4“ PVC service pipe in place, SDR 26
4" PVC service riser pipe in place, SDR 26
4" HDPE service pipe directional bore
1-1/2" HDPE service pipe directional bore
Improved pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth
Mechanical trench compaction
Insulation
Sanitary sewer television inspection
Submersible Pump Lift Station 1
Submersible Pump Lift Sution 2
Total Part 1 - Saiutaty Sewer
Contract Unit Quantity Amount
Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date
LF 975 31.00 823 25,513.00
LF 547 32.00 511 16,352.00
LF 831 33.00 1,237 40,821.00
LF 582 34.00 581 19,754.00
LF 95 35.00 55 1,925.00
LF 50 36.00 76 2,736.00
LF 41 36.00 10 360.00
LF 82 37.00 150 5,550.00
LF 210 38.00 170 6,460.00
LF 20 50.00 20 1,000.00
LF 12 54.00 4 216.00
EA 17 1,700.00 15 25,500.00
LF 39.4 85.00 43.3 3,680.50
EA 1 2,000.00 1
LF 8.2 300.00 4.1 1,230.00
LF 630 29.00 624 18,096.00
LF 1,815 20.00 1,772 35,440.00
LF 184 24.00 184 4,416.00
EA 1 3,000.00 1 3,000.00
EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00
LF 1,010 30.00 1,010 30,300.00
EA 1 50.00
EA 1 25.00
EA 5 30.00 2 60.00
EA 22 30.00 26 780.00
EA 1 50.00
LF 850 20.00 653 13,060.00
LF 35 20.00
LF 300 24.c:i
LF 120 24.01'
LF 1,950 3 .'’J 1,000 3,000.00
LF 1,950 1.00 2,144 2,144.00
SY 20 20.00 11 220.00
LF 4,075 0.60
LS 1 40,000.00 0.5 20,000.00
LS 1 40,000.00 0.7 28.000.00
$312,613.50
i:M39M 3990^REQUEST4.WB2
r
\
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
Part 2 - Restoration
Bituminous surfacing removal
Common excavation
Class 5 aggregate base (100% cnished)
Type 31 bituminous base course
Type 41A bituminous wearing course
Geotextile fabric
Bitununous material for tack coat
Bituminous street patching
Clearing and grubbing
Sawcut bituminous
Bituminous driveway restoration
Concrete driveway restoration
27" diam. catch basin with casting
Remove existing CMP culvert
Furnish and install 15" CMP culvert
15" CMP flared end
Boulder retaining wall
Sod with 4" topsoil
Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer
Erosion control fence
Wild flower seeding
Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue
Spruce) 6' high EA
Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple)
4" diameter EA
Remove and replace wood or chain link fence LP
Remove and transplant bushes EA
Remove and transplant tree • Desiduous EA
Remove and transplant tree • Coniferous EA
Total Part 2 - Restoration
SY
CY
TN
TN
TN
SY
GL
SY
LS
LF
SY
SF
EA
LF
LF
EA
SF
SY
AC
LF
SF
Change Order No. 1
ADD
Residentail simple grinder pump stations
Total Alternate No. 2
Alternate No. 3 Bid • Directional Bore 8" HDPE.
MH-ltoMH-9
I.A139\13990V)EQUEST4.WB2
4.000
2,100
2,500
600
600
4,700
300
700
1
100
600
100
1
150
ISO
4
80
13.000
0.4
1,000
800
20
300
40
15
15
1.50
3.50
9.00
28.50
29.00
1.25
1.20
6.75
5.000. 00
6.00
6.75
10.00
1.000. 00
5.00
20.00
150.00
14.00
2.00
3,280.00
2.00
0.30
220.00
600.00
16.00
50.00
300.00
300.00
1 3,600.00
4,000
710
1,704
599
2,687
1.0
1
65
53
66
4,656
590
6
97
6
6,000.00
2,485.00
15336.00
17,071.50
3.358.75
5,000.00
1,000.00
325.00
1,060.00
924.00
9,312.00
1,180.00
3.600.00
1.552.00
300.00
$68,504.25
$0.00
r
66
67
68
69
70
17
6S
67
68
70
1
16
66
69
ADD
Directional bore 8" HDP, SDR 17
DEDUCT
8-PVC.SDR35.10-12deep
8"PVC, SDR 35.12*-14'deep
8“PVC.SDR35. 14’-16’dcep
8" PVC, SDR 35.16-18’ deep
Lightweight aggregate
Total deduct
Total Alternate No. 3
Change Order Nal
Directional bore 3" HDPE, SDR 11
Directional bore 8“ HDPE. SDR 17
S'* PVC. SDR 35.12-14* deep
8** PVC. SDR 35.14-16- deep
Lightweight aggregate
Total
DEDUCT
8** PVC. SDR 35.0*-8* deep
3** HDPE. SDR 11
8** PVC. SDR 35.10*-12* deep
S" PVC. SDR 35.16*-18* deep
Total
Total Change Order No. 1
Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer
Total Part 2 - Restoration
Total Change Order No. 1
Total Work Completed to Date
l:\139\13990\REQUEST4.WB2
LF 1010 90.00 1010 90.900.00
LF -400 33.00 -400 (13.200.00)
LF -515 34.00 -515 (17310.00)
LF -45 35.00 -45 (1.575.00)
LF -50 36.00 -50 (1.800.00)
LF -1010 30.00 -1010 (30300.00)
($64385.00)
$26315.00
LF 783 24.00 691 16.584.00
LF 446 90.00 376 33.840.00
LF 115 34.00 115 3.910.00
LF 5 35.00 5 175.00
LF 40 30.00 40 1.200.00
$55,709.00
LF -253 31.00 -253 (7.843.00)
LF -783 20.00 -783 (15.660.00)
LF -435 33.00 -435 (14.355.00)
LF -26 36.00 -26 (936.00)
($38,794.00)
$43,430.00
$312,613.50
$68,504.25
$43,430.00
$424,547.75
:
r
PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS
Owner City of Orono
Project No. 13990
FOe No. 13990
Contractor Baibarossa & Sons
CHANGE ORDERS
No.Date Description Amount
1 08/19/97Changes due to unstable soils encountered 55.538.00
2
3
Total Cbanae Orders $55,538.00
PAYMENT SUMMARY
1 Start 09/03/97 117.259.45 6.171.55 123.431.00
2 09/03/97 10/06/97 167.485.24 14.986.56 299.731.25
3 \omm 10/15/97 94.305.55 19.950.01 399.000.25
4 10/15/97 11/04/97 24.270.12 21.227.39 424.547.75
5
6
7
8
9
10
Material on Hand
Total Payment to Date 1
$403,320.36
1
Oriainal Contract $523,740.00
Retainaae. Payment No. 4 21.227.39 Change Orders 55.538.00
Total Amount Earned $424,547.75 Revised Contract $579,278.00
I.A133\13990\REQUEST4.WB2
'i
i
r
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION -Voi, ^
DATE: November 10,19^ ^9g>
ITEM NO.: j [)
h'MQ
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Thk Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engineer's Report
Item Description: Request for Payment ^5, 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 #5, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to
Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $60,431.50
r
M
BuncODC
nMMmkl
|\||Aiso(tate
Owner City of Orono. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Date: November 4.1997
For Period:October 7.1997 to November 4.1997 Request No: 5
Contractor Barbarossa & Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo. MN 55369
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
NORTH LONG LAKE AND LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Fde No. 13988
SUMMARY
I Original Contract Amount
Change Order • Addition
Change Order • Deduction
Revised Contract Amount
Value Completed to Date
Material on Hand
Amount Earned
8 Less Retainage S%
9 Subtotal
10 Less Amount Paid Previously
II AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.
2
3
4
3
6
7
$
$
77.490.00
737.00
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Recommended for Approval by:
BON£STROO» ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC
Approved by ContrlKtbn
Barbarossa & Sons
Approved by Owner
City of Orono
Specified Contract Completion Date:Date:
874.930.01
951.683.01
723.433.90
0.00
723.433.90
36.171.70
687.262.21
626.830.71
60.431.50
l:\139M3988\REQUESTS.WB2
.......................................
n
No.Item Unit
Contract
Quantity
Unit
Price
Quantity
to Date
Amount
to Date
1 8" PVC, SDR 35. O'- 8' deep in place LF 232 28.00 139 3,892.00
2 8" PVC, SDR 35,8 -10* deep in place LF 752 29.00 1,071 31,059.00
3 8- P^'C, SDR 35,10'- P '-jep n place LF 1,303 30.00 974 29,220.00
4 8** PVC, SDR 35,12*-14 deep in place LF 981 31.00 1,309 40,579.00
5 8** PVC, SDR 35,14*- 16* deep in place LF 1,024 32.00 968 30,976.00
6 8** PVC, SDR 35,16*-18* deep in place LF 63 33.00 185 6,105.00
7 8** PVC, SDR 26,14* 16* deep in place LF 220 35.00 138 4,830.00
8 8" PVC, SDR 26,16'-18' deep in place LF 188 36.00
9 8" DIP, 10'-12' deep in place LF 40 38.00 40 1,520.00
10 8" DIP, 16'-18'deep in place LF 20 41.00 20 820.00
11 Std. MH 8' dp., 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg.EA 24 1,440.00 24 34,560.00
12 MH depth greater than 8' deep LF 97 100.00 102.7 10,270.00
13 Directional bore 4" HDPE SDR 17 LF 140 20.00 ’140 2,800.00
14 4" HDPE, SDR n LF 5,812 8.40 5,716 48,014.40
15 Air release manhole EA 2 1,900.00 2 3,800.00
16 1-1/2 ” curb stop and box EA 3 350.00 3 1,050.00
17 Connect 4" HDPE into existing manhole EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00
18 4” 45 degree HDPE bend EA 16 50.00 8 400.00
19 4" tee with cap EA 1 55.00
20 4" X 2" HDPE tee EA 3 50.00 3 150.00
21 4" X 4” HDPE tee EA 1 50.00
22 2 1 /• i/2" HDPE reducer EA 3 35.00 3 105.00
23 yxAS degree HDPE bend EA 3 30.00
24 4" X 2" wye EA 2 30.00 1 30.00
25 8" X 4" PVC service wye branch EA 48 50.00 55 2,750.00
26 8" X 2" wye EA 5 50.00
27 2” X 1-1/2" reducer EA 7 30.00 7 210.00
28 4" PVC service pipe in place, SDR 26 LF 1,465 18.00 l,2o2 22,716.00
29 4" PVC service riser pipe in place, SDR 26 LF 35 18.00 44 792.00
30 4" HDPE service pipe directional bore LF 225 20.00
31 1-1/2" HDPE service pipe directional bore LF 225 10.00 561 5,610.00
32 Improved pipe fdn. in 6 ' increment depth LF 6,500 0.01 6,500 65.00
33 Mechanical trench compaction LF 6,500 1.00 4,844 4,844.00
34 Insulation SY 50 lo.u':-22 220.00
35 Sanitary sewer television inspection LF 4,808 0.42
36 Submersible Pump Lift Station 1 LS 1 44,200.00 0.90 39,780.00
37 Submersible Pump Lift Su tion 2 LS 1 44,700.00 0,90 40.230.00
Total Part 1 - Long Lake Sanitary $368,397.40
l:\139V13988\REQUEST5.WB2
Part 2 - Water Main
38 8" DIP, Class 52 95 20.00 46 920.00
39 12" DIP, Class 52 LF 490 26.00 583 15,158.00
40 6“ DIP, Class 52 LF 5 19.00 10 190.00
41 Cut into existing 8* CIP EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00
42 Cut into existing 6" DIP EA 1 800.00 1 800.00
4i Hydrant EA 1 2,000.00 1 2,000.00
44 6" gate valve and box EA 1 600.00 1 600.00
45 8" gete valve and box EA 2 750.00 2 1,500.00
46 12" butterfly valve and box EA 1 1,000.00 1
47 Fittings LB l,37t>1.00 850 850.00
48 Mechanical trench compaction LF 590 1.00 639 639.00
49 Improved pipe foundation in 6” increments LF 595 0.01 100 1.00
Total Part 2 - Watermain $24,658.00
Part 3 - Restorallon
50 Clear and grub EA 20 300.00 51 15,300.00
51
52
2* X 3' sump catch basin
4' diameter sump catch basin manhole
EA
EA
2
5
1,000.00
1,200.00
2
5
53 Catch basin manhole overdepth LF 17 125.00 5 625.00
54 Bituminous surfacing removal SY 11,600 1.00 11,500 11,500.00
55 Conunon excavation CY 3,700 3.25 4,532 14,729.00
56 Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed)TN 8,000 9.20 9,206 84,695.20
57 Type 31 bituminous base course TN 1,200 23.50 1,^96 35,156.00
58 Type 41A bituminous wearing course TN 900 27.50
59 Geotextile fabric SY 11,000 1.00 10,819 10,819.00
60 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 550 1.00
61 Bituminous street patching SY 300 6.50
62 Sawcut concrete driveway LF 100 5.00
63 Sawcut bituminous LF 650 1.50
64 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 1,550 6.50 1,453 9.444.50
65 Concrete driveway restoration SF 3,200 3.50 169 591.50
66 12" RCP in place LF 233 22.00 86 1,892.00
67 15" RCP in place LF 141 24.00 121 2,904.00
68 15" RCP, over 8‘ deep LF 20 26.00 •
69 15" RCP flared end in place with trash guard EA 2 900.00 1 900.00
70 Mechanical trench compaction LF 595 1.00 207 207.00
71 Improved pipe fod. in 6" increment depth LF 595 0.01
72 Remove existing CMP culvert LF 450 2.00 100 200.00
l:\139\13988\REQUEST5.WB2
t A
73 Furnish and install 15" CMP culvert LF 450 12.00 367 4,404.007415" CMP flared end EA 30 100.00 16 1,600.0075Riprap. Class m hand placed CY 12 30.00 8 240.0076Sod with 4" topsoil SY 28.000 2.25
77 Se d with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer AC 2 1.550.00
78 Erosion control fence LF 1.000 2.50 1,000 2,500.00
79 Wood fiber blanket SY 750 1.50 329 493.50
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 1 500.00
82 Remove and replace wood or chain link fence LF 600 15.00
83 Remove and iranv: (ant ’’ushes 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 5.50 __275.00
Total Part 3 - Restoration $206,975.70
Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station
87 Duplex submersible grinder station LS 1 18.600.00 0.70 13,020.00
88 2" HOPE. SDR 11 LF 1,160 6.00 1,105 6,630.00
89 Connect to existing manhole EA 1 1,000.00 i
90 2" HDPE 45 degree bends EA 2 50.00 2 100.00
Total Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex -Jer Station $20,750.00
Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation
91 Temporary controls, pumps and piping for
interim conveyance LS 1 2.000.00
92 Lift station demolition LS 1 5,000.00
93 New pumps, piping, valves. lOp hatch
and slab LS 1 35,000.00
94 New control panel, base slab, dialer, and
miscellaneous electrical LS 1 24,000.00
95 Sod SY 50 2.25
96 8" Class 5 aggregate base TN 75 12.00
97 3" thick bituminous driveway TN 30 45.00
Total Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation $0.00
98
Part 6 - Lift Station 12 Modifications
Remove existing impellers and wear rings
l:\139\13988UREQUcST5.WB2
and place new impellers and wear lings
Total Part 6 - Lift Station 12 Modifications
Part 7 • Forcemaln Alignment
Deduct:
2,052.00
l:\139\13988\REQUEST5.WB2
$0.00
99 4" forcemain directional bore (Item No. 13)
Add!
LF (140)20.00
100 4" HDPE forcemain, SDR 17 LF 643 8.40 643 5,401.20
101 4" HDPE forcemain, SDR 17, directional bote LF 45 20.00 45 900.00
102 Air release manhole EA 1 1,900.00 1 1,900.00
103 Sod with 4* topsoil SY 1,367 2.25
104 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 33 15.50
Total Part 7 • Forcemain Alignment $8,201.20
Part 8 - Rcsidental Submerribk Grinder Stations
105 Residental simplex grinder pump sudons EA 10 3,290.00 10 32,900.00
Total Part 8 • Residental Submersible Grinder Stadons $32,900.00
Alternate No. 1 • MH 22 to MH 22A
106 8" PVC, SDR 35,10* - 12' deep in place LF 193 30.00 172 5,160.00
107 Auger or ditecdonal bore 8" PVC LF 55 75.00 84 6,300.00
108 Std. MH 8' dp., 4' dia., W/RI642B cstg.EA 1 1,440.00 I 1,440.00
109 MH depth greater than 8' deep LF 2 100.00 5.20 520.00
no Remove & transplant tree - coniferous EA 10 150.00 0
Total Alternate No. 1 • MH 22 to MH 22A $13,420.00
Change Order No. 1
81 Furnish & plant shade tree (Sugar Maple',EA 15 500.00 15 7,500.00
11 Std MH 8' dp., 4' dia., W/R1642B cstg.EA 3 1,440.00 3.00 4,320.00
12 MH depth greater than 8' deep LF 6 100.00 6.00 600.00
Total Change Order No. 1 $12,420.00
Change Order No. 2
1 4’ riser pipe extension EA 2 845.00
Total Change Order No. 2 $0.00
Change Order No. 3
Add
12” corrugated PE pipe LF 154 19.00 147.00 2,793.00
12” PE F£.S. with trash guard EA 1 625.00 1.00 625.00
r
*
I
66
69
52
53
54
55
63
67
69
50
55
56
56
57
58
61
Delete
12” RCP in place
15” RCP flared end in place with trash guard
Total Change Order No. 3
Change Order No. 4
4’ diam. sump catch basin manhole
Catch basin manhole overdepth
Bituminous surfacing removal
Common excavation
Sawcut bituminous
15” RCP in place
IS” RCP flared end in place w/ TG
Clear and grub
Total Change Older No. 4
Change Order No. 5
Common Excavation
Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Cnished)
Total Change Order No. 5
Change Order No. 6
Modular block retaining wall
Total Change Order No. 6
Change Order No. 7
Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed)
Type 31 bituminous base Course
Type 41A biutminous wear course
Bituminous street patching
Total Change Order No. 7
Total Part 1 • Long Lake Sanitary
Total Part 2 • Watermain
Total Part 3 > Restoration
Total Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station
Total Part 5 • Lift Station 6 Renovation
Total Part 6 - Lift Station 12 Modifications
Total Part 7 • Forcemain Alignment
Total Part 8 - Residental Submersible Grinder Sutions
Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A
i:\13S\13988VREQUEST5.WB2
LF (154)22.00 (154.00)(3,388.00)
EA (1)900.00 (1)(900.00)
($870.00)
EA 4 1,200.00 4 4,800.00
LF 3 125.00 3 375.00
SY 400 1.00 400 400.00
CY 5,400 3.25 5,400 17,550.00
LF 206 1.50 206 309.00
LF 209 24.00 209 5,016.00
EA 1 900.00 1 900.00
EA 7 300.00 7 2,100.00
$31,450.00
CY 480 3.25 480 1,560.00
TN 940 9.20 940 8,648.00
$10,208.00
SF 500 18.40 379 6,973.60
$6,973.60
TN 310 9.20
TN 150 23.50
TN no 27.50
SY 480 6.50
$0.00
368,397.40
24.658.00
206,975.70
20.750.00
0.00
0.00
8,201.20
32.900.00
13.420.00
r
Total Change Order No. 1
Total Change Order No. 2
Total Change Order No. 3
Total Change Order No. 4
Total Change Order No. S
Total Change Order No. 6
Total Change Order No. 7
Total Work Completed to Date
4.920.00
0.00
(870.00)
26.900.00
10.208.00
6,973.60
0.00
$723,433.90
l:\139M3888\REQUEST5.WB2
r 00f^'
PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS
Owner City of Orono
Project No. 13988
File No. 13988
Contractor Baibarossa & Sons
CHANGE ORDERS
No.Date Description Amount
1 06A)6/97 Additional trees and manholes as a result of easement negotiations 12.420.00
__2 06/10/97 Extend bypass piping in valve 1.690.00
3 06/18/97 Substitute corrugated polyethylene pipe for RCP storm sewer (737.00)
4 08A)6/97 Construction of ponding area and installation of storm sewer 31.450.00
5 08/19/97 Additional Class S 10.208.00
6 10«)8/97 Construction of modular block ret^inin^ wall 9.200.00
7 10/08/97 Regrading and paving 500* of Long !>ke Boulevard 12.522.00
Total Change Orders $76,753.00
PAYMENT SUMMARY
Material on Hand
l:M39MJ988\nEQUEST5.WB2
1 Start anmm 195.908.86 10.310.99 206.219.85
2 07/01/97 c/,/06/57 316.864.61 26.988.08 539.761.55
3 omem 09/03/9/49.031.45 29.568.68 591.373.60
4 09/03/97 10/07/97 65.025.79 32.991.09 659.821.80
5 10/07/97 11/04/97 60.431.50 36.171.70 723.433.90
6
7
8
9
10
Total Payment to Date S687.262.21 Original Contract $874,930.01
Retainaxe. Payment No. 5 36.171.70 Chanfte Orders 76.753.00
Total Amount Earned $723,433.91 Revised Contract $951,683.01
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
®®^CILMEETINQ
NOV lo 1997
CfTY OF ORONO
DATE: November 10, 1997
ITEM NO.: jj
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administiator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engineer ’s Report
Item Description: No Parking Resolution. Long Lake Boulevard Turnaround Area
*'* “ available for constructionof a sia^ turnai^ area. A limited size turnaround area has been constructed at the end of
tot ^ “niaround area resulting in difficulties for vehfcles
with to al^ rSito,^ r* "”"T nPn'-n'in'^- This situation has been discussedwitn the area residents. On street parkmg is needed, in this area, for visiting guests as drivewav
parking IS limited for some homes. Our recommendation is to prohibit parking in the turnaround
remainder of the street. This will provide more space
restoto.” “ ** '"<* of "«toad while still providing on str^t parking for area
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
area at the end of
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION
OF NO PARKING SIGNS AT END OF
LONG LAKE BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal organization under the laws of the State of
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Long Lake Boulevard is a dead end road with a limited amount of area for
construction of a standard size turnaround at the end of the road; and
WHEREAS, vehicles have been parking in this limited size turnaround area causing
problems for vehicles that need to use the turnaround; and
WHEREAS, vehicles parking in the turnaround area will cause difficulties in City snow
plowing of this street.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby
authorize and direct the Orono Public Works Department to install No Parking signs in the
turnaround area at the end of Long Lake Boulevard.
1997.
Approved by the Orono City Council at a regular Council meeting held on November 10,
ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
r
I
S I
!
9
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %
DATE; No^ejp^r 7^19jg
^•‘Vr
ITEM NO = /^%
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrator's
Report
/Item Description:
Lease Agreements for Telecommunication Antennas on the City's Water Tower
The city has been negotiating with several telecommunications providers regarding lease agreements
for telecommunications antennas on the city's water tower. As of Friday, November 7, the city has
resolved all but a small number of issues with both Nextel and Sprint Spectrum. It appears the
outstanding issues will be resolved prior to the November 10 Council meeting. A copy of the
agreement with each of the providers is attached.
The main points of the agreements are as follows:
1.Allows the location of telecommunications antennas on the Highway 12 water
tower. Nextel: 9 panel antennas attached to the railing at the top of the tower. Sprint
Spectrum: 12 panel antennas attached to the stem of the tower.
2.Allows the location of equipment cabinets near the base of the tower (approximately
11 feet by 20 feet).
3.An initial lease term of 5 years, with automatic renewals for three additional 5 year
terms.
4. Nextel will pay an initial lease rate of $13,000 per year for nine antennas. Sprint
Spectrum will pay an initial lease rate of $14,500 per year for 12 antennas.
5. The initial lease rates will increase 5% per year.
Staff Recommendation
If agreement is reached with the providers on the final form of the lease agreements, staff
recommends Council approval of the lease agreements.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the lease agreements with Nextel and Sprint Spectrum for telecommunications
antennas on the city's Highway 12 water tower.
J
rh
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
li
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
n
10.
11.
12.
PAGE
Leased Property and Premises.................................................................................... I
Rent............................................................................................................................ 1
(a) Amount, Adjustments...................................................................................... I
(b) Time of Payment, Taxes ................................................................................. 1
Governmental Approval Contingency........................................................................ 2
(a) Tenant Application ........................................................................................ 2
(b) Interference and Engineering Study ................................................................ 2
(c) Non-approval ................................................................................................. 2
Term and Renewals................................................................................................... 3
Tenant’s Use.............................................................................................................. 3
(a) User Priority................................................................................................... 3
(b) Purposes.......................................................................................................... 3
(c) Construction................................................................................................... 4
(d) Process for Additional Antennas .................................................................... 4
(f) Operation........................................................................................................ 4
(g) Maintenance, Improvement Expenses............................................................. 5
(h) Updates .......................................................................................................... 5
(i) Drawings ........................................................................................................ 5
(j) No Interference............................................................................................... 5
(k) Access............................................................................................................ 5
(l) Payment of Utilities........................................................................................ 5
Emergency Facilities ................................................................................................. 6
Additional Maintenance Expenses ............................................................................. 6
Advances in Technology............................................................................................ 6
Additional Buildings ................................. 6
Defense and Indemnification...................................................................................... 6
(a) General .......................................................................................................... 6
(b) Hazardous Materials........................................................................................ 6
(c) Tenant’s Warranty.......................................................................................... 7
Insurance ................................................................................................................... 7
(a) Workers ’ Compensation................................................................................. 7
(b) General Liability............................................................................................ 7
(c) Automobile Liability ...................................................................................... 7
(d) Tenant Property Insurance ............................................................................. 8
(e) Adjustment to Insurance Coverage Limits...................................................... 8
(0 Additional Insured - Certificate of Insurance..................................................... 8
(g) Waiver of Claims: Subrogation........................................................................ 8
Damage or Destruction............................................................................................... 9
082/22147604 11/7/97
r
13. Lease Termination................................................................................................. 9
(a) Events of Termination ................................................................................ 9
(b) Notice of Termination ............................................................................. 10
(c) Tenant’s Liability for Early Termination.................................................... 10
(d) Site Restoration........................................................................................ 10
14. Limitation of Landlord’s Liability ....................................................................... 11
15. Temporary Interruptions of Service ..................................................................... 11
16. Tenant Interference ............................................................................................ 11
(a) With StAicture.......................................................................................... 11
(b) With Higher Priority Users and Pre-Existing Tenants................................ 11
(c) Interference Study - New Occupants ........................................................ 12
(d) Interference - New Occupants................................................................... 12
17. Assignment ......................................................................................................... 13
18. Utility Service..................................................................................................... I3
19. Condemnation..................................................................................................... 13
20. Default................................................................................................................ 13
21. Notices................................................................................................................ 13
22. Authority ........................................................................................................... 14
23. Binding Effect..................................................................................................... 14
24. Complete Lease: Amendments........................................................................... 14
25. Governing Law................................................................................................... 14
26. Linr. ation of Liability ........................................................................................ 14
27. Severability......................................................................................................... 14
28. Memorandum ..................................................................................................... 14
082/22147604 11/7/97
r
SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease"), made this___day of 199
between City of Orono ("Landlord"), and Sprint Spectrum L.P., a limited partnership
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware ("Tenant").
I.
2.
For good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
Leased Property and Premises. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease,
Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord certain space on
Landlord’s north water tower (hereinafter referred to as the "Tower" or the
"Structure"), and space adjacent to the Tower, subject to any and all existing
easements located , (collectively referred to as the "Premises") together with a non
exclusive easement for reasonable access to Landlord’s property and for adequate
utility services, including sources of electric and telephone facilities on Landlord’s
property located at 2700 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota (the "Property") on a non
exclusive basis. The Property is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The
Premises on which antennas, con —' ting cables and appurtenances will be attached and
located, and on which an equipment shelter will be located, the exact location of each
to be reasonably approved by the Landlord, are described on Exhibit B attached
hereto. The installation detail of the antennas, connecting cables and appurtenances,
and of the equipment shelter/cabinets is described in Exhibit C attached hereto.
Exhibits A, B and C are made a part hereof.
Rent.
(a) Amount. Adjustments. As a consideration for this Lease and in consideration
of Tenant’s intention to install no more than 12 antennas. Tenant shall pay Landlord
an annual rent in the amount of $14,500 for the initial year, which shall be increased
each year on January 1, commencing January 1, 1999,by the greater of: (a) five
percent (5%) of the previous year’s annualized rental, or (b) by an amount equal to the
increase in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"). The CPI shall mean the "Consumer
Price Index - for All Urban Consumers, All Cities, All Items (1982-84=100)" as
published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics, or if such index shall
be discontinued, the successor index, or if there shall be no successor index, such
f'omparable index as mutually agreed upon by the parties. To determine the annual
re:: a! increase to be paid by Tenant under a CPI adjuster, the annualized rental for the
f ic^ ious year shall be multiplied by a percentage figure, computed from a fraction, the
numerator of which shall be the CPI for the third quarter of the preceding year and the
denominator of which shall be the CPI for the corresponding quarter of one year
earlier. Such fraction sha'* be converted to a percentage equivalent. The resulting
percentage figure shall be multiplied by the previous year’s rent (annualized for the
first year, see Paragraph 4 below).
082/22147604 M/7/97
r
(b) Time of Payment. Taxes . Landlord shall communicate all rental increases to
the Tenant in writing by the preceding December 1 of each year. The annual rental
shall be paid before January 1 of each year. For the first year, the rental shall be pro
rated through December 31 and shall be paid to Landlord in full at the time Lease is
executed. If the Tenant does not meet the requirements referenced in Subparagraph
3(a) below by March 15, 1998, and Tenant has diligently pursued such requirements.
Landlord shall refund to the Tenant all rental payments made by Tenant and this Lease
shall terminate.
In addition to the annual rental. Tenant agrees to timely pay its pro rata share
of any taxes or payment in lieu of ta.xes required as a result of this Lease.
(c) If this Lease is terminated at any time other than on the last day of a month.
Rent shall be prorated, based on a thirty day month, as of the date of termination, and
in the event of termination for any reason other than nonpayment of Rent, or Tenant’s
default, all prepaid Rent shall be refunded to Tenant.
3. Governmental Approval Contingency.
(a) Tenant Application. Tenant’s right to use the Leased Premises is expressly
made contingent upon its obtaining all the certificates, permits, zoning and other
approvals that may be required by any federal, state or local authority. This shall
include the engineering study specified in Subparagraph 3(b) below on the Structure to
be conducted at Tenant’s expense. Landlord shall cooperate with Tenant in its efforts
to obtain and retain such approvals and shall take no action which would adversely
affect the status of the Leased Premises with respect to the Tenant’s proposed use
thereof.
(b) Interference and Engineering Study. Before obtaining a building permit.
Tenant must pay its share for the reasonable cost of (i) a radio frequency interference
study carried out by an independent and qualified professional selected by the
Landlord showing that Tenant’s intended use will not interfere with any existing
communications facilities and (ii) an engineering study showing that the Structure is
able to support the Tenant’s Facilities, as defined in Subparagraph 5(b), without
prejudice to the City’s use of the Structure. If the study finds that there is a potential
for interference that cannot be reasonably remedied or for prejudice to the Structure,
Landlord may terminate this Lease immediately and refund the initial rental to Tenant.
(c) Non-approval . In the event that any application necessary under Subparagraph
3(a) above is finally rejected or any certificate, permit, license, or approval issued to
Tenant is cancelled, expires, lapses, or is otherwise withdrawn or terminated by
governmental authority so that Tenant, in its sole discretion, will be unable to use the
Premises for its intended purposes. Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease
and be reimbursed for the rental payment if made pursuant to Subparagraph 2(b)
above. Notice of Tenant’s exercise of its right to terminate shall be given to Landlord
in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be effective upon
082/22147604 11/7/97
r
4.
5.
receipt of such notice by Landlord as evidenced by the return receipt. Except as
required under Subparagraph 13(d) below, upon such termination, this Lease shall
become null and void and the parties shall have no further obligations to each other.
Term and Renewals . The term of this Lease shall be five years, conunencing on the
date this Lease was signed by the City (the "Commencement Date") and ending on
December 31, 2(X)2. The Commencement Date may be -xtended until the equipment
listed in Exhibit C is installed. Tenant shall have th'; right to extend this Lease for
three additional five, year terms ("Renewal Term"). 11.>. Lease shall terminate
automatically fifteen years from the termination date o. the initial term. The Renewal
Term shall be on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein except for rental
adjustments as provided in Paragraph 2, Rent, above. Tenant shall have elected to
renew this Lease for a renewal term unless it gives Landlord written notice of its
intention not to renew at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the term,
commencing on January 1 following the expiration date of the Initial Term or of any
subsequent Renewal Term.
Tenant ’s Use.
(a) User Priority . Tenant agrees that the following priorities of use, in descending
order, shall apply in the event of communication interference or other conflict while
this Lease is in effect, and Tenant ’s use shall be subordinate accordingly:
1. Landlord;
2. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance
services, that are not part of the Landlord;
3. Other governmental agencies where use is not related to public safety;
and
4. Government-regulated entities including "Tenant" whose antennae offer
a service to the general public for a fee, in a manner similar to a public
utility, such as long distance and cellular telephone, not including radio
or television broadcasters.
(b) Purposes . Subject to the terms of this Lease, the Premises may be used by
Tenant solely for the purposes of installing, removing, maintaining, and operating
communications facilities in accord; nee with Exhibit "C". subject to such modification
and alterations as may result from changes or improvements in technology or as
maybe necessary to conduct business (collectively the "Communications Facility") and
in accordance with the transmission and reception of wireless communication signals
authorized for use by Tenant by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").
Tenant shall use the Premises only for the purpose of installing, maintaining, and
operating a Landlord-approved communications antenna facility, equipment, cabinets
and an accessory building, and uses incidental thereto for providing radio and wireless
telecommunication services which Tenant is legally authorized to provide to the
082/22147604 11/7/97
public. This use shall be non-exclusive, and Landlord specifically reserves the right to
allow the Landlord’s Property and the Tower to be used by other parties and to make
additions, deletions, or modifications to its own facilities on the Property and Tower.
Tenant shall comply with all applicable ordinances, statutes and regulations of local,
state and federal government agencies.
Tenant, its agents and contractors, are hereby granted the right, at its sole cost and
expense, to enter upon the Property and conduct such studies as Tenant deems
necessary to determine the Property’s suitability for Tenant ’s intended use. These
studies may include surveys, soil tests, environmental evaluations, radio wave
propagation measures, field strength tests and such other analyses and studies as
Tenant deems necessary or desirable.
(c) Construction. The placement of the equipment shelter and the manner in which
the antennas are attached to the Tower shall be subject to the prior approval of the
Landlord. Landlord hereby approves the initial array containing 12 antennas.Tenant
shall bear a prorated share of the cost of any additions to the Tower necessary to
enable the Tower to accommodate the location of antennas and appurtenances to the
Tower. Tenant may erect and operate a communications antenna facility in
accordance with Exhibit C. Any damage done to the premises during installation
shall be repaired at Tenant ’s expense within 30 days after written notification of the
damage.
(d) Process for Additional Antennas . If Tenant seeks to increase the number of
antennas beyond 12, it must first pay for an evaluation carried out by a qualified
professional, retained by Landlord demonstrating that (i) each additional antenna will
not interfere with existing antennas or with proposed antennas with a higher priority
and that (ii) the Tower can structurally support the additional antennas. The cost of
each evaluation must be paid by the Tenant within 30 days after receiving written
notice of the cost. Landlord consent is required for installation of additional antennas;
such consent will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, taking into
consideration safety, adequate space on the Tower to accommodate additional
antennas, and the structural capacity and integrity of the Tower. If Landlord consents,
the parties will negotiate the amount of additional rental for the antennas.
(e) Landlord agrees to give reasonable advance notice of any major repair or
maintenance activities related to Tower operations. In the case of an emergency,
notification is not required; however. Tenant will be notified as soon as possible of a
recognized emergency. In the event that use of the Tower for water service, or use of
the Tower to perform any necessary maintenance or repair, is interrupted or made
impractical because of Tenant ’s antenna usage on the Tower, the City may interrupt
Tenant ’s use of the Premises as reasonably necessary to prevent interruption of water
service or interruption of maintenance and repair of the Tower. The City will use its
best efforts to prevent or minimize interruptions to Tenant ’s use.
082/22147604 11/7/97
r
(0 Ogejation. Tenant shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to operate
and maintain the Tenant ’s Facilities on the Leased Premises. Tenant agrees to install
and operate equipment ("Tenant ’s Facilities" of "Antenna Facilities") in compliance
with all of Landlord ’s Technical Site Standards set forth on Exhibit D all FCC rules
and regulations, and good engineering practices. Tenant ’s installation of all Antenna
Facilities shall be done according to plans approved by Landlord, which approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any damage done to the Leased Premises
or other Landlord property including the Tower during operations, shall be repaired at
Tenant ’s expense within 30 days after notification of damage. The Antenna Facilities
shall remain the exclusive property of the Tenant.
(g) Maintenance. Improvement Expenses. All modifications to the Premises and
all improvements made for Tenant ’s benefit shall be at the Tenant ’s expense and such
improvements, including antenna, facilities and equipment, shall be maintained in a
good state of repair, at least tqual to the standard of maintenance of the Landlord ’s
facilities on or adjacent to uie Premises, and secured by Tenant. If Tenant ’s Antenna
Facilities are mounted on the Structure they shall, at all times, be painted, at Tenant ’s
expense, the same color as the Structure.
(h) Updates . Before the Tenant may update the Antenna Facilities, Tenant must
notify and provide a detailed proposal to Landlord. Tenant shall submit to Landlord a
detailed proposal for any such update of facilities and any other information
reasonably requested by Landlord of such requested update, including but not limited
to a technical study, carried out at Tenant ’s expense. Landlord may not unreasonably
withhold, delay or condition approval taking into consideration safety, availability of
adequate space on the Tower, and the structural integrity of the Tower.
(i) Drawings . Tenant shall provide Landlord with as-built drawings of the
equipment and improvements installed on the Premises, which show the actual location
of all Antenna Facilities. Said drawings shall be accompanied by a complete and
detailed inventory of all equipment, personal property, and Antenna Facilities actually
placed on the Premises.
0) No Interference. Tenant shall, at its own expense, maintain any equipment on
or attached to the Property and Premises in a safe condition, in good repair and in a
manner suitable to Landlord so as not to conflict with the use of the Property and
Tower by Landlord. Tenant shall not unreasonably interfere with the operations of
any prior tenant using the Property and Tower and shall not interfere with the working
use of the Tower.
(k) Access. Tenant, at all times during this Lease, shall have access to the Leased
Premises in order to install, operate, and maintain its Antenna Facilities. Tenant shall
have access to the Structure only with the approval of Landlord. Tenant shall request
access to the Structure twenty-four (24) hou's in advance, except in an emergency, and
Landlord ’s approval thereof shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed or
082/22147604 11/7/97
1
6.
7.
8.
9.
conditioned. In the event it is necessary for Tenant to have access to the Structure at
some time other than the normal working hours of Landlord, Landlord may charge
Tenant for whatever reasonable expense, including employees ’ wages, that Landlord
may incur in providing such access to Tenant.
(1) Payment of Utilities. Tenant shall separately meter charges for the
consumption of electricity and other utilities associated with its u.se of the Leased
Premises and shall promptly pay all costs associated therewith..
Emergency Facilities. In the event of a natural or man made disaster, in order to
protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community. Tenant may erect additional
antenna facilities and install additional equipment on a temporary basis on the Leased
Premises to assure continuation of service. Such temporary operation shall not exceed
90 days unless Tenant obtains written approval from the Landlord.
Additional Maintenance Expenses. Upon notice from Landlord, Tenant shall
promptly pay to Landlord all additional Landlord expenses incurred in maintaining the
Premises and Property, including painting or other maintenance of the Tower, that are
caused by Tenant’s occupancy of the Premises and Property.
Advances in Technology . As consideration for the Landlord ’s agreement to allow
extensions of the lease for a total of fifteen years beyond the original term, the
Landlord may require that as technology advances and improved antennas are
developed which are routinely used by Tenant in Tenant’s business, the replacement of
existing antennas with the improved antennas if the new antennas are more
aesthetically pleasing or otherwise foster a public purpose, as long as the installation
and use of the improved antennas are practical and technically feasible and offers
equivalent performance at this location.
Additional Buildings. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord may permit additional
buildings to be constructed on the Property described in Exhibit A. At such time as
this may occur. Tenant will permit said buildings to be placed immediately adjacent to
Tenant’s cabinet and will allow "attachments" to its building so as to give the
appearance that all buildings are a connected facility. Said attachments will be made
at no cost to Tenant and will not compromise the structural integrity nor interfere with
the utility of Tenant’s building.
10. Defense and Indemnification.
(a' General. Tenant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Landlord and
i'lo elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against
any and all claims, costs, losses, e.xpenses, demands, actions, or causes of action,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses of litigation, which
082/22147604 11/7/97
may be asserted against or incurred by Landlord or for which Landlord may be liable
in the performance of this Lease, except those which arise from the negligence, willful
misconduct, or other fault of Landlord. Tenant shall defend all claims arising out of
the installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, removal, or presence of Tenant’s
Antenna Facilities, equipment and related facilities on the Leased Premises.
(b) Hazardous Materials. Tenant agrees that it will not use, generate, store or
dispose of any hazardous material on, under, about or within the Property in violation
of any law or regulation. Without limiting the rope of Subparagraph 10(a) above,
Tenant will be solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold Landlord,
its agents, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, and
liabilities, including attorney’s fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the
cleanup or restoration of the Premises and Property resulting from Tenant’s use of
Hazardous Materials. For purposes of the Lease, "Hazardous Materials" shall be
interpreted broadly and specifically includes, without limitation, asbestos, fuel,
batteries or any hazardous substance, waste, or materials as defined in any federal,
state, or local environmental or safety law or regulations including, but not limited to,
CERCLA.
(c) Tenant’s Warranty . Tenant represents and warrants that its use of the Property
and Premises will not generate and Tenant will not store or dispose of on the Property
or Premises, nor transport to or over the Property or Premises, any Hazardous
Materials, unless Tenant specifically informs Landlord thereof in writing twenty-four
hours prior to such storage, disposal or transport, or otherwise as soon as Tenant
becomes aware of the existence of Hazardous Materials on the Properly or Premises.
The obligations of this Paragraph 10 shall survive the expiration or other termination
of this Lease.
(d) Landlords Warranty Landlord warrants that it has no knov/ledge of any
hazardous materials which are stored or disposed of on the property inconsistently
with any state or federal law as of the date of this lease.
11. Insurance.
(a) Workers’ Compensation. The Tenant must maintain Workers’ Compensation
insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes. The policy shall also provide
Employer’s Liability coverage with limits of not less than $500,000 Bodily Injury each
accident, $500,000 Bodily Injury by disease, policy limit, and $500,000 Bodily Injury
by disease, each employee.
(b) General Liability . The Tenant must maintain an occurrence form
comprehensive general liability coverage. Such coverage shall include, but not be
082/221476(M 11/7/97
limited to, bodily injury, property damage-broad form, and personal injury, for the
hazards of Premises/Operation, broad form contractual and independent contractors,
products and completed operations.
The Tenant must maintain aforementioned general liability coverage with limits
of liability not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence; $2,000,000 personal; $2,000,000
general aggregate, and $2,000,000 products and completed operations.These limits may
be satisfied by the general liability coverage or in combination with an umbrella or
excess liability policy, provided coverages afforded by the umbrella or excess policy
are no less than the underlying general liability coverages.
Tenant will maintain Completed Operations coverage for a minimum of two
years after the construction is completed.
(c) Automobile Liability. The Tenant must carry Automobile Liability coverage.
Coverage shall afford total liability limits for Bodily injury Liability and Property
Damage Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 per accident. The liability limits may
be afforded under the Commercial Policy, or in combination with an Umbrella or
Excess Liability Policy provided coverages afforded by the Umbrella Excess Policy
are no less than the underlying Commercial Auto Liability coverage.
Coverage shall be provided for Bodily Injury and Property Damage for the
ownership, use, maintenance or operation of all owned, non-owned and hired
automobiles.
The Commercial Automobile Policy shall include at least statutory personal
injury protection, uninsured motorists and underinsured motorists coverages.
Failure to maintain the insurance as listed above will result in immediate
termination of the Lease, and Tenant will be liable to the Landlord for 150% of the
annual rent as called for in Paragraph 13(c).
(d) Tenant Property Insurance. The Tenant must keep in force during the term and
any renewals of the Lease a policy covering damages to its property at the Leased
Premises. The amount of coverage shall be not less than 90% of the full replacement
cost of the Communication Facility.
(e) Adiustment to Insurance Coverage Lin.its. The coverage limits set forth herein
shall be increased at the time of any Renewal Term by a minimum of the Consumer
Price Index as calculated under Paragraph 2(a). If the increase would be less than
25% based on the consumer price index, the limits may be increased up to 25% based
on the limits needed to provide adequate coverage
(0 Additional Insured - Certificate of Insurance. The Tenant shall provide, prior
to tenancy, evidence of the required insurance in the form of a Certificate of Insurance
082/22147604 11/7/97 8
12.
issued by a company authorized to do business in the state of Minnesota, which
includes all coverages required in this Paragraph 11. Tenant will name Landlord as an
Additional Insured on the General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability
Policies. The Certificate(s) shall also provide the coverage may not be canceled, non-
renewed, or materially changed without thirty (30) days prior written notice to
Landlord.
(g) Waiver of Claims: Subrogation. Each of Landlord and Tenant hereby releases
the other from any and all liability or responsibility to the other or anyone claiming
through or under it by way of subrogation or otherwise for any loss or damage that
may occur to the Property or any improvements thereto, or the Tower or any
improvements thereto, or any property of such party therein, by reason of fire or any
other cause which could be insured against under the terms of standard fire and
extended coverage (all-risk) insurance policies, regardless of cause or origin, including
fault or negligence of the other party hereto, or anyone for whom such party may be
responsible. Each party shall cause each insurance policy obtained by it to state that
the insurer waives all right of recovery by way of subrogation against either party
hereto in connection with damage covered by such policy. The releases in this
paragraph shall be effective whether the loss was actually covered by insurance.
Tenant assumes all risk of loss or damage to Tenant ’s property or leasehold
improvements within the Property, including any loss or damage caused by water
leakage, fire windstorm, explosion, theft, act of any other tenant, or other cause.
Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant, or its employees, for loss or damage to any
property in or at the Property, the Premises, or the Tower.
Damage or Destruction. If the Premises is destroyed or damaged, without
contributory fault of the Tenant or its agents, so as, in the reasonable judgement of the
Tenant, to hinder its effective use of the Antenna Facilities, Tenant may elect to
terminate this Lease upon 30 days written notice to Landlord. In the event Tenant
elects to terminate the Lease, Tenant shall be entitled to reimbursement of prepaid rent
covering the period subsequent to the date of damage to or destruction of the Leased
Premises.
13. Lease Termination .
(^) Events of Termination . Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may
be terminated without penalty or further liability upon sixty (60) days written notice to
the other party as follows:
(i) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the
other party, which default is not cured within sixth (60) days of receipt of written
notice of default to the other party (without, however, limiting any other rights of the
parties pursuant to any other provisions hereof);
082/22147604 11/7/97
(ii) by Tenant for cause if it is unable to obtain or maintain any license,
permit or other governmental approval necessary for the construction and/or operation
of the Antenna Facilities or Tenant’s business;
(iii) by Tenant for cause if the Leased Premises is or becomes unacceptable
for technological reasons including without limitation shadowing or interference under
Tenant’s Antenna Facilities, design or engineering specifications or the
communications systems to which the Antenna Facilities belong;
(iv) by Landlord in the event that as the result of an independent study by
an expert selected by the Landlord and paid for by Tenant, it is determined that the
use of the Tower for water service is jeopardized because of antenna usage on the
Tower;
(v) by Landlord, upon 180 day ’s prior written notice to Tenant if its
Council decides, for any reason, to redevelop the Leased Premises in a manner
inconsistent with continued use of the Leased Premises by Tenant and/or the
discontinue use of the Structure for all purposes;
(vi) by Landlord if i; iTicrmines that the Structure is structurally unsound,
including, but not limited to, consideration of age of the Structure, damage or
destruction of all or part of the Structure on the Leased Premises from any source, or
factors relating to condition of the Leased Premises;
(vii) by Landlord if it determines that a potential user with a higher priority
under Subparagraph 4(a) above cannot find another adequate location, or the Tenant’s
Facilities unreasonably interfere with another user with a higher priority, regardless of
whether or not such an interference was predicted in the initial interference study that
was part of the application process and Tenant is unable to correct the interference
within the sixty (60) day notice period.
(viii) by Landlord if it determines that Tenant has failed to comply with
applicable ordinances, or state or federal law, or any conditions attached to
government approvals granted thereunder, after a public hearing before the Landlord’s
Council.
(^) Notice of Termination. The parties shall give Notice of Termination in writing
by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such Notice shall be effective upon receipt
as evidenced by the return receipt, or such later date as stated in the Notice. Except
as otherwise provided herein, all rentals paid for the Lease prior to said termination
date shall be retained by Landlord.
(c) Tenant’s Liability for Early Termination. If Tenant terminates this Lease other
than of right as provided in this Lease, Tenant shall pay to Landlord as liquidated
082/22147604 11/7/97
damages for early termination, 150% of the annual rent for the year in which Tenant
terminates, unless Tenant terminates during the last year of any Term under Paragraph
3 and Tenant has paid the annual rental for that year. Landlord agrees that liquidated
damages under this paragraph shall be Landlord’s sole remedy for Tenant’s early
termination.
(d) Site Restoration. Upon commencement of this Lease. Tenant shall deposit with
Landlord the sum of $3.000 which shall be fully refunded to Tenant upon the timely
removal of the Antenna Facilites. and related equipment, the repair of the site and the
restoration of the Tower surface to the reasonalbe satisfaction of the Landlord. Upon
termination of this Lease, Tenant shall, within ninety (90) days thereof, remove all of
its equipment from the Premises, and its transmission lines and antennas from the
Tower. Tenant, at its expense, agrees to return the property and Premises including
the Tower surface where Tenant’s Antenna Facilities have been to their original
condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. If Tenant fails to remove its property
within such ninety-day period. Landlord shall have the right to remove the same and
place it in storage. Tenant may notify Landlord that an entity or entities have an
interest in the Antenna Facilities and related equipment because of financing
arrangements. If Landlord removes the Antenna Facilities or related equipment.
Landlord shall give written notice to the entities at the addresses provided by Tenant,
if any, informing them that the Antenna Facilities or related property have been
removed and will be deemed abandoned if not claimed and the storage fees and other
reasonable costs paid within ninety days. If the property is not claimed. Tenant shall
pay Landlord’s storage, removal and moving costs. Any of Tenant’s property
remaining on the Premises, the Tower or in storage, one hundred twenty (120) days
after the expiration or the termination of this Lease shall become the property of
Landlord free of any claim by tenant or any person claiming through tenant.
14. Limitation of Landlord’s Liability. If Landlord terminates this Lease other than as
of right as provided in this Lease, or Landlord causes interruption of the business of
Tenant other than as of right as provided in this Lease, or for any other Landlord
breach of this Lease, Landlord’s liability for damages to Tenant shall be limited to the
actual and direct costs of equipment removal, relocation or repair, reimbursement of
all prepaid rent and shall specifically exclude any recovery for value of the business of
Tenant as a going concern, future expectation of profits, loss of business or profit or
related damages to Tenant. In no event shall Landlord be liable for damages in excess
of limits in State law on municipal liability. Nothing herein shall prevent Tenant from
maintaining an action for injunctive or other equitable relief.
15. Temporary Interruptions of Service. If Landlord determines that continued
operation of the Antenna Facilities would cause or contribute to an immediate threat to
public health and/or safety (except for any issues associated with human exposure to
082/22147604 11/7/97
radio frequency omissions, which is regulated by the federal government). Landlord
may order tenant to discontinue its operation. Tenant shall inunediately comply with
such an order. Service shall be discontinued only for the period that the immediate
threat exists. If Landlord does not give prior notice to Tenant, Landlord shall notify
Tenant as soon as pos ible after its action and give its reason for taking the action.
Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant or any other party for any interruption in
Tenant ’s service or interference with Tenant ’s operation of its Antenna Facilities,
except as may be caused by the willful misconduc* • f the Landlord, its employees or
agents. If the discontinuance extends for a period g: • Jer than three days, either
consecutively or cumulatively. Tenant shall have the nti.t to terminate this Lease
within its sole discretion and Tenant shall be entitled ii, reimbursement of all prepaid
rent covering the period subsequent to the date of termination.
Tenant Interference.
(a) With Structure. Tenant shall not interfere with Landlord ’s use of the Structure
and agrees to cease all such actions which unreasonably and materially interfere with
Landlord ’s use thereof no later than three business days after receipt of written notice
of the interference from Landlord. In the event ^hat Tenant ’s cessation of action is
material to Tenant ’s use of the Leased Premises and such cessation frustrates Tenant ’s
use of the Leased Premises, within Tenant ’s sole discretion, Tenant shall have the
immediate right to terminate this Lease and Landlord shall reimburse all prepaid rent
covering the period subsequent to the date of termination.
(b) With Higher Priority Users and Pre-Existing Tenants . If Tenant ’s Antenna
Facilities cause impermissible interference with higher priority users as set forth in
under Subparagraph 5(a) above or with pre-existing tenants. Tenant shall take all
measures necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference
cannot be eliminated within 24 hours after receiving Landlord ’s notice of the
interference. Tenant shall immediately cease operating its Antenna Facilities and shall
not reactivate operation, except intermittent operation for the purpose of testing, until
the interference has been eliminated. If the interference cannot be eliminated within
30 days after Tenant received Landlord ’s written notice, Landlord may at its option
terminate this Lease immediately and Landlord shall reimburse all prepaid rent
covering the period subsequent to the date of termination..
It is further agreed that the Landlord in no way guarantees to Tenant non
interference to the operation of Tenant ’s equipment; provided, however, that Landlord
will use its best efforts to notify other users of interference, and to coordinate
elimination of interference among site users. If Tenant clearly demonstrates the
primary cause of the interference to be the property of Landlord or another user.
Landlord will notify the other user to eliminate the interference within 24 hours or
cease using the equipment causing the interference.
082/22147604 11/7/97
17.
Prior to adding additional transmitter or receiver frequencies on the premises.
Tenant agrees to notify the Landlord of the modified frequencies so that the Landlord
can perform the necessary interference studies to insure that the modified frequencies
will not cause harmful radio interference to other existing Tower leases. Tenant will
be required to pay the reasonable costs for said study which will be performed by
Landlord ’s registered professional communications engineer. In the alternative, Tenant
may perform the interference studies and submit the results to the City. However, the
City, in its sole discretion, shall retain the right provided herein to submit the study
results to its registered professional communications engineer for review at Tenant’s
expense.
(c) Interference Study - New Occupants. Upon written notice by Landlord that it
has a bona fide request from any other party to lease an area including or in close
proximity to the Leased Premises ("Leased Premises Area"), Tenant agrees to provide
Landlord, within sixty (60) days, the radio frequencies currently in operation or to be
operated in the future of each transmitter and receiver installed and operational by
Tenant on the Leased Premises at the time of such request. Landlord may then have
an independent, registered professional engineer of Landlord ’s choosing perform the
necessary interference studies to determine if the new applicant ’s frequencies will
cause harmful radio interference to Tenant. Landlord shall require the new applicant
to pay for such interference studies, unless the Landlord or other higher priority user
requests the use. In that event, (not now; will ask)the Tenant and all other Tenants
occupying the Leased Premises Area shall pay for the necessary interference studies,
pro rata.
(d) Interference - New Occupants. Landlord agrees that it will not grant a future
lease in the Leased Premises Area to any party who is of equal or lower priority to
Tenant, if such party ’s use is reasonably anticipated lO interfere with Tenant’s
operation of its Antenna Facilities. Landlord agrees further that any future lease of the
Leased Premises Area will prohibit a user of equal or lower priority from interfering
with Tenant s Antenna Facilities. Landlord agrees that it will require any subsequent
occupants of the Leased Premises Area of equal or lower priority to Tenant to provide
Tenant these same assurances against interference. Landlord shall have the obligation
to eliminate any interference with the operations of Tenant caused by such subsequent
occupants. If such interference is not eliminated. Tenant shall have the right to
terminate this Lease or seek injunctive relief against the interfering occupant, at
Tenant s expense. If Tenant terminates this Lease because of such interference,
Landlord shall reimburse all prepaid rent covering the period subsequent to the date of
termination.
Assignment and Subletting. Tenant may not assign, or otherwise transfer all or any
part of its interest in this Lease or in the Premises without the prior written consent of
Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that
082/22147604 11/7/97
r
18.
19.
20.
21.
Tenant may assign its interest to its parent company, any subsidiary or affiliate of it or
its parent company or to any successor-in-interest or entity acquiring fifty-one percent
(51%) or more of its stock or assets, subject to any financing Agreement upon written
notice to Landlord, subject to the assignee assuming all of Tenant’s obligations herein,
including but not limited to, those set forth above. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Lease, Tenant may assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or
otherwise transfer without consent its interest in this Lease to any financing entity, or
agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Tenant (i) has obligations for
borrowed money or in respect of guaranties thereof, has obligations under or with
respect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances and similar facilities or in respect of
guaranties thereof.
Utility Service . Tenant agrees to timely pay for and install all required utility services
and meters. Payment for electric and/or telephone service for Tenant’s Antenna
Facilities shall be Tenant’s responsibility without any adjustment to rent. The
Landlord shall not be responsible for any damages which occur as a result of
interruption of utility services. Installation of utility services are subject to City
approval as to siting.
Condemnation. In the event the whole of the Leased Premises is taken by eminent
domain, this Lease shall terminate as of the date title to the Leased Premises vests in
the condemning authority. In event a portion of the Leased Premises is taken by
eminent domain, either party shall have the right to terminate this Lease as of said
date of title transfer, by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other party. In
the event of any taking under the power of eminent domain. Tenant shall not be
entitled to any portion of the reward paid for the taking and the Landlord shall receive
full amount of such award. Tenant hereby expressly waives any right or claim to any
portion thereof. Although all damages, whether awarded as compensation for
diminution in value of the leasehold or to the fee of the Leased Premises, shall belong
to Landlord, Tenant shall have the right to claim and recover from the condemning
authority, but not from Landlord, such compensation as may be separately awarded or
recoverable by Tenant on account of any and all damage to Tenant’s business and
Tenant Facilities and any costs or expenses incurred by Tenant in moving/removing its
equipment, personal property. Antenna Facilities, and leasehold improvements and
Tenant shall receive the full amount of such reward.
Default. Except as expressly limited hereby. Landlord and Tenant shall have such
remedies for the default of the other party hereto as may be provided at law or equity
following written notice of such default and failure to cure the same within thirty (30)
days.
Notices. All notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed validly given
if delivered personally or if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed
082/22147604 11/7/97
as follows (or any other address that the party to be notified may have designated to
the sender by like notice):
If to Landlord, to: City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
If to Tenant, to: _____________________________
with a copy to:
22. Authority . Each of the individuals executing this Lease on behalf of the Tenant or
the Landlord represents to the other party that such individual is authorized to do so
by requisite action of the party to this Lease.
23. Binding Effect. This Lease shall run with the Leased Premises. This Lease shall
extend to and bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto.
24. Complete Lease; Amendments . This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and
understanding of the parties and supersedes all offers, negotiations, and other
agreements of any kind. There are no representations or understandings of any kind
not set forth herein. Any modification of or amendment to this Lease must be in
writing and executed by both parties.
25. Governing Law. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
26. Limitation of Liability . Nothing in the Lease shall be deemed a waiver of any
limitation of liability or defenses under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or any other
provision of law.
27. Severability. If any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect the remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force
and effect.
082/22147604 11/7/97
r
28. Memorandum. Upon request by either party, the parties agree to promptly execute
and deliver a recordable Memorandum of this Lease in a form acceptable to both
parties which may be recorded by the party requesting the Memorandum of Lease.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed
their respective seals the day and year first above written.
LANDLORD:CITY OF
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
TENANT:
a
corporation
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF
) SS
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_____, 199__. by
day of
and City Manager respectively of the City of
corporation.
Notary Public
the Mayor
., on behalf of the
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF
) FS
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_____. 199__, by
day of
., the
., on behalf of the
corporation.
I
082/22147604 11/7/97
Notary Public
(.AWPOOCSVFORMSVSmLEAS ACR
082/>2l47604 11/7/97
jif:-.--,..........
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I !
i '
1. Property and Leased Premises ............................................................................ ^
2. Rent ....................................................................................................................... ^
(a) Amount. Adjustments................................................................................... ^
(b) Time of Payment. Taxes............................................................................... ^
3. Governmental Approval Contingency ................................................................... 2
(a) Tenant Application ..................................................................................... 2
(b) Interference and Engineering Study ............................................................. 2
(c) Non-approval .............................................................................................. ^
4. Term and Renewals................................................................................................. ^
5. Tenant’s Use ......................................................................................................... ^
(a) User Priority ................................................................................................ ^
(b) Purposes....................................................................................................... ^
(c) Construction................................................................................................ ^
(d) Process for Additional Antennas ................................................................. ^
(f) Operation ..................................................................................................... ^
(g) Maintenance. Improvement Expenses.......................................................... 5
(h) Updates ....................................................................................................... ^
(i) Drawings ..................................................................................................... ^
(j) No Interference............................................................................................ ^
(k) Access......................................................................................................... ^
(l) Payment of Utilities..................................................................................... ^
6. Emergency Facilities.............................................................................................. ^
7. Additional Maintenance Expenses ........................................................................ ^
8. Advances in Technology....................................................................................... ^
9. Additional Buildings .............................................................................................. ^
10. Defense and Indemnification................................................................................. ^
(a) General ....................................................................................................... ^
(b) Hazardous Materials..................................................................................... ^
(c) Tenant’s Warranty....................................................................................... ^
082/22148276 11/7/97
(d) Landlord ’s Warranty] ................................................................................... 7
11. Insurance................................................................................................................ 7
(a) Workers’ Compensation............................................................................... 7
(b) General Liability.......................................................................................... 7
(c) Automobile Liability ................................................................................... g
(d) Tenant Property Insurance .............................................................................
(e) Adjustment to Insurance Coverage Limits..................................................... g
(0 Additional Insured - Certificate of Insurance................................................. g
(g) Waiver of Claims: Subrogation..................................................................... 9
12. Damage or Destruction.......................................................................................... 9
13. Lease Termination................................................................................................. 9
(a) Events of Termination ................................................................................. 9
(b) Notice of Termination ............................................................................... 10
(c) Tenant’s Liability for Early Termination.................................................... 10
(d) Site Restoration..........................................................................................
(e) Waiver of Landlord ’s Lien........................................................................ n
14. Limitation of Landlord’s Liability ...................................................................... n
15. Temporary Interruptions of Service ................................................................. n
16. Tenant Interference............................................................................................ 12
(a) With Tower .............................................................................................. 12
(b) With Higher Priority Users and Pre-Existing Tenants................................. 12
(c) Interference Study - New Occupants ......................................................... 13
(d) Interference - New Occupants.................................................................... 13
17. Assignment and Subletting................................................................................. 14
18. Utility Service ..................................................................................................... 14
19. Condemnation..................................................................................................... 14
20. Default ................................................................................................................ 14
21. Notices.................................................................................................................. 15
22. Authority.............................................................................................................. 15
23. Binding Effect ..................................................................................................... 15
082/22148276 11/7/97
II.
24. Complete Lease; Amendments......................................................................... 15
25. Governing Law .......................................................................................... 15
26. Limitation of Liability ................................................................................... 15
27. Severability ....................................................................................................
28. Memorandum ................................................................................................ jg
i 1
I
! ,
SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease"), made this___day of 199
1.
2.
between City of Orono ("Landlord"), and Nextel West Corp., a corporation organized a^d
existing under the laws of Delaware, d/b/a Nextel Communications ("Tenant").
For good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
poperty and Leased Premises. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease,
Landlord^ hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant leases from Landlord certain space on
Landlord s north water tower (the "Tower"), and space adjacent to the Tower, subject to
all existing easements (collectively referred to as "Leased Premises") together with a non
exclusive easement for reasonable access to Landlord’s property and for adequate utility
services, including sources of electric and telephone facilities on Landlord’s property
located at 2700 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota, 55356-9387 (the "Property") on a
non-exclusive basis. The Property is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto. The
Leased Premises on which antennas, connecting cables and appurtenances will be attached
and located, and on which an equipment shelter will be located, the exact location of each
to be reasonably approved by the Landlord, are described on Exhibit B attached hereto.
Exhibits A, and B are made a part hereof.
Rent.
Amount, Adjustments. As a consideration for this Lease, based upon the request
of Tenant that it have space for as many as 9 antennas. Tenant shall pay Landlord an
annual rent in the amount of $13,000.00 for the initial year, which shall be increased each
year on January 1, beginning January 1,1999, by the greater of: (a) five percent (5%) of
the previous year’s annualized rental, or (b) by an amount equal to the increase in the
Consumer Price Index ("CPr*)("Annual Rent"). The CPI shall mean the "Consumer Price
Index - for All Urban Consumers, All Cities, All Items (1967=100)" as published by the
United States Department of Labor Statistics, or if such index shall be discontinued, the
successor index, or if there shall be no successor index, such comparable index as
mutually agreed upon by the parties. To determine the annual rental increase to be paid
by Tenant under a CPI adjuster, the annualized rental for the previous year shall be
multiplied by a percentage figure, computed from a fraction, the numerator of which shall
be the CPI for the third quarter of the preceding year and the denominator of which shall
be the CPI for the corresponding quarter of one year earlier. Such fraction shall be
converted to a percentage equivalent. The resulting percentage figure shall be multiplied
by the previous year’s rent (annualized for the first year, see Paragraph 4 below).
lime of Payment. Taxes. Landlord shall communicate all rental increases to the
Tenant in writing by the preceding December 1 of each year. The Annual Rent shall be
paid before January 1 of each year. For the first year, the rental shall be pro rated
through December 31 and shall be paid to Landlord in full at the time Lease is executed.
082/22148276 11/7/97
■ i
If the Tenant does not meet the requirements referenced in Subparagraph 3(a) below by
March I, 1998, and Tenant has diligently pursued such requirements, Landlord shall
refund the Tenant rental payment made at the time of Lease execution and this Lease
shall terminate.
i !
In addition to the Annual Rent, Tenant agrees to timely pay its pro rata share of
any taxes or payment in lieu of taxes required as a result of this Lease,
(c) If this Lease is terminated at any time other than on the last day of a month. Rent
shall be prorated, based on a thirty day month, as of the date of termination, and in the
event of termination for any reason other than nonpayment of Rent, or Tenant’s default,
all prepaid Rent shall be refunded to Tenant.
3. Governmental Approval Contingency.
(a) Tenant Application. Tenant’s right to use the Leased Premises is expressly made
contingent upon its obtaining all the certificates, permits, zoning and other approvals that
may be required by any federal, state or local authority. This shall include the
engineering study specified in Subparagraph 3(b) below on the Tower to be conducted
at Tenant’s expense. Landlord shall cooperate with Tenant in its efforts to obtain and
retain such approvals and shall take no action which would adversely affect the status of
the Leased Premises with respect to the Tenant’s proposed use thereof.
(b) Interference and Engineering Study . Before obtaining a building permit. Tenant
must pay its share for the reasonable cost of (i) a radio frequency interference study
carried out by an independent and qualified professional selected by the Landlord showing
that Tenant’s intended use will not interfere with any existing communications facilities
and (ii) an engineering study showing that the Tower is able to support the Tenant’s
Facilities, as defined in Subparagraph 5(b), without prejudice to the Landlord use of the
Tower. If the study finds that there is a potential for interference that cannot be
reasonably remedied or for prejudice to the Tower, Landlord may terminate this Lease
immediately and refund the initial rental to Tenant.
(c) Non-approval. In the event that any application necessary under Subparagraph
3(a) above is finally rejected or any certificate, permit, license, or approval issued to
Tenant is canceled, expires, lapses, or is otherwise withdrawn or terminated by
governmental authority so that Tenant, in its sole discretion, will be unable to use the
Leased Premises for its intended purposes. Tenant shall have the right to terminate this
Lease and be reimbursed for the rental payment if made pursuant to Subparagraph 2(b)
above. Notice of Tenant’s exercise of its right to terminate shall be given to Landlord
in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be effective upon receipt
of such notice by Landlord as evidenced by the return receipt. Except as required under
Subparagraph 13(d) below, upon such termination, this Lease shall become null and void
and the parties shall have no further obligations to each other.
082/22148276 11/7/97
I f
Term and Renewals. The term of this Lease shall be five years, commencing on
December 1, 1997, (the "Commencement Date") and ending on December 31, 2002
(“Initial Term”). The Commencement Date may be extended until the Tenant Facilities
are installed provided that the Commencement Date shall not be extended past March 1,
1998 in any event. Tenant shall have the right to extend this Lease for three additional
five year terms ("Renewal Term"). This Lease sl'.all terminate automatically on December
31, 2017. The Renewal Term(s) shall be on the same terms and conditions as set forth
herein except for rental adjustments as provided in Paragraph 2, Rent, above. Tenant
shall have elected to renew this Lease for a Renewal Term unless it gives Landlord
written notice of its intention not to renew at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration
of the term, commencing on January 1 following the expiration date of the Initial Term
or of any subsequent Renewal Term.
Tenant’s Use.
:o
34.
(a) User Priority . Tenant agrees that the following priorities of use, in descending
order, shall apply in the event of communication interference or other conflict while this
Lease is in ehect, and Tenant’s use shall be subordinate accordingly:
1. Landlord;
2. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance
services, that are not part of the Landlord;
- Other govcrnmcntol agencies wh ere use is not related to publie safety; and
iSiil^VerhmeritM agendes where use is n0f:re
Government-regulated entities including "Tenant" whose antennae of^f^er a
service to the general public for a fee, in a manner similar to a public
utility, such as long distance and cellular telephone, not including radio or
television broadcasters^
(b) Purposes . Subject to the terms of this Lease, the Leased Premises may be used
by Tenant solely for the purposes of installing, removing, maintaining, and operating
communications facilities consisting of antepp. conripinppbp^
in accordance with Exhibit "B",
subject to such modification and alterations as may result from changes or improvements
in technology (collectively the "Tenant Facilities") and in accordance with the
transmission and reception of wireless communication signals authorized for use by
Tenant by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Tenant shall use the
Leased Premises only for the purpose of installing, maintaining, and operating a Landlord-
approved communications antenna facility, equipment, cabinets and an accessory building,
and uses incidental thereto for providing radio and wireless telecommunication services
which Tenant is legally authorized to provide to the public. This use shall be non
exclusive, and Landlord specifically reserves the right to allow the Landlord’s Property
and the Tower to be used by other parties and to make additions, deletions, or
modifications to its own facilities on the Property and Tower. Tenant shall comply with
082Z22 148276 11/7/97
all applicable ordinances, statutes and regulations of local, state and federal government
agencies.
Tenant, its agents and contractors, are hereby granted the right, at its sole cost and
expense, to enter upon the Property and conduct such studies as Tenant deems necessary
to determine the Property’s suitability for Tenant ’s intended use. These studies may
include surveys, soil tests, environmental evaluations, radio wave propagation measures,
field strength tests and such other analyses and studies as Tenant deems necessary or
desirable.
(c) Construction. The placement of the equipment shelter shall be located as depicted
on Exhibit B. The manner in which the antennas are attached to the Tower shall be
subject to the prior approval of the Landlord, such approval not to be unreasonably
withheld, delayed or conditioned. Tenant may erect and operate the Tenant Facilities in
accordance with Exhibit B. Any damage done to the Property during installation or
during operations shall be repaired at Tenant ’s expense within 30 days after written
notification of the damage.
(d) Process for Additional Antennas . If Tenant seeks to increase the number of
antennas beyond nine, it must first pay for an evaluation carried out by a qualified
professional, retained by Landlord demonstrating that (i) each additional antenna will not
interfere with existing antennas or with proposed antennas with a higher priority and that
(ii) the Tower can structurally support the additional antennas. The cost of each
evaluation must be paid by the Tenant within 30 days after receiving written notice of the
cost. Landlord consent is required for installation of additional antennas beyond nine,
such consent will not be unreasonably withheld, taking into consideration safety, adequate
space on the Tower to accommodate additional antennas, and the structural capacity and
integrity of the Tower. If Landlord consents, the parties will negotiate the amount of
additional rental for the antennas, taking into consideration safety, adequate space to
accommodate additional antennas, and the structural capacity and integrity of the Tow er.
(e) Landlord agrees to give reasonable advance notice of any major repair or
maintenance activities related to Tower operations. In the case of an emergency,
notification is not required; however, Tenan will be notified as soon as possible of a
recognized emergency. In the event that use of the Tower for water service, or use of the
Tower to perform any necessary maintenance or repair, is interrupted or made impractical
because of Tenant ’s antenna usage on the Tower, the Landlord may interrupt Tenant ’s use
of the Leased Premises as reasonably necessary to prevent interruption of water service
or interruption of maintenance and repair of the Tower. The Landlord will use its best
efforts to prevent or minimize interruptions to Tenant ’s use.
(f) Operation . Tenant shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to operate and
maintain the Tenant ’s Facilities on the Leased Premises. Tenant agrees to install the
082/22148276 11/7/97
r
Tenant Facilities in compliance with all of Landlord ’s Technical Site Standards set forth
in Exhibit “C” all FCC rules and regulations, and good engineering practices. Tenant ’s
installation of Tenant Facilities shall be done according to plans approved by Landlord,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any damage done to the
Leased Premises or other Landlord property including the Tower caused by Tenant during
installation or during operations, shall be repaired at Tenant ’s expense within 30 days
after notification of damage. The Tenant Facilities shall remain the exclusive property
of the Tenant, unless otherwise provided in this Lease.
(g) Maintenance. Improvement Expenses. All modifications to the Leased Premises
and all improvements made for Tenant ’s benefit shall be at the Tenant ’s expense and such
improvements, including antenna, facilities and equipment, shall be maintained in a good
state of repair, at least equal to the standard of maintenance of the Landlord ’s facilities
on or adjacent to the Leased Premises, and secured by Tenant. If Tenant ’s antennas,
antenna support structures, equipment, cables and wires (“Antenna Facilities ”) are
mounted on the Tower they shall, at all limes, be painted, at Tenant ’s expense, the same
color as the Tower.
(h) Updates . Before the Tenant may update the Antenna Facilities beyond that shown
in Exhibit B, Tenant must notify and provide a detailed proposal to Landlord. Tenant
shall submit to Landlord a detailed proposal for any such update of facilities and any
other information reasonably requested by Landlord of such requested update, including
but not limited to a technical study, carried out at Tenant ’s expense. Landlord may not
unreasonably withhold approval taking into consideration safety, availability of adequate
space on the Tower, and the structural integrity of the Tower.
(i) Drawings . Tenant shall provide Landlord with as-built drawings of the equipment
and improvements installed on the Leased Premises, which show the actual location of
the Tenant Facilities.
(j) No Interference. Tenant shall, at its own expense, maintain any equipment on or
attached to the Leased Premises in a safe condition, in good repair and in a manner
suitable to Landlord so as not to conflict with the use of the Property by Landlord.
Tenant shall not unreasonably interfere with the operations of any prior tenant using the
Tower and shall not interfere with the working use of the water storage facilities thereon
or to be placed thereon by Landlord.
(k) Access. Tenant, at all times during this Lease, shall have access to the Leased
Premises in order to install, operate, and maintain its Tenant Facilities. Tenant shall have
access to the Tower only with the approval of Landlord. Tenant shall request access to
the Tower twenty-four (24) hours in a ’vance, except in an emergency, and Landlord ’s
approval thereof shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. In the event it is
necessary for Tenant to have access to the Tower at some time other than the normal
082/22148276 11/7/97
r
6.
7.
8.
9.
working hours of Landlord, Landlord may charge Tenant for whatever expense, including
employees ’ wages, that Landlord may incur in providing such access to Tenant.
(1) Payment of Utilities. Tenant shall separately meter charges for the consumption
of electricity and other utilities associated with its use of the Leased Premises and shall
promptly pay all costs associated therewith.
Emereencv Facilities. In the event of a natural or man made disaster, in order to protect
the health, welfare, and safety of the community. Tenant may erect additional antenna
facilities and install additional equipment on a temporary basis on the Property to assure
continuation of service. Such temporary operation shall not exceed 90 days unless Tenant
obtains written approval from the Landlord.
Additional Maintenance Expenses . Upon notice from Landlord, Tenant shall promptly
pay to Landlord all additional Landlord expenses incurred in maintaining the Landlord’s
Tower and Property, including painting or other maintenance of the Tower, that are
caused by Tenant’s occupancy of the Leased Premises.
Advances in Technoloav . In consideration of the Landlord’s willingness to allow the
three renewal options set out in paragraph 4, as technology advances and improved
antennas are developied which are routinely used in Tenant’s business. Landlord may
require upon commencement of each renewal term, the replacement of existing antennas
with the improved antennas if the new antennas are more aesthetically pleasing or
otherwise foster a public purpose, as long as the installation and use of the improved
antennas are practical and technically feasible ^d;equivaIentperforniance at this location.
Additional Buildings. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord may permit additional
buildings to be constructed on the Property described in Exhibit A. At such time as this
may occur. Tenant will permit said buildings to be placed immediately adjacent to
Tenant’s building and will allow "attachments" to its building so as to give the appearance
that all buildings are a connected facility. Said attachments will be made at no cost to
Tenant and will not compromise the structural integrity nor interfere with the utility of
Tenant’s building.
10. Defense and Indemnitlcation.
(a) General. Tenant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Landlord and its
elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and repre.sentatives, from and against ^y
and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of action, including
reasonable attorneys ’ fees and other costs and expenses of litigation, which may be
asserted against or incurred by Landlord or for which Landlord may be liable in the
performance of this Lease, except those which arise solely from the negligence, willful
misconduct, or other fault of landlord. Tenant shall defend all claims arising out of the
082/22148276 11/7/97
r
installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, removal, or presence of Tenant’s Antenna
Facilities, equipment and related facilities on the Leased Premises.
(b) Hazardous Materials. Tenant agrees that it will not use, generate, store or dispose
of any hazardous material on, under, about or within the Property in violation of any law
or regulation. Without limiting the scope of Subparagraph 10(a) above. Tenant will be
solely responsible for and will defend, indemnify, and hold Landlord, its agents, and
employees harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, and liabilities, including
reasonable attorney ’s fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with the cleanup or
restoration of the Premises and Property resulting from Tenant’s use of Hazardous
Materials. For purposes of the Lease, "Hazardous Materials" shall be interpreted broadly
and specifically includes, without limitation, asbestos, fuel, batteries or any hazardous
substance, waste, or materials as defined in any federal, state, or local environmental or
safety law or regulations including, but not limited to, CERCLA.
(c) Tenant’s Warranty. Tenant represents and warrants that its use of the Leased
Premises will not generate and Tenant will not store or dispose of on the Leased
Premises, nor transport to or over the Leased Premises, in violation of any State or
Federal law or regulation. The obligations of this Paragraph 10 shall survive the
expiration or other termination of this Lease.
(d) Landlord ’s Warranty. Landlord warrants that is has no knowledge of any
hazardous materials on the Property which are stored or disposed of inconsistent with any
state or federal law as of the date of this lease.
11. Insurance.
(a) Workers ’ Compensation . The Tenant must maintain Workers ’ Compensation
insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes. The policy shall also provide
Employer ’s Liability coverage with limits of not less than $500,000 Bodily Injury each
accident, $500,0(X) Bodily Injury by disease, policy limit, and $500,000 Bodily Injury by
disease, each employee.
(b) General Liability . The Tenant must maintain an occurrence form comprehensive
general liability coverage. Such coverage shall include, but not be limited to, bodily
injury, property damage —broad form, and personal injury, for the hazards of Leased
Premises/Operation, broad form contractual and independent contractors.
The Tenant must maintain aforementioned general liability coverage with limits
of liability not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence; $1,000,000 personal; $2,000,000
general aggregate and $2,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate. These
limits may be satisfied by the general liability coverage or in combination with an
umbrella or excess liability policy, provided coverage afforded by the umbrella or excess
policy are no less than the underlying general liability coverages.
082/22148276 1 1/7/97
r
AiUpmobile Liability. The Tenant must carry Automobile Liability coverage
Coverage shdl afford total liability limits for Bodily Injury Liability and Property
^‘ability in the amount of $1,000,000 per accident. The liability limits may be
afforded under the Commercial Policy, or in combination with an Umbrella or Excess
Liabihy Policy provided coverage afforded by the Umbrella Excess Policy is no less than
the underlying Commercial Auto Liability coverage.
Coverage shall be provided for Bodily Injury and Property Damage for the
ownership, use, maintenance or operation of all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles.
The Commercial Automobile Policy shall include at least statutory personal injury
protection, uninsured motorists and underinsured motorists coverages.
Failure to maintain the insurance as listed above ^JibUce^eancellaUoiLwin
result in immediate termination of the Lease, and Tenant wiil be liable
for 150% of the annual rent as called for in Paragraph 13(c).
Ignant Property Insurance. The Tenant must keep in force during the term and
any renewals of the Lease a policy covering damages to its property at the Leased
Premises. The amount of coverage shall be sufficient to replace the damaged property
loss of use and comply with any ordinance or law requirements.
Adjustment to Insurance Coverap ^ I imit. The coverage limits set forth herein
shml be increased at the time of any Renewal Term by a minimum of the Consumer Price
Index as calculated under Paragraph 2(a). If the increase would be less than 25% based
on the comsumer price index, the limits may be increased up to 25% based on the limits
needed to provide adequate coverage.
^ditional Insured - Certificate of Insurance. The Tenant shall provide, prior to
tenancy evidence of the required insurance in the form of a Certificate of Insurance
issued by a company (rated A+ or better) by Best Insurance Guide, licensed to do
business in the state of Minnesota, which includes all coverages required in this Paragraph
11. Tenant will name Landlord as an Additional Insured on the General Liability and
Commercial Automobile Liability Policies. The Certificate(s) shall also provide the
coverage may not be canceled, non-renewed, or materially changed without thirty (30)
days prior written notice to Landlord.
fg) ^iver of Claims: Subrogation . -€aeh-ef Landlord and Tenant hereby releases the
other from any and all liability or responsibility to the other or anyone claiming through
under it by way of subrogation or otherwise for any loss or damage that may occur to
the Property or any improvements thereto, or the Tower or any improvements thereto, or
tmy property of such party therein, by reason of fire or any other cause which could be
insured against under the terms of standard fire and extended coverage (all-risk) insurance
082AJ2148276 11/7/97
r
12.
policies, regardless of cause or origin, including fault or negligence of the other party
hereto, or anyone for whom such party may be responsible. Each party shall cause each
insurance policy obtained by it to state that the insurer waives all right of recovery by
way of subrogation against either party hereto in connection with damage covered by such
policy. The releases in this paragraph shall be effective whether the loss was actually
covered by insurance. Tenant assumes all risk of loss or damage to Tenant ’s property or
leasehold improvements within the Property, including any loss or damage caused by
water leakage, fire wi.ndstorm, explosion, theft, act of any other tenant, or other cause.
Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant, or its employees, for loss or damage to any
property in or at the Property, the Leased Premises, or the Tower.
Damage or Destruction. If the Leased Premises is destroyed or damaged, without
contributory fault of the Tenant or its agents, so as, in the reasonable judgment of the
Tenant, to hinder its effective use of the Tenant Facilities, Tenant may elect to terminate
this Lease upon 30 days’ written notice to Landlord. In the event Tenant elects to
terminate the Lease, Tenant shall be entitled to reimbursement of prepaid rent covering
the period subsequent to the date of damage to or destruction of the Leased Premises.
13. Lease Termination.
(a) Events of Termination . Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may be
terminated without penalty or further liability upon sixty (60) days written notice to the
other party as follows:
(i) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the other
party, which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of
default to the other party (without, however, limiting any other rights of the parties
pursuant to any other provisions hereof);
(ii) by Tenant for cause if it is unable to obtain or maintain any license, permit
or other governmental approval necessary for the construction and/or operation of the
Tenant Facilities or Tenant ’s business;
(iii) by Tenant for cause if the Leased Premises is or becomes unacceptable for
technological reasons including without limitation shadowing or interference under
Tenant s Antenna Facilities, design or engineering specifications or the communications
systems to which the Tenant Facilities belong;
(iv) by Landlord in the event that the use of the Tower for water service is
Jeopardized because of antenna usage on the Tower;
(v) by Landlord, upon 180 days prior written notice to Tenant if its Council
decides, for any reason, to redevelop -the Leased Premises in a manner inconsi stent 'with
082/22148276 11/7/97
r
continued use of the Leased Premises by Tenant ond/or discontinue use of the for
all purposes;
(vi) by Landlord if it determines that the Tower is structurally unsound,
including, but not limited to, consideration of age of the Tower, damage or destruction
of all or part of the Tower on the Leased Premises from any source, or factors relating
to condition of the Leased Premises;
(vii) by Landlord if it determines that a potential user with a higher priority
under Subparagraph 5(a) above cannot find another adequate location, or the Tenant’s
Facilities unreasonably interfere with another user with a higher priority, regardless of
whether or not such an interference was predicted in the initial interference study that was
part of the application process, provided that for a one year period after termination under
this subparagraph. Landlord shall not lease the Leased Premises to another party with
equal or lesser priority for the same use as that of Tenant; or
(viii) by Landlord if it determines that Tenant has failed to comply with
applicable ordinances, or state or federal law, or any conditions attached to government
approvals granted thereunder, after a public hearing before the Landlord’s Council.
(b) Notice of Termination. The parties shall give Notice of Termination in writing
by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such Notice shall be effective upon receipt
as evidenced by the return receipt, or such later date as stated in the Notice. All rentals
paid for the Lease prior to said termination date shall be retained by Landlord except if
such termination is for the reasons contained in subparagraphs 12(a), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi)
or (vii).
(c) Tenant’s Liability for Early Termination. If Tenant terminates this Lease other
than of right as provided in this Lease, Tenant shall pay to Landlord as liquidated
damages for early termination, 150% of the annual rent for the year in which Tenant
terminates, unless Tenant terminates during the last year of any Term under Paragraph 3
and Tenant has paid the annual rental for that year.
(d) Site Restoration. Upon commencement of this Lease, Tenant shall deposit with
Landlord the sum of $3,000.00, which shall be fully refunded to Tenant upon the timely
removal of the Tenant Facilities, and related equipment, the repair of the site and the
restoration of the Tower surface to the reasonable satisfaction of the Landlord. Upon
termination of this Lease, Tenant shall, within ninety (90) days thereof, remove all of its
equipment cabinets from the Leased Premises, and its transmission lines and antennas
from the Tower. Tenant, at its expense, agrees to return the Leased Premises and the
Tower surface where Tenant’s Antenna Facilities have been to their original condition,
ordinary wear and tear excepted. If Tenant fails to remove its property within such
ninety-day period. Landlord shall have the right to remove the same and place it in
storage. If Landlord removes the Antenna Facilities or related equipment. Landlord shall
082/22148276 11/7/97
r
► k
give written notice to Tenant, that the Antenna Facilities or related property have been
removed and will be deemed abandoned if not claimed and the storage fees and other
reasonable costs paid within thirty days. If the property is not claimed. Tenant shall pay
Landlord’s storage, removal and moving costs. Any of Tenant’s property remaining on
the Leased Premises, the Tower or in storage, 60 days after notice of abandonment to
tenant shall become the property of Landlord free of any claim by tenant or any person
claiming through tenant. No Antennae Facilities will be released by the Landlord to
Tenant until Tenant has reimbursed the Landlord for all expenses related to removing the
Antennae Facilities and returning the Property and the Tower to their original condition.
(e) Waiver of Landlord’s Lien
(a) Landlord waives any lien rights it may have concerning the Tenant Facilities
which are deemed Tenant’s personal property and not fixtures, and Tenant has the right
to remove the same at any time without Landlord’s consent.
(b) Landlord acknowledges that Tenant has entered into a financing
arrangement including promissory notes and financial and security agreements for the
financing of Tenant Facilities (the "Collateral") with a third party financing entity (and
may in the future enter into additional financing arrangements with other financing
entities). In connection therewith, Landlord (i) consents to the installation of the
Collateral; (ii) disclaims any interest in the Collateral, as fixtures or otherwise; and (iii)
agrees that the Collateral shall be exempt from execution, foreclosure, sale, levy,
attachment, or distress for any Rent due or to become due and that such Collateral may
be removed at any time without recourse to legal proceedings.
14. Limitation of Landlord’s Liability. If Landlord terminates this Lease other than as of
right as provided in this Lease, or Landlord causes interruption of the business of Tenant
or for any other Landlord breach of this Lease, Landlord’s liability for damages to Tenant
shall be limited to the actual and direct costs of equipment removal, relocation or repair
and shall specifically exclude any recovery for value of the business of Tenant as a going
concern, future expectation of profits, loss of business or profit or related damages to
Tenant. In no event shall Landlord be liable for damages in excess of limits in State law
on municipal liability.
15. Temporary Interruptions of Service . If Landlord determines that continued operation
of the Antenna Facilities would cause or contribute to an immediate threat to public
health and/or safety (except for any issues associated with human exposure to radio
frequency omissions, which is regulated by the federal government). Landlord may order
Tenant to discontinue its operation. Tenant shall immediately comply with such an order.
Service shall be discontinued only for the period that the immediate threat exists. If
Landlord does not give prior notice to Tenant, Landlord shall notify Tenant as soon as
possible after its action and give its reason for taking the action. Landlord shall not be
liable to Tenant or any other party for any interruption in Tenant’s service or interference
with Tenant’s operation of its Antenna Facilities, except as may be caused by the willful
082^2148276 11/7/97
r
misconduct of the Landlord, its employees or agents. If the discontinuance extends for
a period greater than three days, either consecutively or cumulatively. Tenant shall have
the right to terminate this Lease within its sole discretion.
Tenant Interference.
(a) With Tower . Tenant shall not interfere with Landlord ’s use of the Tower and
agrees to cease all such actions which unreasonably and materially interfere with
Landlord ’s use thereof no later than three business days after receipt of written notice of
the interference from Landlord. In the event that Tenant’s cessation of action is material
to Tenant’s use of the Leased Premises and such cessation frustrates Tenant’s use of the
Leased Premises, within Tenant’s sole discretion. Tenant shall have the immediate right
to terminate this Lease.
Higher Priority Users and Pre-Existing Tenants. If Tenant’s Antenna
Facilities cause impermissible interference with higher priority users as set forth in under
Subparagraph 5(a) above or with pre-existing tenants. Tenant shall take all measures
necessary to correct and eliminate the interference. If the interference cannot be
ehimnated within 24 hours after receiving Landlord ’s notice of the interference. Tenant
shall immediately cease operating its Antenna Facilities and shall not reactivate operation,
except intermittent operation for the purpose of testing, until the interference has been
eliminated. If the interference cannot be eliminated within 30 days after Tenant received
Landlord ’s written notice. Landlord may at its option terminate this Lease immediately.
It is further agreed that the Landlord in no way guarantees to Tenant non
interference to the operation of Tenant’s equipment; provided, howevei. chat Landlord will
use Its best efforts to notify other users of interference, and to coordinate elimination of
interference among site users. If Tenant clearly demonstrates the primary cause of the
interference to be the property of Landlord or another user. Landlord will notify the other
user to eliminate the interference within 24 hours or cease using the equipment causing
the interference.
^ Pfior to adding additional transmitter or receiver frcquonoics on the premises.
notify the Landlord of the modifi ed frcqucnoioG so that the Landlord con
perform the iuigcss ^ intcrfcrGnco studies to insure that the modified frcqucnGios will not
cause harmful radio interforonc e- to other -existing Premises looses.—Tenant will bo
required to pay the reasonabl e costs for said study which will be performed by Landlord ’s
registered profcssionol oommuniootions engineer. In the alternative. Tenant may perfor
the interference studies and submit thc» ronnltn tn rhA-ricy H?vi>ever, the City, in its sole
discretion , shall retain the right provided herein to submit the study results to its
registered professional commiinipnfinnn onginnor fnr r»»'ipvi' pt Tenant’s expense.
Prior to adding additional frequencies on the Leased Premises, beyond Tenant’s initial
frequencies as listed below;
082/22148276 1 1/7/97
g
855.9875MHz through 860.9625MHz 860.9875MHz through 865.9875MHz
851.0125MHz through 855.9625MHz
Tenant agrees to notify the Landlord of the additional frequencies so that the Landlord can
peiform the necessary interference studies to insure that the additional frequencies will not cause
harmful radio interference to other existing users on the Tower. Tenant will be required to pay
the reasonable costs for said study which will oe performed by Landlord’s registered professional
communications engineer. In the alternative, Tenant may perform the interference studies and
submit the results to the Landlord. However, the Landlord, in its sole discretion, shall retain the
right provided herein to submit the study results to its registered professional communications
engineer for review at Tenant’s expense.
(c) Interference Study - New Occupants. Upon written notice by Landlord that it has
a bona fide request from any other party to lease an area includi»^g or in close proximity
to the Leased Premises ("Leased Premises Area"), Tenant agrees to provide Landlord,
within sixty (60) days, the radio frequencies currently in operation or to be operated in
the future of each transmitter and receiver installed and operational by Tenant on the
Leased Premises at the time of such request. Landlord may then have an independent,
registered professional engineer of Landlord’s choosing perform the necessary interference
studies to determine if the new applicant’s frequencies will cause harmful radio
interference to Tenant. Landlord shall require the new applicant to pay for such
interference studies, unless the Landlord or other higher priority user requests the use.
In that event, the Tenant and all other tenants occupying the Leased Premises Area shall
pay for the necessary interference studies, pro rata.
(d) Interference - New Occupants. Landlord agrees that it will not grant a future lease
in the Leased Premises Area to any party who is of equal or lower priority to Tenant, if
such party’s use is reasonably anticipated to interfere with Tenant’s operation of its
Antenna Facilities. Landlord agrees further that any future lease of the Leased Premises
Area will prohibit a user of equal or lower priority from interfering with Tenant’s
Antenna Facilities. Landlord agrees that it will require any subsequent occupants of the
Leased Premises Area of equal or lower priority to Tenant to provide Tenant these same
assurances against interference. Landlord shall have the obligation to eliminate any
interference with the operations of Tenant caused by such subsequent occupants. If such
interference is not eliminated. Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease or seek
injunctive relief against the interfering occupant, at Tenant’s expense.
17. Assienment and Subletting. Tenant may not assign, or otherwise transfer all or any part
of its interest in this Agreement or in the Leased Premises without the prior written
consent of Landlord; provided, however, that Tenant may assign its interest to its parent
company, any subsidiary or affiliate of it or its parent company or to any successor-in-
interest or entity acquiring fifty-one percent (51%) or more of its stock or assets, subject
to any financing entity’s interest, if any, in this Agreement as set forth in subparagraph
082/22148276 11/7/97
13(e) above. Landlord may assign this Agreement upon written notice to Tenant, subject
to the assignee assuming all of Landlord ’s obligations herein, including but not limited
to, those set forth in subparagraph 13(e) above. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in this Agreement, Tenant may assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or
otherwise transfer without consent its interest in this Agreement to any financing entity,
or agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Tenant (i) has obligations for
borrowed money or in respect of guaranties thereof, (ii) has obligations evidenced by
bonds, debentures, notes or similar instruments, or (iii) has obligations under or with
respect to letters of credit, bankers acceptances and similar facilities or in respect of
guaranties thereof
Utility Service. Tenant agrees to timely pay for and install all required utility services
and meters. Payment for electric and/or telephone service for Tenant’s Antenna-Facilities
shall be Tenant’s responsibility without any adjustment to rent. The Landlord shall not
be responsible for any damages which occur as a result of interruption of utility services.
Installation of utility services are subject to Landlord ’s reasonable approval as to location.
Condemnation. In the event the whole of the Leased Premises is taken by eminent
domain, this Lease shall terminate as of the date title to the Leased Premises vests in the
condemning authority. In event a portion of the Leased Premises is taken by eminent
domain, either party shall have the right to terminate this Lease as of said date of title
transfer, by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of any
taking under the power of eminent domain. Tenant shall not be entitled to any portion of
the reward paid for the taking and the Landlord shall receive full amount of such award.
Tenant hereby expressly waives any right or claim to any portion thereof. Although all
damages, whether awarded as compensation for diminution in value of the leasehold or
to the fee of the Leased Premises, shall belong to Landlord, Tenant shall have the right
to claim and recover from the condemning authority, but not from Landlord, such
compensation as may be separately awarded or recoverable by Tenant on account of any
and all damage to Tenant’s business and any costs or expenses incurred by Tenant in
moving/removing its equipment, personal property. Antenna Facilities, and leasehold
improvements.
Default . Except as expressly limited hereby. Landlord and Tenant shall have such
remedies for the default of the other party hereto as may be provided at law or equity
following written notice of such default and failure to cure the same within thirty (30)
days.
Notices. All notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed validly given if
delivered personally or if sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as
follows (or any other address that the party to be notified may have designated to the
sender by like notice);
If to Landlord, to; City of Orono
082/22148276 11/7/97
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
i !
with a copy to:
Attn:
Attn:
Nextel Communications
9401 James Avenue South, Suite 180
Bloomington, MN 55431
Digital Property Manager
With a copy to: Nextel Communications Inc.
1505 Farm Credit Drive
McLean. VA 22102
Legal Dept.. Contracts Manager
22. Authority. Each of the individuals executing this Lease on behalf of the Tenant or the
Landlord represents to the other party that such individual is authorized to do so by
requisite action of the party to this Lease.
23. Binding Effect. This Lease shall run with the Leased Premises. This Lease shall extend
to and bind the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto.
24. Complete Lease; Amendments. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and
understanding of the parties and supersedes all offers, negotiations, and other agreements
of any kind. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth
herein. Any modification of or amendment to this Lease must be in writiiv .'nd executed
by both parties.
25. fiovernii^J^'-v. This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State
ofMinnt 'U
26. Limitation of F.iabilitv . Nothing in the Lease shall be deemed a waiver of any limitation
of liability or defenses under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or any other provision of
law.
27. Severability . If any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect the remaining terms of this Lease, which shall continue in full force and
effect.
Memorandum . Upon request by either party, the parties agree to promptly execute and
deliver a recordable Memorandum of this Lease in the form attached as Exhibit “D”.
which may be recorded by the party requesting the Memorandum of Lease.
082/22148276 11/7/97
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF
) ss
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
199 __, by John C. Shelton_____________________
day of
the President Midwest Area.
Communications_________
of Nextel West Corp., d/b/a Nextel
on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
I
082/22148276 11/7/97
r III iiw»I
CITY OF ORONO
EXHIBIT A
to
SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
(Legal Description of Landlord’s “Property”)
An Exhibit to that certain Site Lease Agreement between the City of Orono as
“Landlord” and Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation d/b/a Nextel Communications as
"Tenant".
The "Property" is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, WILLOW PROPERTIES ADDITION, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, in City of Orono
Property ID#. J3-118-23-12-0007
08M2 148276 11/7/97
r
! ,
EXHIBIT D
FOR EXHIBIT PURPOSES ONLY. EXECUTABLE MEMORANDUM FOU.OWS THIS EXHIBIT
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into on this day of 1997, by and
between the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, with an address of P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay,
MN 55323 (hereinafter referred to as “Landlord"), and Nextel West Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a
Nextel Communications, with an office at 9401 James Avenue South, Suite 180, Bloomington, MN 55431
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Tenant”).
1. Landlord and Tenant entered into a Communications Site Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) on the
day of November, 1997, for the purposes of installing, operating and maintaining a radio communications
facility and other improvements. All of the foregoing are set forth in the Agreement.
2. The term of the Agreement is for five (5) years commencing on December 1, 1997, or the date that the
Tenant installation of Tenant Facilities, whichever first occurs (“Commencement Date"), and terminating on
December 31, 2002, with three (3) successive Five-Year Renewal Terms.
3. Then Land which is the subject of the Agreement is described in Exhibit A. annexed hereto. The
portion of the Land being leased to Tenant (the “Leased Premises”) is described in Exhibit B annexed hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first
above written.
LANDLORD: City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal TENANT: Nextel West Corp., A Delaware corporation
corporation , d/b/a Nextel Communications
BY:NOT FOR EXECUTION BY:NOT FOR EXECUTION
Date:Date:
Title: Mayor Title:John C. Shelton. President Midwest Area
Tax ID# _4 1-6008585 Tax ID# 84-1116272
BY:NOT FOR EXECUTION
Date:
Title:City Manager
Tax ID# 41-6008585
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE
082/22148276 11/7/97
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATE OF;
COUNTY OF:
before me...Notary Public personally appeared
_________________________ personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she
executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument, the person, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(SEAL)
Notary Public
My commission expires;
STATE OF:
COUNTY OF:
before me.______________________________ Notary
personally known to me (or proved to me on thePublic, personally appeared _____________________
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the
instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
My conunission expires:
(SEAL)
STATE OF:
COUNTY OF:
..before me...Notary
Public, personally appeared John C. Shelton personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to
me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person,
or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
082/22148276 11/7/V7
r
(SEAL)
Notary Public
My commission expires:
082/22148276 11/7/97
r
Co
sc^INq
'^Ov 1q ]
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
'^OPoq<w
DATE: November s, 1997
ITEM NO: / ^
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrators
Report
Item Description:
1998 Non-Union Compensation Adjustments
Attachments: 1.
2.
1998 Pay Schedule
Resolution Approving 1998 Pay Plan Adjustments
The following wage and insurance adjustments for non-union staff are proposed for Council
approval.
1. Pay: Increase pay ranges by 3.0%
2.Insurance Contribution: $15.00 per month increase to a maximum contribution of $328.50
per month.
3.Mileage Reimbursement Rate: Increase from $.3 1/mile to $.32 per mile for the use of a
personal vehicle for city business.
Compensation Ac^Justment Criteria
An outline of the criteria on which pay and insurance adjustments are generally based is
as follows:
A. Pay Adjustment Criteria
1.Cost of living increase
a.) US consumer price index; annualized increase from October '96 to
October '97 is 2.2%.
b.) Minneapolis/St. Paul consumer price index: annualized increase from
the first half of 1996 to the first half of 1997 (July '96 to July '97) is 2.7%.
2.Market comparison:
Comparable cities both in the Lake area and throughout the Metro area are
considering pay adjustments for 1998 of 3.0%.
m. ■* .
■ i
r
1997 Non-Union Wage and Insurance Adjustments
November 5, 1997
page 2 of 2
^ Police Officer bargaining unit is working under a 2 year agreement
for 1997/1998 that provides for a 3% pay increase and a $15.00 per month insurance contribution
mcrease for 1998.
B. Insurance Contribution Adjustment
After a short period of stable health insurance premiums, the premiums for 1998 are increasing
substantially (see the attached chart). The average increase in the family coverage premium is
$45.09 per month. This is a 10% increase. The city’s general policy is to cover one-half of the
average premium increase which is $22.55. In order to maintain a consistent contribution amount
across all employee groups, it is recommended that the insurance contribution for non-union
employees be increased $15.00 per month to a maximum of $328.50 per month.
The city’s mileage reimbursement rate has been tied to the IRS mileage
reimbursement rate. The IRS rate has increased from $.31/mile to $.32/miIe.
C.
Council Action Requested:
Motion to adopt a resolution to approve the 1998 non-union pay plan adjustments as follows: a
3.0% pay increase, a maximum insurance contribution of $328.50/month, and a mileage
reimbursement rate of $.32/miIe. Ayes Nays _.
City of Orono
Summary of Health Insurance Premiums
1997 & 1998
1997 1998 S Increase % Increase
HealthPartners Classic - Single 152.84 163.77 10.93 7.15%
HealthPartners Classic -- Family 417.43 466.74 49.31 11.81%
HealthPartners Plan -- Single 151.80 170.06 18.26 12.03%
HealthPartners Plan — Family 451.86 484.67 32.81 7.26%
Medica ~ Single 187.16 202.25 15.09 8.06%
Medica -- Family 490.85 544.00 53.15 10.83%
Ayerage Family Coyerage Increase
One-Half of Ayerage Increase
45.09
22.55
9.97%
r
RESOLUTION APPROVING PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS FOR
NON-UNION CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 1998
WHEREAS, the City Administrator is responsible for annually presenting a pay schedule
for city employees, with the exception of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements:
and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has presented the City Council with said pay schedule
for calendar and budget year 1998 which pay schedule is attached hereto and hereby made a part
of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been appropriated in the proposed 1998 Annual Budget
to fund the recommended pay schedule and such other matters of compensation as herein
specified.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orono City Council as follows;
1. That the 1998 employee pay schedule, reflecting a 3.0% pay adjustment, attached
hereto and made a part thereof, is approved.
2. That the city's contribution toward the cost of employee health insurance increase to
a maximum of $328.50 per month.
3. That city employees using their own vehicles for approved work related business shall
be compensated at a rate of $.32 per mile.
Adopted by the Council this 10th day of November, 1997.
Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
J
r 0221^7.2Updated 06/08/97
CITY OF ORONO
NON-UNION EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN
POSITION/POINT GROUPINGS
FOR 1998
1 1 44-47 45.5 Community Service Officer_______ |
2 I 48-51 49.5 Laborer, Clerical I ___________ |
3 I 52 - 55 53.5 j Clerical II________________________1
4 56-59 57.5 1 Secretary___________j
5 60-64 62 Police Office Manager,
Public Works Maintenance Worker ______
6 I 65-68 66.5 On-Site Septic Manager (E)
Deputy Clerk/IS Assistant___________ 1
7 69-73 71 j City Clerk (E), j
Golf Course Supervisor (E),
Building Inspector ___________ |
8 74-78 76 j Asst. Finance Director/Ml S Coord (E),
Accountant/Management Analyst (E) |
9 179-83 81 1 Building Official (E)________________j
10 I 84-88 86 mty Planner/Zoning Administrator (E),
j Public Works Supervisor II (E) _____1
11 1 89-93 91 Senior Planning Coordinator (E)________I
12 1 94-99 96.5
1 13 1 100-105 102.5
1 106-111 108.5 j Police Chief (E), 1
Finance Director (E),
1 Public Services Director (E)____
1 1 112-118 115
1 1 119-125 122 City Administrator (E)_______________]
(E) - Exempt
r
% Increase 1.03
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Level
Step I
10.38
10.99
11.7f
12.42
13.27
14.40
15.53
16.72
18.04
19.72
21.22
22.80
24.59
26.53
28.89
31.44
Step I
City of Orono
Compensation Plan
Pay Levels and Pay Ranges
For 1998
Step II
11.00
11.64
12.39
13.14
14.04
15.23
16.45
17.71
19.10
20.89
22.46
24.15
26.03
28.09
30.59
33.29
Step III
11.62
12.29
13.08
13.87
14.82
16.10
17.37
18.69
20.16
22.04
23.71
25.49
27.48
29.65
32.29
35.14
Step IV
12.23
12.94
13.77
14.61
15.59
16.93
18.28
19.68
21.22
23.22
24.96
26.83
28.92
31.21
33.99
36.99
Comments
Part Time Regular Positions
Step II Step 111 Step IV Comments
2 9.90 10.49 11.06 11.64 Clerical I, L-2 S-II max.
4 10.56 11.19 11.79 12.42 Police Secretary, L-4 S-I max.
6 12.24 12.96 13.68 14.40 Patrol Officer, L-6 S-I max.
r CCXJNCiL MEETINGNOV lo 1997
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY OF ORONO
DATE: November 10, 1997
ITEM NO ^
Department Approval:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Engineer's Report
Item Description: Entrance Canopy for Public Works Canopy
We have experienced problems with roof drainage causing ice buildup in front of the Public
Works building main entrance. The proposed solution to this problem is construction of a canopy
to divert the water that is draining from the roof valley out past the building entrance sidewalk.
This issue was previously presented to the Council and authorization was given to obtain
quotations for this project. The preliminary budget estimate for this project is $20,000.
We have completed plans for this project and contacted several contractors to obtain quotations
for completion of this work. The contractors have indicated that they will have prices by
Monday. Several contractors are waiting for approval from their bonding companies before
submitting quotations. Time is critical for this project, as we want this work completed before
winter.
We have put this item on the agenda without a contractor recommendation included in tl j Council
meeting packet to save time, as waiting until the next meeting will delay the project for two
weeks. A tabulation of quotes and contractor recommendation will be provided at the Council
meeting on Monday.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and consideration of Contractor quotations for an entrance canopy at the Public Works
building. A tabulation of quotations and contractor recommendation will be presented at the
Council meeting.
}
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION "0^ i 0 1997
*='^OFonoNo
Late: November 4, 1997
Item No: /^
Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Name:Gary Cheswick
Title:Chief of Police
Item Description: Letter of Intent to purchase - Two 1998 Ford Crown Victoria Squad Cars
Exhibits:None
DISCUSSION
I am requesting approval to send a letter to Superior Ford,(who was awarded the
Hennepin County squad purchasing bid), with the intent to p* ^e two (2) 1998 Ford Crown
Victoria squad cars. These two vehicles are budgeted for and to replace two older cars; squad
172 with mileage of 104,000 and squad 173 with 90,750 miles tas of 11/4/97). Cost per car is
$22,333.
This request for intent to purchase due to the restrictive number of vehicles being built.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUFSTF.n
Approval of letter to be sent to Superior Ford.
I j
r COUNCIL MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 1 0 1997
DATE:
ITEM NO: / j (q
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrator's
Report
Item Description:
Long Lake Fire Service Contract for the Years 1998-2000
Attachments; A. Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection From the City of Long Lake for the
Years 1998-2000
B. Letter from the Long Lake City Administrator Regarding the 1998 Fire Service
Budget and Agreement
The city of Long Lake has submitted the 1998/2000 Fire Serv ice Agreement for the city's approval.
The cost for 1998 is $109,316. This is an increase of $5,727 or 5.53% over 1997. The increase is
due to a 3.96% budget increase, and an increase in Orono's share of the budget based on the cost
allocation formula. Orono's share of the budget has increased from 68.8% to 69.9% due to
significant increases in market value and fire rescue calls.
The cost of fire service for the years 1999 and 2000 will be determined based on fire department
budget amounts in those years and the cost allocation formula, with fire department increases not
to exceed 4% in any one year.
Special Equipment Purchase
In addition to the of)erating budget, the Long Lake Fire Department is proposing a special equipment
purchase for 1998. 'fhe fire department would like to purchase 5 inch fire hose to serve those areas
that are a challenge because of topography or location of the nearest water source. These areas are
primarily outside the city of Long Lake and in the contract cities of Orono and Medina. At this time
the Long Lake Fire Department is proposing to purchase $18,000 worth of hose. This cost also
includes some changes necessaiy to existing equipment to make connections from smaller diameter
hose as well as connections to existing fire vehicles. Based on the current cost allocation formula,
Orono's share of this cost would be $12,643.
Staff recommends obtaining additional information regarding this request prior to making a final
decision. If this request is approved, staff suggests earmarking a portion of the projected 1997
General Fund Budget surplus for this expenditure.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the agreement and contract for fire protection from the city of Long Lake for the
years 1998-2000, and to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents.
________
CITY OF
LONG LAKE
Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection
THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into this______day of
_________, 1997 by and between the City of Long Lake a municipal corporation of the
County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as Long Lake) and the
City of Orono, a municipal corporation of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota
(hereinafter referred to as the Contracting City) witnesseth:
WHEREAS, the City of Long Lake has the facilities ar.d equipment and is willing and able
to provide fire protection service to the Contracting City, and
WHEREAS, the Contracting City is desirous of having fire protection service furnished by
the City of Long Lake Fire Department.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants herein contained the parties hereto
agree as follows;
1 ■ Definiiions
A. The term Contracting City or the Contracting Cities means any city which is a party to
this Agreement or similar Agreement which by its terms is interrelated with this Agreement
for the purposes of sharing the costs and the services of fire p.'r‘action provided by the
Long Lake Fire Department. The Contracting Cities are: Orono, fviedina and Long Lake.
B. City Fire Service Area is the area within a Contracting City receiving fire protection from
ttie Long Lake Fire Department. (City Fire Service areas are shown in Appendix A.
attached.) The Total Fire Service Area is the sum of all City Fire Service Areas .
2. Services to be rendered.
During the term of this agreement Long Lake shall furnish all the fire fighting services to
the Contracting Cities for the Total Fire Service Area outlined in red on the attached map
marked Exhibit A hereinafter referred to as 'The Total Fire Service Area". All of said Total
Fire Service Area is located within the corporate limits of the Contracting Cities.
3. Level of Service
Long Lake through its fire department .‘‘ihall endeavor to protect and save life and property
from destruction by fire in the City Fire Service Area of each Contracting City to the same
extent as it does within the City Fire Service Area of Long Lake. In the event of two fire
calls received within the sarr'.i time frame, the call first received shall have priority and the
second call shall be answered as soon as possible. Long Lake will furnish sufficient staff
1
1964 Park Avenue • Long Lake, Mmnesoia 55356 • 612 473-6961 612-476-9622 (fax)
r
to each call to safely, legally and effectively operate all necessary vehicles and equipment
and provide all necessary services.
4. Command Responsibility
The Fire Chief of Long Lake or his Deputy shall have the sole and exclusive right and
responsibility to prescribe the manner and method of giving the alarm for fire within the
Total Fire Service Area and to prescribe the manner and method of responding to calls
and rendering the services contemplated. The said Fire Chief or his Deputy shall
immediately upon am'ving at the scene of any alarm or fire emergency have the sole and
exclusive responsibility and authority to direct and control any and all fire fighting and the
emergency operations at such scene or scenes.
5. Volunteer Fire Fiohters of the City of Long Lake
Personnel assigned to provide fire protection services in the Contracting Cities shall be
volunteer firemen of the City of Long Lake, which City shall assume all obligations with
regard to Worker's Compensation, Firemen's Relief Association, withholding tax,
insurance, etc. for such volunteer firemen, if any.
The cost of such obligations shall be a part of the costs attributed to the operation of the
Long Lake Fire Department and will be included in the Annual Budget Package.
6. Nature of Long Lake Undertaking
In no event shall this agreement be construed to fix upon Long Lake any responsibility or
liability to the Contracting Cities or to third parties which are greater or different In kind than
the responsibilities and liabilities borne by the Contracting Cities if they were providing
such services through their own fire departments.
7. Liability Insurance
Long Lake shall carry liability insurance in the amount of $1,600,000.00 protecting itself
against damage claims of its fire fighters for personal injury sustained while in service
within the said limits of the Contracting Cities as hereto set forth. And further. Long Lake
shall carry liability insurance in the amount of $1,600,000.00 saving both parties harmless
so far as acts of the City of Long Lake, its fire department and its fire fighters are
concerned. The cost of such insurance shall be a part of the costs attributed to the
operation of the Long Lake Fire Department and will be included in the Annual Operating
Budget. Nothing in this contract shall be construed as waiving the statutory liability limits of
any city which is a party to this contract.
8. Budget Package
8.1 Definitions
A. The Annual Operating Budget refers to the calendar year budget of the Long Lake Fire
Department during the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement. This
2
budget will become the official Annual Operating Budget upon ratification by the
Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget may include both operating and Major Equipment
items and incorporates all costs of operations including, but not limited to, the rental of
space for the fire department and discretionary funding of the Fire Benefit Association
Retirement Fund.
Jh® Year Two Budget refers to a single number, not to be exceeded, dollar amount
which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the Annual
Budget Package is not ratified by all Contacting Cities by October 1 of the first year of any
three year period covered by this agreement.
C. The Year Three Budget refers to a single number not to be exceeded dollar amount
which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the Annual
Budget Package has not been ratified by all Contacting Cities by October 1 of the second
year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
T^® Annual Budget Package refers to the grouping of the Annual Operating Budget,
the Year Tvo Budget and the Year Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the City
of Lorig Lake for ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget Package must
be ratified by all Contracting Cities prior to October 1 In the year submitted to become the
valid budgets for the following three years. The Annual Budget Package must be accepted
or rejected in its entirety.
8.2 Budget Process
By August 15 of each year during which this agreement remains In effect, the City of Long
Lake wii! provide an Annual Budget Package covering the cost of fire protection for ihe
next three calendar years. The budgets presented to the Contracting cities must have
been presented to the Joint Advisory Committee prior to August 1 for discussion and
review. Although it is expected that the Annual Budget Package which Is provided to the
Contracting Cities by the City of Long Lake will have the consensus support of the Joint
Advisory Committee, that is not a requirement since each Contracting City has the
opportunity for final ratification or rejection.
9. Term of this Agreement
This Agreement is for three contract years and covers the period January 1,1998 through
December 31,2000. A contract year covers the penod January 1 through December 31 of
a calendar year.
This Agreement will become effective upon ratification by the Contracting Cities of al! its
parts including Appendix C which contains the initial Annual Budget Package. The term of
this agreement may be extended as described below.
9.1 On each occasion that the Annual Budget Package is ratified by October 1 by the
Contracting Cities, this Agreement will be renewed for a total period of three contract years
beginning with the contract year following the current contract year. The details of this
process are covered in sections 9.2 through 9.5 following.
9.2 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement
the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement
shall be extended by one contract year. When during the second contract year of any
three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by
Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by two contract years.
When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement
the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement
shall be extended by three contract years. The elements of the Annual Budget Package so
ratified will replace the elements of the previously ratified Annual Budget Package.
9.3 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement
the Annual Budget Package Is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount
previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for
the second contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended.
9.4 When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the
Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1,
the amount previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating
Budget for the third contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended.
9.5 When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the
Agreement the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1
this Agreement will terminate at the end of that contract year.
10. Annual Audit of Actual Co.^ts
The Contracting City understands and agrees that it impossible to project with complete
accuracy the actual costs of labor and equipment as well as the service to be required by
each Contracting City for the forthcoming contract year and thereby hereby agrees to a
yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated cost of service as set forth above to the
a^ual costs incurred by the City of Long Lake. On or before April 30th of each year the
City of Long Lake will tabulate the actual cost of the fire department budget for the prior
contract year and will submit to the Contracting Cities a summary of the actual costs. The
actual costs set forth for the prior contract year may result in either a surplus or deficit with
respect to that year's Annual Operating Budget. Any surplus shall be refunded to the
contract cities in the same ratio as the cost allocation formula. Any deficit shall be funded
by the wntract cities in the same ratio as the cost allocation formula. It is expected that
expenditures will remain within the Annual Operating Budget amounts and will only exceed
such budget amounts in the case of an extraordinary event or when mutually agreed to by
the Contracting Cities as provided in Section 12.
11. Contract Payments
The City Budget Share(See Section 16.2) of each Contracting City shall be paid in equal
quartei^ Installments on January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of the next contract year
by the Contracting City to the City of Long Lake.
r
Long Lake agrees to provide the Contracting City with reasonably detailed information
relating to the actual expenditures against the Annual Operating Budget at its request and
agrees to make its records available to the Contracting City for inspection for the purpose
of determining the basis for the allocation of costs to fire protection.
19 i inforecasted Expenditures
Notwithstanding any of the above, the Contracting Cities shall have the right to be heard
regarding any proposed expenditures which are not identified In the Annual Operating
Budget and which exceed $5,000.00 . Notice of such proposed, non-budgeted
expenditures shall be given in writing to the Contracting Cities prior to actual expenditures
for such items and the Contracting cities shall thereafter have 21 days In which to approve
or disapprove the same in writing and if there is no response which disapproves the
expenditure, it is agreed that such proposed expenditures may be made and the cost
thereof shall be included in the Annual Operating Budget as if ratified originally.
1o. Arbitration
If a Contracting City is aggrieved by the determination of the City of Long Lake as to the
allocation of the actual costs of the prior year's service, the Contracting City may appeal
said determination within 30 days after receipt of the City of Long Lakes audit. Said
appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the City of Long Lake asking for
arbitration by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three
persons; one to be appointed by ttie City of I Lake, one to be appointed by the
appealing Contracting City and the tb rd to be appeinted by the two so selected. The
name of each arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that
the two arbitrators so selected do not appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after
receipt of written notice of appointment of either of the first two arbitrator's, the Chief Judge
of the District County of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon
application of either the Contracting Cities the appealing Contracting City, the third
arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected shall not be a resident of either
Contracting City, and shall be a city manager or administrator. The arbitrator's expenses,
not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided
equally between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted In
accordance with the Uniform Arbitration act. Chapter 572 of tiie Minnesota Statutes, arid
any decision shall be rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said
arbitration shall be binding on both parties.
14 Special Fire Funds
In order to facilitate the accounting and reporting of all fire funds associated with the
Annual Operating Budget, a Fire Operating Fund will be maintained by the City of Long
Lake. No Major Equipment Fund will be maintained by the City of Long Lake on behalf of
the Contracting Cities as a part of this agreement since under the provisions of Section 17
each Contracting City agrees to maintain an equipment Fund on its own.
16. Joint Advisory Committee
r
concerns or problems' Identtfie? rea^^^ make recommendations regarding
cirttrsh1ll"LV
Bu.,e. a.oon, an^P »e
^ 6._Cost Sharing Fnrmi ita
sh^pay'^a%h “ie S.ste o® me Department
Will be based upon a formula whirh tato* Budget. The City's Budget Share
^rr;r»riSn’-^“'srrrc-s sts'ss
16.1 Definitions
m(Sfwrclnfr^'“ThTaty'Rre^Ser^« A® City provided (ire protection
Appendix A attaVhed ^ Contracting City is shown in
iSnediately preceding me budoetvaar c? assessed market vaiue for me year
shali be me Hennepin Coun^ Assessors 0(^:1 “®'®
S a^Sm '* ^ CjtyFimSeryj ce Area Ittark el Values
in S^SKa as7e»rdL^h'’®TH®?°“'' ^®®P°"0'"9 to calis
preceding mree year period measured from Llul^XoZ SSe'rT'
in aii conkactlng'^dHerduring me ore^ofiTtr?^'®'^ expended in responding to calis
through DecemLr31. ^ previous three year period measured from January 1
Ca^S^r^ulWngTyToa "’® i^® Jm
H. City Budget Percentage is the percentage derived from the sum of the City Market
Percent multiplied by 0.7 and the City Call Percent multiplied by 0.3.
16.2 Budget Share Computation:
City Budget Share is the City Budget Percentage multiplied by the Annual Ooeratino
Budget less any Major Equipment expenditures and the resulting product divided by 100.
16.3 Formulae for Calculations
A. City Market Percent = (B x 100) / (C) percent
where B = City Fire Service Area Market Value
C = Total Fire Service Area Market Value
B. Call Percent = (E x 100) / (F) percent
where E = City Call Hours
F = Total Call Hours
C. City Budget Percentage = [ (City Market Percent x 0.70) + (Call Percent x 0.30) ]
D. City Budget Share = (City Budget Percentage /100) x (Annual Operating Budget less
Major Equipment expenditures)
E. The City Budget Share of Major Equipment expenditures is determined under the
provision of Section 17.
16.4 City Call Hours, Total Call Hours, City Fire Service Area Market Values Total Fires
Service Area Market Value, and City Budget Percents for 1998 are shown In Appendix B
attached.
13.5 The Annual Budget Package for 1998 (Which includes the Annual Operating Budget
for 1998, the Year Two Budget (for 1999), and the Year Three Budget (for 2000) are
shown in Appendix C attached.
17. Major Equipment Funding
Each Contracting City agrees to maintain Its own fund for Major Equipment. Major
Equipment is defined as "rolling stock' or similar major equipment assets required for
performing the fire department mission in the Fire Protection Area. To qualify as Major
Equipment such assets must have a initial purchase value of at least $20,000.00. When a
Major Equipment item is to be purchased the following process for sharing the funding will
be used.
I '■
17.1 Funding
A. Long Lake will have the option of funding any percentage of the total which is equal to
or greater than the average of its last three City Budget Percentages including the current
calendar year.
B. Medina will have the option of funding the remaining amount. If Medina does not wish to
fund the total of the remaining amount, it must find at least the average of its last three City
Budget Percentages including the current calendar year and may fund more if it chooses.
C. Orono will fund the balance remaining to be funded after Long Lake and Medina have
specified their funding amounts.
17.2 Termination
In the event that this Agreement shall be terminated based upon the method described In
Section 9.5 or by mutual agreement cf all the Contracting Cities. Long Lake vwll have the
right to purchase each Contracting City’s ownership share of each Major Equipment item
at the original amount funded by that city. In the event that Long Lake waives its right to
acquire full title to a particular Major Equipment item, the Contracting City with the largest
ownership share of that item shall have the right to acqu-re full title to the Item by paying
the amount funded by each of the other Contracting Cities. If that City declines to acquire
full title, the remaining Contracting City may acquire title on the same terms. In the event
that no Contracting City wishes to acquire full title to a particular Major Equipment item, It
shall be sold and the proceeds of the sale divided between the Contracting Cities pro-rata
to their original funding. All Major Equipment items funded during the term of the contract,
including extensions, will be covered by this terminating procedure.
The dissolution language applies to all equipment purchased, and fund balances accrued,
since January 1 of 1993. This language is not intended to address any claim cities may
have regarding equipment purchased prior to January 1,1 D93.
18. Termination of this Agreement
This Agreement may be terminated by either the method detailed in Section 9 or by mutual
agreement of all Contracting Cities. Upon termination, the method described in Section 17
will be used lo distribute Major Equipment assets and the audit of operating costs for the
final year of the Agreement shall govern the handling of amounts due between the
Contracting Cities. All incidental materials and equipment will remain with the Long Lake
Fire Department.
19. Special Provision for the City of Medina
The objective of this Agreement is to provide a three year continuation of Fire Protection
Seivi(^ for the Contracting Cities under known terms and within agreed upon financial
limits in exchange for a commitment by each Contracting City to participate for a minimum
of three years. Notwithstanding that, the Cities of Long Lake and Orono extend to the City
of Medina the Fire Protection terms of this Agreement during the years 1998, 1999 and
8
r
2000 with the following Special Provision to allow the City of Medina to review its Fire
Protection requirements in more detail before committing to this Agreement for three
years. During the Period Covered (19.1), City of Medina ratification of 1998 and 1999
Annual Budget Packages is not required for the term of the Agreement to be extended. If
the City of Medina does ratify either the 1998 or 1999 Annual Budget Package the City
shall by that action be considered to have agreed to the terms of this Agreement and
commits to its three year provisions. However, even if the City of Medina does not ratify
either the 1998 or the 1999 Annual Budget Package it shall be considered to have met the
terms of this Agreement for the Initial period 1994 uhrough 1996 but it will not be a
Contracting City thereafter.
19.1 The period
The period covered by this Special Provision shall be the Contract Years 'igSS and 1999
except as provided in 19.4 below.
19.2 Provision to adjust City Fire Service Area
During the period covered, the City of Medina may request that its City Fire Service Area
be reduced or increased in size to meet the requirements of the City of Medina. Such a
request must be made prior to July 1 of the Contract Year to allow time for preparing the
Annual Budget Package.
In the event that the City of Medina, proposes an increase to its City Fire Service Area, the
City of Long Lake In consultation with the Long Lake Fire Department shall have the right
to limit the increase to assure that coverage at the service level provided under this
agreement can be achieved by the Fire Department. The service area shall not be
increased to the extent that it requires the purchase of additional equipment unless all
parties to the contract agree. In the event that the City of Medina wishes to decrease
and/or alter the location of Its City Fire Service Area It may do so by specifying those
changes in writing by July 1 of the contract year. If the location of the City Fire Service Is
altered, such changes must be agreed to by the City of Long Lake in consultation with the
Long Lake Fire Department before they will be covered by this Agreement.
19.3 City Fire Service Area adjustment limitation.
In the event the City of Medina reduces its City Fire Service Area to a point where using
the calculations of Section 16 their City Budget Percentage is less than 2%, the City
agrees to the following;
A. Concurrence of the other Contracting Cities will be required to remain covered
by the terms of this Agreement.
B. The City will relinquish the right and requirement that it ratify successive Annual
Budget Packages but will continue to pay its City Budget Percent of each Annual
Operating Budget
>1^:r.
I
r
cnr OF LONG LAKE ATTEST
MAYOR CITY CLERK
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Long
Lake by a Motion on______________,19 ___.
CITY OF ORONO ATTEST
MAYOR CITY CLERK
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Coundl of the City of
Medina by e Motion on_________________, 19 ___.
r
4 ri
k
1
APPENDIX A
Fire Service Areas
1
1
APPENDIX B
Citv Fire Service Area Statistics -1998
Long Lake Fire Department Call Hours
Total Orono Long Lake Medina
Hours %Hours %Hours %
1S94 3161 1934 61.18%961 30.40%266 8.42%
1995 3840 2270 59.11%1329 34.61%241 6.28%
1996 3997 2522 63.10%1233 30.85%242 6.05%
Total 10998 6726 61.16%3523 32.03%749 6.81%
Annual Ava 3666 2242 1174 250
1998 City Call
Percentage 61.16%32.03%!1 6.81%
1993 City Fire
Service Area
Market Values
(Million $)468.80 110.40 57.90
1998 City Fire
Service Area
Market Value
Percentage 73.58%17.33%9.09%
1998 City Budgst
Percentage 69.85%21.74%8.41%
r■BMP rnrnmm ...
\ J
u
1998 Three Year Budget Proposal
Year One Operating Budget $156,501
Year Two Operating Budget $162,761
(1999) City Share
Year Three Operating Budget $169,271
(2000) City Share
69.85%21.74%8.41%
1
4
I
C I 1 Y OF
LONG LAKE
August 6,1997
OVIW Of OfiO«0
Mr. Ron Moorse
City Administrator
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mr. Moorse.
Enclosed within for your information and review is a copy of the proposed “1998 Long
Lake Volunteer Fire Department Budget." The total cost of operation projected for
1998 is $156,501. This is a 3.96% increase from the operating budget of 1997. Your
cost share based upon the contract plan is $109,316, or a 5.53% increase for the City
of Orono.
Also, enclosed is a copy of the breakdown of the number of calls (In hours), the
assessed market value of each of the respective communities and the total percentage
of the 1998 budget broken down by each of the respective communities. For your
information, the assessed market value of Orono, was 18% higher for 1997 than the
numbers used for 1996 and the total for the three year period for service calls was up
almost 17%, (16.63%).
The City of Long Lake and the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department believes that we
have put together a reasonable and justifiably budget. We have held the increase in
costs for the proposed operating year to less than the four percent allowed by contract.
The City of Long Lake and the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department would like to
invite you to attend a meeting on August 15,1997, at 8:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers at Long Lake City Hall. The purpose of this meeting would be to answer
questions and concerns that you may have about the operation of the Fire Department
as well as explain the budget. Please respond with the number and names of those
individuals that will be in attendance at this meeting.
1964 Park Avenue • Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fa.x)
Moorse Letter
August 6,1997
Page 2
At this time the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department would like to advise you that they
are considering a special equipment purchase for 1998. They would like to purchase
5" Fire Hose to serve those areas that are a challenge because of the topography or
location of the nearest water source. These areas are primarily outside the City of
Long Lake and in the contract cities of Orono and Medina. At this time the Long Lake
Volunteer Fire Department is intending to purchase $18,000 worth of hose. This cost
also includes some changes necessary to existing equipment to make connections
from smaller diameter hose, as well as connections to existing fire vehicles.
Based upon the most recent cc«/. share allocation for the purchase of special
equipment, your cost is $12,643. The Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department
respectfully requests that you consider the allocation of funds for the purchase of this
equipment in 1998. Fire Department officials will also be available at the meeting on
August 15, 1997, to answer any questions that you may have with regard to the
purchase of this special equipment.
If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely yours.
JofeeOT P. Lynch
civ/Administrator
cc:LLVFD
1998 Fire Contract File
City Council
i
\
1998 PROPOSED CONTRACT
LL MEDINA TOTALS
CALLS 1994 1934 961 266 3161
On hours) 1995 2270 1329 241 3840
1996 2522 1233 242 3997
TOTALS 6726 3523 749 10998
% of Total 61.16%32.03%6.81%100.00%
30%18.35%9.61%2.04%30.00%
AMV ^8.7527 110.4215 57.9885 637.1627
On Millions)
% of Total 73.57%17.33%9.10%100.00%
70%51.50%12.13%6.37%70.00%
TOTAL 69.85%21.74%8.41%100.00%
1998 FIRE BUDGET
$156,501
$109,316 $34,023 $13,162 $156,501
Page 1
list Year Contract 1998
Budget $156,501
2nd Year Contract 1999
iBudget $162,671
3rd Year Contract 2(
Budget $169,271
8/4/97
1998 FIRE CONTRACT
COST ESTIMATES FOR 3 YEAR PERIOD
LL IMBIcaaEJi
69.85 21.74 8.41
69.85 21.74 8.41
$35,384
69.85 21.74 8.41
Page 1
m COUNCLMEETINQNOV 1 0 1997
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO
DATE: November 6, 1997
ITEM NO: ( 'j
Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Name RonMoorse i^/
City Administrator’s
Title City Administrator Report
Item Description:f ^
1998-2000 Police Service Contract with the City of Long Lake
The city of Long Lake has approved the extension of the police service contract with the city of
Orono for years 1998-2000. The cost to the city of Long Lake is $248,850 for 1998. This is an
increase of $9,444 or 3.94% over the 1997 amount. The cost of providing police services to the city
of Long Lake in 1999 and 2000 will be determined based upon the police department budget
amounts in those years and the cost allocation formula, with cost increases not to exceed 4% in any
one year.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the police services contract with the city of Long Lake for the years 1998-2000
and to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract document.
!/
■ i
\
i
AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
.T^dayTHIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into this
,fS3j?f 1921, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, Minnesota and the CITY OF LONG
LAKE, Minnesota, is made under and by virtue of Mmnesota Statutes, Section 471.59.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City of Long Lake is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono tor the
performance of law enforcement services within the City of Long Lake, and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is agreeable to render law enforcement services on the terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth, and
WHEREAS, a contract such as this is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Orono agrees that it will provide law enforcement
services for the City of Long Lake on the following terms and conditions and the City of Long Lake
agrees as follows:
1.DeFinition of terms. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms in this Agreement shall
hav e the meanings given to them in this section.
A."Contract year" means a 12 month period during which law enforcement services are
to be rendered or were rendered to the Contract Cities by the City of Orono. The
contract year shall commence on January 1 and terminate on the next December 31.
B."Contracting Cities" means any city which is a party to this contract or a similar
contract which by its terms is interrelated with this contract for the purjwses of
allocating the total cost for law enforcement services. The contracting cities are
Orono, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach, and Spring Park.
C."City of Orono Police Budget" shall include all preliminary estimated and actual
costs of operating the Police Department of the City of Orono for a given contract
year, including but not limited to:
1.All insurance costs including PERA, OASI, Workers Compensation
Liability.
2. All Salaries, fringe benefits, overtime.
3. All costs of equipment and apparatus acquisition and maintenance.
Page 1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
All non-prosecution consulting fees.
Holiday and severance pay.
Unemployment benefits paid.
Utilities.
8. Telephone Service.
9. Gasoline and oil for police cars.
10. Books and periodicals.
11. Wearing apparel.
12. Officer equipment.
13. Rental costs or estimated fair market rental value of building.
14. All other exp*, uses iiormally and reasonably incidental to the operation of a
ten officer, Chief included, police department.
15 Administrative overhead charge of 10% of all the above costs.
Public Image. The designation "Orono-Long Lake-Minnetonka Beach-Spring Park Police
Department" shall be affixed to all police cars used by the Orono Police Department under
the terms of this agreement and the City of Orono shall cause the listing for the Police
Department for each Contract City to be inserted in the appropriate telephone directories as
may be distributed in the contracting cities. If another city contracts with the City of Orono
for service, its name may also be added to the above.
Level of Services. The quality and level of services rendered to the Contract Cities shall be
the same as the services rendered to the City of Orono, except as hereinafter stated.
It is the desire of the City of Long Lake to purchase from the City of Orono police service
beyond the basic service; such service to be delivered in a method that provides service
equivalent to that which would be received had Long Lake hired two individual officers to
serve it exclusively. The equivalent of h^’O full-time officers is agreed to be a total of 3640
in-serv ice hours per year (35 hours per officer per week for 52 weeks) because provision is
made for vacations, sick days, training, etc. This two officer equivalent will be provided in
the form of staff hours served within the boundaries of the City of Long Lake. The exact
number of hours during any given month may vary by mutually agreed upon scheduling, but
Page 2
the aggregate average over the year will K 7 J hours per week with variations of plus or
minus 10 hours in any given week being co. ,k ;red acceptable delivery of the contracted
extra service.
During the period in which such additional service hours are provided, the staff
assigned to provide such service will be physically within the city limits of Long Lake at all
times save for the following:
A. Responding to Necessary Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate
necessity for police service, such as responding to a medical emergency, a crime m
progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls \vill always be a
part of tlie communications log of the Orono Police DeparUnent an t e o icer
responding ^v^ll have been directed by official communication to respond to the
Necessary Call.
B. Scheduled travel to the Orono Police Department Offices at the beginning or end of
shifts, or for break periods as called for by Union Contract.
C Looping through Orono as a part of tegular patrol patterns through the City »f Long
Lake. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by the
Long Lake representatives to the Police Commission.
D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail,
Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center, or other locations as necessar>'.
There shall be the equivalent of four addidonal officers, who when on duty shall be stationed
within the City of Spring Park. During the period in wbch
hours are provided, the staff memberfs) assigned to provide such service will be physically
within the city limits of Spring Park at all times save for the following:
A. Responding to Necessary Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate
necessity for police service, such as responding to a medical emergency, a crime in
progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will alwa^ be
a part of the communications log of the Orono police department and the
responding will have been directed by official commumcation to respond to
Necessary Call.
Scheduled travel to and from the Orono Police Department Offices at the beginning
and end of shifts, or for break periods as called for by union contract.
Looping through Orono as a part of regular patrol patterns through the
Park. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon m advance by Sprmg
Park.
B.
C.
Page 3
4.
5.
6.
D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail or
Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center or other locations as necessar>’.
Administrative Re<;poiisibilitv-. The law enforcement ser\’ices rendered to the Contract Cities
shall be under the sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the
standards of performance, the hiring and discipline of the officers assigned, and other matters
relating to regulations and policies, shall remain in the control of the City of Orono. Any
disputes between the parties to this agreement as to the extent of functions and duties to be
rendered hereunder, or the level or manner of pert 'tTv.ance of such service, shall be resolved
by the City Administrator of the City of Orono. tf a Contract City disagrees wiA the
resolution, the Contract City may appeal within thirtj. Jays of receipt of written notice oi the
resolution, by giving written notice to the City of Orono asking for arbitration, as provided
in paragraph 17 The City Administrator of the City of Orono, through the Chief of Police,
shall submit to the Contract Cities a monthly report of services rendered to the Contract
Cities, as well as suggestions regarding any changes that may be helpfoU and a quarter y
budget update. These reports will include copies of Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Criminal Justice Information summaries for law enforcement services rendered within the
Contract Cities.
■Tnint Advisory Committee. Each Contracting City may appoint Uvo volunteer members to
a joint advisory committee and the name of such appointees shall be fiumshed to the City
of Orono Administration. The Joint Advisory Committee shall meet periodically to discuss
and make recommendations regarding concerns or problems identified regarding e
provision of police service and to periodically review budget updates. The Joint Advisory
Committee shall have the specific task of reviewing the Police Department’s budpt proposal
for the next calendar year and arriving at a consensus Budget Package consisting of ^
Annual Operating Budget, a Year Tw'o Budget amount and Year Three Budget amount by
August 15 of each calendar year.
Officers. Employees of the Citv of Orono. Officers assigned to duty in the Contract Cities
shall be police officers of the City of Orono. The City of Orono shall assume all obligaUons
with regard to workers compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, etc. arising om
the employment of such officers. The Contract Cities shall not be required to ftimish any
fringe benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any officer assigned to duty
within the Contract Cities unless a Contract City employs officers directly, independent of
this agreement, to provide special law enforcement services in the Contract City. In sue
event, all obligations and liabilities with respect to employment of special law enforcernent
officers shall be the complete responsibility of the Contract City ’. No such direct
employment shall be entered into by the Contract City without first obtaining wntten
approval of the City Administrator of the City of Orono which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
Page 4
7 Fnfnrrpmpnt Policies. Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail ^ the
enforcement policies within the Contract Cities. The enforcement policies of the City of
Orono shall be provided in writing to the Contract Cities.
8. Fnfnrrement of Ordinances of the Contract Cities. The City of Orono officers assigned to
duty within the Contract Cities shall enforce the Ordinances of the Contract Cities.
9. AH nff\c.e.r^ to bp Officer-; of the Contract Cities. The officers assigned duty within the
Contract Cities shall be provided authority to enforce the several laws of the Cities by proper
action to be taken by the governing councils of the Contract Cities. The Chief of Po ice o
the City of Orono shall furnish the nar»es of all Orono police officers to the Clerks of the
Contract Cities.
10. Offenses. All offenses shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances of the Contracting
City in which the offense occurred in each case possible, otherwise, the charge shall be ma e
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota or the laws of the Federal Government.
11. Communications. Equipment and Supplies. The City of Orono shall furnish coi^unication
equipment necessary to perform the services which are to be rendered. The City of rono
shall provide the necessary equipment and vehicles and the Contract Cities shall provi e any
necessary supplies which must be specifically printed for the Contract Cities.
12. Cooperation and Assistance from the Contract Cities. The City of Orono and the Contract
Cities shall have full cooperation and assistance from each others officers, agents, and
employees.
13. Headquarters. Headquarters for the services rendered to the Contract Cities under the
agreement shall be located at offices owned or leased by the City of Orono, and the
of the Contract Cities shall notify headquarters, or radio dispatch for services requested either
in person or by some other means of communication. Services shall be rendered to the
Contract Cities on a 24 hour basis.
14. Cost to the Contract C. ties.
A. Cost Sharing Formula for the Total Base CosL For and in consideration of provisiori
of Law Enforcement services under this agreement, the Contract Cities shall pay to
base costs determined by the formula, as illustrated in Appendix A, for each contract
year.
The factors of the formula which shall be weighed equally, shall be defined as
follows:
Page 5
r
}
I
%
I
Population of Each Contracting Citv: The population of each Contracting City
computed as of April 1, prior to each contract year from the then most recent
Metropolitan Council estimate, except in a census year when there is a new census
figure available by August 1st, then that figure shall be used.
Market Valuation of Each Contracting Citv: The market valuation of each
Contracting City is based on tauxes due and payable for the year immediately
preceding the contract year. The source of the assessed valuation data shall be the
official figures of the Hennepin County Assessor's Department.
B. Cost to Long Lake - Additional Manpower. The cost of additional manpower above
the base cost contract to the City of Long Lake, shall be determined as follows:
The actual salary of officers assigned to the City of Long Lake shall be computed.
To this salary figure will be added an overtime cost calculated as the total overtime
budget for all officers divided by the number of all officers times the number of
supplemental officers, 88 hours of holiday pay at the hourly rate, wearing apparel,
hospitalization, life insurance , memberships, workers compensation and pensions
calculated at the salary figures above. This total (net of town aid) is then added to
the base contract cost to determine the cost of service for Long Lake for the new
budget year. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual
cost.
It is understood that the City of Long Lake may, due to budget consideration in any
contract year at the beginning of the contract year, adjust the number of additional
officers in which event they shall pay all those extraordinary costs as outlined in the
third paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement.
C. Cost to Spring Park - Additional Manpower. The cost of additional manpower above
the base contract cost to the City of Spring Park, shall be determined as follows:
The actual salaries of officers assigned to the City of Spring Park shall be computed.
To this salary figure will be added that percentage of the total overtime budget for
all officers calculated by dividing the number of officers assigned to the City of
Spring Park by the number of all officers, 88 hours holiday pay at the hourly rate,
wearing apparel, hospitalization, life insurance, memberships, workers compensation
and pensions calculated at the salary figure above. This total is then added to the
total cost per Contracting City (total plus support service charge, net of town aid) for
Spring Park to determine cost of service for Spring Park for the new contract year.
This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost.
It is understood that the City of Spring Park may, due to budget considerations in any
contract year, at the beginning of the contract year adjust the number of additional
Page 6
r
officers, in which event the City of Spring Peirk shall pay all extraordinary costs as
outlined in the third paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement.
15. Budget Package
15.1 Definitions
A. The Annual Operating Budg et refers to the calendar year budget of the Orono Police
Department during the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
This budget will become the official Annual Operating Budget upon ratification by
the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget incorporates all costs of operations.
B. The Year Two Budget refers to a single number, not to be exceeded, dollar amount
which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by all Contracting Cities by October 1 of the
first year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
C. The Year Three Budget refers to a single number not to be exceeded dollar amount
which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the
Annual Budget Package has not been ratified by all Contracting Cities by October
1 of the second year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
D. The Annual Budget Package refers to the grouping of the Annual Operating Budget,
the Year Two Budget and the Year Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the
City of Orono for ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget Package
must be ratified by all Contracting Cities prior to October 1 in the year submitted to
become the valid budgets for the following three years. The Annual Budget Package
must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
15.2 Budget Process
By August 15 of each year during which this agreement remains in effect, the City of Orono
will provide an Annual Budget Package covering the cost of Police protection for the next
three calendar years. The budgets presented to the Contracting Cities must have been
presented to the Joint Advisory Committee prior to August 1 for discussion and review.
Although i* ’s expected that the Annual Budget Package which is provided to the Contracting
Cities by tne City of Orono will have the consensus support of the Joint Advisory
Committee, that is not a requirement since each Contracting City has the opportunity for
final ratification or rejection.
16. Contract Payments. The City Budget Share (See Appendix A) of each Contracting City shall
be paid by the Contracting City to the City of Orono in equal monthly installments by the
last day of each month.
Page 7
17.
18
Orono agrees to provide the Contract Cities with reasonably detailed information relating to
its estimated expenditures and its actual expenditures so as to adequately inform them of the
basis for the calculation of billings made by Orono. Under the provisions of this contract,
Orono agrees to make its records available to the Contract Cities for inspection for the
purpose of determining the basis for the calculations by Orono under the provisions of this
section.
Arbitration. If the Contracting City is aggrieved by the determination of the City of Orono
as to the allocation of the actual costs of the prior year's service, the Contracting City may
appeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of the City of Orono's audit. Said
appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the City of Orono asking for arbitration
by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; one to be
appointed by the City of Orono, one to be appointed by the appealing Contracting City, and
the third to be appointed by the tw'o so selected. The name of each arbitrator shall be
submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that the two arbitrators so selected do
not appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of wntten notice of appointment
of either of the first two arbitrators, the Chief Judge of the District Court of Hennepin County
shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either the City of Orono or the
appealing Contracting City, the third arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected
shall not be a resident of either Contracting City, and shall be a city manager or
administrator. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not
including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally
between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the
Uniform Arbitration Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes, and any decision shall be
rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said arbitration shall be
binding on both parties.
Annual Audit of Actual Costs. The Contract Cities understand and agree that it is impossible
to project with complete accuracy the actual costs for labor and equipment as well as the
service to be required by each Contracting City for the forthcoming contract year, and there
fore, agree to a yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated police service cost as set forth
above to the actual police service cost based upon the actual costs for that contract year. On
or before April 1 of each year, the City of Orono will tabulate the actual cost of providing
law enforcement services for the prior contract year and will submit to the Contract Cities
a summary of said costs. The actual costs set forth for the prior contract year may result in
either a credit or a debit applied to the estimated police service costs charged to the Contract
Cities. If a Contract City is still participating in this agreement, and if a credit, one-half of
the credit shall be deducted in each of the third and fourth quarters from the estimated police
service cost payments required of the Contract City for the current year of service, and if a
debit, the Contract City shall pay the additional sum to the City of Orono together with the
estimated contract charge for the current year by adding one half of the debit to both the third
and fourth quarter payments. The allocation of the credit or debit shall be made pursuant to
Page 8
19.
the same formula set forth above. If a Contract City is not still participating m this
agreement at the time the credit or debit amount is determined as set forth a ove, e
Contract City shall receive from (in the case of a credit) or shall m^e to (in the ° ^
debit) the City of Orono a cash payment in the amount of such credit or debit, one- a on
the date that the third quarter estimated police service cost payment would be ue i s
agreement was still in force and one-half on the date that the fourth quarter estimated police
service cost payment would be due if this agreement was still in force.
HnlH and Indemnification. As part of the Police Budget for each contract year the
City of Orono shall purchase liability insurance to insure the City of Orono against liability
incurred in the rendering of law enforcement services to the Contract Cities. The City ot
Orono shall maintain insurance covering its police services with limits of not less than
$600,000 for general liability coverage and $2 million for excess liability covera^.
However, the amount and extent of insurance coverage may not be sufficient to unsure e
City of Orono and the Contract Cities completely and to pay all expenses incurred by the
City of Orono. including attorneys’ fees and judgements rendered against the City of Orono
and/or the Contract Cities. Therefore, the City of Orono exposes itself to potenti y
underinsured and noninsured liabilities. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary
herein, the Contract Cities agree that the City of Orono is faced with such an exposure and
therefore the Contract Cities agree to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Orono, its
employees and agents for any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever caused by the
rendering of law enforcement services in the Contract Cities to the extent that the loss or
damage and all expenses related thereto are not covered by the insurance policies of the City
of Orono in effect during the contract year in which the act or alleged act giving rise to any
claim for loss or damages occurred.
In no event shall this agreement be construed to f.x upon City of Orono any responsibility
or liability to the Contract Cities or to third parties which are greater or different in land then
the responsibilities and liabilities borne by the Contract Cities if they were providmg law
enforcement services through their own police department. Without limiting the generality
of the foregoing, the police chief of the City of Orono or his designee will have the sole
discretion as to the officer and equipment that will answer police calls, and it shall not be a
violation of this agreement nor shall the City of Orono be held responsible to the Contract
Cities or to a third party for any loss which may result in the event that the City of Orono.
in the exercise ofreasonablejudgment, is unable to respond promptly or to respori wi o y
limited officers and equipment, or is delayed in responding to a call by reason
a previous call. The Contract Cities agree that they will hold hamiless and indemmfy the
City of Orono for any judgement rendered against it or sums paid out by it in sett emen ,
payment or defense of any such claims, to the extent the City of Orono is uninsured or
underinsured arising out of any calls for police services to be rendered m the Contract Cities
under the policies of insurance the City of Orono is required to maintain as set forth above.
Page 9
20.
21.
22.
23.
IJnforecasted Expenditures. Not wthstanding any of the above, the Contract Cities shall
have the right to approve any proposed capital expenditures and/or increase in number of
officers not otherwise included in the annual budget. Notice of such proposed and
non-budgeted capital expenditures and/or increase in the number of officers shall be given
in writing to the contracting cities prior to actual expenditure for such items and the
contracting cities shall thereafter have until the later of their next Council meeting or 30 days
after receipt of said written notice in which to approve and/or disapprove the same in writing
or else it is agreed that such proposed expenditures may be made and the cost thereof shall
be included in that year's budget. In the event the Contracting Cities shall disapprove such
non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in the number of officers, it shall not be
liable to the City of Orono for auiy costs incurred by the City of Orono should the
non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in number of officers be made despite such
disapproval. Furthermore, the cost of such disapproved capital expenditures and/or increase
in number of officers shall not be computed in determining the "Base Cost" or "Contract
Charge" herein above set forth for each contracting city for the years in which the
disapproved expenditure(s) is/are made.
Prior Contract. Notwithstanding any language herein to the contraiy, or in prior contracts
between the parties, any credit or debit due to the Contract Cities or to the City of Orono on
account of prior agreements and contracts for law enforcement between the parties shall be
payable in 1998 as provided herein for credit or debit payments payable in 1998 and
thereafter.
Police Contract Service Explanation. The City of Orono will deliver 24 hour patrol and
response throughout Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park and Long Lake will conduct ’■outine
patrol throughout the city as needed, and will conduct periodic security checks of businei^ses
and will conduct such duties as requested by the Contract City's councils. The City of Oro.no
will submit regular reports to the Contract City officials and appear at council meetings or
any other special meetings as required by the council. This can be the Chief or any other
member of the department as required by the council.
Four officers were requested by Spring Park and will be assigned to Spring Park by mutual
agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Spring Park City Council.
Two officers were requested by Long Lake and will be assigned to Long Lake by mutual
agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Long Lake City Council.
Term of this Agreement. This Agreement is for three contract years and covers the period
January 1, 1998 through December 31,2000. A contract year covers the period January 1
through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon
ratification by the Contracting Cities of all its parts including Appendix A and Appendix B
which contains the Annual Budget Package. The term of this agreement may be extended
as described below.
Page 10
r
23.1 On each occasion that the Annual Budget Package is ratified by October 1 by the Contracting
Cities, this Agreement will be renewed for a total period of three contract years beginning
with the contract year following the current contract year. The details of this process are
covered in sections 23.2 through 23.3 following.
23.2 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall
be extended by one contract year. When during the second contract year of any three year
period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting
Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by two contract years. When during
the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget
Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October I, this Agreement shall be extended by
three contract years. The elements of the Annual Budget Package so ratified will replace the
elements of the previously ratified Annual Budget Package.
23.3 WTien during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount
previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for
the second contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended.
23.4 When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount
previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for
the third contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended.
23.5 When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this Agreement
will terminate at the end of that contract year.
This Agreement may be terminated by either the method detailed in section 23, or by mutual
agreement of all Contract Cities. If any one of the Contract Cities terminates this
Agreement, the other Contract Cities may terminate or renegotiate the Agreement.
In the event that a Contract City terminates this Agreement with or without cause, the
Contract City agrees to pay to the City of Orono any of the extraordinary costs incurred by
or within the Police Department of the City of Orono on account of such termination; said
costs include but are not limited to unemployment benefits paid because of the need to lay
off existing police department personnel and those costs occasioned by the need to reduce
overhead because of the termination of this agreement. Extraordinary costs shall not include
the costs of day to day operations of the police department of the City of Orono at level of
performance and quality of it’s choice.
Page 11
m
L
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that no such termination costs shall be imposed unless and until
authorized representatives of the parties hereto have met and such termination costs have
been mutually agreed upon. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement, the matter
shall be submitted to arbitration as provided in paragraph 17 of this agreement.
Termin ation of this contract by either party shall not affect the obligation of either party to
perform the contract prior to the time that such termination becomes effective.
All Contract Cities signing this agreement agree to participate in a pro rata share of all the
operating costs of the department's total base cost based upon a ten officer department. It is
understood that the formula for allocation and the distribution of costs will be calculated
yearly as illustrated in Appendix A.
24.No Discrimination. The City of Orono agrees that during the period of this contract, it will
not, within the State of Miimesota, discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or ancestry and will include
a similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for the performance hereof. This
paragraph is inserted in the contract to comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
Section 181.59.
CITY OF ORONO CONTRACTING CITY
City Administrator Clerk
City of Dsfhg Lake
Mayor
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the^City of
/,/7/0 4 Luice by ResululiuirNo. _ dated ^______»19_/_7*
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of
__________________by Resolution No._________dated____________________. 19 ----.
Uwtoforll
Page 12
CETY OF ORONO
POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT
BUDGET YEAR 1998
Police Departmeot Expenses
1997
Budget
1998
Budget
Salaries - Regular
Overtime - Regular
Salaries - P.T. Officers
Holiday Pay (LELS)
Pera — City Contribution
FICA/MDCR - City Contribution
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Other Benefits
Worker Compensation Insurance
Office Supplies
Books St Periodicals
Motor Fuels St Lubricants
Equipment Parts St Accessories
Bldg St Grounds Maint St Repair Supplies
Gothing & Personal Equipment
Training Supplies
DARE Program
Maint - Office Equipment
Maint — Automotive Equipment
Maint - Misc Equipment
Maint - Bldgs St Grounds
Janitorial Services
Professional Services
Insurance Agent of Record
General Liability Insurance
Property Insurances
Umbrella Liability Insurance
Telephone
Postage
Travel - Mile age - Parking
Printing/Publishing/Advertising
UtUities
Radio Rental
Office St Building Rental
Memberships
Training St Development
Meeting Expenses
Special Equip Replacement Charge
Licenses & Taxes
Other Charges
Buildings St Structures
Office Fum - Fixt - Equipment
Automotive Equipment
Other Equipment
POST Training Reimbursement
School Liaison Officer Reimbursement
Federal Grant
Sale of Used Squads
State Aid - Payroll
$780400 $837,000
30,000 28,000
25,000 35,600
27400 25,000
93440 107,000
9415 10,185
65,120 67,750
5,445 5,650
1,115 1,100
28.770 27,475
8.000 8,200
550 550
18.000 16,400
5.000 8,000
200 200
13,000 12,300
2,100 2,100
2,100 2,100
8.000 6,000
19450 22,000
2,500 3,500
5,000 4.100
8,000 8,000
7,000 6,000
3,500 3,700
11,110 12,500
6,200 5,150
6.000 5,650
9,600 8,800
1.600 1,500
200 100
2.850 2,150
6400 5,600
15,000
46.125 47,050
1.000 1.000
11400 12.000
700 700
420 500
180 180
1400
500 0
9,790 1,625
47,080 47,300
16.450 17.815
TOTAL
(6.000)
(11.885)
(25.000)
(7400)
0
S 1.314425
(5.200)
(11.885)
(25.000)
(8.500)
(6,000)
Sl.376,945
PD98BUD2
I
PD98BUDI
ORONO POUCE SERVICE CONTRACT
BASE BUDGET FORMULA FACTORS
BUDGET YEAR 1998
ORONO LONG LAKE
MINNETONKA
BEACH
W MM MM MM
SPRING
PARK
POPULATION 7477 1.929 577 1.829
% OF TOTAL 63.61%16.19%4.84%15.35%
WEIGHT 50%31.80%8.10%2.42%7.68%
MARKET VALUE
% OF TOTAL
WEIGHT 30%
S815.373.500
75.89%
37.94%
S 106.393.400
9.90%
4.95%
S84.224.900
7.84%
3.92%
S68.427.400
6.37%
3.18%
TOTALPERCENT 69.75%13.05%6.34%10.86%
PD98BUD1
ORONO POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS
SERVICE YEAR 1998
MINNETONKA SPRING
ORONO LONG LAKE BEACH PARK
PERCENT APPLIED 69.75%13.05%10.86%
BASE BUDGET S709.179 S131.448 S63.885 $102,902
TOWN AID CREDIT (40.594)(7.594)(3.691)(6.321)
TOTAL 668.585 123.854 60,194 96481
admin charge (10%)66.859 12.385 6.019 9.658
TOTAL BASE S735.444 S 136.240 S66.214 $106439
ADDITIONAL OFFICERS S124450
•
S245480
TOWN AID (11.640)(23480)
TOTAL ADDL OFFICERS SI 12.610 S222.000
GRAND TOTAL S735.444 S248.850 S66.214 S328439
!
A
LONG LAKE ADDITIONAL MAl’TPOWER
1998 SERVICE YEAR
EXHIBIT ’C’
Projected Salaries, 2.0 Officers
Overtime
Holiday Pay
P.E.R.A. - City Contribution
FICA/MDCR — City Contribution
Health — Life Insurance
Worker Compensation Insurance
Oothing & Personal Equipment
Total
Deduct Town Aid Credit
Total Additional Officers
Total Base Cost
Total Cost of Service
PD98BUD3
$92,020
2,500
3,890
11,910
480
7,880
4,920
650
$124,250
(11,640)
112,610
136,240
$248,850
APPENDIX A
4
V
i
k
■ j
i
i i
APPENDIX B
1998 - 2000 BUDGET PACKAGE
I iQOa Annual Contract Cost S1378J46
1998 Cost Share Using
1997 Cost Allocation Numbers
YearTwo Contract Cost S 1.433.897
Year Two Qty Cost Share Using
1997 Cost Allocation Numbers
YearThree Contract Cost Sl.491253
Year Three City Cost Share Using
1997 Cost Allocation Numbers
Orono
Amount Percent
$735,444 53.34%
$764,862 53.34%
$795,456 53.34%
Lone Lake
Amount Percent
Mtka Beach
Amount Percent
Spring Park
Amount Percent
$248,850 18.05%
$258,804 18.05%
$269,156 18.05%
$66,214 4.80%
$68,863 4.80%
$71,617 4.80%
$328,239 23.81%
$341369 23.81%
$355,023 23.81%
TotArnsYaaoD
r if
I
I
r -V COUNCIL MSnNQ
NOV 1 0 1997
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITYOFORONO
DATE: November 7, 1997
ITEM NO = /j
Department Approval:
Name Dorothy Hallin
Title City Clerk
Administrator Reviewed:
Item Description:
List of Licenses for Council Approval
Agenda Section:
Licenses
RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE: Dixie Cable
1290 Loma Linda Avenue
GAMBLING PERMIT: Lions Mound Northwest Tonka Club
at Navarre Lanes
3435 Shoreline Drive
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve/deny the above listed license(s).
5 .
KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION
Effective January 1, 19___to December 31,19,
Owner:
^-CEIVEO
OCI 2 9
Property Address: I O Co OOCU f—t gc A v€- I ^ o oo Mk\ 5536
(include city and zip)
Mailing Address Gf different):.
Phone: (home)3 ~ S (work)
RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00
(payment must accompany application)
Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:
(over 6 months of age)
Principal Breed: ______
3
Purpose for more than 2 dogs: TYt ClHSKt.. cS C cr € cJ
Dogs normally kept: 1 inside kennel structure
COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 .
(payment must accompany application) A/ / /I
Name of Business:
Business Activities:
(example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.)
Normal Business Hours:____
After Hours Contact: (name)_
(phone).
Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both
The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as
specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and
does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or
regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to
license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned
agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special
conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kermel license approval.
/7
Applican Date
For City Use Only r / (
Kennel inspected by ^ v9 w ^Date
Recoriimends Approva l Denial
idlso /
Date:November 7,1997
To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police
Subject: Gambling Permit - Northwest Tonka Lions
I have reviewed the application for gambling permit by the Nortliwest Tonka Lions
at the Navarre Lanes. In checking past history, no problems have been reported.
Therefore, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit.
, a
i \
A RESOLUTION GRANTING GAMBLING PERMIT FOR
NAVARRE LANES LOCATED AT 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Orono agrees to approve the gambling permit application
for the Lions Mound Northwest Tonka Club for operations at Navarre Lanes, 3435 Shoreline Drive.
The above listed resolution was moved by
and duly seconded by___________________
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 10th day of Noveinber, 1997.
Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
COUNC/L westing
"0^ i 0 J997
t'n'CrcHONO
r
31 Oct 1997
Fri 11:57 AM
Check Register
City of Orono
Check
Number Date Name
Check Number
54310
54310 POSTMASTER
31-Oct-97 POSTMASTER
Totals Check Number 54310 POSTMASTER
Check Humber 54311 POSTMASTER
54311
54311
54311
31-Oct-97
31-Oct-97
31-Oct-97
POSTMASTER
POSTMASTER
POSTMASTER
Totals Check Number 54311 POSTMASTER
Check Number 54313 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
54313 31-Oct-97 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
Totals Check Number 54313 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
Check Number 54314 LOWELL'S AUTO PARTS
54314 31-Oct-97 LOWELL'S AUTO PARTS
Totals Check Number 54314 LOWELL'S AUTO PARTS
Check Number 54315 postmaster
54315 31-Oct-97 POSTMASTER
Totals Check Number 54315 POSTMASTER
Check Number 54316 MINNETONKA SOUND AND LIGHTING
54316 31-Oct-97 MINNETONKA SOUND AND LIGHTING
Totals Check Number 54316 MINNETONKA SOUND AND LIGHTING
Check Number 54317 E-Z RECYCLING
54317 31-Oct-97 E-Z RECYCLING
Totals Check Number 54317 E-Z RECYCLING
Check Number 54318 ERICKSON BAKE SHOP
54318 31-Oct-97 ERICKSON BAKE SHOP
Totals Check Number 54318 ERICKSON BAKE SHOP
Check Number 54319 DILLION & ASSOCIATES
54319 31-Oct-97 DILLION & ASSOCIATES
Totals Check Number 54319 DILLION k ASSOCIATES
Transaction
Amount
949.44
949.44
73.76
147.52
147.52
368.80
30.00
30.00
21.00
21.00
900.00
900.00
3,660.50
3,660.50
5,422.92
5,422.92
23.28
23.28
937.20
937.20
Page 1
Comments
POSTAGE FOR FALL NEWSLETT
3RD QTR UTILITY BILL
3RD QTR UTILITY BILL
3RD QTR UTILITY BILL
HALLIN-REGISTRATION
PART FOR BACKHOB
POSTAGE FOR METER
1/2 PAY-AUDIO SYSTEM
SEPT SERVICES
TRAINING EXPENSE
FILE CABINETS, CHAIRS
31 Oct 1997 Fri 11:57 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 2CheckNumberDateNameTransactionAniountCommentsCheck Number 54319 DILLION k ASSOCI/TE5?
Grand Total 12.313.14
• i
. 1
t
, i
m 4 Nov 1997 Tue 11:11 AM Check Register City of Orono
Qitck
Nuabor Date Name
Clieck Number
54948
54948 CITY COONTY CREDIT UNION
04-Nov-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION
Totals Check Number 54948 CITY COUNTY CREDIT ONION
Check Number 54949 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES
54949
54949
54949
04-NOV-97
04-NOV-97
04-Nov-97
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OP LAKES
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES
Totals Check Number 54949 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES
Check Number 54950 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
54950 04-Nov-97 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
Totals Check Number 54950 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO.
Qieck Number 54951 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT fc COLL
54951 04-Nov-97 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL
Totals Check Number 54951 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL
Check Number 54952 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL
54952 04-Nov-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL
Totals Check Number 54952 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL
Check Number 54953 IQ4A RETIRQffiNT TRUST - 457
54953 04-Nov-97 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457
Totals Check Number 54953 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457
Check Number 54954 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE
54954 04-Nov-97 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE
Totals Check Number 54954 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE
Check Number 54955 KN DEPT OF REVENUE
54955 04-Nov-97 MN DEPT OF REVENUE
Totals Check Number 54955 MN DEPT OF REVENUE
Check Number 54956 MN MUTUAL LIFE
54956 04-Nov-97 MN MUTUAL LIFE
Totals Check Number 54956 MN MUTUAL LIFE
♦ ■I ^
Transaction
Amount
6,912.00
6,912.00
3,272.04
3,272.04
7,697.64
14,2*1.72
981.46
981.46
174.50
174.50
184.50
184.50
125.00
125.00
0.00
0.00
3,310.64
3,310.64
464.00
464.00
Page 1
Comments
SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED
FICA k MEDICARE W/H
FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING
DEFERRED COMP W/H
THOMTON SC0266780
SKREBN SC0262310
DEFERRED COMP W/H
UNION DUBS W/H
STATE TAX W/H
DEFERRED COMP W/H
4 Nov 1997 Tue 11:11 AM Check Register City of Orono
Check
Number Date Name
Check Number
54957
54957 HN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP
04-Nov-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP
Totals Check Number 54957 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP
Check Nuii^er 54958 PEBSCO/OBRA
54956 04-Nov-97 PEBSCO/OBRA
Totals Check Number 54958 PEBSCO/OBRA
Check Number 54959 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS
54959 04-Nov-97 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS
Totals Check Number 54959 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS
Check Number 54960 PERA
54960
54960
04-Nov-97
04-Nov-97
PERA
PERA
Totals Check Number 54960 PERA
Check Number 54961 UNITED WAY
54961 04-Nov-97 UNITED WAY
Totals Check Number 54961 UNITED WAY
Grand Total
Transaction
Amount
265.00
265.00
70.21
70.21
1,764.86
1,764.86
4,064.91
5,370.66
9,435.57
23.00
23.00
37,952.46
Page 2
Comments
DEFERRED COMP W/H
OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H
USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H
PERA EMPLOYEE W/H
PERA CITY SHARE
CHARITY DONATIONS W/H
r 4 Nov 1997 Tue 9:26 AM Check Register City of Orono
Check
Number Einployec Name
Check Number 043528
043528 MCX)RSE, RONALD J
Totals Check Number 043528
Check Number 043529
043529 PETERSON, BARBARA A,
Totals Check Number 043529
Check Number 043530
043530 FLINT, RICHARD
Totals Check Number 043530
Check Number 043531
043531 GOETTBN, J. DIANN
Totals Check Number 043531
Check Number 043532
043532 JABBOUR, GABRIEL B.
Totals Check Number 043532
Check Number 043533
043533 KELLEY, CHARLES
Totals Check Number 043533
Grand Total
Check
Date
10-Nov-97
lO-Nov-97
10-Nov-97
lO-Nov-97
10-Nov-97
10-Nov-97
irtw II m IM riia II > ■
Page 1Check
Amount
184.70
184.70
269.36
269.36
269.36
269.36
269.36
269.36
323.22
323.22
269.36
269.36
1,585.36
4 Nov 1997
Tue 9:26 AM
Check Register
City of Orono
Page 2
Payroll
User Initials RJO
Tuesday 4 November 1997 9:26 AM Start
9:26 AM Finish
Buffer Name Check Reg
Records Read
Records Selected
Number of Pages
Selected by Check Date
And Check Date
Greater Than 09-Nov-97
Less Than 11-Nov-97
Sorted by Check Number Totals No Page Breaks
f
n:
3 Nov 1997
Mon 3:59 PM
Check Register
City of Orono
Check
Number Employee Name
Check Number 043474
043474 GEMAR. JAMIE L.
Totelfl Qieck Number 043474
Check NUi^r 043475
043475 HALLIN* DOROTHY M.
Totals Check N^imber 043475
Check Number 043476
043476 HASD4AN« CAROLE A.
Totals Check Number 043476
Check Number 043477
043477 MOORSB, RONALD J
Totals Check Number 043477
Check Number 043478
043478 VEE, LINDA S.
Totals Check Number 043478
Check Number 043479
043479 KUEHN, THOMAS M
Totals Check Number 043479
Check Number 043480
043400 MILLER, CKRXSTOPISR %.
Totals Check Number 043480
Check Number 043481
043481 OLSON, RONALD J.
Totals Check Number 043481
Check Number 043482
043482 ANDERSON, BROCB L.
Totals Check Number 043482
Check
Date
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-NOV-97
OS-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-NOV-97
05-NOV-97
Page 1
Check
Amount
276.64
276.64
956.72
956.72
541.21
541.21
1,621.02
1,625.02
926.89
926.09
1,267.41
1,267.41
220.11
220.11
441.88
441.88
449.02
449.02
.
1
3 Nov 1997 Hon 3:59 PM Oieck Register City of Orono
Check
Number Employee Name
Check Number 043483
043483 BOBZIEN. SUE A.
Totals Check Number 043483
Check Number 043484
043484 BORIS, SCOTT N.
Totals Check Number 043484
Check Number 043485
043485 C/RLSON, MICHAEL B
Totals Check Number 043485
Check Number 043486
043486 CHESWICK, GARY B
Totals Check Number 043486
Check Number 043487
043487 CORNICK, JAMES L
Totals Check Number 043487
Check Number 043488
043488 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C,
Totals Check Number 043488
Check Number 043489
043489 ENGLISH III, IRVING H.
Totals Check Number 0434b3
Check Number 043490
043490 ERICKSON, KURT R.
Totals Check Nunber 043490
Check Number 043491
043491 FARNIOK, CORREY L,
Totals Check Number 043491
Check Number 043492
Check
Date
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
OS-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-NOV-97
OS-Nov-97
OS-Nov-97
Page 2
Check
Amount
621.90
621.90
1,019.16
1,019.16
451.13
451.13
1,503.09
1,503.09
1,321.38
1,321.38
1,230.90
1,230.98
498.51
498.51
1,139.71
1,139.71
813.18
813.18
3 Kov 1997
Mon 3:59 PM
Check Register
City of Orono
Check
Number Employee Name
Check Number 043492
043492 FISCKENICH, DAN T
Totals Check Number 043492
Check Humber 043493
043493 KANSING, CAROL J
Totals Check Number 043493
Check Number 043494
043494 JOIQISON, BRADLEY P.
Totals Check Number 043494
Check Number 043495
043495 XNOLLENBERG. KRISTIN L.
Totals Check Number 043495
Check Number 043496
043496 MCNALLY. STEVEN A,
Totals Check Number 043496
Check Humber 043497
043497 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L
Totals Check Humber 043497
Oieck Number 043498
043498 MORONCZYNSKI. JAMES
Totals Check Number 043498
Check Number 043499
043499 PERSELL. WILLIAM R
Totals Check Number 043499
Check Number 043500
043500 SCHOENHOFP. JOHN B.
Totals Check Number 043500
Check Number 043501
Check
Date
OS-Nov-97
05-NOV-9V
05-NOV-97
05-NOV-97
OV
OS-Nov-97
05-Nov-97
05-Nov-97
05-Nov-97
Page 3
Check
Amount
1.063.80
1.063.80
395.34
395.34
963.16
963.16
628.26
628.26
695.05
695.05
361.58
361.58
1.485.67
1.485.67
546.47
546.47
1.350.83
1.350.83
r
s '
a Nov 1997 >ton 3:59 PM Check Register City of Orono
Check
Number Employee Name
Check Number 043501
043501 THOMTON. MARK R
Totals Check Number 043501
Check Number 043502
043502 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F
Totals Check Number 043502
Check Number 043503
043503 TOMCZYK, MARK N.
Totals Check Number 043503
Check Number 043504
043504 FISCHER, amiSTOPHER K,
Totals Check Number 043504
Check Number 043505
043505 WITTKE, ANTHONY A,
Totals Check Number 043505
* Check Number 043506
043506 BRESSLER, BRADLEY J.
Totals Check Number 043506
Check Number 043507
043507 GAFPRON, MICHAEL P.
Totals Check Number 043507
Check Number 043508
043508 GAPPA, GREGORY A.
Totals Check Number 043508
Check Number 043509
043509 OMAN, LYLE E
Totals Check Number 043509
Check Number 043510
Check
Date
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
OS-Nov-97
OS-Nov-97
OS-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-NC/-97
Page 4
Check
Amount
778.09
778.09
266.77
266.77
1,216.23
1,216.23
182.67
182.87
194.14
194.14
485.38
485.38
1,091.84
1,091.84
1,438.40
1,438.40
1,102.82
1,102.82
3 Nov 1997 Hon 3:59 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck
Number Employee Name
Check Number 043510
043510 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH
Totals Check Number 043510
Check Number 043511
043511 VANG, BRUCE L.
Totals Check Number 043511
Check Number 043512
043512 NECXMAN, STEPHEN J.
Totals Check Number 043512
Check Number 043513
043513 BRINKKAUS, JOHN F,
Totals Check Number 043513
Check Number 043514
043514 DEBAERE, DONALD L.
Totals Check Number 043514
Check Number 043515
043515 GREGORY, JAMES D.
Totals Check Number 043515
Check NUo^r 043516
043516 HANSEN, STEVEN C.
Totals Q)eck NUn^r 043516
Check Number 043517
043517 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G.
Totals Check Number 043117
Check Number 043518
043518 OBRIEN, RANDY L
Totals Check Number 043518
Oieck Number 043519
Check
Date
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-N6V-97
05-Nov-97
OS-Nov-97
Page 5Check
Amount
1,138.74
1,138.74
961.65
961.65
22.85
22.85
1,026.63
1,026.63
775.79
775.79
775.77
775.72
694.70
694.70
679.18
679.18
338.84
338.84
ii
i
r II III ,
^ Totals Check ivumber 043519
3 Btov 1997 Mon 3:59 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberEmployee Name
Check Nuaber 043519
r 043519 PALMER. GRECX)RY A.
Check Number 043520
043520 RATHBCN, BARRY J.
Totals Check Number 043520
Check Number 043521
043521 SKREEN. DALE S.
Totals Check Number 043521
Check Number 043522
043522 BLAIR. JANIS A.
Totals Check Number 043522
Check Number 043523
043523 MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E
Totals Check Number 043523
Check Number 043524
043524 OAS, DANIEL 0
Totals Check Number 043524
Check Number 043525
043525 STEPPENHAGEN. RC^ALD E.
Totals Check Number 043525
i Check Number 043526
043526 YEAGER. DONALD C.
Totals Check Number 043526
Grand Total
CheckDate
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
05-Nov-97
05-NOV-97
05-Nov-97
Page 6CheckAmount
827.92
827.92
813.55
813.55
601.41
601.41
70.47
70.47
125.99
125.99
203.95
203.95
1.023.17
1.023.17
25.52
25.52
39.656.72
I
r 3 Bov 1997 »fon 3:59 PH Check Register City of Orono Page 7:i
Payroll
User Initials RJO
Monday 3 November 1997 3:59 PM Start
3:59 PM Finish
Buffer Name Check Reg
Records Read
Records Selected
Blusber of Pages
53
53
7
Selected by Check Date
And Check Date
Greater Than 04-Nov-97
Less Than 06-NOv-97
Sorted by Check Number Totals No Page Breaks
« :4t‘ f>4
■
mt6 Nov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName
Check Number
54969
54969 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
11-Nov-97 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
Totals Check Number 54969 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR
Check Number 54970 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.
54970 ll-Nov-97 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.
Totals Check Number 54970 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO.
Check Number 54971 ASPLUNDH COFFEE
54971 ll-Nov-97 ASPLUNDH COFFEE
Totals Check Number 54971 ASPLUNDH COFFEE
Check Number 54972 AT 5k T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
54972 ll-Nov-97 AT a T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
Totals Check Number 54972 AT a T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
Check Number 54973 AT a T WIRELESS-RETAIL
54973 ll-Nov-97 AT a T WIRELESS-RETAIL
Totals Check Number 54973 AT a T WIRELESS-RETAIL
Check Number 54974 ATaT
54974
54974
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ATaT
ATaT
Totals Check Number 54974 ATaT
Check Number 54975 BARBAROSSA a SONS
54975
54975
ll-Nov-''*’
13-Oct-97
BARBAROSSA a SONS
BARBAROSSA a SONS
Totals Check Number 54975 BARBAROSSA a SONS
Check Number 54976 BATTERIES PLUS
54976 ll-Nov-97 BATTERIES PLUS
Totals Check Number 54976 BATTERIES PLUS
Check Number 54977 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP
54977 ll-Nov-97 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP
Totals Check Number 54977 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP
TransactionAmount
394.44
394.44
36.21
36.21
127.00
127.00
19.55
19.55
70.39
70.39
58.15
0.34
58.49
60,431.50
24,270.12
84,701.62
.92
35.92
1.081.03
1.091.03
Page 1Cormnents
CELL PHONE USAGE
#426 SANDER PART
COFFEE
LONG DISTANCE
CELL PHONE BATTERY
LONG DISTANCE
CELLULAR LONG DIST'iNCE
PAY N.L.L./LLCC
PA\* #4 NLL/LLCC
BATTERY FOR TRAFFIC CTR
NOVEMBER
1
j
I
J
6 Nov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 2CheckTramsaction
Number Date Name Amount Comments
Check Number 54978 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC.
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC.400.00 WELL #2 MAINT ADM-AUG
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC.3,216.76 BKTS PT/BYRDGE CO 81
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC.12,691.66 BKTS PT/BYRDGE ADD'L
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC.5,209.77 NLL/LLCC RFP 81, 2
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTRCX) ROSENE fit ASSOC.9,306.23 NLL/LLCC ASSISTANCE-AUG
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE fit ASSOC.510.83 OCB RD TRAIL ASSIST-AUG
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE fit ASSOC.337.00 BROWN RD/WTRTWJJ RD FINAL
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE fit ASSOC.335.50 STAKE ANTOINE PARK
54978 ll-Nov-97 BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC.1,767.71 AUG COUNCIL MTG
Totals Check Number 54978 BONESTROO ROSENE k ASSOC.33,775.46
Check Number 54979 BOYER TRUCK PARTS
54979 ll-Nov-97 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 91.26 MISC PARTS
Totals Check Number 54979 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 91.26
Check Number 54980 BRAUN INTERTEC
54980 ll-Nov-97 BRAUN INTERTEC 269.40 GROUND MONITORING
Totals Oieck Number 54980 BRAUN INTERTEC 269.40
Check Number 54981 BRESSLER,BRAD
54981 ll-Nov-97 BRESSLER. BRAD 29.45 MILEAGE REIMBURSE24ENT
Totals Check Number 54981 BRESSLER, BRAD 29.45
Check Number 54982 BUDGET PRINTING
54982 ll-Nov-97 BUDGET PRINTING 149.10 BUSINESS CARDS
Totals Check Number 54982 BUDGET PRINTING 149.10
Check Number 54983 CHESWICK,GARY
■
54983 13-Oct-97 CHESWICK, GARY 56.16 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Totals Check Number 54983 CHESWICK, GARY 56.16
Check Number 54984 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
54984 ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 13.49 8176 TIRE REPAIR
54984 ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 172.74 8170 BAL TIRE, TRSMSSION
54984 ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 682.20 8175 REPLACE MANIFOLD
54984 ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 122.67 8176 MOUNT SHOTGUN
54984 ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 168.44 8177 BALANCE TIRES
54984 ll-No>/-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 65.64 8174 BALANCE TIRES
54984 ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 68.57 8175 BALANCE TIRES
r
I
6 Nov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of Orono
Check
Number Date Name
Check Number
54984
54984
54 984 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
11-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
ll-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
Totals Check Number 54984 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
Check Number 54985 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH
54985 ll-Nov-97 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH
Totals Check Number 54985 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH
I Check Number 54986 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING
54986 ll-Nov-97 CITYVIBW PLUMBING & HEATING
Totals Check Number 54986 CITYVIBW PLUMBING k HEATING
Check Number 54987 CLASSIFIEDS
54987 ll-Nov-97 CLASSIFIEDS
Totals Check Number 54987 CLASSIFIEDS
Check Number
54988
54988 CROWN MARKING INC.
ll-Nov-97 CROWN MARKING INC
Totals Check Number 54988 CROWN MARKING INC
Check Number 54989 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC.
54989 ll-Nov-97 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC,
Totals Check Number 54989 CUWINS DIESEL SALES INC.
Check Number 54990 E-2 RECYCLING
54990 04-Nov-96 E-Z RECYCLING
Totals Check Number 54990 E-Z RECYCLING
Check Number 54991 EARL F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC.
54991 ll-Nov-97 EARL F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC.
Totals Check Number 54991 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC.
Check Number 54992 ESI COMMUNICATIONS
54992 ll-Nov-97 ESI COfeiUNICATIONS
Totals Check Number 54992 ESI COMMUNICATIONS
Transaction
Amount
60.34
70.34
1,424.43
43.20
43.20
104.93
104.93
20.50
20.50
23.17
23.17
66.96
66.96
5,422.92
5,422.92
18,831.00
18,831.00
360.77
360.77
Page 3
Comments
#178 BALANCE TIRES
#172 BALANCE TIRES
BELTING
REPAIR URINAL
PONTIAC 6000
DESK SIGN-GAFFRON
RELAY
OCTOBER SERVICE
1
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
NEW PHONE
r. f
■ i
6 »ov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck
Number Date Name
Gieck Number
54993
54993
54993
54993
54993 ESS BROTHERS 6 SONS
ll-Nov-97 ESS BROTHERS k SONS
ll-Nov-97 ESS BROTHERS k SONS
ll-Nov-97 ESS BROTHERS k SONS
ll-Nov-97 ESS BROTHERS k SONS
Totals Check Number 54993 ESS BROTHERS k SONS
Check Number 54994 FISCHER AGGREGATES INC.
54994
54994
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
FISCHER AGGREGATES INC,
FISCHER i» 3GREGATES INC.
Totals Check Number 54 994 FISCHER AGGREGATES INC.
Check Number 54995 FROST, SHERRY R.
54995 05-NOV-96 FROST, SHERRY R.
Totals Check Number 54995 FROST. SHERRY R
Check Number 54996 G k K SERVICES
54996
54996
54996
54996
54996
54996
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
G & K SERVICES
G k K SERVICES
G k K SERVICES
G k K SERVICES
G & K SERVICES
G k K SERVICES
Totals Check Number 54996 G a K SERVICES
Check Number 54997 GALL'S INC.
54997 ll-Nov-97 GALL'S INC.
Totals Check Number 54937 GALL'S INC.
Check Number 54 998 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE
54998 ll-Nov-97 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE
Totals Check Number 54998 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE
Check Number 54999 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN
54999
54999
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN
Totals Oieck Number 54999 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEi;
Check Number
55000
55000 HENNEPIN COUNTY - HEALTH
ll-Nov-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY - HEALTH
Transaction
Amount
1.249.25
1.267.35
942.53
58.58
3.517.71
2.022.57
742.97
2,765.54
635.00
635.00
64.57
12.15
5.93
87.26
12.15
5.93
187.99
53.98
53.98
77.69
77.69
1,695.74
1,052.00
2,747.74
163.00
Comments
ADJ RINGS
ADJ RINGS
ADJ RINGS
ALM. GRATE
PEA GRAVEL
PEA GRAVEL
OCTOBER MINUTES
STREET EMPLOYEES
RATHBUN
STEFFENHAGEN
STREET EMPLOYEES
RATHBUN
STEFFENHAGEN
MAP LIGHT
GRASS SEED
Page 4
ROOM k BOARD - SEPT
ROOM k BOARD AtIGUST
FOOD LICENSE RENENAL
6 Nov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Ciieck Register City of OronoCheckNuinberDateName
Check Number 55000 HENNEPIN COUNTY - HEALTH
Totals Check Number S5000 HENNEPIN COUNTY - HEALTH
Check Number 55001 HENNEPIN COUNTY INVESTIGATORS
55001 ll-Nov-97 HENNEPIN COUNTY INVESTIGATORS
Totals Check Number 55001 HENNEPIN COUNTY INVESTIGATORS
Check Number 55002 HILLYARD
55002 ll-Nov-9*"HILLYARD
Totals Check Number 55002 HILLYARD
Check Number 55003 HU3BSCH RENTAL SERVICE
55003 ll-Nov-97 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE
Totals Check Number 55003 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE
Check Number 55004 IMS/MN
55004 ll-Nov-97 IMS/MN
Totals Check Number 55004 IMS/MN
Check Number 55005 J K LARSON ELECTRICAL CO
55005 ll-Nov-97 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO,
Totals Check Number 55005 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO
Check Number 55006 CACOBSON, LESLEY
55006 ll-Nov-97 JACOBSON, LESLEY
Totals Check Number 55006 JACOBSON, LESLEY
55007 JOHNSON, KIMCheck Number
55007 ll-Nov-97 JOHNSON, KIM
Totals Check Number 55007 JOHNSON, KIM
Check Number 55000 LAKE MINNETONKA PICTURE CO
55008 Il-Nov-97 LAKE MINNETONKA PICTURE CO
Totals Check Numoer 55008 LAKE MINNETONKA PICTURE CO
Check Number 55009 LAWN DETAILERS INC.
55009 ll-Nov-97 LAWN DETAILERS INC.
TransactionAmount
163.00
24.00
24.00
59.30
59.30
20.57
20.97
38.11
38.11
8.64
8.64
44.07
44.07
2,145.22
Page 5Comments
DECEMBER MEETING
FILTER ASSEMBLY
FLOOR MATS
METER HALF TAPE
ADD'L AMOUNT-LIGHTING
MILEAGE REIMS (L. WALTERS)
81.00 UNIFORM ADJUSJffiNTS
81.00 •.!
55.28 FILM DEVELOPING
55.28
OCTOBER SERVICES
r (6 Bov 1997 Tha 1:46 PMCheck
Number Date Name
Check Register City of Orono
Check Number 55009 LAWN DETAILERS INC.
Totals Check Number 55009 LAWN DETAILERS INC.
Transaction
Amount
2,145.22
Page 6
Comments
Check Number 55010 LOGIS
55010 11-Nov-97
Totals Check Number
LOGIS
55010 LOGIS
903.95
903.95
SEPT DATA PROCEt-Jiy:
Check Number ZSOll LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS
55011 11-Nov-97
Totals Check Number
LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS
55011 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS
4.46
4.46
MISC PARTS
Check Number
55C12
55012 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS
ll-hvJV-97
Totals Check Number
LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS
55012 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS
273.00
273.00
EXAMS. TR^AT7®rrS
Check Number 55013 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT
55013
55013
55013
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
Totals Check Number
LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT
LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT
LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT
55013 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT
1.81
18.28
15.03
35.12
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
MISC PARTS
Check Number 55014 LUND. DON.ALD
55014 ll-Nov-97
Totals Check Number
LUND. DONALD
55014 LUND. DONALD
950.00
950.00
REFUND SAC CHARGE
Check Number 55015 MAGIC CLEANERS
55015 ll-Nov-97
Totals Check Number
MAGIC CLEANERS
55015 MAGIC CLEANERS
Check Number
55016
55016 MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC.
ll-Nov-97
Totals Check Nunter
MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC,
55016 MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC,
Check Humber
55017
55017
55017
55017 MEDICA CHOICE
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
Totals Check Number
MEDICA CHOICE
MEDICA CHOICE
MEDICA CHOICE
55017 MEDICA CHOICE
42.60
42.6C
306.00
306.00
262.03
112.29
9.679.30
10.053.62
BLANKET CLEANING
McNALLY EVALUATION
NCVEMBER INSURANCE
NOVEMBER INSURANCE
NOVEMBER INSURANCE
I 6 Nov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of Orono
Check
Number Date Name
Check Number
55018
55018
55018 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS
11-Nov-97 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS
11-Nov-97 MET COUNCIL ENVIROrWENTAL SVCS
Totals Check Number 55018 riET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS
Check Number 55019 MIDWEST ASPHALT
55019
55019
ll-Nov-97
11-Nov 97
MIDWEST ASPHALT
MIDWEST ASPHALT
Totals Check Number 55019 MIDWEST ASPHALT
Check Number 55020 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGE2J COMPANY
55020 11-Nov-:>7 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY
Totals Check Number 55020 MINNEAPOi-iS OXYGEN COMPAJ7Y
Check Number 55021 MINNEGASCO
55021
55021
55021
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
MINNEGASCO
MINNEGASCO
MINNEGASCO
Yotalb Ch'*ck Number 55021 MINNEGASCO
Check Number 55022 MN DL?T OF REVENUE
55022
55022
55022
55022
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
MN DEPT OF REVENUE
MN DEPT OF REVENUE
MN DEPT OF REVENUE
MN DEPT OF REVENUE
Totals Check Number 55022 MN DEPT OF REVENUE
Check Number 55023 NSP
Transaction
Amount
3,762.00
20,320.00
24,082.00
172.50
389.44
561.94
13.50
13.50
5.70
971.70
Page 7
Comments
SAC CHARGES
DECEMBER SERVICES
HAND PATCH
HAND PATCH
MEDICAL OXYGEN
19.18 GAS CHARGES
189.36 GAS CHARGES
186.48 GAS CHARGES
395.02
673.00 OCT SALES TAX
260.00 OCT SALES TAX
33.00 OCT SALES TAX
SEIZURE FUND'*
55023 ll-Nov-97 NSP 111.ex NSP CHARGES
55023 ll-Kov-97 NSP 1.42: i NSP CHARGES
55023 ll-Nov-97 NSP 1,996.22 NSP CHARGES
55023 ll-Nov-97 NSP 1,675.07 NSP CHARGES
55023 ll-Nov-97 NSP 132.08 HWY 12 a WILLOW
Totals Check Number 55023 NSP 5,337.37
Qieck Number 5S024 OFFICE DEPOT
55024 ll-Nov-97 OFFICE DEPOT 139.68 MISC SUPPLIES
Totals Check Number 55024 OFFICE DEPOT 139.68
Check Number 55025 PAGENET
55025 ll-Nov-97 PAGENET 1,056.63 PAGER RQIEWAL
6 Hov 1997 Thu 1:46 PH Check Register City of Orono
Check Number 55028 POVfERCLEAN COMPANY INC.
55028 ll-Nov-97 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC.
Totals Check Number 55028 POVfERCLEAN COMPANY INC.
Check Number 55029 PRAIRIE OFFSET
55029 ll-Nov-97 F<AIRIE OFFSET
Totals Check Number 55029 PRAIRIE OFFSET
Check Number 55030 RITZ CAMERA
55030
55030
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
RITZ CAMERA
RITZ CAMERA
Totals Check Number 55030 RITZ camera
Check Number 55031 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
55031 04-NOV-96 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
Totals Check Number 55031 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
Check Number 55032 SNYDER DRUG STORES
55032
55032
55032
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
SNYDER DRUG STORE.*?
SNYDEP DRUG STORES
SNYDER DRUG STORES
Totals Check Number 55032 SNYDER DRUG STORES
Check Number 55033 SPRING PARK CAR VfASH
ll-Nov-97 SPRING PARK CAR VfASH55033
3,204.28
3,204.28
245.40
245.40
7.73
10.09
17.82
3,305.00
3,305.00
8.94
7.26
96.74
112.94
Page 8
Check Transaction
Number Date Name Amount Comments
Check Number 55025 PAGENET
Totals Check Number 55025 PAGENET 1,056.63
Check Number 55026 PERA LIFE INSURANCE
55026 05-Dec-95 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 156.00 DECEMBER INSURANCE
Totals Check Nunher 55026 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 156.00
Check Number 55027 PIONEER
5502''ll-Nov-97 PIONEER 38.50 LAND USB APPLICATIONS
55027 ll-Nov-97 PIONEER 22.75 ZONING CODE
S5027 ll-Nov-97 PIONEER 28.00 APPL #2314
Totals Check Number 55027 PIO.VEER 89.25
CARPET CLEANING
LETTERHEAD, RESOLUTION
FILM DEVELOPING
FILM
4TH QTR CITIZEN SERVICES
FRAMES
MISC SUPPLIES
POLAROID FILM
I
200.00 CAR HASH TICKETS
I
Total# Check Number 55037 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE
Check Number 55030 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE
6 Nov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck TransactionNumberDateNameAmount Comments
Check Number 55033 SPRING PARK CAR WASH
Total# Check Number 55033 SPRING PARK CAR HASH 200.00
Check Number 55034 SUBURBAN TIRE INC.
55034 ll-Nov-97 SUBDRBAN TIRE INC.511.20 TIRES
Totals Check Number 55034 SUBURBAN TIRE INC.511.20
Check Number 55035 THE SIGN AGE
55035 ll-Nov-97 THE SIGN AGE 21.30 DOOR SIGNS
Total# Check Number 55035 THE SIGN AGE 21.30
Check Number 55036 TRACY TRIPP FL^LS
55036 ll-Nov-97 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 2.051.50 UNLEADED FUDI
Total# Check Number 55036 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 2.051.50
Check Number 55037 TRUE; VALUE HARDWARE
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 4.45 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 83.08 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 18.07 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 6.37 BATTERY
55037 11-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 12.76 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARi'WARE 1.99 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 16.59 PHOTO BATTERY
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 19.x5 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE 1.97 MISC PARTS
55037 ll-Nov-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWATvE 10.63 MISC PARTS
175.06
Page 9
55038 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -LIFE 0.70 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
S5038 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -LIFE 2.97 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
S5O30 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -LIFE 1.27 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
55038 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -LIFE 341.42 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
f Totals Check Number 55038 UNUM LIFE INSURA.NCE -LIFE 346.36
Check Number 55039 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD a D
55039 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -AD k D 0.15 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
55039 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -AD k D 0.64 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
j 55039 ll-Nov-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE -AD k D 0.27 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
; 55039 ll-Nov-97 UNIW LIFE INSURANCE -AD k D 67.94 NOVEMBER INSURANCE
Totals Check Number 55039 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE .AD k D 69.00
r 6 Hov 1997 Thu 1:46 PM Check Register City of OronoCheckNumberDateName
Check ffumber
55040
55040
55040
55040
55040 US WEST COhWUNICATIONS
ll-Nov-97 US WEST COWUNICATIONS
ll-Nov-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
11-Nov-97 US WEST COftlUNICATIONS
ll-Nov-97 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
Totals Check Number 55040 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS
Check Number WESTSICS WHOLESALE TIRE
55041 . *-.v-97 WESTSIDB WHOLESALE TIRE
Totals Check Number 55041 WESTSIDB WHOLESALE TIRZ
Check Number SS042 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
55042
55042
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
Totals Check Number 55042 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
Check Number 55043 YOCUM OIL CO INC.
55043
55043
55043
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
YOCUM OIL CO INC.
YOCUM OIL CO INC
YOCUM OIL CO INC,
Totals Check Number 55043 YOCUM OIL CO INC
Check Number 55044 ZIEGLER
55044
55044
ll-Nov-97
ll-Nov-97
ZIEGLER
ZIEGI^
Totals Check Number 55044 ZIEGLER
Grand Total
TransactionAmount
289.70
69.88
68.69
700.29
1.128.64
17.99
17.99
7.99
8.00
15.99
1,559.34
57.24
43.68
1,660.26
34.11
10.10
44.21
216,317.39
Page 10Comments
US WEST CHARGES
US WEST CHARGES
US WEST CHARGES
US WEST CHARGES
TIRE REPAIR
SECURITY LIGHT
SECURITY LIGHT
DIESEL FUEL
HEATING OIL
HEATING OIL
MISC PARTS
PIN a
r ^ I ^
INFORMATION
ITEMS
COUNCIL MEETING
CCXJNCLMEEnNQ
NOV 10 1997
OF OTYOFOnONO
rf
^ I* '♦i—
\
Hennepin County
^Opportuoilj Implcyer
n r CITY OFL .1 c=-vo )
o
In'S- •1 October 6, 1997
RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 6 FROM
TOWN LINE ROAD TO ORCHARD PARK ROAD OCT 9 U9(
Dear Resident:
The purpose of this letter is to update the residents along County Road 6 as to the status of the
reconstruction of the roadway.
Currently Hennepin County Department of Public Works is in the process of advertising for
bids. It is anticipated that the reconstruction project will be awarded to a contractor in
December. The actual roadway construction should start in April, 1998.
Prior to the start of construction, real estate transactions need to occur between property
owners affected by the road reconstruction and the Hennepin County Real Estate Division in
order to obtain all the necessary right of way and easements for the project. If Hennepin
County needs to acquire property or easements from you due to this project a Hennepin County
Right of Way Agent will be contacting you within the next month to discuss your acquisition. If
you want to talk directly to the Real Estate Manager, please call Dave Swenson at 348-2199 to
discuss your real estate concerns
At public meetings during the approval process for this project, our expectation was that
affected property owners would have been contacted by Hennepin County Right of Way Agents
early summer of 1997. Due to the complexity of the permit requirements for this project, delays
occurred that affected potential easement requirements, which in turn affected the project
schedule. W e apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
The approval process for the reconstruction of County Road 6 has been long and arduous to all
the participants and affected property owners. We sincerely thank you for your patii;ience.
If you have any questions concerning County Road 6, please feel free to call me at 930-2528.
Sincerely,
(Hu:-.
Steve Theis, P.E
Project Manager
Depirtrapnl ofPubQc Wortci
320 Washington Avenue Sailh
Hopkins, MimesoU 33343-8496
(612)930-2300 FAX;(612)930-2513 TOD:(612)930-2696
KecydedFifa
r
Kenneth & Kathryn Turnham
4490 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Brett & Judy Alexander
4880 Co. Rd. No. 6
Maple Plain, MN 55359
H. Lurtor. & S. Lurton
3135 Jamestown Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
Donald & Nawal Flies
4360 6th Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
Gregory T. Karlen
630 Deborah Drive
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Lonnie & Marsha Underhill
4785 Creekwood Trail
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Kip A. Nelson
4580 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Timothy M. Sweezo
4480 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Craig & Elizabeth Williams
4340 6th Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
Ferdinand L. Determan
4320 Sixth Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
Roger & Cinda Dumas
4380 County Road 6
Long Lake, MN 55356
Norbert Johnson
2245 Platwood Road
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Robert L. Pierce
4720 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Ned L. Butterfield
4705 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Robert S. Gehrman
4300 6th Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
Katharine S. Colgrove
4260 Sixth Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
Robert & Julie Hanning
4220 County Road 6
Long Lake, MN 55356
Huntington Farm Homeowners
1055 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Larry & Jan McCartney
755 Hunt Farm Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
Jeffrey & Robin Martin
760 Hunt Farm Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
NSP Property Tax Dept.
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Joseph A. & Shirley Hetman
740 Orchard Park Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
Robert & Mary Sansevere
745 Orchard Park Ro^d
Long Lake, MN 55356
Steven R. Jacobson
4185 Sixth Avenue Nortli
Long Lake, MN 55356
William & Peggy Mueller
Box 3
Long Lake, MN 55356
William D. Wyatt
4235 North 6th Avenue
Long Lake, MN 55356
Charles E. Larson
4285 6th Avenue North
Long Lake, MN 55356
r
Tim & Anna Otten
425 Turnham Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
McCulley Farm Homeowners
415 Deborah Drive
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Douglas & Susan VanMoorlehem .
4490 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Mr. Dennis Esterly
4765 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Robert & June Brandriet
4935 Broadmoor Drive
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Mr. Donald Painter
4898 Co. Rd. No. 6
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Douglas & Ann Hawkinson
865 Town Line Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Mr. Roger H. Bruce
4915 Co. Rd. No. 6
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Ms. Barbara Lefky
4825 Co. Rd. No. 6
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Karl & Ruth Mary Nowak
4885 Co. Rd. No. 6
Independence, MN 55359
James Jay Johnson
4300 Wa.ertown Road
Maple flain, MN 55359
Donald K. Pearson
4345 Watertown Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Leonard & Kathleen Berg
420 Turnham Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
Jeff Broil
4545 Watertown Road
Orono, MN 55359
John F. & Joan M Serewa
4605 Watertown Road
Maple Pl;».in, MN 55359
r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20,1997
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth
Hawn, and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the
City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van
Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, City Engineer Tom Kellogg and Recorder
Sherry Frost. Council Member Flint and Mayor Jabbour were present. Chair Lindquist
called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
(#1) TREE PRESERVATION
Lindquist reviewed the issues listed for consideration asking for further comments and
opinions in order for Staff to draft a preliminary ordinance.
Under issue #1 as noted in memorandum dated 9/19/97, Hawn said she agreed with the
purpose statement but questioned the need for the ordinance itself. Lindquist said the
question of need would be added to the list of issues for discussion. Commissioners all
agreed with purpose statement.
Under issue #2, McMillan was informed that the Shoreland Ordinance used the criteria of
6" trees for replacement. Lindquist thought the tree preservation ordinance should be
consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance. Other Commissioners agreed. This would be
regardless of the type of tree.
Under issue #3, McMillan asked if this referred to residential properties only. Lindquist
said it would include developments as well. All were in agreement with this item as
stated.
Under item #4, Lindquist questioned how this could be accomplished. McMillan noted
that some residents may not care to have this many trees. It was noted the lakeshore
ordinance calls for 1:1 replacement ratio. Gaffron suggested looking at 2"-3 ” trees for
replacement. Hawn indicated that lakeshore properties tend to be more open noting
people purchasing a treed lot may want to have a lawn. Lindquist noted the 0-75 zone is
restricted in w'hat may occur. Hawn asked about properties outside of this zone.
McMillan said there were many options noting some properties have few trees. Ha.wn
said she preferred to look at what the City wants as a community, citing examples of
buffering and bluff protection.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
.
i I
(#1 “ Tree Preservation - Continued)
McMillan said she would like to see an ordinance similar to those regarding wetlands.
She cited the example of the pond on her property requiring a conservation easement.
McMillan felt it would be difficult to compare properties.
Hawn said she felt this issue should be applied to subdivisions. She noted the tree
inventory would be expensive for those only dividing a property into two lots. She did
not want to see clear cutting occur but questioned how it could be enforced. Lindquist
noted that the Cities of Maple Grove and Minnetonka include this restriction in their
ordinance.
GafTron referred to page 3 of 11 under subdivision 3 where a time frame is included for
replacement not limiting it to how many are taken out but done in a staged planning.
McMillan noted a subdivision requiring buffering citing a 50' easement on the Melamed
development. Gaffron said there is a park easement on the east side of that development
which is not included in all subdivisions. He indicated there is a 50' setback for structures
if the septic sites and driveways don't eliminate the trees but results in a natural buffer.
Item #4 was given Planning Commission support.
Items #5 and 6 received approval.
On item #7, Lindquist asked what difference it makes regarding type of one size tree.
McMillan said some trees were more desirable. Gaffron indicated the current ordinance
includes a list of shade tree species that is somewhat limited but would probably be
acceptable.
Hawn asked who would make the decision on what is acceptable. Gaffron said a
landscape consultant is often used and would be called in these cases for his or her
opinion.
Hawn said she would prefer to see a list be available at the City offices in order for
property owners and staff to have the ability to change the types of trees used. She noted
how elm and oak trees have becorne known for becoming diseased. Berg agreed. Hawn
said the ordinance could incorporate the list through referencing it. Planning
Commissioners all agreed.
Several other issues were noted in the memorandum following the numbered list and
reviewed by the Commission.
Lindquist questioned what "taking" meant. Hawn noted in commercial ventures, such as
fir trees used for Christmas, would not enable that owTier to realize a gain from the trees.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997
(#1 - Tree Preservation - Continued)
The Commission and Staff have not reviewed the Maple Grove ordinance and felt time
should be allowed for this to occur.
Regarding the concept of using an overlay, Schroeder said this would enable the City to
taki notice of areas of importance, such as a remnant of the Big Woods. ..indqutst and
Berg agreed.
Planning Commission agreed that the ordinance is not meant to curb develop but to
obtain a better development that is in character with the city.
GafSon said the goal of tree preservation should be included in the subdivision ordtoce
if related. Van Zomeren noted it is not included in the commercial section md would
have to be noted there as well. Gaffron said it would be included in the residential zones
as well.
Lindquist reported that everyone is interested in protecting woodlands whether it be by an
overlay or oSierwise. Schroeder indicated that an overlay of woodlands could be contrary
to the iacre zoning with septic noting it might drive the developrnem towards cli^tenng.
McMillan said a forester would be needed if an overlay was done. The detailed study
would incur a large expense. She noted the problem with restncting the use.
Hawn questioned whether woodlands does not refer to 10 acres or more and if
development is compatible with this. Gaffron said, in the sense of granting d^s‘tyj=^it
or clustering in order to save woodlands, the goal is to preserve the woodlands or trees
within the development.
Schroeder felt the probable best way to protect woodlands would be through limiting the
number of trees that could be cut. Lindquist said there would then be a PtoW'"’
determining how many trees could be cut. McMillan said she was concerned with the
manhours and staff work to oversee such requirements. She reiterated
forester if this was to occur and questioned whether the City would want to take this s ep.
Gaffron said a consultant can be used and the cost passed on to
asked what would be done for residential properties. Berg said a benclunarl. sta
may be necessary for a certain number of lots. Gaffron said the intent is not to review all
trees, noting this just cannot be done.
Berg said the purpose would be to limit the developer. Once the ®
homeowner, that homeowner would have the right to do as they would like vwth *eir
own property. Gaffron noted it would create a balance through the wants of the
and that of the neighborhood. Berg noted people are wanting to remove trees in order
create back yards.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#1 - Tree Preservation - Continued)
Lindquist asked if any member of the audience would like to comment on tree
preser\ ation. No public comments were made.
Park Commissioner McDermott did ask to comment. He said the review done by the
Park Commission was mainly based on looking at adjacent communities and paring it
down to fit in with the philosophy of Orono. He noted the City of Minnetonka is
reviewing protection of slopes. McDermott said the Park Commission looked at stands
of trees or masses in the issue of woodlands. Regarding the type of plant material tliat
should be used, they looked at what trees and plants were native to the area. McDermott
agreed with tlie Planning Commission that an addendum to the ordinance should be used
instead of incorporating a list within the ordinance as changes do occur. Regarding the
size of trees to maintain, he noted there are substandard trees, and evergreens result in the
need for a separate parameter due to the differences in the tree types. He said the Park
Commission felt it was important to protect some trees in the City noting if a house was
positioned anywhere on a property instead of repositioning the house to protect the area,
McMillan reiterated that the Planning Commission must discuss what manhours are
available to oversee the tree preservation ordinance and what costs would ’ •? associated
with it,
Gaffron reported that the Council would like to see a tree ordinance adopted. He noted
staff has been unable to review the topic to the degree it requires, and in his opinion, the
City should involve a consultant in its review.
Lindquist suggested a work session be held with Planning Commission, members of Park
Commission, and consultant. Berg noted information provided from other cities can be
utilized in the review. McMillan suggested the topic be discussed with Council at the
upcoming scheduled work session.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the minutes from the Planning
Commission Work Session of Sept-a-oer 12, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Smith had
not yet arrived at the meeting.)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAL LNGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS
(#2) #2308 BROOfv PARK REALTY 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE, PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS HI PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:02-7:46 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued)
Bill Gleason represented Brook Park Realty.
Gleason said the plan has been revised to reflect a lesser density than origins'ly proposed.
The density is based on 4 per buildable acre or 30 units.
Van Zomeren reported that the comments made by the landscape architect, Mr. Case, was
received today and were briefly reviewed with him over the phone.
Van Zomeren said the proposal is for the construction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre
site requiring a preliminary plat and planned residential development review. Outlots A
and B will be held in a development agreement for maintenance and restrictions will be
placed on vehicle storage. Review is required.
Tom Kellogg was present to answer questions.
The alignment of Livingston is proposed to extend to the west through the site if the
developer is able to acquire the property to the west for future coordinated development.
The cul-de-sac would be eliminated at that time and connection made to the street. Van
Zomeren said an issue arises regarding no more than 10 residences be allowed access
from a cul-de-sac. She asked Commission to consider whether 18 units should be
allowed use of the temporary cul-de-sac. TTie plan will be reviewed by the Mound Fire
Department. Van Zomeren also noted that the curve radius of 250' is less than what is
required by the standards. The 12 units in the southern portion are to be accessed from a
driveway, which does not have the right-of-way or paved width for the size allowed. The
landscape architect has recommended less paving be allowed for tree preservation. Van
Zomeren asked the Commission to consider this option.
Van Zomeren noted that a drainage control would be required before the wetland. A 10:1
benchmark would be used for slopes. A loop has been recommended on the 6" water
main. 3' is required downstream for the sanitary sewer. The County has asked for 7'
along Shoreline Drive in the same easement as the phone company.
Van Zomeren said landscaping plans have been submitted. There is a question whether a
trail or path should be established to Shoreline Drive and asked if it should include a
sidewalk. Trash receptacles must be maintained in garages. Lighting is to be hooded.
Mechanical equipment is to be screened and not intrusive. \Mien improvements are
made, it may require a letter of credit. Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the
Park Dedication fee is $19,064.
Questions were directed to Kellogg.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued)
Ha^^■n asked about moving the water main. Kellogg said the proper alignment would be
to extend the main to the west and south down to CoRd 15 in order to improve the flows.
Based on the sketch plan review for future expansion plans, it would make sense,
according to Kellogg. Hawn asked if this was possible to do. Kellogg said it could be
extended with the future proposal. The water main is stubbed out. Hawn informed
Kellogg that the developer does not currently own the property. Kellogg said had been
under the impression that they did but noted the improvement could occur w!. !>;at
purchase is made. Van Zomeren concurred that the water main could be extended in the
future. Hawn said that request could be required when that property is purchased but
would not affect this current plan.
Van Zomeren asked the Commission to consider the pavement width and the number of
units on the cul-de-sac, noting 12 units would be served by the driveway without a cul-
de-sac. The cul-de-sac does not meet all of the standards.
Van Zomeren read through the letter of comments from the landscape architect. The
architect noted the well formed trees and the desirability to preserve them. He suggested
a tree survey be conducted for assessment and evaluation to include a layout. Case
suggested adjustments be made to the 28' road width, a reduction in the front yard
setback, shift of the pond, grading, and fencing during construction. Van Zomeren
reviewed items 1-3 of the landscaping plan noting the trail, removal of trash, and the need
for a restrictive covenant that is compatible with the staff report. Van Zomeren said she
concurred with the contents in the letter recognizing the conflict with the road width and
pavement versus the preservation of trees.
Bill Gleason said he just received the report and has not had the time to review the
contents. He noted a certain amount of trees will be lost with the construction. He has
experienced an approximate 50% salvage and utilizes a replacement program. Gleason
does not believe a 1:1 replacement ratio is realistic.
Gleason said the plan calls for the road to run into the development and ends there until
such time it can be expanded into the future proposed development to the west. Gleason
said he showed that development to allow the City to view possibilities for the future.
The land has not been purchased as of this date. The cul-de-sac will be constructed,
meanwhile, with no other means of egress. County Road 15 cannot be reached until such
time the road is expanded.
A driveway will be utilized to service inits. While it does not meet the standard
requirements, it is not meant to go anywhere else but to these units. Gleason said he is
willing to reduce the size of the road to preserve trees. As to a shift of the water retention
pond, Gleason said he does not see any viable alternate location.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
!
(#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued)
Hawn asked for Gleason's response to a path to CoRd 1 5. Gleason said he supported a
trail system but questioned whether it should be constructed with a bituminous surface.
He noted there may be another location on the future western development. Gleason
noted an existing driveway encroachment that will be rectified by an easement to allow
the neighbor access.
McMillan said she thought there was an existing path on the property. Gleason said there
may be by the wetland but he has personally never walked it.
Lindquist inquired how the police department and emergency vehicles can access the 12
umts served by a driveway. Van Zomeren said Moorse had voiced concern with this
issue if a temporary cul-de-sac was not established for a turnaround. Gleason said he was
willing to make that accommodation.
Van Zomeren e.xplained for Schroeder how the temporary cul-de-sac would be laid out.
She noted it would be smaller in diameter than a typical cul-de-sac but large enough for
vehicles to turnaround.
The slope of the land was questioned as it regards the garages facing to the south.
Gieason explained the topography of the land and why the garages were located as
planned. It is typical to a walk-out type scenario.
Hawn suggested the use of a circle instead of a cul-de-sac in order to preserve trees in that
location. Gleason said it could be considered. He thought it was possible but may
present an odd appearance when the road is continued.
During public comments, Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port, said he is sad to see
the last wooded area in Navarre being developed. He said he agrees with the
recommendations made by the landscape architect. McDermott noted the significant
trees located on the property, its pleasant views, and would like to see the area around the
wetlands preserved.
Berg questioned the path being bituminous. Van Zomeren said that suggestion was made
by the landscape architect. Berg said it may present a cost concern. Gleason said he has
not had the time to evaluate it. Van Zomeren said she had thought the path would best be
located by the end of the driveway to the shoreline on the east. The landscape architect
had thought elsewhere. Gleason said there was an extra piece of land located on the
eastern portion of the wetland where a trail could be located but it might interfere with
buffering.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued)
Berg asked if the trail maintenance would be conducted by the homeowners association.
Gleason said it would. Gleason reported he preferred to use a wood chip base instead of
blacktop. Hawn suggested a limestone base.
Van Zomeren said she would like the location of the trees noted.
Berg asked if a letter of credit would be required. Van Zomeren said it would and would
include the road improvement, driveway, sidewalk, and landscaping.
Lindquist asked the applicant if he has reviewed the staff recommendations. Gleason said
he had but questioned the outcome of the park dedication. Van Zomeren said the Park
Commission had recommended a fee in lieu of land. Gleason questioned whether the
sewer connection cost was based on the number of units. Van Zomeren said the
information came out of the sketch plan review. Gleason said he supported the
recommendations made by staff
Lindquist reported that review' is required of the landscape architect’s recommendations
and the review by the Mound Fire Department regarding the private road.
Van Zomeren asked the Planning Commission to direct the applicant to review the
landscape architect's comments and produce a tree inventory. She asked that a meeting
be scheduled with staff, applicant, and engineer before another review by Planning
Commission. Berg asked that a final landscape plan be submitted by the applicant as
well. Gleason indicated it was in his plan to save the majority of trees, and he was
willing 10 submit the tree inventory.
Van Zomeren noted the 13 recommendations would be included with a change to #12
regarding the loop of the water main not be included until the additional land is acquired.
McMillan asked about guest parking. Parking will be allowed in the two parking spaces
by the building and in each driveway. Gleason said parking is usually not allowed along
private driveways; though, sometimes allowed on one side of a narrow roadway.
McMillan asked that this be addressed. She also asked that the size of the sidewalk be
reduced and designed in a more natural grid. Gleason agreed. He said his only concern
was with the lack of a guideline regarding trees. Lindquist noted this related to the
uniqueness of Orono.
Gleason said he would contact the landscape architect.
Schroeder was informed that the townhome units would sell for $132,000.
Planning Commission will again review the application at the November 17 meeting.
8
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997
(#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued)
Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to direct Staff to proceed with a meeting between Staff,
City Engineer, Brook Park Realty, and Landscape Architect. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#3) #2306 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH, RENEWAL OF
CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:46-7:54 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting a renewal of a Class III
Subdivision to allow the existing zoning lot to be divided into two parcels creating a front
lot and ba^rc lot. Approval was received earlier and expired. The property meets the
zoning for the RR-IB standard for width, front yard, and setback from Environmental
Lakeshore.
Van Zomeren said she received a phone call regarding the yard light, a manure compost
pit, and the existence of a pole bam. These issues, however, are not related to subdivision
regulations. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval of the application.
Dennis Platteter noted the existing problem with the 80' wide roadway for creation of
three lots resulting in the two lot configuration. He said he attempted to meet all zoning
requirements. Platteter said he asked the yard light be eliminated last year. The compost
pit is made up of yard clippings only and used in landscaping. It does not include
manure. Platteter said he has hired three different contractors for the removal of the pole
bam. He was informed by his current contractor it would be removed the first part of
November. Platteter thought it would have been removed before final plat but that was
not the case.
Lindquist asked Platteter for a reasonable time limit for removal of the pole bam and for
him to recontact NSP regarding the yard light. Platteter agreed.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2306 with the
understanding that the pole bam would be removed by January 1,1998 and a call be
placed to NSP regarding the yard light. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
ACTION ITEMS
(##4) #2294 LGA INVESTMENTS, JIM WATERS, 1181 WILDHURST TRAIL -
CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - REVISED PLAN - 7:54-9:07 P.M.
The Applicant was present along with Ken Adolph of Schoell & Madson Engineering.
Gaffron reported that this is the continuation of a public hearing from the last meeting. A
sketch plan review was conducted in April of this year. A 7-lot plan was reviewed at the
last Planning Commission meeting. Recommendations were made at that time, and a
newly revised plan has been submitted.
Gaffr'^n reviewed the action recommended at the last Planning Commission meeting as
noted in the staff memorandum dated 10/17/97. Staff had recommended the City protect
the ravine by having it dedicated as a park. The change in pond location resulted in the
elimination of one lot for a revised 6-lot plan. It has been determined that the existing
corridor of Garden Lane will be used and not vacated. There will now be one lot on the
west side of the road instead of two. A cul-de-sac will be located on the eastern portion
of the property for 3-4 lots. A temporary cul-de-sac to the north of the ravine and in the
park property has been revised and will be platted as a permanent cul-de-sac southeast of
the drainageway. Gaffron said some of the issues brought forward by the City Engineer
have been addressed; others need review. The 1 acre lot requirement excluding drainage
easements will be provided on all lots.
A wetland delineation report shows three wetlands, 2 of which are in a narrow corridor at
the base of the large ravine, and the other being a smaller wetland in lot 5. Gaffron
reported the Park Commission has recommended a cash contribution instead of
dedicating park land. Gaffron indicated that staffs recommendation for park dedication
differs with that of the Park Commission.
Gaffron reviewed the comments from the City’s landscape architect, the primary issue
being the stormwater basin originally proposed for the upper reaches of the ravine. The
current proposal for ponding in the area of Lot 1, Block 1, on the north end of the Sollner
property, was viewed as being a better location than at the head of the ravine. The
applicant had addressed the concerns noted.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued)
Gaffron reviewed the City Engineer’s comments as noted in 1-4 on page 3 of 9 of the
zoning report and Exhibit F. Staff has recommended using directional boring to bring
sewer up the hill from Wildhurst Trail during construction. The streets are being
proposed as public roads. Gaffron indicated the typical street section indicates a 28'
paved roadway. Of specific concern regarding grading, Gaffron said no grading will
occur outside specific boundaries but grading will occur for the residences when they are
built, and he would like to review how this will be accomplished without affecting the
ravines. He indicated the entire drainage of the road segment from Tonkaview north and
to the east will be graded to drain northward. The storm sewer plan will result in a slower
rate of flow to the southerly ravine by redirecting it to the north.
Gaffron reported he has received a number of letters from the public; some of which have
suggested an EAW. He said he has reviewed the regulations and concluded that the north
and south projects are independent of each other resulting in an EAW not being
mandated. Gaffron said neither project is in an exempt category, hence both could be
subject to an EAW if ordered by the Council at its discretion. If a group of at least 25
individuals petitions for an EAW, it is still at the Council’s discretion whether to order
one. Gaffron said the City Council would have to determine whether the information
submitted by individuals supports requiring an EAW.
Gaffron reported a wetland delineation has been performed. There are three basins, 2 and
3 run along the center line of the northern ravine and range 5-20' in width. Drainage
easements will be required. A smaller basin is found in Lot #5 and will be filled tocreate
a house pad. The basin appears to have a minimum benefit to the Watershed, and the
developer has requested its elimination. These wetlands are not on the City protected list
but on the list but require Watershed District review under the Wetland Conservation Act.
Gaffron reviewed the revised proposal summary as reported in items 1-10 on page 5 and
6 of the zoning file report. Regarding Park Dedication, as reported in item #6, Gaffron
reported the Park Commission recommended cash in lieu of park land dedication. He
indicated that the Commission was given the impression that the center line of the
drainageway was in this proposed park dedication land and was wider than it actually is.
Gaffron showed the location of the proposed park land for dedication and its relationship
to Lot 1. He is concerned that without the dedication, the area to the northwest will
become part of Lot 1 and potentially result in trees being eliminated and becoming a
storage area for the residents. The City would not have the land to incorporate a trail if
they so desired in the ravine area. Staff recommends the City take dedication of land as
noted. Gaffron distributed a handout showing the parameters of park dedication.
r
' *
i
I •
! :
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued)
McMillan was informed by GafFron that the lot would be reduced from 1.24 acres to 1.15
acres still meeting the requirements. The park fee in lieu of land dedication had been
estimated in the range of $15,000-$20,000. Gaffron reviewed the park dedication
options.
During review of item #8, Gaffron said the City Engineer is requiring calculations of flow
rates for before and after construction. In his review of the sanitary sewer, Gaffron said
the purpose is not to have an open cut resulting in a closure of the roadway. He indicated
there will be a need for a permanent 10' wide easement.
Gaffron noted the stormwater benefits being provided as part of this development stating
they had not previously been required of past developments in this area. He reviewed the
6 stormwater management techniques noted. Gaffron noted that the pre-existing drainage
problems cannot be solved by this developer. The developer can only be asked to provide
techniques and standards that result in no further negative impact from what currently
exists.
Along with the provision of watershed runoff calculations, Staff recommended approval
of the application subject to the conditions 1-10 as noted in the staff memo.
Gaffron indicated that the grading pan for the project delineates the boundaries of the
grading and how they will affect the trees. It has not been calculated how much of the
property will be disturbed, but Gaffron estimated the figure to be between 30-50%. He
felt all of the trees will be removed in the area being graded. Gaffron noted the code calls
for trees to be planted every 40' along the road frontage. There are existing wooded areas
to the west and north. The eastern area had formally been fields and orchards.
Jim Waters said he has worked with staff to be responsive to the concerns voiced. He
feels the final plan meets all the requirements laid out by the City and will result in a high
quality development that minimizes impacts and possibly reversing some of the drainage
problems by controlling where it goes.
Waters said he accepts the recommendations made by staff. He wanted to discuss several
items and asked for the Engineer's report. Waters asked the Planning Commission for
their endorsement of the proposed plan.
The meeting was opened to public comments.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued)
Tim Casey, Attorney for the Saga Hill Preservation Society, said he was in basic
agreement with the contents of the report but has not had the time to thoroughly review it
as he just received it on October 17. He would like more information provided on the
stormwater calculations.
Casey said it is understood that the property will likely be developed. However, he noted
the sensitive soils found on the property, the challenging sites, and limitations of the
property. He felt the erosion control method of using directional boring was a good idea
but questioned what impacts would result. He asked for further information regarding
directional boring. He agreed with the report that extensive clearing of trees should not
occur noting it would be in conflict with the Shoreland Ordinance.
Casey said calculations are needed for the south and north ravines due to the issue of
drainage. He noted the topic of stormwater ponding is being discussed by the MPCA and
asked that the approval await further review of this topic as the pond and its location may
not be the best solution for the ^ite. He nok d the greater volume of drainage down the
northern ravine and questioned what impact the project will have on the ravine. He asked
that further information be provided. He said the lower flow for the southern ravine must
be confirmed and reviewed. He noted the City can make the determination on the length
and width of the drainage easement and asked that the City review whether the requested
easement width is sufficient.
Casey said the property is in a maple-basswood ecological area and may possibly be a
burial area. He noted there were sensitive wetlands. He felt the City should request the
EAW. In noting the difficulty in developing the area, Casey said there may be a potential
for significant environmental effects. If so, the City, according to Casey, has the duty to
order the EAW. He said the Planning Commission should identify all information
required. He asked the Planning Commission table the application.
Gary Welch, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, said he lives south of the area being considered for
development. He voiced concerns with the report. He indicated he did not have one
specific area of concern but taking all the issues together, was concerned that the property
could not be restored to its current condition after development. He noted the srils could
not be restored to their original state after grading, tree planting, and sewer installation
has occurred.
Welch presented the Commission with an informal petition asking the City to initiate an
EAW. He reported that the 46 people who signed the informal petition would formally
file for an EAW if necessary.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued)
Patty Affeldt, 4765 Tonkaview Lane, said she has seen berms and irregularities to the
property that warrant concern, as they may suggest historic sites, and asked the
Commission to further review the property.
McMillan asked if the grading would be more extensive due to the control of the drainage
to the north. Ken Adolph said slightly more grading would occur than usual in the area
of the roadway due to the flows in that area. Gaffron informed McMillan that no CUP
was required. She was also informed that no other variances were required except for the
question of the curve radius. As a side point, McMillan informed the members of the
audience that she too received the information packet on October 1 V.
Schroeder noted the relationship with the erosion and drainage problems with the
development already existing in the area. He stated this development has not caused the
problem and may help the situation.
Gaffron reported that the neighborhood was developed lot by lot, not as a subdivision,
and constructed before stormwater controls were developed or required for subdivisions.
He said the last residence built was required to install a small pond basin which is an
usual request for an individual lot. The property owner agreed there was a need for the
pond and accepted it. Gaffron noted areas where such ponding will occur to help solve
the individual drainage problems. The comprehensive plan shows a co 'ceptual
stormwater plan for ponding in the upper and lower areas.
Hawn was informed that the application will be reviewed by Council November 10 but
additional information is required before that review.
Hawn asked when stormwater calculations could be provided for public review. Adolph
said the information needs to be included in the permit application to the Watershed
which is submitted typically after preliminaiy approval is received from the Planning
Commission. Adolph confirmed that the calculations would be provided prior to the
Council meeting.
Schroeder suggested the Saga Hill Society contact the State regarding possible historic
sites suggested by irregularities in the propeny. Schroeder said an EAW would not look
for such irregularities. Hawn suggested an expert review the property. Hawn said the
process of such review can be lengthy. Affeldt said she felt there were other issues of
concern. Berg suggested that Affeldt have an expert investigate the possibility of Indian
burial mounds without the EAW process.
J
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COiMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
] i
(#4 - #2294 LGA Investments - Continued)
Casey said if findings were substantiated showing an archaeological site has been
disturbed, it would be a violation if an EAW was not initiated. Schroeder responded that
if Casey believed that potential was there, it would take an expert to make that
determination and suggested the group looking into it. Casey said he would prefer it be
determined through an EAW rather than spending the funds of his clients. Schroeder said
there has been no basis shown to think that Indian burial mounds exist. Waters noted that
he and the City could nof make that determination. Waters showed aerial photos of the
property. Casey noted that environmentally sensitive sites can be found in com fields as
well. Casey noted mounds have been found on higher elevations and by lakeshore.
Schroeder noted the City has a long record of being sensitive to such issues.
Jean Rostad, Tonkaview Lane, read a letter from Robert L. Brown, 4755 Tonkaview
Lane, relating his concern over wetland delineaiion asking for further review. He said he
found 2 of 3 criteria for wetlands to be shown in an area not deemed wetland and
questioned why it had not been discussed in the report. He recommends an evaluation.
He also felt there were serious issues of runoff cind erosion after reviewing soils on the
west side of Garden Lane. Rostad noted that Brown is an expert in this field.
Ken Adolph, in responding to this letter regarding wetland delineation, said the report
was conducted by staff of Schoell Madson and not he, personally. He said their
investigation found the small wetland on Lot 5, and he would expect any other wetland
would have been delineated if found. Waters noted that Schoell Madson is a highly
respected engineering firm and Bonestroo, the City engineering firm, concurred with their
findings.
McMillan noted there were obvious problems with drainage in the area and the developer
has worked to not add to those problems but is not required to reduce them. She would
like to see the application passed on to Council. McMillan also agreed with Staffs
recommendation regarding park dedication of park land. She noted the points are well
taken regarding tree preservation, the trail, and the ravine heading into the park land. She
asked that the northern lot property be dedicated for park land. All Commissioners
agreed.
McMillan moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2294 per Staff
recommendations 1-10 and with review of citizen concern on wetlands and review of
drainage calculations.
Gaffron asked for clarification regarding boulevard trees per code oeing planted by the
developer, whether an EAW worksheet should be required, and whether City or applicant
should conduct an archaeological Phase I review. Macmillan and Lindquist felt an EAW
would have to be requested by Council.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#4 - #2294 LG A Investments - Continued)
Hawn asked to amend the motion to include the planting of boulevard trees and
stormwater sewer calculations be provided to Saga Hill Preservation Society as soon as
possible. She suggested a representative from the Historical Society be contacted by the
Saga Hill Society, and if anything were found, the developer would handle further
review.
Affeldt said she spoke wii! > Scott Anthelson of the Minnesota Historical Society, who
informed her that there were r .ounds within one mile of this property. Berg said she
would have to see written co-;iirmation. Hawn asked that a representative physically
view the property. Waters asked that some proof be shown of mounds before the next
step is taken. Schroeder indicated that such an investigation cannot be part of the motion.
Adolph was asked when the stormwater calculations could be submitted to staff. Adolph
said they were required for Watershed review by November 6. Waters said they would
be submitted to staff by November 3.
The motion was amended to include recommendations 1-10, 11) review of wetland
delineation with City Engineer review; 12) an EAW would be at the Council discretion;
13) the developer would be required to plant boulevard trees; and 14) sewer and drainage
calculations would be submitted by November 3.
Schroeder said it would be incumbent upon Saga Hill Society to be proactive regarding
any irregularities that may be historically significant by having an expert view the site.
The City suggested Saga Hill Society make the initial contact but were not requiring it.
Lindquist reiterated that the responsibility lies with the Saga Hill Society, not the City or
developer.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(A short recess occurred.)
(#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASSIC CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE -
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
USE 9:13-9:31 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 OCTOBER 20, 1997
Van Zomeren reported that the applicant was asking for clarification of use in the B-5
Zoning District, ^e applicant is proposing a showroom and office for classic cars at the
noted location which meets the lot area and width requirements. Bressler performed an
analysis of the B-5 Zoning District. Staff recommended a discussion be held for
clanficadon. If such use is found similar to that of an antique store, Staff would support
the application with conditions that prevent the future use of the property for a used car
lot.
Richard Bury reported he has conducted similar operations in two other locations with no
problems. He presented photographs of cars typical of what would be sold. He indicated
some newer models would also be for sale. The vast majority of the cars would be
located inside. Bury has another facility for storage of cars in order to rotate stock.
Bury said he is interested in purchasing the Bay Furniture building for such use and feels
the area residents would be interested in this type of vehicles. He anticipated open hours
to be from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and possibly some Saturday
(Smith arrived at this time.)
Bury said he would display some cars outside during good weather conditions. No
repairs or restorations would occur at this location except for a possible changing of a
battery or the like. There would be a museum area and sales area. Bury did not feel there
would be any poking problems since customers appear randomly. The building would
I^e to be modified with doors to accommodate the cars and change the loading dock to a
Lindquist asked if the property would be used as a used car lot. Bury said he employs
two people and most of the business would be by mail or phone. He indicated he needed
the outside exposure to promote the business. Lindquist asked if it would present a
problem if Bury could not run the property like a used car lot. Bur>' said he would need
to have 5-6 cars outside, but it would not be a typical used car lot with the majority of
business conducted inside.
Hawn noted the parking lot accommodates nine cars. Bury said he would not overload
the parking area.
There were no public comments.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#5 - #2310 Dick Bury - Continued)
McMillan said she would be in favor of the ordinance being more flexible to allow such
use. She questioned if the building was tom down if it would set a precedence. Bury
said the building was only ten years old.
Van Zomeren said the City Attorney would need to further review the zoning in order to
draft a resolution to allow classic car sales, which would be a conditional use with
findings determined by the City Attorney.
Schroeder indicated he felt the use of providing an area for open viewing of the cars
would in effect be an open car lot. Schroeder asked Van Zomeren if this was inconsistent
with zoning. Van Zomeren said it was with outdoor storage and sales being problematic.
She noted there was another business with outside placement of merchandise that is not
in compliance with code.
Lindquist said he would support the showroom and classic car sales but saw the need for
placing cars outside being a problem. Lindquist and Schroeder both agreed the use does
not fit in with the zoning.
McMillan suggested the display of cars be outside during business hours and moved back
in afterwards. Bury said he could not be limited in that manner.
Berg said the use was not consistent with the characteristics of Orono.
Van Zomeren referenced Bressler's report reviewing the purpose of the zoning, the
permitted uses, and conditional uses. The types of permitted uses would not utilize a
building such as the Bay Furniture Building. Van Zomeren said it would be difficult to
find an appropriate use for the building. Van Zomeren said that the existing uses function
more like service uses rather than the retail uses that are permitted in the B-5 District.
Berg noted there was limited parking as well. Berg felt this and the building size was a
problem.
Bury said the State required approval of the City for licensing in this location. He
informed Schroeder he could not operate without open lot sales. Schroeder informed
Bury that the problem was that no zoning existed for such use. If Bury did not require
cars be located outside, there would not be a problem. The location of cars outside deems
the use as a used car lot.
Bury informed McMillan that he would require 10 cars located outside with the other two
spaces for parking of customers.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#5 - #2310 Dick Bury - Continued)
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application #2310 based on non-conformance
Avith code due to outside sales. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Schroeder informed Bury that the application could be taken to the Council for their
review.
(#6) #2283 GARY AND BONNIE BIRNBAUM, 2695 KELLY AVENUE -
RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 9:32-9:58 P.M.
The Applicant was present.
Bressler informed the Commission that the variance renewal application was tabled at
their last meeting in order for a new survey to be submitted. He reported there were two
lots of record with Lot 1 deemed a separate building lot. Variances are required for
hardcover, lot area, and lot width.
Bressler reported that the issue of concern is that the lot is no longer contiguous. The two
lots together are one acre in the one acre zoning district. The two lots together meet the
100' width. Lot 1 by itself does not meet lot area or lot width requirement. The lot is .38
acres. The new lot calculation is .50 acres.
Bressler noted that the Planning Commission in 1987 denied the application but the
Council approved it. Staff recommends denial of the application at this time and directs
the lots be legally combined.
Gary Bimbaum said the recommended change was made after the survey was submitted
and based on error. He indicated that the first 13 findings in the 1987 resolution have not
changed. Regarding the erosion that has taken place, finding 3 notes the lot is
^developed but was assessed for sewer and water. Finding 4 notes the lots are
independent parcels and taxed separately. Finding 5 reports the individual access for Lot
1. Finding 6 references the character of the neighborhood. He noted the majority of lots
in the area were .2 to .4 acres. Bimbaum said the erosion of the point is irrelevant to the
building lot affecting only 1/100 acre.
Bimbaum said there are no drainage problems. He read the finding #13 of the 1987
resolution, noting the peculiarities of this property and their keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Bimbaum said nothing has changed from this
resolution based on the erosion that has occurred.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#6 - #2283 Gar>’ and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued)
Bimbaum responded to a statement regarding his economic purposes for the proposal.
He indicated that the variances were in place when he purchased the property and alone
do not constitute a hardship. He indicated that he no longer needs the large house on the
one lot and is considering selling it and building on the other lot a smaller house in which
to reside.
Bimbaum said the lot could be built upon with an adequate footprint. He feels there are
no substantial differences from the original application and is requesting approval.
Bressler informed Bimbaum that a hardcover variance would be required to build within
the footprint. Bimbaum noted that the original resolution allowed 30% hardcover and
that amount has been reduced at the current level of 28.6%.
During public comments, Jim Berg, 2655 Lydiard, said he supported denial of the
application. Janice Berg said she opposed the application in 1987. Bimbaum questioned
whether there was a conflict of interest on her part. Berg said there was not. Van
Zomeren said a conflict of interest w'ould only exist if there was a monetary interest.
Lindquist said he was unaware of any monetary interest by any member of the board. He
noted that the Planning Commission is only an advisory body making recommendations
to Council that are not binding.
Van Zomeren informed Smith that she was unaware of the reasoning for Council
approval in 1987 when the Planning Commission denied the application.
Hawn questioned whether the sewer assessment could be refunded by the Council. Hawn
said she did not support the application but understood the applicant has paid assessments
and has a hardship.
Berg said the applicant in 1987 had been told the lot was not buildable.
Mrs. Bimbaum said the perception is an unbuildable lot is incorrect noting the lot is in
keeping with the other lots in the Carmen Cove area. McMillan noted the lot would be
allowed 1500 s.f. of structure. Van Zomeren said hardcover has to be considered as well.
Van Zomeren said the problem arises in that the variance was originally approved on
October 26, 1987 and has since expired. It is further complicated since the land is not
contiguous.
I
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997
(#6 - #2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued)
Bimbaum said the connection of the lots was not a consideration at the time of the
original variance application so would not be relevant to whether the lot was buildable.
He indicated there is .52 acres at this time. The difference from the eroded portion of
property is only 1/lOOth of an acre that is no longer included in the calculations, from .39
acres to .38 acres.
McMillan questioned whether the elapsed variance would set some type of precedence.
Bimbaum again noted no changes have occurred. He said he would like to build a
smaller home on the property. Bressler said a hardcover variance would be required
depending on the size of the driveway. Mrs. Bimbaum noted that the access road is
adjacent to the lot. Bimbaum said he intended to either sell all of the property or sell
separately and keep one separate lot.
Commission questioned the ability to approve a variance for a lot without any plans. Van
Zomeren said it was to restore a prior variance. McMillan noted if the property is sold in
the future, the new owner would have to make application and go thiough the same
process.
Commission discussed the ability to renew the variance without plans and whether it
could be denied when the lot has been deemed buildable in the past and assessed for
sewer.
The Bimbaum's said they had been unaware of the need to renew the variance each year.
Lindquist said the intent of the application if for the City to deem the lot as buildable.
Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2283 noting a buildable lot
exists. It was noted that no other variances w ould be granted in the future other than lot
area and lot width.
Schroeder informed the applicants that it would be in the best interest of the City for the
lots to be combined.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Berg.
r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were notec.
The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on
a school night.
There were no public comments.
Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations.
Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant ’s
absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE -
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23
P.M.
The Applicant was present.
Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She
reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of
the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located
2' from the property line. Grading will increase the driveway width to 3' from the
property line. If this is not approved, the retaining wall must be located 5' from the
property line. Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans
and resulted in the current situation.
Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is
required. The plan proposes 24-25' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the
grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage.
Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars
driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for
grading, the Commission is asked tc consider where the wall should be located and how
it affects the flow of drainage.
The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but
was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was
submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued)
During public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the
runoff on her property. During a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within
inches of her door. She indicated that the applicant has offered no accommodations to
this problem which had never existed before the construction began.
Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not.
Spilseth said the new grading has created difficulties by raising the level of the home.
The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the
driveway was found inadequate for access immediately after construction began but the
work was never stopped. Spilseth said the garage should be changed from a side-loading
garage to a double car straight-in garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the
neighborhood.
Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans.
Schroeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just
submitted at the beginning of the meeting.
Silus said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not
reviewed them either. The plan includes an engineered wall instead of the previous
boulder wall.
Lindquist noted the applicant was aware of these problems a month ago yet waited until
now to address them.
Schroeder read letters into the record from Judith Boylan, 3195 Casco Point, and Susan
Smith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan.
Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions.
Lindquist said the information provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan
would have to satisfy both the City Engineer and neighbors. He said the application
would require tabling.
Silus indicated that snow removal will not change.
Schroeder suggested the applicant change the garage and access it from the street side.
Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the
newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed.
J
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#8 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued)
McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed.
Bruce Vang said he informed the builder that the topography and garage were different
from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several
months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retaining
wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the
garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and
applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this
conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could
work without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue
with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the
property line.
Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls.
Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property
line where grading is involved.
Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when larger
properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighboring
property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder
said access could be changed.
Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan showing a retaining
wall 2’ from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the
Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter
would have to be taken up with Staff
Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit.
He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5' from the property line. Silus said he had
preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted
the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself Spilseth
questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive.
Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well.
Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate
information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6,
Navs 0.
r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#9) #2300 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD
RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:24-10:26 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was not present.
GaT.'on reported that the application is a variance renewal with no changes. It was noted
that the boat house would not be restored.
Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application ^^2300. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#10) #2301 GERALD MCCOURTNEY, 1055 WEST FERNDALE ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:27-10:32 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Gaffron reported that the request was for variances for landscaping within the right-of-
way of Femdale Road, expansion of driveway apron in the right-of-way, and construction
of a gate access within 75' of the lakeshore and in the right-of-way. The lot has been
expanded recently by adding part of the Skarp property. The existing house on the lot
had been removed. The proposal is to plant a row of arborvitae within the right-of-way
along the property for privacy and security reasons. The 66' right-of-way is wider than
the 50' right-of-way typically required today. The road had been a County road at one
time. There is a considerable distance between the paved road and the property
boundary. Historical usage includes a fence encroachment which is consistent with other
properties in the area. The plantings will be 1 5' from the paved road.
The gateway to the property for access would be placed at the 75' lake setback line. It is
metal in design. The driveway apron would expand the existing driveway to match what
exists on the opposite side. The house on the property was remodeled several years ago.
At that time, the City denied a loop drivew-ay but allowed a wider driveway for parking.
The code allows 20' width but it exists at 40'. The change allows a sweep in a car's
approach to the garage. The site plan is in process with the removal of the house,
grading, and replacement of plants. A landscaping plan has been approved by staff. Staff
recommends approval of the application.
As a note of information, Gaffron reported that a neighboring property received
permission for a 3-1/2' fence located 15' from the paved road. The neighbor has decided
to plant an arborvitae hedge instead to be consistent with this property.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#10 - #2301 Gerald McCourtney - Continued)
Gaf&on indicated the hardship for the application is the wide right-of-way, the problem
with backing up vehicles, and problems with trespassing.
The expansion of the hardcover is outside of the property boundaries so a net decrease
will actually occur in the hardcover for the property. Gaffron provided a view of what
has occurred on the property and what is proposed.
Lindquist asked if the properties were one tax parcel. Gaffron said the combination is
pending court action. Council had given conceptual approval to the Brooks application
noted above.
McCourtney said it was his intention to combine the lots. Gaffron said the combination
should be a condition of approval.
Gaffron referenced a letter from the applicant regarding the hardcover removals.
Staff recommends approval of the hedge 15' from the paved roadway, the metal gate
subject to no paving or graveling of the approach to the gate, and expansion of the
driveway with tradeoff of hardcover as already accomplished.
McCourtney had no additional comments.
Conley Brooks, Jr., reported living next door to the McCourtney property. He said he
acquired the other half of the Skarp property. He supports the proposal. He indicated his
recently approved plan and change from fencing to arborvitae as well for consistency in
looks for the neighborhood. He feels the proposal is in keeping with the characteristics of
the neighborhood.
Smith was informed that the access to the gate would be sodded and used by yard
workers to get their equipment off of the roadway. Smith questioned whether the sodding
should be stipulated. Gaffron said the condition notes no hard surface allowed.
McMillan asked why the gate is located in the right-of-way. Gaffron said it was close to
the 75' line. McCourtney said to move the gate out of the right-of-way would appear to
place it in the center of the property. He indicated he placed it as far back as possible.
Smith moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2301 per Staff
recommendations with the condition that the two properties be combined and the gate
area sodded. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
26
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#11) #2303 ANGELA WOODHOUSE, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -
RENEWAL VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:33-10:42 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Dressier reported that the application was for a renewal of an expired variance for a new
entryway, steps, and pavement, and bay window. Variances required are lakeshore
setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. The residence is
mainly located within the 0-75' setback. The new hardcover would be placed over
existing hardcover. Trees and vegetation will screen the additions. There is no average
lakeshore setback impact. Dressier indicated that the hardcover shows an increase due to
the boathouse still existing, which was required to be removed in the original resolution.
Dressier said Staff recommends approval per recommendations.
Woodhouse had no additional comments.
There were no public comments.
Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2303 for variance renewal.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#12) #2304 DEBORAH SHOLL, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE -
PUBLIC HEARING 10:43-10:45 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Dress'er reported that the application is for construction of an attached garage and living
space addition on the rear of the existing residence requiring a front setback variance.
The house is located within the required setback. A 5' variance is required to allow the
construction as proposed.
The applicant had no further comments.
Schroeder asked if any big trees would be removed. Sholl said only smaller fruit trees
would be eliminated which have been nearly blown down. She said the large trees would
remain. Sholl said she may have to take one or two trees down to thin out the number of
trees to enable proper growth. There would be small retaining walls for drainage
purposes.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#12 - #2304 Deborah Sholl > Continued)
Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2304. Vote: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
(#13) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:45-11:05 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing wer'* noted.
The Applicant was present.
Bressler reported that the application is for remodeling and expansion of an existing
residence to include an attached 4-stall garage and loop driveway requiring a lakeshore
setback, and hardcover ' ariances in the 0-75' and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks. A revised
survey was presented. Bressler indicated that due to the lot configuration, the building
pad on the lot is restricted. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to
conditions noted which include elimination of the loop portion of the driveway, plastic
under landscaping, and with the notation that no further hardcover would be allowed in
the future. Bressler reported that the applicant has agreed to remove the plastic under the
landscaping.
Olsen said the plans have changed due to the homeowners' association covenants
requiring a 20' side setback. The plan currently calls for a 10' side setback. He would
like to move the design down 10' to satisfy this requirement.
Hawn said in order for this to occur, a new plan would have to be submitted. Bressler
noted that hardcover calculations would ctionge.
Berg questioned what existing foundation and walls would be used. The existing
foundation and walls to be used were noted. The house is a walk-out style. Lindquist
said he would agree in principle to this change but would require reviewing the plan.
Olsen said there was a time limit problem for beginning construction this year.
Hawn asked about the elimination of the loop and location of the well. Olsen said he has
reduced hardcover 1185 s.f. in the 0-75' setback with the elimination of driveway and
retaining walls.
The applicant's designer asked if approval could be based on percentages and changes
meeting the percentages required.
!
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN>:iNG COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
!:
5
I (#13 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued)
Schroeder indicated he would have to review the plan. Berg said she would like to see
what the impacts are. Schroeder suggested guidance be given to the applicant. Lindquist
asked that the hardcover calculations be improved. Berg noted that the Planning
Commission must review the application that will be seen by the Council.
Olsen said the shift would change the front setback from 35* to 32’ and asked if that was a
big consideration. He was i.iformed that Lindquist that it was a consideration.
Schroeder questioned the need for 4 garage stalls.
Lindquist informed the applicant that the City does not like to see any structure within the
75' lakeshore setback.
Mrs. Olsen suggested the plan eliminate the 10’ within the setback that is in question by
the covenants. Olsen said he could eliminate 10’ from the plar but would lose st«^rage
space. Lindquist suggested the architectural design be considered as well.
Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to table Application #2305.
Dr. Bill Cottleman, a next-door neighbor, was present representing the homeowners'
association. He submitted a letter form the architectural committee regarding their
restrictive covenants. He noted their restrictions are more stringent than those of the City.
He said the homeowners' association would approve the home being more centered on the
lot. A copy of the letter was submitted to staff. He said the association prefers to see as
much distance between the homes as possible.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#14) #2307 ELLEN PETERSON, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3355 CRYSTAL
BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 11:05-11:10 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Photos were show n of the property.
Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing construction of a 282 s.f. carport with a
deck above it attached to the front of the existing residence. The 12’ wide carport would
extend 22’ out over the existing driveway with a walkway. This proposal will require
variances for side setback, lakeshore setback, and 0-75' and 75-250’ setback hardcover.
r
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
(#14 - #2307 Ellen Peterson - Continued)
Issues for consideration include the location of the residence in the lakeshore yard.
Bressler noted the proposed location is the only area where such structure can be built
and w ould require a side setback variance of 6.2’.
Staff recommended approval of the proposal with removal of plastic under existing
landscape. The 255 s.f of plastic would offset the carport addition.
Peterson said she would be happy to remove the plastic. She had not been aware of its
existence.
McMillan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2307 per Staff
recommendations with plastic removal as noted. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#15) #2308 PAUL LARSON, 3865 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC
HEARING 11:10-11:23 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The Applicant was present.
Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing the construction of a 1,962.2 s.f. house
and driveway on a lot of record requiring variances for lot area, lot width, and 75-250'
hardcover. He noted the lot widens to 146' at the front setback. The County has
approved a curb cut on Shoreline Drive. A 10' sewer easement and drainage plan will be
required. Staff recommended approval of the lot area and lot width variance but denial of
the hardcover variance. Bressler felt the excess hardcover could be eliminated by
eliminating the third garage stall, decreasing the size of the deck, or reducing the
turnaround area.
Larson indicated the surveyor did the site plan for 25% hardcover but the turnaround,
created for safety, increased the amount. Larson said he decreased the house width from
44' to 40' and eliminated an upper-level deck. Because of these decreases, Larson felt
there would be a need for the third car stall for storage. Larson thought the turnaround
could be reduced in size but was concerned with driving directly out onto Shoreline
Drive. He preferred not to reduce the garage or deck and noted the house was only 18'
wide at the garage end.
Larson reported the hardship for the application is the pie shaped lot with the least width
on the lakeshore. He asked for approval of 27.5% hardcover in the 75-250' setback.
Larson noted that the neighboring property was granted a hardcover variance. Lindquist
responded that the neighboring lot was not in question at this time.
i I
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997
(#15 - #2308 Paul Larson - Continued)
There were no public comments.
Smith informed Larson that with new construction, the 25% hardcover allowance should
be met. She noted that the applicant was aware of the lot size prior to purchase.
Larson suggested eliminating the turnaround and removing 1' off the deck. Bressler said
it was not advised to reduce the turnaround size. Larson said he was concerned with theft
of items left out on the property.
Larson reported the proposed house is less than 1100 s.f. and the lot is of record. He says
he needs space for storage. Smith said the Commission recognizes the difficulties with
the small lot by allowing lot width and lot area variances.
Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2309 for lot area and lot width
variances. The proposal is to meet the 25% hardcover allowance without elimination of
the turnaround.
Van Zomeren suggested Gappa review the turnaround.
Gaffron suggested the house be pulled back on the lot to reduce the amount of driveway
and meet the hardcover requirement. Larson was concerned with the neighboring house
being located in front of the residence and having to look out and see the side of the
neighboring house. Berg noted the lot was substandard and concessions will be required.
Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
(#16) #2299 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN
VIEW DRIVE - SKETCH RE VIEW FOR TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION
Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing a 3-lot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parcel.
Two lots will be about 2 acres and the other will be 3.97 acres. Septic testing is being
conducted but Bressler does not anticipate a problem. Drainage is satisfactory. The
topography of the lots was reviewed. No information is available on Park Dedication.
Access will be provided on Golden View Drive.
Planning Commissioners voiced support of the plan as proposed.
f:
M.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#17) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 22,1997 AND
OCTOBER 13,1997
No comments were made.
(#18) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
A joint work session with Council is scheduled for October 27 at 8:00 a.m.
(#19) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE
SEPTEMBER 15,1997 MEETING
Schroeder moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of September 15,1997. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#20) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO
ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 27 AND NOVEMBER 10,
1997
October 27 - McMillan November 10 - Hawn
ADJOURNMENT
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 11:28 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Dale Lindquist, Chair Person
4510 North Shore Drive
Orono, MN 55364
October 23, 1997
Mr. James Golembeck
Jardine, Logan & O’Brien PLLP
2100 Piper Jaflfray Plaza
St. Paul, MN 55101
Reference: Water run-off damage to 4500 & 4510 North Shore Drive, Orono, MN
Berkley Risk Services Claim #1013809
Allied Adjusters File #MPS26160 & #MPS26596
Dear Mr. Golembeck
The purpose of this letter is to set forth our response to the verbal, proposed
settlement offer that was given to us by Mr. Peter Schroeder on behalf of the LMCIT and
the City of Orono and lO provide to the Orono City Council along with the Mayor and the
homeowners on Tonkaview Lane, a description of what has transpired in our efforts to
recover damages from the LMCIT. This letter is a precursor to a suit which I will file,
naming the City of Orono and the owners of the residences located at 4615, 4620.4625,
4629, 4635 & 4650 Tonkaview Lane, Orono, MN. I am writing this letter on behalf of my
wife, Kathy and myself and on behalf of John and Beth Bessesen, who are our next door
neighbors and who have been damaged even more than we have by the runoff from
Tonkaview Lane due to the recent construction on that road.
The settlement offer that both the Bessesens and Kathy ano J received was that the
City of Orono was not responsible for this nmoff, and that Mr. Schroeder was given
authority negotiate up to $5,000 per home. The reason for this position as Kathy was
told was a Minnesota Supreme Court case, Chabot v. The City of Sauk Rapids. She was
told that this case stood for the fact that a city was not liable for maintaining an
unimproved water drainage system that caus^ damage to property, and somehow that
this court case had some relevance to our situation. I agree that the Chabot case has
relevance to the present situation but the position that you have taken is almost ludicrous.
This case dealt with a person who built a home at the lowest point of a landscape
(streambed) across the road from a natural holding pond which somehow the city obtained
control of but neither was responsible for shaping nor creating that pond. The variance
granted to that homeowner was that the natural flow of water was to be maintained. One
day, a ten year-type rain occurred and damaged his home substantially. He sued the city
for the damage.
I
J
First, the Supreme Court held that a city which elects to obtain liabilitv* insurance
waives its immunity. However, the mere waiver of immunity and the fact that an accident
occurs does not establish liability. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had failed to
show what action or inaction constituted negligence on the part of the city. The Supreme
Court further held that the city had no duty to improve this natural drainage system and
the fact that a ten-year rain event occurred one day was not the result of the city’s
negligence.
However, the Supreme Court did state in the Shabot case that had the plaintiff
prov^ that the city had approved the number of building permits in the immediate
vicinity of the Chabot home which added additional run-off of water into the holding pond
and that if he had shown by expert testimony that these permits increased the risk of
damage to the plaintiff s home other than vague and general references to the growth in
the water shed area that this would have shown negligence.” The court also stated “a city
can be liable for trespass or nuisance caused by such an increased flow of water or by a
change in the flow of water which affected its normal and natural flow.”
The fact of the matter of our situation is that the Chy of Orono approved six
building permits for homes and a garage to be built along the slope of Tonkaview Lane
which runs directly into Wildhurst Trail and County Road 19. Variances (#2323, 3519 &
3272) were graiited to three of these homeowners specifically for substandard lot area,
thus increasing the ratio of hardcover to total lot area. Also, in variance #3519 (4620
Tonkaview Lane) the homeowner was instructed by the Orono Planning Commission to
make sure that “roof drainage be directed away from the north and east sides of the
resident and directed to the road.” (Tonkaview Lane). Variance # 2323 (4625
Tonkaview Lane) was also granted with the condition that a grading plan be submitted for
City review and ^proval prior to construction of the driveway access to Tonkaview Lane.
Furthermore, we have secured the expert opinion and a report by a hydrologist, Ted
Mattke, Ph.D., P.E., which concludes that the 6 new structures did increase the run-oflf
substantially, causing damage to our homes. Thus, upon close examination, the Chabot
case actually supports our claim for damages.
We have lived in our home for over 10 years. In the first year of residence, we
experienced a 100 year rainstorm event which provided over 10 inches of rain. Neither
the Bes^sen s nor our home was damaged. Since those homes on Tonkaview Lane have
been built, we have been in terror of a 2-3 inch rainstorm. Such a rainstorm has caused
water to flow aga^t our fi-ont door, to a height of 5 to 10 inches, depending on the
intensity of the rainfall. This water came fi’om Tonkaview Lane which is not a natural
causeway for water. The flowage from Tonkaview Lane crossed Wildhurst Trail and then
directly entered onto the shoulder and drainage ditch of County Road 19 and down our
driveway, the Bessessen’s driveway and down the ravine between our home and the
Bessesen’s home, causing water damage to both homes.
We have been dealing with the insurance company (LMCIT) on this liability issue
for over a year. Mr. Schroeder has failed to return phone calls for weeks on end. Now
>•
we get to the point of a presentation of the liability to the insurance company and w e have
the Chabot ca^ cited which makes little sense when compared to the present situation.
All I can surmise from this is that it is a delay tactic by the insurance company so that
somehow we get past the statute of limitations on this matter. This will not happen.
If we do not receive full compensation for our damages, we will be filing suit in ten
(10) business days of your receipt of this letter. We wUl name the City of Orono, the six
homeowners who recently have built on Tonkaview Lane and who have caused this
damage by their building and any other person individually that I can determine has been
causally connected to the negligence in this matter. We will also sue for the emotional
distress caused by this situation for the past two years.
Very Truly Yours,
Peter Sawicki, Esq.
cc;Orono City Council
Mayor Gabriel labour
Homeowners @4615,4620,4625, 4629,4635 & 4650 Tonkaview Lane
Peter Schroeder, Allied Adjusters
Dennis Filas, Berkley Risk
Cory Carlson, Hennepin County Attorney
1
r
Mr. Peter Schroeder
Allied Adjusters Inc.
P.O. Box 583479
Minneapolis, MN 55458
4500 North Shore Dr.
45 10 North Shore Dr.
Orono,MN 55364
June 8, 1997
Reference; Berkley Risk Services Claim #1013 809
AUied Adjusters File #MPS26160 & #MPS26596
Dear Mr. Schroeder:
This is in response to your letters of January 21, 1997, in which you, on behalf of the
LMCIT and the City of Orono, MN, denied our claims for damages to our homes at the
above addresses.
In your letters, you stated that “we have not been able to conclude that the newly
constructed homes have caused run-off to the degree which you have claimed. We will
reconsider your claim if you are able to show evidence and volumes of increased flow
resulting from the developments above you.”
We hired an expert in hydrology to study and calculate the increase in surface water
run-off due to the construction of the following homes which are located up hill from our
homes;
Address Construction Dates Change
4615 Tonkaview Lane 12/1/93-1/31/94
1/31/94
New Residence
Deck
4620 Tonkaview Lane 3/13/95-9/15/95 New Residence
4625 Tonkaview Lane 10/25/88-6/28/89 New Residence
4629 Tonkaview Lane 6/8/93-8/27/93
9/23/94
New Residence
New Deck
4635 Tonkaview Lane 5/4/94 Detached Garage/Driveway
4650 Tonkaview Lane 9/19/90-9/31/91
4/3/91
New Residence/Driveways
Demolish Old Residence
f
4500 North Shore Dr.
4510 North Shore Dr.
Orono, MN 55364
June 8, 1997
The results of the study by Ted Mattke, Ph.D., PE, of Mattke Engineering, Inc. are
attached for your review. His calculations prove that the addition of the above listed
homes is obviously the cause of the water run-off damage to both of our homes.
Furthermore, he states that we can expect a rainfall ot 4.2 inches over a 24 hour period
every ten years and that it is standard engineering practice to provide protection for the
1W year event of 5.9 inches/24 hours. Thus, the damage caused to our pioperties by the
4 inch/24 hour rain of August 6, 1995, was not due to “excessive rainfall” as was verbally
suggested by Jo Hook of Berkley Risk Services.
The report by Mattke Engineering clearly identifies the new construction on Tonkaview
Lane as the source of excess run-oflf which caused our damages. Furthermore, we hold
the City of Orono responsible and liable for our damages, since the City issued building
permits without requiring or providing a drainage system to handle run-off fi-om all of this
new development.
The total cost of water run-off damages to our homes, including the cost of the hydrology
study, is $24,897.40 for the Bessesen residence and $21,502.00 for the Sawicki residence.
A summary of damages is attached.
We would appreciate an expedient settlement of this claim. Please contact us if you have
any questions or require more information.
Sincerely Yours,
John & Beth Bessesen / Peter & Kathy Sawicki
4500 North Shore Drive / 4510 North Shore Drive
(612) 472-6424 / (612) 472-1586
Attachments
cc: Curt Hcitschmidt, Berkley Risk Services
....
r
4500 North Shore Dr.
4510 North Shore Dr.
Orono, MN 55364
June 8, 1997
Damages to the Sawicki property to date total $21,502.00. A summary of the damages is
presented below and does not include work we have performed including countless hours
of cleaning mud and debris from our driveway and front decking and removing over fifry
wheelbarrows of sand and gravel from our lawn and replacing footings under the
walkway.
Repair of destruction of driveway asphalt and substrate...........................$8,549.00
Repair of erosion under walkway and central air unit..............................$1,775.00
Clean up of mud deposited inside home in foyer and staining of slate floor
per bid by Marblelife ......................................................................... $2,050.00
Emergency extraction, clean-up & shampooing of mud stained carpet......$ 717.00
Removal of sand and gravel in lake front lawn and replacement of eroded
topsoils(Origipal contractor out of business, new Otten Bros bid)........... $6,730.00
Corrosion of furnaces located in basement area which were flooded when
water poured in over the tops of our basement walls.............................. $1,000.00
50% cost of hydrology study by Mattke En^e> .ring, Inc ........................$ 681.00
Total Sawicki Damages: S21,502.00
The damages to the Bessesen residence total $24,897.40 to date and does not include
many hours of clean up.
Repair of destruction to our home & foundation per the contractor
estimate on file including cost of estimate...................................... $29,075.00
Credit for construction of swale by Hennepin County .................... ($ 5,460.00)
Repair and sterilization of well...................................................... $ 601.40
50% cost of hydrology study by Mattke Engineering, Inc ................. $—681.00
Total Bessesen Damages: $24,897.40
J
r
I *
708 Minn. 422 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIESDavid CHABOT. Respondent,
® V.
CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS.
Petitioner. Appellant.
Noe. C5-d«-2212. C7^7-357.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April 22. 1988.
Homeowner brought suit against city
for property damage resulting from flood
ing from holding pond which was part of
city's storm drainage system. The District
Court, Benton County. Bernard E. Boland.
J., entered judgment in favor of home-
owner, and city appealed. The Court of
Appeals, 412 N.W.2d 371, affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded, and city
appealed. The Supreme Court, Yetka, J..
held that: (1) city's decision not to make
major capital improvements to existing
drainage system was an immune discretion
ary function; (2) any immunity was waived
by city's purchase of liability insurance;
but (3) city was not liable for failure to
divert or hold back natural flow water de
spite its earlier receipt of report suggest
ing improvements to the holding pond in
question as well as ct'' ■ storm water ar
eas in the dQr.
Reversed and remanded with instruc
tions.
1. Municipal Corporations ^728
Where policy making involves a bal
ancing of social, political or economic con
siderations, government conduct is immune
as a discretionary function. M.S.A.
} 466.08, subd. 6.
2. Municipal Corporations ^829
City's decision not to make a major
capital improvement to existing drainage
system was immune as a discretionary
function. M.S.A. § 466.03, subd. 6.
3. Municipal Corporations ^829
City's purchase of liability insurance
waived immunity with respect to its discre
tionary function in deciding not to make
major capital improvement to existing drainage system, but waiver of immunity did not create tort liability if none existed
previously. M.S.A. 9 466.06.
4. Municipal Corporations <^831
City was not liable to homeowner for
failure to divert or hold back the natural
flow of water from a natural ditch, desig
nated a holding pond in city's drainage
system, despite city's receipt some four
years earlier of a report proposing im
provement to the holding pond and other
storm water areas of the city.
5. Municipal Corporations ^83K1)
City has duty to repair and maintain
sewer system, but failure to install a sys
tem that is adequate to take care of all
water is not the basis of tort liability.
6. Municipal Corporations ^835
City can be liable for trespass or nui
sance caused by increased flow of water or
by change in flow of water which affects
its normal and natural flow, as by approval
of additional building permits.
Syllabtts by the Court
Although the city's decision not to
make major capital improvements to an
existing drainage system is immune as a
discretionary function, any immunity is
waived under Minn.Stat § 466.06 (1982) by
the citj s purchase of liability insurance.
However, where there is no evidence of
negligent maintenance or operation of the
city’s storm sewer system, the city is not
liable, as a matter of law, for failing to
build an adequate drainage system.
Scott B. Lundquist, Minneapolis, for ap
pellant
Thomas A. Janson, St Cloud, for respon
dent
Thomas L. Grundhoefer, Clifford M.
Greene, St Paul, amkua curiae.
Heard, considered and decided by
the court en banc.
r YETKA. Justice.Appellant City of Sauk Rapids appeals from a decision of the court of appeals,
which affirmed the trial court judgment,
finding the city liable to respondent land-
owner for damage to respondent s home
caused by flooding of one of the city s
storm sewer holding ponds allegedly due to
the city’s negligence. We reverse wi^ in
structions to enter judgment for the City of
Sauk Rapids.
Plaintiff-respondent, David Chabot, pur
chased a home in February 1983 from Wil
bert Landwehr. The house, built by Land-
wehr in 1972. is located across the street
from a natural ditch which functioned as a
holding pond as part of defendant-appellant
City of Sauk Rapids’ storm sewer drainage
system.
The city is drained by nine separate wa
tersheds. The Pleasantview watershed,
which
ral
"Sitch
CHABOT V. CITY OF SAUK RAPIDS .Minn. 709Clu M 422 .S.Wja 7QS (.Ulaa. I9W)the contours of the land would appear to flow of surface water across
✓
known time in the past — —
the water into a natural basing The city
TSs iCiemplBtl W piusiirvt’The natural
course of the flow of surface water. ’There
was no evidence that the city had in any
way diverted the flow of water from iu
natural course.
In 1972. when Landwehr applied for a
permit to build his home, several dty offi
cials expressed some concern over the p^
sibility of flooding. Eventually, the city
planning commission granted a variance to
Landwehr conditioned on steps being taken
to maintain the natural waterway near the
property.
The house sits at one of the lowest points
in the landscape. ’The footings of the
house go right to the stteam bed. The
residential lots surrounding the property
are at a higher elevation. ’The eleyatior of
the holding pond across the street is higher
than the rear of Chabot’s property. Thus.
direct the Chabot's property naturally.
Mark Johnson, formerly c\ty enpneer,
r viewed the er* re storm sewer system for
the city in 197 j. He determined that the
city possessed several drainage problems,
including the holding pond across from
Chabot’s house. As a result of Johnson’s
initial assessment of the potential prob
lems. the city council commissioned Barr
Engineering to review all drainage areas of
the city and recommend improvements for
the entire city drainage system, including
the Pleasantview watershed. The complet
ed report was over 60 pages long and was
intended to furnish a guide for the city to
improve its drainage system as needed over
an extended p>eriod.
The Barr report identified a number of
potential problem areas, including the hold
ing pond near Chabot’s house. The report
gave no specific warning of any flooding or
damage to Chabot’s property. The holding
pond was identified as important, but not
necessarily as a first priority. The cost of
the improvements recommended for just
the Pleasantview watershed exceeded
$600,000.
The procedures required before the city
can m^e capital improvements are compli
cated and require a period of time to imple
ment Johnson, the city engineer who com
missioned the Barr study, testified that it
was not economically possible to implement
the recommendations within 1 year. In
fact Johnson testified that an earlier at
tempt to upgrade a different storm sewer
system in the city met with unprecedented
public opposition.
By June 1983. the Barr report had not
been implemented in the Pleasantview wa
tershed. On June 25-26, 1983. during an
extremely heavy rain storm, the holding
pond overflowed. Chabot’s piX>perty was
flooded due to the run-off water, which
flowed over the street in its natural course
towards the river. The excessive amoimt
of w'ster caused extensive damage, eroding
Chabot's front yard, exposing the b^
ment walls to the foundation, causing
structural and interior damage to the
710 Minn.422 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIEShouM, and damaging treat in the yard. Damagta were aateued at 163,000.Chabot brought an action againtt the City of Sauk Rapida to recover theae dam- agea auatained in the flood. .*t trial Or.
Chartea Nelaon, a hydrologiat, teatified
that he had evaluated the pond. He deter
mined that ita capacity waa limited and
could overtop the road if 1.3 inchea of rain
in a half-hour period. The probability
of that amount of rain within a half-hour
period waa eatimated at approximately 10%
per year. The half-hour period ia critical
becauae all rain within the watershed col
lects in the holding pond within half an
hour. However, the pond had not over
flowed in at leaat 66 years.
There were no rain measuring devices in
the dty so j not known how much rain
fell on June 25-26. Tt* United States
Weather Service reported heavy rain in the
county. All witnesses who testified noted
the unusually heavy rain which fell. Al
though the city argued that the amount of
rain was extraordinary, the jury was in
structed that if the rain was "extraordi
nary.’’ the dty was not the direct cause of
the damages. Although the exact rainfaU
in the dty cannot be determined, in the
expert hydrologist's opinion, the heaviest
ra^all estimated in a half-hour period was
1.4 inches, sufficient to cause the pood to
flow over the r>ad. Nelaon indicated that
this was probably a so<alled "10-year
ram.
Although Chabot’s complaint alleged nu
merous eounta. the case was submitted to
the jury solely on a negligence theory.
The trial court instructed the jury that the
dty could be found negligent for damages
caused by its failure to act after having
notice of or knowledge that its drainage
system is inadequate and constitutes an
unreasonable risk of harm to adjacent prop
erty. The jury found the dty negligent
and that the d^s negligence waa a direct
canse of 153.000 in damages to Chabof s
home.
The trial eoutc entered judgment, con
cluding that the dty's defense of discre
tionary immunity was waived by its pro
curement of liability insurance under Minn.
Sut 9 466.06 (1982). The dty appealed on the issues of liability and damages. Chabot appealed the trial court's calculation of pre-verdict interest The two appeals were consolidated in Chabot v. City of Sauk
Rapids, 412 N.W.2d 371 (Minn-App.1987).
The court of appeals, in a split decision,
affirmed the trial court on the issues of
liability and damages and reversed its cal
culation of interest 'The dty seeks further
review only on the issues of liability and
immunity.
The issues the parties raise on appeal
II.
III.
I. Is the decision of a dty counefl
concerning major capital improve
ments to its existing drainage sys
tem an immune discretionary func
tion under Minn.Stat § 466.03,
subd. 6 (1986)?
If the decision constitutes an im
mune discretionary function, did
the city waive ita immunity defense
by the purchase of liability insur
ance under Minn.Stat. } 466.06
(1982)?
If immunity has been waived, is a
dty liable in tort for its decision not
to make major capital improve-
menu to its existing drainage sys
tem after notice that the system
may be inadequate?
IV. Did respondent create a jury ques
tion on the dty's negligence with
out expert testimony on the appro
priate standard of adequacy of the
system?
11,21 On the first issue, the court of
appeals merely concluded that the dl/'s
decision not to remedy the pond was "an
operational level decision” outside the
scope of protected immumty under Minn.
Sut 9 466.03, subd. 6 (1986). Chabot, 412
N.W.2d at 376. As we have sUted, the
simple mndusory labeling of government
conduct as "operational” or "planning” is
not helpful Caitl p. Stats, 323 N.WAi 20.
23 n. 2 (Biinu.1982). tn our decision of
Nusbaum v. Stats, 422 N.W.2d 713 (Minn.
1988), we made clear that certain govern
ment conduct is protected under the discre
tionary function exception not jimply be-
r CHABOT T. cm* OF SAUK RAPIDScut M 422 S.WJd 701 (Minn. lf«)cause it is idenufied as a planning decision. Minn. 549. 553. 56 N.W. 250, 251 Rather, it is immune because the specific Minn. 711naincr, it is luiniu... ------- ■function involves policy-making that can be made only by the legislative or exwuuve branch of the government. Where the policy-making involves a balancing of social,
political, or economic considerations, the
conduct is immune as a discretionary func
tion. *rhe challenged conduct here was
clearly of a policy-making nature. Govern-
menul immunity would, therefore, apply
under the discretionary function exception.
Minn.Sut § 466.03. subd. 6 (1986).
(3] However, a city may waive immuni
ty by the purchase of liability insurance
under Minn.Stat § 466.06 (1982). The cixy
had such insurance here. Thus, the sole
(1S93)(city liable for negligent maintenance of storm sewer which caused clogging of cul- vert and subsequent f)oodin£]^In short, the cases relleo upon by the court of appeals establish municipal tort liability for
either intentional or negligent actions
which divert the natural flow of water,
causing damage to orooeru- which would
not normally be in its path. \ In the present
?ase, however, (ihabot's property was dam
aged because it was in the path of the
natural flow of water from the holding^
^ondj Th<iere was no evidence that tne
I WWW—-— ^
city's actions in any way changed the di
rection of the water’s natural flow, causing^
had such insurance here, y*""*^^* L°mg^d*^lS!S^IoSi
issue cUy ‘wL X the natural flow of water onto Chabofs
uururu v* paw* —— -
gent, tl.at is. under the facts as presented,
whether it possessed and breached a duty
of care to Chabot We thmk that it did not
Merely because an accident occurs and
/.umunity is waived does not. in and of
itself, establish liability of a municipality.
I'he statute merely waives the city s immu
nity defense. It does .lot create tort liabili
ty where none existed prev-icusly. Plainuff
still has the burden to s'now what acaon or
inaction const: cuted negligence on the part
of the city, entitling the plaintiff to recover.
While it i.s true that the city has the duty to
exercisv reasonable care to maintain its
facihiies in a safe condition, see Cracrafi v.
C iy of St Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801.
o03 (Minn.1979). that general rule is inap
plicable to the facts of this case.
[41 None of the cases cited by the ma
jority below present the issue raised under
these particular facts. In Pettinger v. Kt/-
lage of Winnebago. 239 Minn. 156. 162. M
N W 2d 325, 329 (1953). for example, the
city was found liable for its negligent fail
ure to repair and maintain an inadequately
designed sewer system. Similwly. m
Greenwood ». Evergreen Mines Ca,
Minn. 296. 303. 19 N.W.2d 726. 730-31
(1945), the city was held liable for its neglh
gent affirmative actions which blocked the
natural outlet of a lake, causing overflow
and flooding on the plaintiffs
Sec aUo Stoehr v. City of St Paul, 54
property, as was established in the preced
ing cases, the city ’s liability here appears
to have been predicated on its failure to
divert or hold back the natural flow of
water. That is not the basis of liability
which has oeen e'.tablished under Minneso
ta tort law.
A case which appears to be more similar
to the present facts is Roche v. City of
Minneapolis, 223 Minn. 359, 27 N.W.2d 295
(1947), not cited by the court below. Roche
held that a city is not liable for water
damage to private property, despite the
inadequacy of its drainage system, when
the private property was the natural depos
itory of the water discharged. Relying
upon esUblished principles of tort law, the
court found that, when the city had not
unnecessarily discharged water upon pri
vate property, it cannot be held liable for
fining to prevent a natural result. A city
is not required to be an insurer for all
water damage from the natural flow of
surface water. As the court said in Roche :
“The only complaint plaintiffs can make is
that the municipality did not do more and
wholly relieve the premises of surface and
infiltrated water." Id. at 365, 27 N.W.M
at 298. The court in Roche found no liabili
ty for water damage when the city had not
gathered surface waters into a Iwge body
anc erst them in large quantities in an area
where they did not previously flow. Id.
422 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER. 2d SERIESSee also Dudley v. Village of Buffalo, 73 Minn. 347, 76 N.W. 44 (1898). That seems to be the underlying basis of Chabot's com- 'plaint here. However, under Roche and Dudley, the city is not liable for that re
sult
[5] Significantly, the trial court dis
missed ail allegations of negligent mainte
nance at trial, finding no evidence of any
improper maintenance or blockage result
ing from the city’s actions or inactions.
Thus, the basis of tort liability in the cases
relied upon by the court below (e.g.. Pet-
linger; Greenwood) is not applicable to
these facts. The only allegation of negli
gence remaining which was submitted to
the jury was based solely on the alleged
inadequacy of the holding pond. The ma
jority of the court below appeared to hold,
as the dissenting judge pointed out, that
"inadequacy is the equivalent of negli
gence.” 412 N.W.2d at 379 (Sedgwick, J.,
dissenting). Under Roche, however, mere
inadequacy of the drainage system is not
the basis of tort liability under Minnesota
law. A city has never been required to
install a sewer sjrstem or to install a sys
tem that is adequate to take care of all
water. Roche. 223 Minn, at 365,27 N.W.2d
at 298. In other words, while there is a
duty to repair and maintain, there is no
duty to build.
One fact does distinguish this case from
Roche and appears to have been a signifi
cant factor in the lower court’s determina
tion that a duty existed and was breached.
The city had received notice, by means of
the 1981 Barr report, that this holding
pond, as well as several other storm water
areas in Uie dty, was potentially inade
quate. At the time of the incident in 1983,
the dty had faded to act to implement the
suggestioos in the Barr report, as applied
to this or apparently to any other water
shed in the dty. It is this failure to act
which has served as the sole basis for the
dty’s liability.
It is at this point that the lower court's
analysis becomes completely inadequate.
It is not clear precisely what duty has been
imposed on the city as a result of its notice
of the possible in^equacy of this holding
pond. The Barr report covered other wa
tershed are? s of the city and made suggestions for needed capital improvements in other areas as well as this one. Even in its assessment of this holding pond, the report did not specifically advise the city that
there was an unreasonable danger of flood
damage. The cost of implementing the rec
ommended improvements for this water
shed was in excess of $600,000. The city
introduced evidence that its decision not to
act to implement the suggested capital im
provements resulted in part from very
strong public opposition to increased ex
penditures. There was no evidence that
the city ever had sufficient funding to im
plement any portion of the Barr report
prior to 1983.
In effect, the imposition of liability here
has usurped the city’s discretion to decide
how or when to act to implement any part
of the Barr report The court and the jury
have effectively decided that it was neces
sary for the city to implement this particu
lar section of ^e Barr report Notice of
inadequacy was converted to an absolute
duty to rebuild. However, no consideration
was given to the city council’s need to
make this decision while considering the
best interests of the rest of the community,
especially as those interests would be af
fected by a decision to implement (or not to
implement) the remainder of the lengthy
report The report did more than address
the possible inadequacies of this one small
holding pond. Liability has been imposed,
however, because the city failed to imple
ment one suggested improvement without
properly considering the context of the
city’s decision or the need to determine
which of the many other suggested im
provements was to be given priority. The
reality of the situation was that the city did
not and could not act immediately to imple
ment the Barr report 'The mere accept
ance of the report should not be held to
have imposed a duty on the city to act at
once to correct every inadequacy pointed
out in the report Under the lower court’s
holding, it would be theoretically possible
for the city to be held liable in negligence
to everyone who is injured due to the city’s
faOure to implement the Barr report
Thus, receipt of the Barr report alone is an
insufficient basis for liability.
Minn. 713NTSBAUM V. BLUE EARTH COUNTYCIUMia N.Wja 71) (Minn. IMS)ligence in placement of speed signs. The District Court. Blue Earth County. Miles Zimmerman, J., granted state's motion for
summary judgment based on discretionary
immunity doctrine. Motonst appealed.
[6] It is possible that plaintiff could have shown that, in addition to the Barr report, the city had approved a mimber of
building permits in the immediate vicinity
of the Chabot home which added additional ---------- -rr------
runoff of water into the holding pond. He! The Court of Appeals. 411 N.W.2d 917,
' reversed and remanded for trial on issue ofcould perhaps have shown by expert testi
mony that these permits increased the risk
of da.Tiage to the plaintiffs home. How
ever, other than vague and general refer
ences to growth in the watershed area, this
evidence, even if available, was not
presented.
A city can be liable for trespass or nui-
sance caused by such an increased flow of
water or by a change in the flow of water
which affected its normal and natural flow.
See Wilson v. Ramacher, 352 N.W.2d 389,
394 (Minn.1984). However, that issue was
dismissed by the trial court and was not
appealed. Plaintiff elected to proceed at
trial and on appeal on the negligence theo
ry alone and has wholly failed, as a matter
of law, in our opinion, to prove the essen
tial elements of his case.'
Therefore, under the unique facts of this
case and the theory of law on which this
case was tried, we must reverse the court
of appeals and the trial court. We remand
to the trial court with instructions to enter
judgment for appellant city.
whether state had created a danger. State
sought further appeal. The Supreme
Court, Yetka, J.. held that (1) not all acta
involving exercise of judgment by agents
of the government are protected as discre
tionary functions, and critical inquiry is
whether challenged governmental conduct
involved balancing of policy objectives: (2)
motorist’s challenge to state ’s placement of
sign marking end of speed zone requested
by county, some 1,000 feet from sharp
curve, was not barred by discretionary
function exception; and (3) state ’s duty to
exercise reasonable care in determining
whether to authorize a speed zone includes
exercise of reasonable care in determining
where to place signs marking the end of
the speed zone.
Decision of CJourt of Appeals affirmed
and case remanded.
Ralph S. NUSBAUM. Respondent,
V.
COUNTY 0/ BLUE EARTH and Sute
of Minnesota. Petitioners. Appellants.
No. C3-87-338.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April 22, 1988.
1. Municipal Corporations «=*744
Discretion in the context of a govern
ment employee's common-law immunity
from tort liability was much broader than
the type of discretion referred to in the
discretionary fr.nction exception applicable
in actions against governmental units un
der Tort Claims Act M.S.A. § 3.736, subd.
3(b).
Motorist injured in one-car accident on
count/ road sued county and state for neg-
2. Municipal Corporations ^744
Not all acts involving exercise of judg
ment by agents of the government are
protected from tort liability as discretion
ary functions: the protection afforded by
discretionary function exception does not
extend to professional or scientific judg
ment where such judgment does not in-
1. Having determined that mere insdequs^ of a
holding pond if not grounds for a ncgligcn^
suit, w« need not reach the fourth isAie regird-
ing the lack of expert testimony on the »poropri-
ate sundard of adequacy.
J
rI October 1, 1997
Candice Nadler
2509 Kelly Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
471-0275
Dear Citv of Orono,m ^
/S^o
1 am writing to commend the efforts of Rick Bloomquist, the owner of
Rick’s Super Value in Navarre on making our city of Orono a more
beautiful place to live and enhancing the value of our community. For the
last two years, Rick has lead the Navarre area in providing beautiful
landscape and magnificent seasonal flowers. His leadership has inspired
other merchants such as Culver’s to also enhance our environment with
colorful landscaping.
As a city I believe these efforts to give a park like feeling to our
commrnity, should be recognized for the environmental impact and the
sheer pleasure it brings to our neighborhood. It would be wonderful if the
city could formally recognize “making Orono beautiful” with an award.
Perhaps our city could surpass the magnificent gardens and high standards
of the neighborhoods in downtown Wayzata, if other merchants would
follow Mr. Bloomquist’s leadership.
Sincerely,
Candice Nadler
PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 11/03/97PERMIT TYPEBuildingSGL FAMILY-NEW
SP-ADD/REMODEL
SP-ACC STRUCTURE
DEMO/PRINCIPAL
COMMERCIAL-NEW
COM-ADD/REMODEL
DEMO
INST-ADD/REMODEL
INST-ACC STRUCT
PLAN REVIEW ONLY
DEMO-ACCESSORY
ACC/GARAGES
Sub-total
Mechanical
HEATING SYSTEMS
AIR CONDITIONING
WOOD STOVE/FLUE
FIREPLACE
VENTILATION
FUEL STORAGE
GAS LINE INSPECT
DUCT WORK ONLY
REMOVE OIL TANK
UNDEFINED
Sub-total
Plumbing
FIXTURES
SPRINKLER
WATER METER
VACUUM BREAKER
UNDEFINED
Sub-total
Sewer k Water
SEWER CONNECTION
WATER CONNECTION
NEW SEPTIC SYSTE
DRNFLD k/OR TANK
SAC ONLY
SEWER DISCONNECT
SEWER k WATER
UNDEFINED
Sub-total
Sign
PERMANENT/ POSTED
PER./FREE STANDG
377*
93
11
1
54
7
1
21
7
12
1
200*
150
4
11
5
4
174*
14
3
34
4
12
0
4
3
74*
0
3
PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 10/31/97
143,126.25* 17,283,470.90*
9,150.30
527.00
35.00
2,009.69
245.00
125.00
735.00
245.00
1,235.00
35.00
14,350.07*
10,896.06
231.69
2,050.99
175.00
141.25
13,502.99*
555.00
105.00
3.400.00
250.00
9.500.00
0.00
280.00
105.00
14,195.00*
0.00
118.25
710,035
36,395
2,500
96,098
11,060
10,000
10,335
0,365
80,250
900
965,930
.38
.00
.00
.55
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.93*
691,450.85
14,535.00
0.00
1,200.00
6,400.00
713,585.05*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00*
77,697.40*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00*
337*
PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLEQTYBASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE3162,328.50 10,086,932.41 40,513.46 37 72,390.75
273 67,109.75 6,036,350.17 31,590.68 231 40,602.75
24 4,548.50 365,641.60 2,922.09 26 3,334.75
14 790.00 0.00 0.00 10 640.00
1 887.25 100,000.00 576.71 1 4,948.50
9 3,329.00 363,646.00 494.81 6 1,688.75
2 100.00 0.00 0.00 1 80.00
2 1,579.50 194,310.00 219.21 3 2,349.25
1 29.25 775.00 19.01 0 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00
10 330.00 0.00 0.00 2 60.00
10 2,094.50 135,807.00 1,361.43 19 3,287.25
-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 10/31/96VALUATION11,653,040.003,817,426.00
190.982.00
0.00
985,000.00
167.026.00
0.00
252.720.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
210.592.00
17,204,786.00*.00*
0.00
3,300.00
0.00
0.00
90 0,093.00 624,883.28
16 772.40 53,051.00
2 97.01 6,060.43
54 2,272.71 130,365.44
5 175.00 5,375.00
2 347.50 26,000.00
8 470.00 23,350.00
10 392.94 15,420.00
11 405.00 16,105.00
0 0.00 0.00
198*13,025.64*900,610.15*
142 9,052.55 618,048.47
0 0.00 0.00
9 1,311.00 2,750.00
0 0.00 0.00
4 140.00 1,150.00
155*11,303.55*621,940.47*
16 560.00 0.00
2 70.00 0.00
52 5,150.00 0.00
6 300.00 0.00
11 6,550.00 0.00
1 35.00 0.00
7 490.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00
95*13,155.00*0.00*
X 35.00 0.00
1 29.25 800.00
PLAN REVIEW47,05323,381
1,967
0
3,216
374
0
0
0
1,714
0
1,950
79,658
.90.84
.25
.00
.53
.89
.00
.00
.00
.21
.00
.33
.95*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR, BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 11/03/97 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE: 2REQUESTER; CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 10/31/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 10/31/96PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEWTEMPORARY4120.00 0.00 0.00 3 90.00 0.00 0.00Sub-total 7*238.25*3,300.00*0.00*5*154.25*800.00*0.00*FireFIRE SPRINKLER 1 140.00 11,200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00FIRE SPRINKLER 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 170.64 13,651.00 0.00Sub-total 1*140.00*11,200.00*0.00*1*170.64*13,651.00*0.00*User DefinedLAND ALTERATION 16 825.00 0.00 0.00 22 1,225.00 0.00 0.00TREE REMOVAL 3 90.00 0.00 0.00 5 150.00 0.00 0.00RETAINING WALLS 1 62.25 2,000.00 0.00 4 396.00 29,790.00 0.00DOCKS390.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00LAWN SPRINKLER 31 1,085.00 0.00 0.00 26 910.00 0.00 0.00Sub-total 54*2,152.25*4,500.00*0.00*59*2,741.00*29,790.00*0.00*Grand-total 895**187,705.61**18,981,995.76**77,697.40**850**177,932.08**18,851,585.62**79,658.95**
F
4
PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 11/03/97 ***** permit fee REPORT *****CITY OF ORONO FROil 01/01/97 TO 10/31/97 PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLEBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER k WATER USER SIGN FIREBASE FEB 143,126.25 14,350.87 13,502.99 14,195.00 2,152.25 238.25 140.00
PLAN REVIEW 77,697.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 8,659.74 490.39 375.75 31.00 15.50 0.50 5.60
Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SAC 6,650.00 0.00 0.00 14,550.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INVESTIQATI(»I 2,516.50 35.00 225.00 0.00 245.00 0.00 0.00
DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MAIL IN
SEWER CONNECTION
MAILING FEB
MAIL IN
225.00
161.39
1.50
95.23
1.50
1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50
ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PERMIT TOTMi 238,874.89 15,039.15 14,200.47 28,777.50 2,414.25 239.75 147.10
\
REPORT NBR. BPEERPT2-1
DATE OF RUN 11/03/97
# * * * *PERMIT FEE REPORT
CITY OF ORONO
FROM 01/01/97 TO 10/31/97
* * * # *PAGE: 2
REQUESTER; CAROLE
BASE PEE
PLAN REVIEW
SURCHARGE
Lie. SEARCH FEB
SAC
INVESTIGATION
DEPOSIT
REPORT TOTAL
187,705.61
77,697.40
9,578.48
0.00
21,200.00
3,021.50
0.00
MAIL IN
SEWER CONNECTION
MAILING FEB
MAIL IN
262.12
225.00
1.50
1.50
ESCROW
PERMIT TOTAL
0.00
299,693.11
ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTEDREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 11/03/97 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 10/31/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 10/31/96
PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN RE\lEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
User Defined
SUBDIVISION 13 17,105.00 0.00 0.00 12 6,895.00 0.00 0.00
VARIANCE 68 15,460.00 0.00 0.00 52 11,545.00 0.00 0.00
CUP 15 3,475.00 0.00 0.00 12 3,100.00 0.00 0.00
SKETCH PLAN 6 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 4 1,000.00 0.00 0.00
VARIANCE/CUP 3 795.00 0.00 0.00 7 1,940.00 0.00 0.00
VACATION 3 800.00 0.00 0.00 4 1,150.00 0.00 0.00
REZONING 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 350.00 0.00 0.00
APPEAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00
Sub-total 110*39,135.00*o.c »*0.00*94*26,330.00*0.00*0.00*
Grand-total 110**39,135.00**0.00**0.00**94**26,330.00**0.00**0.00**
REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1
DATE OF RUN 11/03/97
***** PERMIT FEE REPORT
CITY OF ORONO
FROM 01/01/97 TO 10/31/97
USER REPORT TOTAL
BASE FEE 39,135.00 39,135.00
PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00
Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00
SAC 0.00 0.00
INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00
DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00
ESCROW 0.00 0.00
PERMIT TOTAL 39,135.00 39,135.00
PAGE: 1
REQUESTER: CAROLE
r
1997 RECAP Of CONTRACT CITIESJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly August September October November December YTO TotalsSpring ParkPlan Review 422.34 0.00 89.21 94.74 1,622.24 209.96 0.00 746.52 141.37 36.89 3,326.38Inspections135.00 165.00 270.00 165.00 120.00 195.00 90.00 90.00 150.00 150.00 1,210.00Retainer25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 250.00TOTAL582.34 190.00 384.21 284.74 1,767.24 429.96 115.00 861.52 316.37 211.89 5,143.27No. Plan Reviews 1 0 1 2 7 3 0 6 3 2 25No. Inspections 9 11 18 11 8 13 6 6 10 10 102Minnetonka Beach
Plan Review 0.00 0.00 105.30 48.59 518.05 19.01 1,400.89 3,856.78 1,529.93 621.24 8,099.79
Inspections 45.00 180.00 210.00 195.00 30.00 75.00 180.00 150.00 105.00 195.00 1,3<5.00
Retainer 25.00 25.00
25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 250.00
TOTAL 70.00 205.00 340.30 268.59 573.05 119.01 1,605.89 4,031.78 1,659.93 841.24 9,714.79
No. Plan Reviews 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 6 5 2 23
No. Inspections 3 12 14 13 2 5 12 10 7 13 91
652.34 395.00 724.51 553.33 2,340.29 548.97 1,720.89 4,893.30 1,976.30 1,053.13 0.00 14,858.06
Si
, tir
'i ■ ^
PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED OCTOBER 19972PORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 jATE of run 11/03/97 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO * * * * *PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 10/01/97 - 10/31/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 10/01/96 - 10/31/96:rmit type QTY BASE FEE valuat:on PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION
ailding
L FAMILY-NEW
-ADD/REMODEL
•-ACC STRUCTURE
.EMO/PRINCIPAL
COH-ADD/REMODEL
^EMO-ACCESSORY
ACC/QARAGES
‘ub-total
a
31
3
2
1
1
4
50^
15,753.00
5,987.50
798.50
103.00
124.75
30.00
836.50
23,630.25*
2,528,962.38
523,319.95
60.650.00
0.00
6,950.00
0.00
54.280.00
3,174,162.33*
ichanical
ZMim SYSTEMS
.IR CONDITIONING
FIREPLACE
FUEL STORAGE
AS LINE INSPECT
UCT WORK ONLY
:nove oil tank
b-total
13
2
9
0
5
0
1
30*
975.93
93.75
330.00
0.00
175.00
0.00
35.00
1,609.68*
73.224.00
7.500.00
14.400.00
0.00
2.885.00
0.00
500.00
umblng
XTURES
:er meter
EPINED
j-total
22
1
2
25*
1,726.97
247.00
71.25
2,045.22*
ver a Water
10,239.43
2,956.53
519.03
0.00
81.09
0.00
543.73
14,339.81*
6
22
2
3
0
0
2
35*
10,308.50
3,911.25
412.00
150.00
0.00
0.00
717.00
15,498.75*
1,594,743.00
286,999.00
27,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56,300.00
1,965,042.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13
0
1
1
3
1
1
1,107.19
0.00
35.00
312.50
105.00
35.00
35.00
83,750.00
0.00
1,100.00
25,000.00
1,600.00
295.00
780.00
98,509.00*0.00*20*1,629.69*112,525.00*
119,203.99 0.00 19 1,202.07 7C.776.26
0.00 0.00 1 247.00 0.00
5,250.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
124,453.99*0.00*20*1,449.07*70,776.26*
SR CONNECTION 7 310.00 0.00 0.00
.TER CONNECTION 1 35.00 0.00 0.00
SEPTIC SYSTE 8 800.00 0.00 0.00
NFLD (i/OR TANK 2 150.00 0.00 0.00
C ONLY 7 4,750.00 0.00 0.00
^HER (• HATER 1 70.00 0.00 . 0.00
'DEFINED 1 35.00 0.00 0.00
b-total 27*6,150.00*0.00*0.00*
•ire
FIRE SPRINKLER 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
^jb-total 0*0.00*0.00*0.00*
ar Defined
MD ALTERATION 3 150.00 0.00 0.00
*B REMOVAL 1 30.00 0.00 0.00
iN SPRINKLER 1 35.00 0.00 0.00
total 5*215.00*0.00*0.00*
irand-total 137**33,650.15**3,397,125.32**14,339.81*
2
1
9
2
0
1
0
15*
70.00
35.00
900.00
100.00
0.00
70.00
0.00
1,175.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
1
1*
2
1
2
5*
170.64 13,651.00
170.64*13,651.00*
100.00 0.00
30.00 0.00
70.00 0.00
200.00*0.00*
96**20,123.15** 2,161,994.26**
PLAN REVIEW
6,700.51
1,888.08
267.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
466.05
9,322.44*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
9,322.44**i
PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTEDREPORT NBR. BPEERPTl-1 DATE OP RUN 11/03/97 BUILDINGBASE PEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE
Lie. SEARCH PEE
SAC
INVESTIGATION
DEPOSIT
MAIL IN
ESCROW
23,630.2514,339.811,589.90
0.00
950.00
2,167.25
0.00
0.00
PERMIT TOTAL 42,677.21
REPORT NBR. BPEERPTl-
DATE OF RUN 11/03/97
1
REPORT TOTAL
BASE FEE 33,650.15
PLAN REVIEW 14,339.81
SURCHARGE 1,714.49
Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00
SAC 2,850.00
INVESTIGATION 2,167.25
DEPOSIT 0.00
MAIL IN 36.50
ESCROW 0.00
PERMIT TOTAL 54,758.20
** PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OP ORONO FROM 10/01/97 TO 10/31/97MECHANICALPLUMBING SEWER L WATER1,609.68 0.00 50.62
0.00 .
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.00
0.00
1,681.30
2,045.220.0063.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.00
0.00
2,122.69
6.150.00 0.0010.00
0.00
1.900.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
8,061.50
#♦*** permit fee REPORT
CITY OF ORONO
FROM 10/01/97 TO 10/31/97
* * * * *
OCTOBER 1997USER215.000.000.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
215.50
PAGE: 44REQUESTER: CAROLE , i'SIGN FIRE0.000.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.000.000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PAGE: 45
REQUESTER: CAROLE
:i, NOV 3, 1997, 3.*27 PM:rmits issued for the month of •=nwiT wor :c addr nbr street OCTOBER 1997ISSUhD permit nbr ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM PAGE 1 VALUATIONEIDEN310,503.00MOE228,000.00TROWSRED320,000.00ENGELER355,600.00
LAHTI 490,000.00
WALTON 144,245.55
300,613.83
MEYER 380,000.00
FRITZ 25,000.00
RAKOS 7,000.00
NOLAND 50,000.00
THEIS 43,679.95
JOHNSON 10,980.00
ANDERSON 10,300.00
LUCAS 18,000.00
WIENER 15,000.00
GRUVER 4,000.00
PETERSON 4,800.00
SPRENGER 20,000.00
WARNER 40,000.00
ASKE 3,200.00
HASNAIN 3,000.00
HARTZELL 2,500.00
GRADY 1,000.00
WEEKS 6,100.00
HEUPEL 400.00
MOELLER 2,900.00
RUDD 2,000.00
CHRISTENSEN 1,800.00
SUNDET 3,290.00
WALSH 3,500.00
DAYTON 9,5G0.00
CHRISTENSEN 2,950.00
LANPHER 1,000.00
SENN 6,380.00
HUBER 5,970.00
HANDLIN 1,500.00
.00
HOE FT .00
SIGEL .00
6,950.00
WEBSTER 500.00
STAFFORD 220,000.00
UDELL 2,000.00
OLSON 45,000.00
NOLAN 11,500.00
DOSSETT 100.00
ST. LAWRENCE 52,000.00
HURD 750.00
65^.00
MCCUNE 2,500.00
PAS OW 2,400.00
01 242501123001285001790
01 2975
01 2405
01 2460
01 4685
02 3845
02 2175
02 1395
02 4108
03 1225
04 845
04 1060
04 1070
06 2765
06 1770
09 870
09 375
11 1845
11 3070
11 2987
11 480
11 3884
11 3225
11 1264
11 4575
11 1251
11 2791
11 1926
11 990
11 2750
11 1359
11 4448
11 3390
11 3860
16 395
16 1725
17 1399
19 100
24 500
24 3034
29 2166
29 950
29 1540
29 2795
29 253
31 2795
33
50C
425
01 1473
01 100
thoroughbred laSPRUCE PL SOMERSET LA NORTH ARM DR
SOMERSET LA
DUNWOODY AVE
THOROUGHBRED LA
TONKAVIEW LA
NORTH SHORE DR
SHEVLIN DR
ORONO LA
HIGHWOOD RD
LAKEVIEW AVE
WILLOW DR S
BROWN RD N
NORTH SHORE OR
KELLY AVE
SHADYWOOD RD
HUNT FARM RD
WAKEFIELD RD
LAKEVIEW TER
NORTH SHORE DR
CASCO POINT RD
LINDEN AVE
CHERRY AVE
6TH AVE N
NORTH ARM DR
WAYZATA BLVD
BROWN RD S
PHEASANT RD
EAGERNESS POINT RD
OLD LONG LAKE RD
CASCO POl>
PARK DR
NORTH SH^ i DR
BAYS IDE tvj
NORTH SHORE DR
FERNDALE RD N
BOHNS PT RD
PARK DR
BIG ISLAND
ORONO ORCHARD RD S
CASCO POINT RD
SHADYWOOD RD
NORTH ARM OR
FOX ST
PHEASANT RD
CYGNET PL
CASCO POINT RD
HUNTER PASS
BAY RIDGE RD
LUCE LINE RIDGE
97/10/0197/10/0297/10/0397/10/06
9V/10/09
97/10/17
97/10/27
97/10/23
97/10/09
97/10/08
97/10/10
97/10/31
97/10/22
97/10/27
97/10/21
97/10/31
97/10/02
<7/10/22
97/10/13
97/10/20
97/10/01
97/10/01
97/10/02
97/10/08
97/10/09
97/10/10
97/10/13
97/ -3
97/ 3
97/ 14
97/lv 20
97/10/20
97/10/22
97/10/23
97/10/23
97/10/28
97/10/28
97/10/10
97/10/23
97/10/24
97/10/22
97/10/17
97/10/28
97/10/01
97/10/13
97/10/09
97/10/20
97/10/29
97/10/15
97/10/24
OR-009459OR-009463OR-009465OR-009483
OR-00948S
OR-009508
OR-009524
OR-009558
OP.-009492
OR-009495
OR-009496
OR-009599
OR-009550
OR-009548
OR-009551
OR-009619
OR-009478
OR-009547
OR-009494
OR-009531
OR-009473
OR-009476
OR-009479
OR-009491
OR-009504
OR-009506
OR-009511
OP-009512
OR-009514
OR-009521
OR-009536
OR-009537
OR-009554
OR-009555
OR-009560
OR-009586
OR-009594
OR-009509
OR-009556
OR-009567
OR-009549
OR-009533
OR-009552
OR-009371
OR-009493
OR-009499
OR-009544
OR-009572
OR-009523
OR-009557
00000000197227161934046117313153
19340461
14712216
15590251
16824571
17212018
00000000
14728575
00000000
15465500
16450331
14768403
00000000
00000000
00000000
15429000
14476084
19391942
15447577
14710532
00000000
14277937
00000000
14961435
00000000
00000000
13781170
15578678
14759923
14718979
00000000
19333536
OOPOOOOO
00000000
14750918
14282242
00000000
14745044
00000000
15461300
OOOOOOuO
14747121
14732221
00000000
14768403
14734157
14040600
HIRSCH AL CONST PETER ANDREA CO CHARLES CUDD CO
PETER ANDREA CO
LARSON HOMES MTKA INC
EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC
LOUISIANA HOMES INC
INSIDE & OUT REMODELORS
CREATIVE BUILDERS
FILLA DESIGNERS, BUILDERS,
SUSSEL CORPORATION
LUCAS DESIGN WORKS
DALPHIN POOL & SPA
DESIGNER POOLS
KOOSMAN AL
MILLWORKS CONSTRUCTION
DANBERRY COMPANY
NORTHERN CONSTRUCTION
L Si L ROOFING
QUIMBY COMPANY
RIGHT WAY ROOFING
ROOFTOP ENGINEERING
TRENDY ROOFING Si SONS INC
COTY CONSTRUCTION
BRUCE BREN HOMES
VEIT AND COMPANY
EXCELSIOR VFW
GIERTSEN COMPANY
LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS
STONEHOUSE DESIGNS
LUCAS DESIGN WORKS
KOKESH LANDSCAPE
JYLAND DEVELOPMENT
97/10/06 OR-009484 34485828 AIR REFRIGERATION
97/10/06 OR-009488 394110 •.4 CENTRAIRE IIIC
MON, NOV 3, 1997, 3:27 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 1997 PAGE 2PERMIT WOPJC ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION
30C
0101010101010101
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
24
24
24
29
29
29
30C
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
19
24
24
24
24
24
24
29
29
29
195047451365553233195011251385
1365
2280
200
950
2060
505
4740
2601
3601
3120
1837
4030
3233
950
2166
1336
3285
1365
2032
4190
3235
1540
1230
801
2501
2995
1525
200
2585
2106
3045
4745
375
3190
3412
4190
131
3120
3091
3560
850
1473
1461
640
CONCORDIA ST CREEKWOOD TR REST PT RD WEAR LA N CASCO CIR CONCORDIA ST NORTH ARM DR Cl: RY PL
REST PT RD
SHADOWOOD DR
TRUFFULA TR
NORTH ARM LR
6TH AVE N
OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S
BAYSIDE RD
WEST LAFAYETTE RD
TOGO RD
NORTH SHORE DR
EAGERNESS POINT RD
DAHL RD
CASCO CIR
NORTH ARM DR
SHADYWOOD RD
REST PT CIR
CRYSTAL BAY RD
PARK DR
SHADYWOOD RD
HIGHWOOD RD
CASCO CIR
FOX ST
SPRUCE PL
FERNDALE RD N
KELLY AVE
DEER RUN TR
6TH AVE N
TRUFFULA TR
OLD ilEACH RD
SUGARWOOD DR
6TH AVE N
CREEKWOOD TR
WAKEFIELD RD
SUSSEX RD
SHORELINE DR
HIGHWOOD RD
CHEVY CHASE DR
NORTH SHORE DR
FARVIEW LA
BAYSIDE RD
WINDJAMMER LA
BAY RIDGE RD
BAY RIDGE RD
BROWN RD N
97/10/0997/10/1397/10/2197/10/2097/10/2797/10/2797/10/2797/10/29
97/10/27
97/10/27
97/10/28
97/10/29
97/10/31
97/10/31
97/10/31
97/10/06
97/10/06
97/10/06
97/10/06
97/10/14
97/10/16
97/10/27
97/10/01
97/10/07
97/10/13
97/10/09
97/10/09
97/10/27
97/10/01
97/10/10
97/10/13
97/10/08
97/10/16
97/10/16
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/27
97/10/09
97/10/09
97/10/28
97/10/31
97/10/16
97/10/03
97/10/16
97/10/28
97/10/29
97/10/30
97/10/31
97/10/02
97/10/14
97/10/16
OR-009497OR-009515OR-009534OR-009535OR-009570OR-009576OR-009577OR-009579
OR-009580
OR-009585
OR-009588
OR-009598
OR-009607
OR-009608
OR-009610
OR-009477
OR-009482
OR-009487
OR-009489
OR-009520
OR-009525
OR-009569
OR-009474
OR-009490
OR-009517
OR-009501
OR-009502
OR-009575
OR-009475
OR-009505
OR-009513
OR-009518
OR-009526
OR-009527
OR-009540
OR-009542
OR-009545
OR-009568
OR-009498
OR-009503
OR-009574
OR-009612
OR-009528
OR-009481
OR-009530
OR-009592
OR-009597
OR-009605
OR-009611
OR-009480
OR-009519
OR-009529
39414211 KLF.VE HTG & AC UZELL 10,500.0036332561FIRESIDE CORNER STORDAHL 1,100.0034972031M it D PLBG & HTG INC BERSCHEID 2,944.0014740383COLSON CONST INC 900.0034282826PRACTICAL SYSTEMS SPILSETH 200.0035453797FIREPLACE CENTER PFT'ERS 2,000.0039414211KLEVE HTG k AC PETERSEN 6,500.0034791600COUNTRYSIDE H'l3 A/C JAMES 2,200.00
54775649 RITTER EXCAVATING BERSHEID 500.00
32866133 PALO COMPANIES INC STONELAKB 13,230.00
36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER 1,100.00
35453797 FIREPLACE CENTER OLSON 1,000.00
38543868 OWENS SERVICES CORP 4,500.00
36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER HARMANN 1,100.00
37576200 BLAIJE HTG AC k ELEC INC YOGERST 2,100.00
34282826 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS OLSON 5,600.00
00000000 SNYDER 1,400.00
34242110 MAPLE GROVE HEATING k AIR PCMIJE 12,000.00
38900758 FIRESIDE CORNER RADEMACHER 4,000.00
34283677 HEATING k COOLING TWO BLACK 710.00
35453797 FIREPLACE CENTER SPILSETH 1,000.00
34282826 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS OLSON 250.00
00000000 UDELL 10,500.00
39411044 CENTRAIRE INC DEMATTEO 1,400.00
34730450 TRIPLE D HTG k AC JOHNSTONE 2,150.00
34282826 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS YOUNG 725.00
34282826 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS BURGESS 1,000.00
38256867 WELTER RAY HTG CO ROOKE 3,000.00
29383589 STANDARD PLBG k APPL CO SILUS .00
24739221 WAY2ATA PLBG k HTG INC NOLAN 3,500.00
24792097 NIEMAN PLBG k HTG INC MOE 6,000.00
29332521 THOMPSON PLBG 19,000.00
29337200 CULLIGAN TRANGSRUD 202.18
28947600 LAKESIDE PLBG k HTG INC 29,903.00
25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 7,800.00
25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 9,800.00
27852202 MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT JACQUES 600.00
24796715 KINGSWAY PLUMBING 16,279.00
00000000 RYDER 480.00
24422618 SULLIVAN BOB PLBG STORDAHL 1,200.00
28663057 SOUTHTOWN PLBG WARNER 2,350.00
29332521 THOMPSON PLBG 1,200.00
24701208 STEINKRAUS PLBG INC MCFARLYN 2,900.00
24725920 OLSON LARRY ROOKE 2,350.00
24738403 DAY EARL W k SONS MO'lNEUR 2,253.00
27839080 PLUMBING SERVICES INC POMIJE 3,500.00
29337200 CULLIGAN MIGLIORE 261.81
24725920 OLSON LARRY KYLE 1,700.00
28274033 NORBLOM PLUMBING CO CHAN 1,000.00
24786C27 KIDGEDALS PLUMBING MCCUNE 2,200.00
24786027 RIDGEDALE PLUMBING JOHNSON 1,200.00
2473870-J CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG CALIHAN 3 soo.oo
'ON, NOV 3, 1997, 3:27 PMERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBERZRMIT HORK ADDR NBR STREET• C 29 95025C0137210124250125870120001153001210601152501425
01 2590
01 465
01 240
01 2975
01 1300
01 1465
01 900
01 900
01 920
01 920
01 2460
01 801
01 541
01 940
01 2085
01 940
01 2085
01 1803
01 1900
01 1802
28C
01 2670
01 2800
22 2405
22 4108
34 2405
5C
NORTH ARM DRCASCO AVE THOROUGHBRED LA KELLY AVE TRUFFULA TR TANGLEWOOD RD SUGARWOOD DR 6TH AVE N HUNTER PASS
WATERTOWN RD
hunter pass
CYGNET PL
SOMERSET LA
FRENCH CREEK DR
long lake BLVD
DAKOTA AVE
DAKOTA AVE
DAKOTA AVE
DAKOTA AVE
THOROUGHBRED LA
FERNDALE RD N
NORTH SiTlEAM RD
DAKOTA AVE
6TH AVE N
DAKOTA AVE
6TH AVE N
lakeview ter
lakeview ter
LAKEVIEW TER
COUNTRYSIDE DR W
COUNTRYSIDE DR W
DUNWOODY AVE
HIGHWOOD RD
DUNWOODY AVE
1997ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER CO^‘.PANY *97/10/28 OR-009587 27735740 DINIUS PLUMBING97/10/09 OR- 97/10/13 OR- 97/10/15 OR- 97/-0/21 OR- •.7/1./21 OR- 97/13/20 OR- 97/10/20 OR- y7/10/23 OR-
97/10/23 OR-
97/10/23 OR-
97/10/24 OR-
97/10/24 OR-
97/10/24 OR-
97/10/27 OR-
97/10/27 OR-
97/10/27 OR-
97/10/27 OR-
97/10/27 OR-
97/10/28 OR-
97/10/28 OR-
97/10/28 OR
97/10/28 OR
97/10/28 OR
97/10/29 OR
97/10/29 OR
97/10/30 u
97/10/31
97/10/31 OR
009500009510009522009532009539009541009543009559009561
009562
009563
009564
009566
■009578
-009581
-009582
-009583
-009584
-009589
•009590
-009591
-009595
-009596
-009602
-009603
J09604
-009609
-009617
97/10/13 OR-
97/10/14 OR-
97/10/01 OR-
97/10/22 OR
97/10/01 OR
009486
009516
009472
009538
009467
544614955723715525593522542873935471815126572548253343575479176255323369
54791762
57237155
54425855
52952711
OOOOCOCO
54775649
54775649
00000000
54775649
57237155
57237155
57237155
00000000
00000000
54775649
24722316
00000000
00000000
00000000
84775296
00000000
00000000
00000000
00000000
WIDMER BROS INC CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC ROTO-ROOTER SERVICE CO PATNODE BROTHERS PETERSON ELMER J CO MARTY'S PLUMBING (t HEATING PLYMOUTH PLUMBING HAYES EXCAVATING DON'S PLUMBING & HEATING
HAYES EXCAVATING
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICES
FYLE'S EXCAVATING
RITTER EXCAVATING
RITTER EXCAVATING
RITTER EXCAVATING
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
RITTER EXCAVATING
COPPIN PLBG
FIC INC
OWNER LAST NM OLSONWELTYMITCHELLCECINSUESS
DETERLING
ANDREA
SAGAN
LUND
LUNDBERG
LUNDBERG
GAWRON
GAWRON
LAZEAR
A-RNE
MARESH
ARNE
MARESH
SUNDEAN
KOSCIOLEK
ANDREASEN
DEVEER
VITAS
WALTON
THEIS
WALTON
PAGE 3VALUATION5,275.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
3,397,125.32*
138C
MON, NOV 3, 1997, 3:26 PMNUMERICAL LISTING OCTOBER 1997PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-009371OR-009459OR-009463OR-009465OR-009467OR-OC9472OR-009473
OR-009474
OR-009475
OR-009476
OR-009477
OR-009478
OR-009479
OR-009480
OR-009481
OR-009482
OR-009483
OR-009484
OR-009485
OR-009486
OR-009487
OR-009488
OR-009489
OR-009490
OR-009491
OR-009492
OR-009493
OR-C09494
OR-009495
OR-009496
OR-009497
Cm-009498
OR-009499
OR-009500
OR-009501
OR-009502
OR-009503
OR-009504
OR-009505
OR-009506
OR-009508
OR-009509
OR-009510
OR*009511
OR-009512
OR-009513
OR-009514
OR-009515
OR-009516
OR-009517
OR-009518
OR-009519
OR-009520
OR-009521
97/10/01 N 97/10/01 N 97/10/02 N 97/10/03 N 97/10/01 N 97/10/01 N 97/10/01 N
97/10/01 N
97/10/01 N
97/10/01 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/02 N
97/10/02 N
97/10/02 N
97/10/03 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/06 N
97/10/07 N
97/10/08 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/08 N
97/10/10 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/09 N
97/10/10 N
97/10/10 N
97/10/17 N
97/10/10 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/14 N
97/10/13 N
97/10/08 N
97/10/14 N
97/10/14 N
97/10/14 N
2166242512302850240524051845
2166
3235
3070
2601
2765
2987
1473
4190
3601
790
1473
2975
2670
3120
100
1837
1336
480
3845
950
870
2175
1395
1950
3045
1540
3721
1365
2032
4745
3884
1540
3225
2405
395
2425
1264
4575
1230
1251
4745
2800
3285
801
1461
4030
2791
SHADYWOOD RD THOROUGHBRED LA SPRUCE PL SOMERSET LA DUNWOODY AVE DtJNWOODY AVE LAKEVIEW TER
SHADYWOOD RD
CASCO CIR
NORTH SHORE DR
WEST LAFAYETTE RD
KELLY AVE
CASCO POINT RD
BAY RIDGE RD
HIGHWOOD RD
TOGO RD
NORTH ARM DR
BAY RIDGE RD
SOMERSET LA
COUNTRYSIDE DR W
NORTH SHORE DR
LUCE LINE RIDGE
FAGERNFSS POINT RD
REST PT CIR
LINDEN AVE
NORTH SHORE DR
NORTH ARM DR
HUNT FARM RD
SHEVLIN DR
ORONO LA
CONCORDIA ST
6TH AVE N
FOX ST
CASCO AVE
PARK DR
SHADYWOOD RD
CREEKWOOD TR
CHERRY AVE
FOX ST
6TH AVE N
DUNWOODY AVE
FERNDALE RD N
THOROUGHBRED LA
NORTH ARM DR
WAYZATA BLVD
SPRUCE PL
BROWN RD S
CREEKWOOD TR
COUNTRYSIDE DR W
CRYSTAL BAY RD
FERNDALE RD N
BAY RIDGE RD
DAHL RD
PHEASANT RD
29 0000000001 00000000 01 1972271601 1934046134 0000000022 00000000 11 19391942
24 00000000
01 29383589
11 15447577
02 34282826
06 00000000
11 14710532
29 24786027
24 24725920
02 00000000
01 17313153
01 34485828
01 19340461
01 84775296
02 34242110
01 39411044
02 38900758
24 39411044
11 00000000
02 17212018
29 14747121
09 15429000
02 00000000
02 14728575
01 39414211
02 00000000
29 14732221
01 54461495
29 34282826
29 34282826
02 24422618
11 14277937
01 24739221
11 00000000
01 14712216
16 14750918
01 57237155
11 14961435
11 00000000
01 24792097
11 00000000
01 36332561
01 00000000
24 34730450
01 29332521
29 24786027
02 34283677
11 13781170
HIRSCH AL CONST PETER ANDREA COKOOSMAN AL
STANDARD PLBG L APPL CO
MILLWORKS CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICAL SYSTEMS
DANBERRY COMPANY
RIDGEDALE PLUMBING
OLSON LARRY
CHARLES CUDD CO
AIR REFRIGERATION
PETER ANDREA CO
FIC INC
MAPLE GROVE HEATING U AIR
CENTRAIRE INC
FIRESIDE CORNER
CENTRAIRE INC
INSIDE U OUT REMODELORS
LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS
DALPHIN POOL k SPA
CREATIVE BUILDERS
KLEVE HTG k AC
STONEHOUSE DESIGNS
WIDMER BROS INC
PRACTICAL SYSTEMS
PRACTICAL SYSTEMS
SULLIVAN BOB PLBG
NORTHERN CONSTRUCTION
WAYZATA PLBG k HTG INC
LARSON HOMES MTKA INC
BRUCE BREN HOMES
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
L Sc L ROOFING
NIEMAN PLBG Sc HTG INC
FIRESIDE CORNER
TRIPLE D HTG k AC
THOMPSON PLBG
RIDGEDALE PLUMBING
HEATING Sc COOLING TWO
QUIMBY COMPANY
UDELLEIDENMOETROWSREDWALTONWALTONASKE
UDELL
SILUS
HASNAIN
OLSON
GRUVER
HARTZELL
MCCUNE
ROOKE
SNYDER
ENGELER
MCCUNE
LAHTI
DEVEER
POMIJE
PASSOW
RADEMACHER
DEMATTEO
GRADY
FRITZ
OLSON
SPPENGER
RAKOS
NOLAND
UZELL
RYDER
NOLAN
WELTY
YOUNG
BURGESS
STOPDAHL
WEEKS
NOLAN
HEUPEL
WALTON
MOELLER
RUDD
MOB
CHRISTENSEN
STORDAHL
VITAS
JOHNSTONE
JOHNSON
BLACK
SUNDET
2,000.00310.503.00 228,000.00320.000. 00 .00 .003.200.00
10,500.00
.00
3.000. 00
5.600.00
4.000. 00
2.500.00
2.200.00
2.350.00
1.400.00
355.600.00
2.500.00
490.000. 00
.00
12,000.00
2.400.00
4.000. 00
1.400.00
1.000. 00
25.000. 00
45.000. 00
20.000. 00
7.000. 00
50.000. 00
10.500.00
480.00
11.500.00
.00
725.00
1.000. 00
1.200.00
6,100.00
3.500.00
400.00
144.245.55
.00
.00
2.900.00
2,000.00
6,000.00
1.800.00
1,100.00
.00
2.150.00
19.000. 00
1.200.00
710.00
3.290.': 3
MON, NOV 3, 1997, 3:26 PMOCTOBER 1997 PAGE 2NUMERICAL LISTINGPERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION25593522ROTO-ROOTER SERVICE CO MITCHELL .0014734157KOKESH LANDSCAPE HURD 750.0015590251EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC 300,613.8335453797FIREPLACE CENTER SPILSETH 1,000.0029337200CULLIGANTRANGSRUD202.16289476C0LAKESIDE PLBG k HTG INC 29,903.0024701208STEINKRAUS PLBG INC MCFARLYN 2,900.0024738793CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG CALIHAN 3,500.00
24738403 DAY EARL W k SONS MOYNEUR 2,253.00
14476084 DESIGNER POOLS WARNER 40,000.00
54287393 PATNODE BROTHERS . 00
00000000 WEBSTER 500.00
34972031 M (i D PLBG k !<TG INC BERSCHEIO 2,944.00
14740383 COLSON CONST INC 900.00
15578678 RIGHT WAY ROOFING WALSH 3,500.00
14759923 ROOFTOP ENGINEERING DAYTON 9,300.00
00000000 THE IS .00
54718151 PETERSON ELMER J CO CECIN .00
25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 7,800.00
26572548 MARTY'S PLUMBING k HEATING .00
25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 9,800.00
25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING . 00
00000000 DOSSETT 100.00
27852202 MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT JACQUES 600.00
00000000 PETERSON 4,800.00
16450331 SUSSEL CORPORATION ANDERSON 10,300.00
14745044 EXCELSIOR VFW 6,950.00
15465500 FTLLA DESIGNERS, BUILDERS,JOHNSON 10,980.00
14768403 LUCAS DESIGN WORKS LUCAS 18,000.00
154r:jOO GIERTSEN COMPANY STAFFORD 220,000.00
14718979 TRENDY ROOFING k SONS INC CHRISTENSEN 2,950.00
00000000 LANPHER 1,000.00
14282242 VEIT AND COMPANY HOEFT .00
14040600 JYLAND DEVELOPMENT 650.00
16824571 LOUISIANA HOMES INC MEYER 380,000.00
54791762 HAYES EXCAVATING .00
:9333536 COTY CONSTRUCTION SENN 6,380.00
55323369 DON'S PLUMBING k HEATING SUESS .00
54791762 HAYES EXCAVATING .00
57237155 CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC DETERLING .00
54425855 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICES ANDREA .CO
52952511 FILE'S EXCAVATING SAGAN .00
00000000 SIGEL .00
24796715 KINGSWAY PLUMBING 16,279.00
34282826 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS OLSON 250.00
34282826 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS SPILSETH 200.00
14768403 LUCAS DESIGN WORKS ST. LAWRENCE 52,000.00
28663057 SOUTHTOWN PLBG WARNER 2,350.00
38256867 WELTER RAY HTG CO ROOKE 3,000.00
35453797 FIREPLACE CENTER PETERS 2,000.00
39414211 KLEVE HTG k AC PETERSEN 6,500.00
00000000 LUND .00
34791600 COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C JAMES 2,200.00
54775649 RITTER EXCAVATING BERSHBID 500.00
OR-009522OR-009523OR-009524OR-009525OR-009526OR-009527OR-009528OR-009529
OR-009530
OR-009531
OR-009532
OR-009533
OR-009534
OR-009535
OR-009S36
OR-009537
OR-009538
OR-009539
OR-0( 1540
OR-009541
OR-009542
OR-009543
OR-009544
OR-00954S
OR-009547
OR*009548
OR-009549
OR-009550
OR-009551
OR-009552
OR-00O554
OR-009555
OR-009556
OR-009557
OR-OOS558
OR-009559
OR-009560
OR-009561
OR-009562
OR-009563
DR-009564
OR-009566
OR-009567
OR-009568
OR-009569
OR-009570
OR-009572
OR-009574
OR-009575
OR-009576
OR-009577
OR-009578
OR-009579
OR-009580
97/10/1597/10/1597/10/2797/10/1697/10/1697/10/1697/10/1697/10/16
97/10/16
97/10/20
97/10/21
97/10/17
97/10/21
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/22
97/10/21
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/20
97/10/22
97/10/27
97/10/22
97/10/22
97/10/21
97/10/28
97/10/22
97/10/23
97/10/23
97/10/24
97/10/23
97/10/23
97/10/23
97/10/23
97/10/23
97/10/24
97/10/24
97/10/24
97/10/24
97/10/27
97/10/27
97/10/27
97/10/29
97/10/28
97/10/27
97/10/27
97/10/27
97/10/27
97/10/29
97/10/27
NNNNNNNN
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
2587279524603233250129953412690
131
37S
200
500
1365
55
1926
990
4108
1530
1525
2106
200
1525
2795
2585
1770
845
100
1225
1060
3034
2750
1359
1725
425
4685
425
4448
2590
465
240
2975
1300
1399
2106
950
3233
253
375
4190
1950
1125
1465
1385
1365
KELLY AVE CASCO POINT RD THOROUGHBRED LA CASCO CIR KELLY AVE DEER RUN TR SHORELINE DR BROWN RD N
CHEVY CHASE DR
WAKEFIELD RD
TRUFFULA TR
ORONO ORCHARD RD S
REST PT RD
WPAP T.A N
FAGERNESS POINT RD
OLD LONG LAKE RD
HIGHWOOD RD
TANGLEWOOD RD
6TH AVE N
SUGARWOOD DR
TRUFFULA TR
6TH AVE N
PHEASANT RD
OLD BEACH RD
SHADYWOOD RD
WILLOW DR S
BIG ISLAND
LAKEVIEW AVE
BROWN RD N
CASCO POINT
CASCO POINT
PARK DR
BOHNS PT RD
HUNTER PASS
TONKAVIEW LA
HUNTER PASS
NORTH SHORE DR
WATERTOWN RD
HUNTER PASS
CYGNET PL
SOMERSET LA
FRENCH CREEK DR
PARK DR
SUGARWOOD
NORTH ARM
CASCO CIR
CYGNET PL
WAKEFIELD RD
HIGHWOOD RD
CONCORDIA ST
NORTH ARM DR
LONG LAKE BLVD
CHERRY PL
REST PT RD
RD
RD
DR
DR
0131010201011929
24
09
01
24
01
01
11
11
22
01
01
01
01
01
29
01
06
04
13
03
04
24
11
11
16
33
01
01
11
01
01
01
01
01
17
01
02
01
29
02
29
01
01
01
01
01
m
MON, NOV 3, 1997, 3:26 PMNUMERICAL LISTING OCTOBER 1997 PAGE 3PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-009581OR-0095C2OR-009583OR-009584OR-009585
OR-009586
OR-009587
OR-009588
OR-009589
OR-009590
OR-009591
OR-009592
OR-009594
OR-009595
OR-009596
OR-009597
OR-009598
OR-009599
OR-009602
OR-009603
OR-009604
OR-009605
OR-009607
OR-009608
OR-009609
OR-009610
OR-009611
OR-009612
OR-009617
OR-009619
138C
97/10/27 N 97/10/27 N 97/10/27 N 97/10/27 N 97/10/27 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/28 N
97/10/29 N
97/10/29 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/29 N
97/10/29 N
97/10/30 N
97/10/30 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
97/10/31 N
9009009209202280
3390
950
200
2460
801
541
3120
3860
940
2085
3091
950
4108
940
2085
1803
3560
2060
505
1900
4740
850
3190
1802
1070
DAKOTA AVE 01 DAKOTA AVE 01 DAKOTA AVE 01 DAKOTA AVE 01 SHADOWOOD DR 01
BAYSIDE RD 11
NORTH ARM DR 29
TRUFFULA TR 01
THOROUGHBRED LA 01
FERNDALE RD N 01
NORTH STREAM RD 01
NORTH SHORE DR 24
NORTH SHORE DR 11
DAKOTA AVE 01
6TH AVE N 01
FARVIEW LA 24
NORTH ARM DR 01
HIGHWOOD RD 02
DAKOTA AVE 01
6TH AVE N 01
LAKEVIEW TER 01
BAYSIDE RD 24
6TH AVE N 01
OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S Cl
LAKEVIEW TER 01
BAYSIDE RD 01
WINDJAMMER LA 24
SUSSEX RD 02
LAKEVIEW TER 01
NORTH SHORE DR 04
5477564954775649000000005477564932866133
00000000
27735740
36332561
57237155
57237155
57237155
27839080
00000000
00000000
00000000
29337200
35453797
00000000
5477564S
24722316
00000000
24725920
38543868
36332561
00000000
37576200
28274033
29332521
00000000
00000000
RITTER EXCAVATING RITTER EXCAVATINGRITTER EXCAVATING PALO COMPANIES INC
DINIUS PLUMBING
FIRESIDE CORNER
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC
PLUMBING SERVICES INC
CULLIGAN
FIREPLACE CENTER
RITTER EXCAVATING
COPPIN PLBG
OLSON LARRY
OWENS SERVICES CORP
FIRESIDE CORNER
BLAINE HTG AC L ELEC INC
NORBLOM PLUMBING CO
THOMPSON PLBG
LUNDBERGLUNDBERGGAWRONGAWRONSTONELAKE
HUBER
OLSON
LAZEAR
POMIJE
HANDLIN
ARNE
MARESH
MIGLIORE
OLSON
THEIS
ARNE
MARESH
SUNDEAN
KYLE
HARMANN
KOSCIOLEK
YOGERST
CHAN
ANDREASEN
WIENER
.00.00.00.0013,230.00
5.970.00
5.275.00
1.100.00
.00
.00
.00
3.500.00
1.500.00
.00
.00
261.81
1,000.00
43,679.95
.00
.00
.00
1.700.00
4.500.00
1.100.00
.00
2,100.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
.00
15,000.00
IP
01 Residence 2402Add< tion 2503Garage/Attached 26
04 Garage/Detached 27
05 Porch 28
06 Deck 29
07 Fence 30
08 Gazebo 31
09 Pool 32
10 Re-side 33
11 Re-roof 34
12 Tennis Court
13 Sign
14 Dock
15 Shed
16 Cemo-Principal Structure
17 D«£mo-Accessory Structure
18 Mrve
19 Commercial
20 Institutional
21 . Storm Damage Repair
22 1-100 Cubic Yards
23 101 Cubic Yards or More
99 Undefined
9999
Replacing Existing Lifting Principal Residence Well Abandonment
Foundation Only
Temporary Trailer
Kenovate/Remodel
Accessory Structure
Stairway to Lake
Retaining Wall
Entrance Monuments
Tree Removal
LOCAL USB CODES
Undefined
OCTOBER 1997REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 11/03/97 * PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 10/01/97 - 10/31/97PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTYUser Defined
VARIANCE
CUP
SKETCH PLAN
VARIANCE/CUP
VACATION
Sub-total
3
1
0
0
0
4*
660.00
550.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,210.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00*
4
2
1
4
1
12*
Grand-total 4**1,210.00**0.00**0.00**12**
REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1
DATE OF RUN 11/03/97
*****PERMIT FEE REPORT *-♦**
CITY OF ORONO
FROM 10/01/97 TO 10/31/97
USER REPORT TOTAL
BASE FEB 1,210.00 1,210.00
PLAN REVIBN 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE
o•o0.00
Lie. SEARCH FEB 0.00 0.00
SAC 0.00 0.00
INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00
DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00
ESCROW 0.00 0.00
PERMIT TOTAL 1,210.00 1,210.00
PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 10/01/96 - 10/31/96BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW
880.00
500.00
250.00
1,465.00
550.00
3,645.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00*
3,645.00**0.00**0.00**
PAGE: 1
REQUESTER: CAROLE
) 1
fir
i
r
'
1
t t
« i
4^
Carl T. Johnson
3105 ^o^th Shore Drive
Wayzata, &ln. 55391
November 7. 1997
Crono City Council
2750 Kelley Parkway
P.O.Eox 66
Orono, Kn. 55323
o
-<
CTo3JOzo
2 s-* m
sCvO
mo
Subject: No Parking on County Rc 5I at 3IO5 No, Shore Er.
Dear Mayor and Council-
It is a practice that extensive heavy industrial
vehicles, pull off the road, and park regularly
on our home frontage roadway.
The ruts and destruction of the boulevard grass and
ground, by this practice, is very evident. Other
boulevard frontage in the area is not so affected.
Please consider putting a "NC PARKING’* sign or other
obstruction to try to preserve the boulevard.
Presently its an eye sore.
We maintain the area by cutting the grass and general
good cleanup and would appeciate help in keeping
it so.
Sincerely,
Carl T. Johnson