Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-1997 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of November 10, 1997 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS / '7 0/ry,^99; 'No LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - LiLi McMillan Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - William Stoddard Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. #2279 G. Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Reconsider Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution 4. #2305 Roger & Elizabeth Olsen, 815 Partenwood Road - Variances - Resolution "i 5. #2311 Loren Fritz, 3845 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution y^6. #2313 Tom & Kari Steinke, 910 Dakota Avenue - Variance - Resolution 7. Hardcover Policy Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT <i^8. Change Order #3 - North Brown Road CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 9. Spring Hill Golf Clut» - Tunnel Agreement y 10. Funding for PlanrJng Intern Through December * 11. Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule - Ordinance Amendment (Information Only) ^^12. 1998 Meeting Schedule 13. Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fee - Resolution 14. Request to Establish Drug Forfeiture Fund 15. Park Commission Vacancy 16. Quotations on Canopy for Public Works Building CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT r AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,1997, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 1 : * 17. LICENSES 1998 Liquor & Beer One Day Raffle - Resolution * 18. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 11/24 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/27 - HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of Thanksgiving Day 11/28 - HOLIDAY - Office closed 12/02 > Tuesday • Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. (Note date change) 12/03 - Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. 12/03 - Truth In Taxation Public Hearing 7:30 p.m. 12/08 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. (Last regular meeting in 1997) 12/10 - Continued Truth In Taxation Public Hearing 7:(X) p.m. (Only held if needed) 12/15 - Planning Commission Work Session 6:30 p.m. 12/25 > HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of Christmas 12/26 - HOLIDAY - Office closed 1 01/05 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 01/12 - Council meeting 7:(X) p.m. 01/19 - HOLIDAY -Office closed in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 01/20 - Tuesday - Planning Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. 01/26 - Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Public A ttendance Meeting D ate KJfo U ^ ^ ^ C ouncil U Planning C ommission n Park C ommission □ Other Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 LjJurfk SnrOV'nCi>A^X) -^0^^ c /Pj^uu\J 2 / T^<L^-7,3// \ Q' s^t'\ ____ r \y i 'rh:knu'^‘ ‘>^ 5 ________________________-______________________________________________ #: ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- 7.______________________________________________________________________________ 8. 9.. 10. 11. 12.. 13. 14. m nn nn 5»8J» I! I! nn S 001 i m m ; ■aAjimillllllMBfl Ml • \i ) / / f - \ Q '/ // // * ^"J M- 7 !*/1 ' 1 ‘li ?. ii ••« 1 R 1 T:7 »»» ''^v3r 'IS ISf ! A " K J I—^ »—• l-^ »—• *— 3 a\yl.uul^J^o^^3 'O ^ n 5; 2 S--g 3.S =. o a ? 2 c/i 3 ^ ^ ?T g.^ 3 n. a o IT. ►-• o - - - 'I S20 5. tn 3 3 3 a kl O W ?i-|og 1 < 3- St a s-gls"»2 00 3 ^ 0\ Ui ^ = S5S* O OJ •— Lf» o < H r » c n» o o o n. ^ g OQ oiliv % 2^ P =• JJ c/5 W B o 2.2 8T O .'» ? O V ;2 h: I 5-S ^ ^nl^ "Sr • B 3 s* ^ 3 Q ti ^ P> ^ fit rt 5* ^^i 8 § • g 2^1 i«s °f» g Sf;:i 8- *s " icu C ^ ^ 5*& ?r S g •-. O f? OQ g 3 M to 3 <g o ? it S' 8 5 q«-• (/Q 3 2 n^ r-» S’! ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 10,1997 ROLL COUNCIL MEETING NOV 2 an9979^9 CTTYOP ORO NO The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City' Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, City Engineer Glenn Cook, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #8,9,10, and 14 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 27,1997 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 27, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS McDermott reported the Park Commission will be meeting with residents of the West Countryside Drive neighborhood mid-November to discuss sunenities for Dickey Park. The Commission is attempting to determine means by which the bike trail system can obtain access into the park. McDermott indicated the Commission will be studying the City's demographics to determine future recreational needs. The Commission is sending letters to the residents of Hackberry and Bedcrwood Park areas to inform them that the ice rinks at these parks will be discontinued due to poor ice quality. An ice rink will be maintained at Casco Point. The Commission is considering the possibility of creating an ice rink on a pond at the golf course, which would correlate activities for residents with sledding, skiing, and the availability of tho club house. Jabbour asked for clarification regarding the meeting with neighbors of Dickey Park. McDermott indicated concern has been voiced from these residents regarding what will be provided at the park. McDermott said the park plans call for a low impact park. r V * 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Jabbour reported that the Council recently agreed to change the name of the Park Commission to include open space and trails to reflect the broader scope of the Commission's activities. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Hawn had no additional comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, voiced concern over the construction of CoRd 15 from Bracketts Point to the Wayzata border as the roadway has been enlarged. He said he previously voiced to the Council that a wider roadway is not necessarily the best solution for the community. Jabbour informed Coward that the road improvements at the Bracketts Point Curve area initially included two lanes and a shoulder to allow for bike travel and emergency parking. He indicated that there are Indian burial grounds on both sides of the road which restrict w idth. These have caused the City and County to set aside all plans for any widening of the roadway in this location. A central turning lane, two traffic lanes, and shoulders will be provided from Orono Orchard Road to Wayzata. Coward was told that the County has added a temporary bypass lane to enable the surcharging of one lane. He explained the process of surcharging and the time required for it to occur. Coward noted that all vegetation has been removed from the roadway to the railroad tracks. Jabbour concurred. Coward distributed an article printed in the Star Tribune relating to road improvements and reading several e.\cerpts from it. He said the County Engineer's answer to road problems is in constructing w ider roads. Coward said his experience has led him to believe that the City of Orono looks to the County for their vision. He asked the Council to take the leadership role in telling the County what they would like to see done. Jabbour responded that the City does view road improvements differently than the county and do not believe in widening roadways. He said the road was sinking and needed to be corrected to improve the safety factor. Jabbour said public meetings were held regarding the CoRd 15 improvements. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (Public Comments - Continued) Coward said he did attend those meetings. He said the road from Orono Orchard into Wayzaia has become wider than he ever thought would happen. He informed the Council of the difficulty in getting onto the roadway when traffic is moving quickly. He suggested the road be made to move more slowly to allow access on the road from other roadways. Coward believes there is more than the one answer to correct the road problems. Jabbour informed Coward that the Council reviewed the matter extensively. The Council declined to upgrade the road to State standards and forfeited state funding. Jabbour said the road widening on County Road 15 is necessary to handle the number of cars traveling the road, which is higher in number than that on Highway 55. Jabbour said the traffic counts on the road through Long Lake are even greater. Jabbour said the Council is trying tc seek other remedies through improvements made on Hwy 12 and CoRd 6 to allow other alternative routes for Orono residents to relieve traffic on CoRd 15. Goetten said she understands Coward's perception that the road will be widened im the north side. Goetten indicated she was not in favor of the road improvements ana did not believe a center lane would result in the objective of improving safety. She believes cars will use it for passing other cars. Goetten said the majority of the Council, however, voted in favor of the road improvement. Coward said the majority of the Council was wrong in approving the road improvements. He feels the road improvements will attract additional traffic. Goetten informed Coward that the decision to approve the road improvements has already been decided. Coward responded that the Council should consider the future vision that was thought through with several bridges in the area. Jabbour said he was on the Council at that time and the purpose was to slow traffic. Jabbour said there has teen consequences to that action with fatal accidents. He indicated the Council needs to listen to recommendations made by the engineers. Coward responded that he is hearing the Council say that the County cannot be fought. He hoped the Council will be more suspicious of County suggestions ip the future. Steve Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane, referred to a letter from Gaffron regarding a fence violation. He asked Council if they would consider allowing a temporary variance for the fence. Filips said he understood the reasoning behind the ordinance to eliminate a tunnel effect through fencing. His fence is located about 30' from the property line and about 40' from the road. The reason for the fence is to block the headlights from vehicles on Truffala Trail from shining on the back of his home. Filips said he prefers vegetation but requires the temporary variance until the brush and trees grow to block the nuisance. ♦ 4 --- r f I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (Public Comments - Continued) Filips said he called the City offices earlier in the summer and asked about requirements for constructing a fence. He was told that a 3' high fence was allowed in the front yard and 6' in the rear. He installed the fence at a 6' height though v'^ould have preferred it higher yet to totally block the nuisance. Filips asked the Council lo consider his request for the temporary variance. Gaflron agreed with the accuracy of the comments made by Filips. He showed the location of the fence on the property. Gaffron said there are type 1 wetlands on the property that are regulated through covenants. The fence is located too close to the property line for a through lot, where only a 3-1/2 ’ high fence is allowed within 50' of the rear street property line. Unfortunately, a conforming fence would also result in violating the wetland covenants. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission cannot review the temporary variance request until their January meeting. He asked for Council direction. Filips said he contacted the Corps of Engineers about the fence but has not received any comments. Filips said he was unaware of the wetlands on the property. He indicated the property was undeveloped around the fenced area. Jabbour indicated that requests for variances begin at the Planning Commission. Gaffron agreed but thought the Council could give some indication of whether support for the fence would be received before Filips goes through the process. Jabbour said the request would have to begin with the Planning Commission. He asked about information provided to Mr. Filips by the City. Gaffron reported that the staff responded to fence location for a rear yard, but this resulted in miscommunication because the property was not identified as being a through lot. The Planning Commission will hear the request at their January meeting. Information must be provided to the City by the December 22 deadline. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#3) #2279/#2280 MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PRELIMINARY PLAT RESOLUTION #3966 - PARK FEE APPEAL Tracy Whitehead was present with Attorney, John Winston. Gaffron reported that Staff was directed by Council at an October Council Meeting to revise the preliminary plat resolution. The Council adopted that resolution based on MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#3 - nnmilSO Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) those revisions. Staff has met with the applicant and her attorney, and both Staff and applicant are in agreement with the language in the revised resolution in tonight's packet. Gaffron said the applicant is appealing the park dedication fee, which is based on a pre ­ development fair market value established by City Assessor of $22,000 per acre for 8% of 7.6 acres or $13,376 for the two lots. A letter from the applicant ’s attorney appealing the fee is included in the packet. Gaffron updated the Council regarding the drainage and screening issue on the back lot and driveway. Gaffron said he met with the neighboring property owner to the southwest. They discussed the need for a berm to solve the issue of headlights shining into the neighboring property's back yard. A letter is included in the packet from that property owner. Gaffron said the applicant's engineer was asked to revise the plan to show the revision for the berm. Gaffron said Greg Gappa has reviewed the roadway drainage system and finds it should be adequate to handle the additional anticipated stormwater from the proposed driveway and home; therefore, no drainage upgrade is being required. The resolution was presented for Council confirmation as well as the question of park dedication fee appeal. John Winston said Gaffron has addressed the concerns of language in the resolution, and he is satisfied with the resolution as presented. Winston said he has a strong opinion on the legality of the park dedication fee. He distributed a synopsis on the law applicable to the fee. Winston said he has discussed with Barrett cases before municipalities for park land or fee showing the need to show a relationship between park use and any subdivision. He feels the two single family homes will have a negligible impact on the park system resulting in the ordinance being unenforceable and the fee unreasonable. Winston read sections from the State ordinance. Winston proposed a settlement which he believes to be of reasonable amount. He noted, however, that the Whiteheads felt the amount was more than generous and should be less. Winston requested the money be set aside in escrow and discussed in another venue. Jabbour informed Winston that the appeal should result in the application being tabled. Flint agreed with Jabbour. Flint said he is strongly convinced that the fee is appropriate. He opposed the fee amount being placed in escrow. Flint informed Winston that the cost of parks and open space is not only paid by general revenue but paid by subdivisions. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#3 - #2279/#2280 Marc ai.d Tracy Whitehead - Continued) He indicated that large lots have the same benefits to the open space as small lots. Flint said the Council agreed to the cap on the park dedication fee on the Fullerton Subdivision because of the value being disproportionate but feels this is not the case in the Whitehead application. Flint also reported that the percentage, as indicated by Winston, was not the basis for the Council ’s decision on the Fullerton example. Winston responded that the matter does not need to be decided at this meeting. Jabbour said he disagreed. Jabbour said he did not wish to use park dedication money to pay for attorney fees and felt the Council should determine now whether the law is good or bad. Jabbour said the matter cannot be handled case by case. He noted that Council Member Goetten has felt the Council was acting in haste in the determination on the park dedication fee for the Fullerton Subdivision. Jabbour said he now believes she was right. Jabbour reiterated that park dedication funds will not be spent on legal fees and will not be negotiated by the attorney. He reported that previous comments were taken seriously by the Council, who have had a subsequent work session addressing the issue. The Council is beginning the process of amending the Comprehensive Plan to focus more on acquiring open spaces and trails. Jabbour said the Park Commission was informed that increased parks and open space will require a funding mechanism be in place. The City will project future needs and funding sources. One of these funding sources is the park dedication ordinance. The City believes the percentage fee is valid and Justifiable. Winston said the requirement is to show the nexus for the fee. He said the offer presented by the applicant is reasonable. Winston thought with decisions made at this meeting and through several phone calls, the issue can be solved without flulher legal involvement. Jabbour informed Winston that he feels the fee as presented by the City is reasonable. He reported that the proposed parks and recreation plan of the City is different from other cities as Orono's vision includes more open space than other cities. Jabbour said the application can be tabled as he will not negotiate each case of park dedication. Winston said if the subdivision is stopped without escrowing the park fee amount, the Whiteheads are left to decide now whether the fee is fair. Winston said he is not asking for approval but wanted to address the matter on the agenda. He asked that the Council confer with the City Attorney. r f I *■ r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#3 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) Winston said the subdivision has already been approved and conditions must be met but the matter of park dedication needs to be decided by the Council. Winston said he does not like this forum to work out this issue and would prefer the Council confer with counsel. Jabbour said changes have already been made in relation to the ordinance. Winston responded that he was not ad\ ised of any amendment. Winston said the flat 8% fee based on market value does not meet legal requirements. Kelley said the required fee is lower than a cap w’ould be. Flint said the Council takes into consideration the impact on open space. He noted the $400,000 of park dedication fees already spent on park projects shows a correlation. Winston said there is no record of a correlation between park needs and the park dedication fee. Barrett said that will be addressed as it is valuable to provide as part of the preliminary plat approval. He said the letter provided by staff demonstrates the nexus to the subdivision. Gaf&on reported that the language on the revised plat resolution is not in question. He noted the changes were agreed to. Jabbour noted for the record that the meeting, in which the Council discussed the parks and open space plan and the park dedication fee ordinance, was not in reference to this application. The meeting was held to discuss several issues. He said this is not an after the fact matter. Barrett asked to clarify if the question was the amount of the park dedication fee. Gaffi-on said there had been no change to the park dedication language in the preliminary approval resolution. Gaffron read the language of the resolution pertaining to park dedication noting the applicant did not argue that language. Barrett said he is ■willing to discuss the park dedication at this time. Winston and Whitehead at this time left the meeting even after being informed that the Council was willing to continue discussing the issue of park dedication. Kelley said he would not approve anything at this time. He would prefer tabling confirmation of changes made to the resolution language. Flint agreed with Kelley though he felt it was a matter of the whole subdivision package including the issue of the road and not requiring changes there. •i«ii •r^c«rtBCii i p.n^Tf [•AVAiurti [•■•iniiifnfl It] 1)0 RlHLt>CT flMn I (•iV'MtfliwVirno rm IIM •IHkWilslMtli tssiirtiri]Limi [• ■ rm iTi^ Miuiuirt rt^wn lilllllllSl r«i»n •iinciRia •nnn rtjiaHiiHcij r«irc nriiiti Lilli Vilt] MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#4 - #2283 Gary and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Jabbour noted that future Council's cannot be bound and expects that this lot is buildable. He informed the Birnbaums that this decision was necessary to clarify the issue. Kelley, while not suggesting this occur in this application, said in taking a pro-active stance, he would like Gaffron to review if there are lots that have been assessed for sewer and are unbuildable. The City can then make an offer to reimburse the sewer assessment before any application comes forward on the property. Kelley noted that the photograph of the property depicts a fence and questioned it. Goeiten said she was on the Council in 1987 and had voted against the variance as the zoning is one acre. She noted that while the lot is lovely, it should have been kept as one lot. Goetten said any residence built on the lot will have to be a very small house. She indicated that the lots on record are not adjoined with the property but this property has sewer to Lot 1 and makes the property substandard. Goetten reported that she will still vote against the application at this time as she did so previously in 1987. Bimbaum said he would take exception to Goetten's comments noting a 1500 s.f. footprint could be built on the lot. As far as setting a precedence for other homes, Bimbaum indicated that the size is the same as previously approved and 57% of the lots in the area are under one acre. Goetten interjected that those are separate lots so they present a different situation. She said she would not allow a new subdivision to make a lot substandard. Bimbaum said the plat occurred before regulations were in effect. Gaffron confirmed that the lot was platted in the 1940's or 1950's, and the application in 1987 was for a variance only. Bimbaum said the issue at that time was whether the lot was buildable. Flint said he would not support the application based on the logic shown by Goetten regardless of what took place in the past. Cook indieated the need for a 5' easement on the west side of the property for the piping of drain tiles. Mrs. Bimbaum confirmed that there is a pipe mnning along that side. Kelley noted that this is not a part of this application. Jabbour confirmed that it would have to be settled with the City Engineer at another time. Flint asked to be shown where homes are located along the lake that are less than 1/2 acre. Staff pointed out a variety of lots on the plat map. Peterson said she supported the application in 1987 because of the sewer assessment and will be consistent with that support at this time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#4 - #2283 Gar>' and Bonnie Bimbaum - Continued) Bimbaum reiterated that conditions have not changed since 1987 and findings are appropriate. Jabbour said he would support the application as the applicant had been informed the lot was buildable and sewer was assessed. He agreed that the property should have been viewed differently when sewer was installed. Jabbour moved. Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3997-A. Kelley asked for discussion regarding the fence. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would eliminate the fence. Bimbaum said the fence is on City property and was there when he purchased his property. He noted the fence runs along the access road to the beach and would be a safety concern with snowmobilers if the fence was eliminated. Jabbour said he would support the fence as it is located on City property. He informed Bimbaum that typically no fencing i**. allowed in the 0-75' lakeshore setback. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Goctten, Flint. (#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASSIC CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION/FINDINGS OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE The applicant was present. Kelley asked for definition of a classic car. Mr. Bury said the list is distinct and does not change and includes cars built between 1925 and 1948. Van Zomeren distributed photographs. She reported that the applicant is requesting clarification of the intent and purpose of the B5 zoning district to find classic car sales as a substantially similar use to others in the zoning district, specifically, an antique store or a museum. The B-5 Zoning District is a limited neighborhood business district. Van Zomeren said in reviewing the list of permitted and conditional uses. Staff felt the use would be similar to that of an antique store. The Planning Commission, however, voted 6-0 in denial of the application as they did not find it consistent and were concerned with outside display and storage. Van Zomeren asked Council to direct Staff to draft a resolution to approve or deny the request. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2319 Dick Bur}', Classic Car Sales - Continued) Richard Bury gave a background history of his business. It was established in 1987 in Eden Prairie and moved in 1992 to St. Louis Park. Due to the growth of his business and limited spacing at his current location. Bury initiated a purchase agreement contingent on his license being transferred to the location noted according to State criteria. Bury indicated that his business requires a building similar to that size and configuration of a furniture store or grocery store. His current business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. He anticipates requiring limited Saturday hours as well. He sends out cars for any repair work. He noted the business is also not a traffic generator as the majority of business is performed over the phone or by mail. The business traffic at this location would be of a local type. Bury said he does not see a difference in having 4-6 cars parked outside for display purposes versus other buildings where employees and customers park their cars. Bury said he would be a good member of the community and plans on re-staining the outside of the building, improving the landscape and parking lot. Bury said he is proud of his business, his reputation, and the cars he sells. Jabbour questioned if there w ere other areas in the B-5 Zoning District that would be opened up for used car sales if this was approved. It was noted that the use can be controlled through the resolution by limiting the findings as being shown to be similar to an antique dealer or museum through the description of a classic car. Barrett was asked for his opinion. Barrett said the City would have to show why this use is different. Jabbour responded that a car is a car. Goetten noted the wide range in antiques and felt the same applies with cars. She felt the use would fit in with antiques and museums if the Council can legitimately describe the use. Barrett said this would require amending the ordinance to create the category. Jabbour said whatever is done should be interpreted through the B-5 Zoning District. Jabbour said he supported the application. He noted the number of cars displayed outside could be limited. Barrett said the list of what is a classic car could be included. Jabbour confirmed with Barrett that this would be through an ordinance amendment as an additional use. Moorse said this would require review by the Planning Commission. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Bury asked to respond. He said he cannot be limited to certain models and certain age cars that can be sold. Bury said he needs to be able to sell newer cars as well in order to pay for the business. Van Zomeren noted that whenever a car dealer gets a new license or changes locations, the dealer is required to send a letter to the City for signature. She has received such a letter for a business of wholesaling cars elsewhere in the Navarre area, requiring no cars being on display, and has found this to be consistent with office use. Van Zomeren said the point she wanted to make is that the State requires the City to sign off for licensing; if changes are made in the future, another dealer could not automatically move into the location. Flint said he supported this particular application but was concerned with ramifications from its approval elsewhere in the community. He felt the only way the approval could be successful is by amending the ordinance, narrowing the definition, and limiting the number of cars being displayed. Flint said he is concerned with a used ca. lOt being located elsewhere in the City. Bury responded that he does not operate the same as used car lots. He noted that cars are not left outside; they are brought in overnight. Kelley asked how many of his current stock of cars are classic cars. Bury said he currently has two classic cars; the remaining 13 cars are in storage. He noted the change in numbers is reflected by the winter months. His sales to local clientele are small and the majority take place over the phone. Kelley asked how many cars would he be able to handle inside and outside at the location if he had ^ cars outside. Bury said he could have up to 25 cars inside. Kelley asked how many of those 25 cars would be classic cars during the summer months. Bury said at least 50%. Jabbour verified with Bury that trade-ins w'ould be allowed and the trade-ins would be of a variety of models. Goetten noted that the only B-5 Zoning is in Navarre. Gaffron displayed the map showing locations of the B-5 Zoning. Jabbour said the use was reasonable but voiced concern with bright lights. Also as far as the issue of parking is concerned, the amount allowed should not to tied to the display cars. Steve Katainen, owner of Bay Furniture Store, said the mandated parking for the property was not totally used. He indicated more land is available for parking but designed for his business. He said he has had up to 17 cars in the lot. Katainen said an 12 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 : ■ (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) area that he had intended for shed storage could be used for cars. Katainen feels the business would fit the categoiy- of permitted uses. He noted persons interested in the other allowed uses could not afford the building. He feels the business would be a classy operation and generate little traffic. Jabbour responded that he felt the Planning Commission did not understand the parking situation for the property. Goetten asked what the parking requirements are for the property. Van Zomeren reported there are 9 striped spaces across the lot. The typical parking space IS 9 xl8* and more would be available. Bury bought there was space for 15 parking stalls to the side. There is room for 10 in front but he does not plan on any in that location. He would keep 2 or 3 cars in front durmg the day for displa\ purposes and would want to maintain the grassed areas. In the wmter time, all of the cars would be stored inside. Jabbour said he stands corrected on parking. He noted the applicant would be required to maintain the required amount of parking spaces. Peterson agreed but when looking at the property, she noted that it was set up to be conducive to cars being parked to the side. Jabbour said it would still have to be considered a used car lot. Goetten suggested a percentage of classic cars be specified. She felt the business would be a good opportunity for the community. suggested he be limited to no more than two times the amount of cars inside than outside. Jabbour suggested a total of 4 cars outside. Kelley saw the question needing answering is whether Orono wants a used car lot in the City. If so, where is the best place. He feels this would be the best location. He foture"^^^^^*^ intentions but is concerned if the business is sold in the Gotten suggested the possibility of placing conditions on the application that difierentiate this business from other used car lots. Jabbour asked Barrett if the City could mandate the business be a certain percentage of classic cars. Barrett said a description could be included and made a requirement. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Van Zomeren said the furniture store had originally requested the same findings be found regarding its use. She questioned if it had been sold as a used furniture store, if that would have been considered a different use. She questioned whether there would be a parallel that could be drawn. Barrett said he did not know but regarding this case, the applicant would not be selling 100% classic cars but 30-50% of classic cars and the remainder non-classic. Flint said he was considering tabling the application to allow time for an adequate definition or the ordinance be amended precluding used car lots. He asked if the Council needs to amend the ordinance in order to achieve what is desired. Barrett said it is difficult to change the language. He recognized the time it takes to change an ordinance. Jabbour asked the Council to consider the question presented by Kelley regarding whether the City wants to have a used car lot. Flint said he does not agree with Kelly as he feels the classic car sales use is different from that of a used car lot. Flint said the way the question was phrased, he would not support it; but Flint said classic cars are a different aura, and if it can be defined as to what this type of classic dealer is and define outside use, he would support it. Jabbour questioned whether the B-5 could be amended to include classic cars with requiring a certain percentage of classic cars and limiting the cars displayed outside. This would, however, place the current application on hold. Goetten felt this was reasonable for findings of a similar use if the applicant could agree with limitations noted. She felt the applicant should have some indication of support if this process was to be undertaken. Kelley said he would support classic car sales but asked if the City would be auditing the applicant for complying to the percentage requirements. He said if the Council wanted to assist the applicant, a formula would have to be determined and checked annually for compliance. If found not in compliance, a variance would be required. Bury understood this but said he did not wish to be held to that criteria. He noted the problem ethanol gas brought forward. He noted the company's name refers to classic car sales but does not want to limit it to that use. He said he would be in favor of requiring 30% of the cars be located in the building. He would like to have a 6 car limit outside noting these cars would be brought back inside during the night time hours. Bury said he would only have security lights outside and maintain front lights inside the building for viewing. Bury said he did not want the application to become too complicated. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Goetten noted that the only time the City is aware of problems arising is from driving by and finding a violation. Planning Commissioner McMillan said the Planning Commission’s concern was with outside parking and the appearance of a lot of cars being parked outside. She noted there is limited parking outside and there would be no increase in hardcover for additional parking space. Jabbour noted there were similar uses in the City of Wayzata. He asked Council if the activity was indoors and the outside display was limited to 4-5 cars, whether they would support it. Katainen noted that the applicant also has antique gas pumps, a library of automobile books, which differentiate it from a used car lot and being similar to a museum. Jabbour indicated that all applications are different. He said the Council must review what the worst scenario might be and set parameters for a property owner. Jabbour said he supported the use through an amendment with no more than 4-5 cars displayed outside. He does not feel this use fits in with the current list of permitted and conditional uses and requires an ordinance amendment. Kelley noted there was no definition on what type of cars but used car sales should be in the B-5 zoning or asked if the Council wanted to classify it. Jabbour said he would prefer not to get involved with percentages but allowing the used and classic car sales but limiting the amount of outside cars in all B-5 Zoning. It is not his intention to allow 100% used but a portion of the display towards classic, vintage, and collector cars. A percentage could be designated. Bury noted that a typical used car lot has a small building with cars all sitting outside. He said he has a different use with a large amount of money put into the building and presenting a gallery/museum type of operation. Bury said the cost of this dictates the need to sell regular cars as well as classic. He suggested the percentage be tied into the outside display cars to cars inside. Jabbour said he would not be willing to do that. Bury said the size of the property will dictate the amount allowed. Van Zomeren said the use can be directed in the text of the amendment. She said the minimum and ma.\imum lot sizes, the building size, parking area, landscaping requirements, and lighting are all reviewed for performance standards and can be narrowed down. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Barrett said he would be satisfied with that for a new use. Jabbour asked Bury if 35-40% of cars inside would be classic. Bury said yes, Kelley said he would rather zone it used cars. Goetten said the use would designate it and prefers the specificity. Flint said he saw the business as a classic and collectors car dealership. Peterson asked where used car lots are allowed in Orono noting it would be along Highway 12 in the industrial area. Barrett said open sales lots are a conditional use. McMillan asked that sales be specified and not repair. Kelley said it would be tlie burden of the City to audit the use and is not in favor of specifying classic cars but is in support of used cars. Kelley noted that marinas are licensed and audited. Peterson questioned how many come in for licensing. Jabbour says it gives the City leverage if complaints are received. Kelley said he would support 4-5 cars outside noting any cars sitting overnight would be newer cars. Classic cars would only be outside when the applicant is onsite. He believes the Council should not get so narrow in its description. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to direct Staff to amend the B-5 Zoning District to allow the conditional use provision to permit classic, vintage, and collector car sales to be conducted 100% inside with a maximum of 5 display cars outside during the day time hours only and 35% of space to be designated and occupied with vintage, collectible cars. Kelley asked that promotions on the premises be addressed. Bury said he does allow car clubs to have an occasional meeting on the premises. McMillan indicated that the Council can control where the display is outside. Jabbour noted this will occur in the conditional use process. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley. The amendment to the ordinance will be reviewed by Planning Commission at the January 20, 1998 meeting. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#5 - #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales - Continued) Bury indicated that his purchase agreement expired November 1 but was extended to November 10. He said he would have to ask Mr. Katainen for a further extension noting it would place a burden on him. Jabbour indicated that was a private matter that the City is unable to get involved in. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would like to table the request or have the application denied as presented. Gaffron indicated that the commercial site plan review can be conducted at the same time as the amendment. Bury requested the application be tabled. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2310 to the January 26,1998 Council Meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2309 PAUL LARSON, 3865 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3998 The applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances for an existing lot-of-record for new construction. The Planning Conmiission unanimously recommended approval subject to the applicant's revision of the plan to meet the hardcover requirement. The applicant made those revisions. Mr. Larson had no additional comments. Flint asked about the neighboring substandard lot. He was informed that Larson does own the lot next door, which is his homestead. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. A short recess was held. (Mayor/Council Report follows #12.) CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT . .1 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#12) LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS ON THE CITY'S WATER TOWER Moorse reported that the City is working with telecommunication providers about locating antennas on the water towers. There are two companies, Nextel and Sprint Spectrum, who are closest to reaching agreements with the City. The agreements and summarizations are included in the packet information. Moorse said there were a small number of items yet to be resolved. He asked Council for approval of the main points laid out and authorization to finalize the agreements. Moorse indicated these two providers have agreed to the parameters and finalizing the agreements. Barrett acknowledged that there is some leeway by which adjustments can be made for smaller items of issue. Jabbour asked w’hy there was a difference in the amount of rates. Moorse said one provider was proposing 12 antennas and the other, nine. The larger number of antennas require more space. Flint asked how Moorse knows the rates are reasonable. Moorse said the rates are based on the higher end of the rates being charged in the metropolitan area. Flint asked if there was room for other providers' antennas on the water tower. Moorse said Sprint’s antennas will be located on the stem below the bowl. Nextel's will be located along the railing. The study shows there would be room for another set on the railing. Moorse noted he has been in discussions with a third provider. Another set of antennas could be located on the stem. Moorse said interference is related to both vertical and horizontal separation. Kelley asked how many vendors there w'ere for these services. Moorse said there were probably four but the federal government is in the process of making licenses available for another 2-3 providers. Kelley asked if the City is mandated under the Telecommunications Act to satisfy all providers. Moorse said we were. Kelley asked if the anteimas could end up being located outside of the water tower. Moorse said the potential was there but with 3-4 established, it makes it difficult for other providers to enter the service area. Kelley asked what criteria was used in negotiating what provider was chosen. Moorse said it was on a first come basis. Kelley asked about the third provider. Barrett said the third vendor. APT, had agreed to review a revised draft agreement, but has chosen to discontinue discussions at this time. Kelley asked if the terms of the agreements are identical or different. Barrett said the attempt was to keep the agreements as similar as possible. The right-of-entry, tenant responsibility, warranty, and insurance rates are identical. There are exhibits attached to ? ^ » i II i ! i i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#12 - Telecommunication Antennas Lease Agreements - Continued) the agreements. Barrett said the City does not want to have to work tlirough each agreement as they come up. Jabbour indicated that if tiv, water tower fil’s up with antennas another tower could be erected next to it. This was done in the City of Tonka Bay. A representative of one provider said the circumstances and values differ in each City. He said the company did erect the antenna with a reduction in their rent to allow that city to rent to others. Jabbour noted that the next provider may be required to request a tower be erected. He noted that the rents collected by Tonka Bay amount to 10% of their yearly budget. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize Staff with the aid of City Attorney Barrett to approve the lease agreements with Nextel and Spring Spectrum for telecommunications antennas on the City's Highway 12 water tower within parameters set by Staff and Barrett. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT There was no report. ENGINEER REPORT (#7) ORDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SHORELINE DRIVE (WEST OF HERITAGE) SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION NO. 3999 Moorse reported that when the ten hot spots for sewering were identified, the area along Shoreline Drive west of Heritage Drive, and the Heritage Drive/Heritage Lane areas were included. Neighborhood meetings were held to determine interest. It was found that the residents of Heritage Drive were not interested in sewer at that time. The Shoreline Drive residents are ready to move forward as they have one failing system and one system near failure. Moorse said the Shoreline Drive area can be served independently from Heritage Drive. The Heritage Drive homeowners association was recently recontacted to determine interest in sewer. There are now seven property owTiers in favor of sewer and seven opposed. Moorse indicated that four properties have conforming systems and one has a failing system. Jabbour asked if the other three residents are aware of the pros and cons to sewering at this time. Moorse said they were informed of this at the neighborhood meetings that were held 2-3 years ago. [•Ik iijori] [•mBflllHVsl rtara [•iw^wtiirRi •M«i r«inri •llU^i [•BBTiniTtJ WUCll MAI [•JlMIMiVIcra [ikYC •lOiiMiYt « iril rtmifnc^ TOTYT MiriiM r 4000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 O *'0NG LAKB7LONG LAKECOUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT >o approve Request for Payment No. 5, North Long Ayes 5, Nays 0. Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $60,431.50. Vote: (#11) NO PARKING - LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - RESOLUTION NO. Goetten asked if the residents have been informed on the no parking resolution Moo™ «.d the request comes from the residents. He noted there is a person v^hTc”^"' forfte other!!'"’ ** “ P^blem The small area of the turnaround was noted and location of the road was clarified. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4000 authorizing no parkins .n the vehicle turnaround area at the end of Long Lake Boulevard. ® m*'P«iilioned for the no parking and how many whether the Oty was macing to one complaint. Tom Kellogg said there Jr^M "“I'm “"’P?""''' “f ">« ProWera. Moorse did not know if any letters were Ihe problem. Gappa had handled the matter and vZs not in tiendance at the meeting. Kellogg thought the complaints had been verbally expressed. Kelley asked if the neighbor who has parked in this turnaround area has been contacted Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley. NO ainf '^O'^-UNION COMPEN.SATION ADJUSTMENTS - RESOLUTION l-Tfo'^ adjustments include the 3% increase in pay teuS.« b^s'iroor'' i" >he City's contribution to healthsur^ce by $15.00 a month for a maximum of $328.50. He noted that in the last couple years the insurance companies have held their rates down but this year have proposed a large increase. Moorse said the City tries to keep up with the Lreases. ^olTs^rban^’f'' ^^oaP »f Hennepin> burban Cities in a joint purchasing arrangement for health insurance r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#13 “ 1998 Non-Union Compensation Adjustments - Continued) Goetten voiced concern that the non-union pay and benefits adjustments seem Jx driven by the union contract settlements. Peterson asked if the City accepted the health insurance renewal amounts or investigates other options. Moorse said the City has not gone out independently for insurance bids. Jabbour said the City could still investigate costs elsewhere. Moorse was doubtful of the City obtaining a better rate on its own. Jabbour said that would not necessarily be the case as average age may reflect in higher fees. Moorse said the issue can be reviewed. Kelley voiced the problem with getting outside bids with artificial first year bids and change in coverage resulting in employees having to change their doctors. Flint asked for clarification on how much the City pays. Moorse reported that the Council had authorized the City to move in the direction of providing the same amount of benefit dollars to all employees, regardless of whether they have single coverage or family coverage. For 1998, fifty percent of the difference between the single coverage premium and the City's ma.ximum contribution of $328, can be used in the cafeteria benefit plan. Flint noted that family members will tend to choose the policy that favors their family. Companies are moving toward providing single coverage and making up differences for family coverage through increased salaries. Moorse noted the City has been taking the direction suggested by Flint that the difference between single and family coverage should disappear as far as the City's costs are concerned. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4002 approving the 1998 no**- 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/mile. Kelley asked if the 3% wage increase was driven by the police contract. Moorse indicated the 3% increase is somewhat higher than the CPI increase of 2.7%. Moorse reported the police contract is up the end of 1998. Kelley wras informed that negotiations begin in August or September of 1998. Kelley asked Staff to inform the Council of wage increases anticipated and how they arrive at the wage increases as it directly affects the other employees in the City. Jabbour noted the problem with looking at what other cities pay, resulting in a chain reaction of wage increases. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#14) QUOTATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CANOPY Moorse indicated that while this agenda item was on the Consent Agenda, it was found that the quotes were higher than estimated. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to reconsider Agenda Item #14. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to table Agenda Item #14, Quotations for Public Works Canopy. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#15) LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE SQUAD CARS IN 1998 Peterson suggested the City consider purchasing a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Moorse indicated Staff is looking at military surplus for such a vehicle but deferring that purchase until next year. Peterson said the City should consider one of the two cars now under consideration be a 4-wheel drive. She noted the use of snow plows to clear a way for a squad is illogical during snowstorms. Moorse said the City needs to determine how they would use the 4-wheeI drive vehicle. He does not feel it should take the place of regular squad cars for general use. Moorse thought the CSO vehicle would be a consideration with availability during bad weather situations. He noted the police are comfortable with driving rear-wheel drive vehicles especially during high speed chases. Moorse said front wheel drive cars handle differently. Jabbour agreed that a separate car should be designated for that use and the City should consider purchasing a third vehicle. Moorse said the two vehicles being replaced have high mileage. Peterson said she has a problem with the timeline. She said the safety of the residents should be considered now. Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the letter of intent to purchase two squad cars be sent to Superior Ford as indicated. Staff is asked to prepare a plan regarding a 4- wheel drive vehicle. Flint noted the difficulty with front wheel vehicles getting up steep driveways. Kelley was informed that the City currently has 8 squad cars. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#15 Purchase of Squad Cars - Continued) Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson. (#16) LONG LAKE FIRE SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE YEARS 1998-2000 Moorse reported that the 3-year agreement with Long Lake Fire Department for fire service is basically an extension of a 3-year agreement for another year to become a 3- year contract. The contract stipulates a budget increase of 4%. The fire department's budget increase is 3.96%. The City's actual cost is based on a cost allocation formula. Moorse indicated the actual increase will be 5.3%. The fire department is also proposing a special equipment purchase for a larger fire hose for fires where no hydrants are available. Moorse said Staff is suggesting more discussion be held on this matter to determine needs and whether it is a good purchase. At this time, Moorse asked Council for agreement with the contract. Kelley questioned why market value of homes was used as a factor in the cost allocation formula. He questioned why a large house or small house with four children in it should be of different value. Moorse indicated market value is a measure of property to be protected. Moorse noted that the number of fire hours is also used. Kelley questioned the wisdom in using market value in the fire district and if market value is a true reflection of how it should be evaluated. Kelley noted the result is an increase in Orono's share of the budget without alot of control by the City. He noted a discrepancy between the cities and their contracts. He suggested that fire hours be the only criteria. Moorse indicated that the fire department protects properties and the valuation gives an idea of the property being protected. Kelley said an argument could be made for newer homes being more fire resistant with the newer and better products available. Moorse noted that market value is made up of both land and building. In Orono, a substantial portion of market value is related to the land versus the building. Jabbour reported that the Council needs to discuss the long term relationship with Long Lake. He noted that the police contract has a similar criteria with population and market value. He feels tax capacity should also be used as a criteria noting the differing j)erccntages between commercial and residential properties. Orono is not benefiting as there is a low amount of commercial property in the City. Jabbour said there is more activity in commercial buildings with the number of people occupying it versus the number of people in a home. Jabbour suggested these contracts be negotiated at a time different from contract renewal. 24 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (#16 - Long Lake Fire Serv ice Contract - Continued) Goetten asked if the number of calls increased in Orono due to population increase or false alarms. If it is false alarms, Goetten stated the City needs to do a better job of correcting the situation. Moorse said he will be reviewing that matter under the new fee schedule noting that a significant amount of fire and police calls are false alarms. These calls had originally been monitored and answered by the security companies but has changed to response by police departments. Goetten noted a typographical error in the agreement; firemen was corrected to fire fighter. Kelley asked Moorse how many calls were from Orono for the 2500 fire hours. Moorse said he can obtain that information. Kelley asked for information on how many are false alarms as well. Moorse said that information is provided, and he receives information monthly, quarterly, and yearly. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#17) POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LONG LAKE FOR THE YEARS 1998-2000 Jabbour asked if the City has responded to Long Lake's police contract questions. Moorse said this was done last month and additional information was requested. He is meeting with the Long Lake Police Commission in December with that information and cost allocation alternatives. Moorse indicated that the contract is a 3-year agreement for police service to Long Lake. The approval would extend the contract to the end of the year 2000. Long Lake has given their approval already. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, 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. It was noted that the City of Long Lake is required to be listed on police vehicles while the City of Orono is not listed on the fire department vehicles. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT (#18) EXECUTIVE SESSION: TROY ANDERSON EASEMENT SETTLEMENT Attorney Barrett requested adjournment to an Executive Session. 25 k MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1997 (*#19) LICENSES - RESOLUTION NO. 4001 Goetten moved. Peterson seconded, to approve the Residential Kennel License for Dixie Cable, 1290 Loma Linda Avenue. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4001 for the Gambling Permit for the Lions Mound Northwest Tonka Club at Navarre Lanes, 3435 Shoreline Drive. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#20) BILLS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to an Executive Session at 10:25 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk rL .COUNCIL MEETING NOV 2 4 J997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO Date: November 20,1997 Item No.3 Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2279 G. Mark & Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Ljroan Avenue Possible Reconsideration of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966 A - Resolution #3966 (Revised version as presented to Council 11-10-97) B - Winston Letter to Mayor Jabbour 11-11 -97 C - Whitehead Letter to Mayor & Councilmembers 11-18-97 « m oa 07£. a«bi. Option to Re-Open Resolution #3966 TTe applicants did not express an objection to the 8% park dedicatton Ld ... shall be determined as of the time of preliminary subdivision approval is granted... . However aoplicants' attorney now insists that the Resolution which the applicants accepted on rvniemhe’r 22 is faulty in that it contains no findings showing 'nexus ’ or 'proportionality in a “PP® X^k fe^^~^ Hcant's attorney suggests that without such findings, the p^ « m ItSuonal. He suggest that the City should setUe for some lesser park fee amount, and allow the subdivision to proceed. Applicant accepted the park fee provisions of the Resolution on S'P'*'"*;" ^dCity are legally bound by a Preliminary Plat Approval resolution_ Applicmts requ a lesser park fee is in effect a request to revise the conditions of the Resolution. A^oval ““co'J^raUnrfmS of fact that demonstrate a 'nex^' and j #2279 - Whitehead Subdivision November 20,1997 Page 2 therefore should not be considered as detrimental to the applicant. Such an amendment will not alter any vested rights applicant has gained as a result of preliminary plat approval as defined in Subdivision Code Section ll.lOSubd. 20B. Council Action Requested 1. 2. 3. Motion to reconsider the September 22 action to adopt Resolution #3966. Direct staff to draft findings of nexus and proportionality for inclusion in Resolution #3966. Table action on Resolution #3966 unUl December 8, at which time the resolution mth amended language could be adopted prior to adoption of the Final Plat Approval resolution. I 2 t.7 9 5 3. A Pi kJ V-t* Z ! A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS IH 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: 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 Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 1997, at which time all persons desiring 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 Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. 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 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 of8 r 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“1B 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 setback variance for Lot i, 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 mmimize 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 of Lyman Avenue via Outlot 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 read 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 Ljmian 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 of 8 best be served by a shared driveway accessing the public portion of Lympn 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 the RR-IB district requires a 50 foot side street setback. e. f. 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 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. The 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 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 dis. .nee 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 ore 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 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. 2. Applicant to dedicate the standard 10' drainage and utility easements along perimeter property 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 approvals have been obtained by the subdivider. 4. 8. 9. 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 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 easement driveway for access to Lyman Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to Lyman 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 drainag e 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 drive'./ay 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. Septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall oe staked and protected prior to any land alterations on this property. Page 5 of 8 11. Subdivider shall designate the private road portion of Lyman Avenue as Outlot C on the plat per the sketches by Media & 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. 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 fiilly executed Developer's Agreement written to 150% 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 submittal" be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regulaily scheduled CouikiI 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 Media and Associates dated September 5,1997, subject to private right-of-way for Lyman Avenue at the southeast comer 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 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 all 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 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. 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. 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. I. Signed and executed Road and Utility Easement over Outlot C. Page 7 of 8 J r 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* 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 Puge 8 of 8 WINSTON LAW OFFICE 4420 IDS CENTER eO SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 53402 TEL: (612)341-0900 FAX: (612) 338-6351 November 11,1997 B VTNSTON ' 341-9813 / VTA MKSSFNOER Mayor Gabriel Jabbour 985 Tonkawa Roa<d Orono, MN 55323 RE: Wliitehcad Subdivision/ Park Fee Dear Mayor Jabbour; I apologize for the presentation I made to tlie Orono City Coimcil yesterday evening. Quite obviously, my letter of October 28 and last evening's verbal presentation failed to adequately e.xplain my clients' position. Basically, their position is that the imposition of a flat S% charge against the value ot their land witliout tlie City's consideration of the impact of these^wo lots on the Orono park system is urueasonable ai\d not in accordance with applicable law. Further, to say that new applicants for subdivision approval, these applicants included, are to pay for new parks and park improvements, as opposed to the populace at large, is also unreasonable, and imposes an unfair burden on these or other applicants. I raised tliese same concerns when the flat 8% fee sought from Jim Fullerton, and expressed my thanks for your efforts to mediate and ultimately compromise and settle that dispute on a basis acceptable to both the City and Mr. Fullerton. 1 had hoped before last evening, and still hope today, that wc can resolve the current dispute on a sinular basis. I am a great believer In compromise, and do not believe the adversarial nature of litigation - or the adversarial status of the current dispute — is ultimately that p.oductive for the paities involved. The wear and tear of such proceedings, the dedication of time anJ resource.i and the sheer expense of more formal legal proceedings are all factors bearing on iny disposition to seek out compromise. The City and the WTriteheads will both be the Avinners if we can resolve this matter amicably.# Thus, my entreaty last evening to try effea a compromise, be it on the amount of the park fee or on a proceclure where the plat would not be "held hostage", to use your words from the hearing on the Fullerton application, was an eftbrt to save the City and the Wliiteheads the cost of legal action, not. as was alleged last evening. 1^0/10'a 19898883 19 'ON XVJ 30IJJO MVl NOISNIM 98:01 301 16-11-AOH r November 11, 1997 Page 2 to cost the City attorneys' fees as part of the negotiation process. Then and now, it is hoped that a meeting or telephone coi\ference between you and the City Attorney, on the one hand, and Mr. or Mrs. Whitehead and me, on the other, could quicklv resolve the matter. Even if that effort were to fail, we could not be criticized tor having tried to settle the matter. (I know )’ou or your designated representati\*e cannot speak for the entire Council, but I also believe that if you and tlte Cit>’'s attorney recommended compromise, that reconunendation would be seriously considered.) AH of that said, the Wl-utcheads have given 2.453 acres of their land for w'etland preservation, a corner of their land (Outlet C) for road, and are prepared to pay a reasonable park fee. Their offer of $3,344 is renewed. We ask that this matter again be reviewed by the City Council with its attorney. I am available to discuss this matter in person or by telephone on a moment ’s notice, and w'ould w'elcome the opportunity to better explain myself in a less imposing venue than tlie City Council chambers. We found a solution to the Fullerton problem. I am confident we can find a solution here, too. Assuming we have Coimty approval of the plat by November 17, we plan to appear before the City Council for final plat approval the evening of November 24. Hopefully, the park fee issue can be resolved before that date. If not, we would expect the Council to impose the park fee it has detennined is applicable to the subdivision, and the Whiteheads would have to decide how to proceed from that point. Thank you for your further consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ' Johit B. Winston Enclosure cc: G. Marc and Trac>* Whitehead (473-8278) Thomas J. Barrett (334-88S8) Midtacl P. Gaffron (473-0510) •w WZO’d 1989888319 ’ON X9d aOlddO M91 N0XSNII1 98:01 3nX 16-11-AON ! *> i ! Joe. Inc. V. City of Eagan. C8-95-2289, 1997 WL 93946, __N.W2d__(Mian, filed March 6, 1997), will have a dramatic impact on some of these issues, especially impact fees. The citj' will usually seek to have the developer waive any rights to appeal the above or similar charges and dedicatiocs as part of the development contract to be executed by the city and the developer. Therefore, before the developer signs the purchase agreement or option agreement, and inctiTS the costs of obtaining approval, the developer should al\s:ays: 1. Meet with the city staff and determine what the charges and dedications will be. 2. Confirm those with the city in writing. 3.Determine appreximately how many lots may be approved and all development costs related hereto. 4. Determine what price the developer can afford to pay based upon the above. 5. Set forth clearly in the purchase agreement wlio will pay for the assessments and connection charges. Similarly, the seller of the property should have completed a similar analysis in determining what price a buyer would pay. Rarely will the seller want to spend the money to cc the alidity of those charges and possible dedications at die outset The buyer rarely wmits to purchase property at a price which assumes that the buyer can successfully contest those charges and dedications or assumes that the buyer can successfully negotiate a reduction of the charges or dedications. II. The Type of Exacdons, Charges and Assessments are Varied aud Numerous A. Dedicatioa during the Plattin g Proc ess Minn. Stat. § 462J 58, subd. 2b provides that during the platting process the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivf,. a be dedicated to the public or preseni'ed for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, ga« <.-.d v. ater facilities, stonn water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and ; tments. Jn addition, during the platting process, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed r-bdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation J WZO *d 1989888219 'ON XVd aoiddo mi NoxsNiH 98:01 301 16-U-AON purposes or for public use as parks, recreatioiial facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipalitj' may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash fiom the applicant for part or all of the pcruon required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality \ised only for the piuposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities wiiich the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of the land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of the approval of the subdivision. As to such dedications and exacticns, Minnesota has followed the majority test which has been the “rational nexus” test where a reasonable connection must be shown by the government between the exaction or condition imposed and the need created by or benefits provided thereby to the subdivision, in order to be valid. The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the rational nexus test in the context of analyzing park ^aication fees in a subdivision approval andnexus test m tne context ox anaxyziag parx^aic^ion tees m a suoaivision approval ana summarized the problems with e.xactions^Colii^. CiTvofRloomingtorL 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976): V A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of preportion to the needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional serv ices on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become “grand theft.” 246N.W.29 19 at 26. See also Middlemist v. Citv of Pl-.Tp.outh . 3S7 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. App. 1986), Avres v. City Council. 207 P.2d 1 (Ca. 1949); Jordan v. ViTla^re of Menomonee Falls. 137 N.W.2d 442 (Wise. 1965). In the recent casC^Kottschade^ Citv nf Rochester . 537 N.W.2d 301 (Miniu .App. 1995), the Court stated thaTetiy-frartSe burden of proving required relationship between the property development and city ’s need for land dedication and, to meet that burden, the city must show that essential nexus exists between legitimate state interest and the condition exacted; if that nexus exists, the court must then decide whether city has demonstrated rough propordonalitv between planned development and municipality ’s requirement for a dedication of land. In that case the Court found there was sufficient nexus between need for roads and proposed shopping mall development to jusrify requirement of dedication of right-of-way as condition for approval of conveyance of portion of a platted lor to the developer, so that there was no taking. The Kottschade case rcCrcts how the Minnesota Court of Appeals has applied the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission , 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v.^Cirv of Tigard. 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). ^0/^0 *d / lS£98£8dl9 *0N XVd 301dd0 1191 NOiSNlM 9£:0l am 16-11-AON r 11/18.-97 TTE 16:41 FAX 6126640221 MCDERMOTT. WILL & EMERY (2l*»U2 G. Marc and Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 612-473-8278 C November 18. 1997 Gabriel Jabbour Mayor, City of Oronc 985 Tonkawa Ro«d Long Lake, MN 55356 J. Diann Goetten Member, Orono City Council 1385 Fox Street Wayzau, MN 55391 Barbara Peterson Member, Orono City Council 1261 Arbor Street P. 0. Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Charles Kelley Member, Orono City CouncU 2720 White Oak Circle Long Lake, MN 55356 Richard Flint Member, Orono City Council 1405 County Road 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: We are writing to express our concern and to apologize for anything we may have done to create the adversarial tone of Monday’s City CouncU meeting that was attended by John Winston and Tracy Whitehead. We need to have our plat approved this year. This is a process that has already taken us almost 8 months. We appreciate the cooperative attitude and the willingness of the Council, Planning Commission, and staff to work with us in resolving the issues that have come up in the course of our plat approval. These procedures, while never easy, are made a lot easier by tlia wUlingness of people to listen and work toward solutions. We very much appreciate the auitude of everyone and your being willing to listen to our concerns as this process has wended its way to this point of final approval. W'c want nothing more than to be able to express our concerns, fully apart from any past relationship the Council may or may not have with the attorney that we have asked for help, and apart from anything that has been done with any other properties. Wc simply ask that the Council focus on our property, our facts, our issues, and the law as it applies to our situation. r Tl'E 16:41 FAX 6126640221 MCDERMOTT. WILL R EMERY (2003 Mayor and City Council City of Orono Page 2 November 18, 1997 We, apparently, have only one issue to be resolved before final plat approval, which is the issue of the park fee. You should know that during the week of September 1, we asked for a detemiinalion of what the park fee would be. We were told that the City position could not be ascertained until after preliminary plat approval. We did not get that figure until October 31 , more than a month after we appeared before you for preliminary plat approval. As soon as we learned of the proposed figure, we were in immediate contact with your representatives to discuss this. While there are legal issues pertaining to the validity of the Orono ordinance and its application to our particular facts, there are also certain equity issues having to do with the park fee as it applies to us and, in this regard, ask the Council to consider at least several facts with regard to this park fee, as it applies to our situation: 1. We have paid taxes loi 30 I- years on this entire property. We are not an outside developer. 2. We arc creating two, large lots, each almost 4 acres, that will contain only two families, who may or may not have children. These arc large lots, set on a dead-end road, in the middle of the woods, creating very little demand on the City’s park system. 3. 4. 5. Perhaps just as important, we hope the Council will take into account the fact that 3.465 acres, out of our 11.1 acres, or over 31% of our land (plus a 26- foot wetland buffer zone around each of the four wetland basins) has already been taken for drainage easements, conservation easements, marshlands, road dedication, and even a "vegetative and screening buffer" for a house that was non-conforming when built, built on one acre, and built on land that was not entirely dry, buildable land, and, which was in a two-acrc zone. This 3.465 acres, as so encumbered, according to tlie City’s valuation of our land, has a land value of $76,230. By encumbering this acreage with the noted easements and restrictions, we are making a significant contribution of our land, even if no park fee was imposed. We think that this dedication of land for public purposes, and par:icularly open space, drainage, conservation, and scenic screening purposes, should have some equitable bearing on the Council ’s decision on both tlie legality and the appropriateness of the proposed park dedication fee. As importantly, all of the d©;isions that have been made on our plat have resultv'.d in us receiving two buildable lots, r.uher than the three that we had anticipated because of our alAiost 12 acres in a two-acre zone. Plus, Sl‘^000 is a large amount of money. For us, who rely on our earnings for our support, this is a significant sum. r ll -lS -S" Tl*E 16:42 FAX 6126640221 MCDERMOTT. WILL & EMERY ©mi 4 Mayor and City Council City of Orono Page 3 November 18, 1997 has-been dedlSi^^H ^ ^ parcels, and not on the land that Sfe Ae <^°*^rvation. flowagc. and other easements. If you finn a acreage m lot one, 3.823 acres, and the total acreage in lot tur t Z ' ■«’ »cres *e weu the biffw M the lauJ -i $22 ^ “P ’f y°“ "'“'tipi)' that by w?ulZ; $8 7lf r,w *55 of that, the proposed pwk fee"ouia pc :h8,712. We think this is a more reasonable place to beein eva uatmg the factors mentioned in paragraphs 1 through 5. rspsisislis rml ,1., W„« J,i:z rrs r—a.! s: £rT“TS?^“ ~ last me«h« *We ”arTnot* herein contributed to the difficulties at the Sincerely, cc:Thomas J. Barrett, Esq. (via fax: 334-8888) Orono City Attorney Michael P. Gaffron (via fax: 473-0510) Senior Planning Coordinator \J/iaC^OLtU.y^ilA>(L. lA)/zLl£aucC- ^ MTracy and Marc Whitehead WINSTON LAW OFFICE N, ^ 4420 103 CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEA^OUS, MINNESOTA 55403 D-/ HL (6J 2) 341-9800 FAX: (612)333-6351 IOHN 8. WINSTON 0lR£<n ’; (612) 341-3813 October 28, 1997 Thomas J. Barrett (334-8888) Hinshaw it Culbertson Piper Jaffray Tower, Suite 3200 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Application Nos. 2279/2280 Dear Tom; You will recall our settlement of the park dedicaUon fee dispute with respect to the Fullerton property, pursuant to which the Fullertons paid 25% of the anrount initially claimed by the City for a park dedication fee due upon the subdivision of the Fullerton property. I now represent the Whiteheads, who, like the Fullertons, are faced with an unreasonably high and, for that matter, illegal claim of $13,376 for a park dedication fee due upon the subdivision of the Whiteheads' property. Like the Fullertons, the Whitehe: is are adding only two new lots, and, 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 subdivision will be nil. Continuing the Fullerton comparison, 1 propose that we settle the Whitehead dispute at the same 25% rate, or upon payment of $3,344, 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 setdement otfer is acceptable. If wc are not able to agree, then 1 propose that, as vsith d\e Fullertons, the full antount be paid into escrow pending resolution of a lawsuit, arbitration or other dispute 20/10 ’d is£98ee2i9 *0N m aoiddo MVl NOISNIM 99:91 am 16-92-100 J CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street 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, Minnesota 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 $750,000, 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 reflect 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 pmd by the Whiteheads also reflects the property's reasonable share of the cost of providing parks, trails and open space to serve the community. This item will be presented to the City Council for review on November 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 Tdephooe (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 )11-24 97 MON 16:4S FAX 6126640221 MCDERMOTT. WILL & EMERY 0 <•02 )66 G. Marc and Tracy Whitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayzafa, MN 55391 612^73-8278 November 24, 1997 VIA FACSIMILE (473-0510) Gabriel Jabbour Mayor. City of Orono Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Honorable Mayor and Mr. Gaffron: We have received the attachments from the City indicating that the City is meeting tomght to consider a recommendation from Mr. Gaffron that the preliminary' plat approval lesolution be reconsidered for purposes of allowing the staff to "draft findings of Nexus and proportionality, which we think was what w'as stated in paragraph 2 under "Requested Council Action." Although we believe there are factual inaccuracies in Mr. Gaffron’s November 20, 1997 memo, we assume this Request stems from some internal discussions of the City. We further assume that our attendance tonight is neither requested or required. As we said in our letter to you, we have to have our final plat approved at your i^cember 8th meeting or we will incur substantially greater expense than we have already incuned because of the loans we have had to take out to pay these development expenses. We ask that any action requested of staff not delay the December 8ih approval of our final plat. As we mentioned in our earlier letter to you, our overriding concern is not having any more delay or expense associated with tliis project. Relying on the preliminary plat approval, we have our house on the market and hope to have offers that coincide with your final plat approval. With regard to the issue of the park fee, we have tried to tell you in our letter how wc see this simation. We have made a specific proposal in that regard upon which to base discussions witli us if you are willing to do so. We. again, ask that the Council consider our simation and do what you tliink is fair and appropriate under the law. Wlien the discussions are done and you have arrived at a decision, please let us know as soon as possible so that we can have our final plat approved on December 8ih. Very truly yours, ............................ Marc and Tracy Whitehw.d r 11-2497 MON 16:48 FAX 6126640221 MCDEPMOTT. WILL & EMERY i2]iioi G. Marc and Tracy y^hitehead 1220 Lyman Avenue Wayjjaia, MS 55m 612-473-8278 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE Date: November 24, 1997 No. of Pages, including cover page: /^/e TV/l/fQ^T-Ci- PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO 1 Name Facsimile Number Telephone Number Mayor Gabriel Jabbour 473-0510 473-7357 1 Michael P. Gaffron 473-0510 473-7357 COMMENTS: [Icncr attached] IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE LEGIBLE COPIES OF ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL: 612/473-8278 The infonnafioil combined in this ficwmilc message is conndenlial informarion intended only for use uf the mdividual or tntiiy aamtd above. If the reader of this message Is nvi ih« intended reeipicut. or ilie eiu|>luyee or a^eni responsible lo deliver it CO die intended rccipieut. you anj hereby nooticd that any dtSSeniiiiaLCn. discnbutioii or cop>inj; of this communicanoii ts lUiccly prohibiLcU If ytm have received this communication in error, please unmedutdy nouty* u% hy tc.cpht^iu. and fCCiin) the oricmal message to us at the above addre^v via the II.5. Postal Service. Think you. r COUNCIL meeting NOV 2 4 1997REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 11/19/9'P’^^^ORONO ITEM NO.: l-j Department Approval: Name Brad Dressier Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:44,225 square feet (1.02 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing the remodeling and expansion of an existing residence to include a four stall attached garage and additional living space. Variances are required for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75 ’ lakeshore setback. The amount of hardcover allowed n the O' to 75' lakeshore setback at the recommendation of the Planning Commission is 4,415 s.f (15.3%). The applicant is proposing 4,413 s.f (15.3%) Exhibit AA is the hardcover worksheet submitted in response to the Planning Commission recommendation. Exhibit BB shows the proposed lakeside elevation and what will be removed to meet the 15.3% hardcover requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 41' to allow the residence to remain 34' from the 929.4' ordinary high water mark where 75' is required. 2. Approve a hardcover variance of 4,415 s.f. (15.3%) in the O' to 75' where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. I i 1 !: r ii 11 20 97 10:04 FAX 612 473 S222 ALEX.ANI>ER DESIGN ttAlOJCUVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET0 , Bi'112 75-250* XXISTIN^C R A. House -V Len< 150-500* n»tlN>Width 500-1000* S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Uodcrlaio By Plastic G. Other X X X S.F. S.F. S.F; - Itrv lcAi^ X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER I.N ZONE TO! AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE --------------- B PRQPOSFn KARPCOVER TN TIONV A. House _________ X 100 - B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other tze^xc.. , s; total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______________ B X 100 = ItoCL. S.F. - S.F. S.F. _____ S.F. 61 ^ S.F. _______S.F. Itb4n S.F. - S.F. __________S.F. ^__S.F. ftlgp S.F. j 2-2 l»AID_ S.F. '7^ % .tgg>0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. T3S_s.f. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F- S.F. S.F. S.F. /)___S.F. AAA'h, S.F. S.F. A B A B r' \J^106£Le\/^TU5w /C .-T -n Vj o el immifii^ boltow^ rm w fuss I ilMWiliiiliililijfilli I ------------------------ ---------•■■»•■ *-*i*r>: - . >_ «r- <&^rwM i_ij<B<»>ioe gu6v»>T>eu cqagEpr,^^4 oL4ev4 f%E«c«Mcer CT*J•K &rn- : j.- a____i____-.->• • \ ' li I § i A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE NO. 2305 WHEREAS, Roger and Elizabeth Olsen (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 815 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows; Lot 2, Block 2, Partenwood (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow the remodeling and expansion of the existing residence to include a four stall garage and additional living space located 34' from the 929.4 ordinary high water mark where 75' is required and requiring a hardcover variance of 4,413 s.f. (15.3%) where 5,815 s.f. (20%) is existing and none is allowed as shown on Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; !• 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2305. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 1.02 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; 1. The proposed additions would not further encroach on the OHWL. Page 1 of 5 ir>. f ' i > - l: -' " w j r. 2. 3. The configuration of the lot severely restricts the allowable building pad. ^e ^ount of l^dcover in the O’ to 75' lakeshore setback would be reduced from 20% to 15.3"/o. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar grantmg the vanances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor ^ danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a h?7 “T’ ihe spirit andtent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS (20%) is existing and none is allowed Meshore setback where 5,815 s.f. 1.All plastic -onder landscaping must be removed in the O’ to 75’ lakeshore setback prior to any new construction. 2. 3. No further variances will be granted to this property in the future. Authont'es granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants lli ^ I’y plication for a buS peimi. wthw one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 24, 1998). Page 2 of 5 1 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. 5. The undersigned ^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 24th day of November, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Property Owner (s) Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor i i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY Oh HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th 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 L STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of for said county, personally appeared ^ 199__ before me a Notary Public within and kiiown to me to be the oerson(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____.. 199_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ________________ known to me to be the person(i) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 r TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant November 4,1997 #2305-Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area:44,225 One Family Lakeshore Residential Distiict (1 Acre) square feet (1.02 acres)____________________ Application: The applicants are proposing the remodeling and expansion of an existing residence to include an attached four stall garage. Variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback are required. __________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Requirements Section 10.24, Subd. 6(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements 1^2305 Roger and Eiizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances Sovember 17. 1997 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1 acre 140 ft. 1 35 ft. 1 10 ft.75 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards l ot Area Lot Width Strc- ‘ iv rd Side Yard Lakeside 1.02 acres 225 ft. at 75' setback 357 ft. at OHWL 37 ft. (existing) 35 ft. (proposed) 46 ft. (existing) 20 ft. (proposed) 34 ft. The zoning lot does not meet the lakeshore setback requirement oif 75'. A variance is required for remodeling and expanding an existing structure within the 75' lakeshore setback. The homeowner's association has setback requirements that are more restrictive than the zoning code. See attachment K from the architectural committee. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 44,225 s.f.2,520 s.f. (existing) 3,410 s.f. (proposed) 5.7% 7.7% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. 023OS Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road Variances Nox'tmber 17, 1997 Page! r tfi Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'28,810 s.f.5,815 s.f. (20%) none 4,665 s.f. (16%) 4,665 s.f. (16%) 75'-250'15,419 s.f.2,995 s.f. (19%) 3,854.75 s.f. (25%) 3,600 s.f. (23%) none A hardcover variance is required in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See the attached application (attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence and attached three car garage could continue to be used in their current state. The architect has indicated in attachment J that many features of the current residence are substandard. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. The property is located on an isthmus, severely restricting the allowable building pad. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover will not change the character of the area. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable §2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Parten wood Road Variances November 17. 1997 Page 3 \ r 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. n. use for the property exists under the tenuo of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Sol^ access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for a^ 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 permitted in this zoni.ng district. pie 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. flbwllt build^^^ isthmus, limiting their pie conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Tue existing residence is located almost entirely within the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback ^^the allowable building pad is severely restricted dur to the configuration of the The grmting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substiuitial property right of the applicant. The granting of variances is necessary for expanding the existing structure. 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. M2305 Roger ami Elizabeth Oben 815 Partenwood Road Variances Sovember 17.1997 Page ^ r The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but are necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The expansion of the existing residence serves as a convenience to the applicant. Even if the existing residence was rebuilt at the current size, variances would still be necessary. I Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. The existing residence is encroaching on the required lakeshore setback. The lot configuration, proximity to the street and lakeshore setback severely restrict the allowable building pad. Only a portion^ of the existing foundation will be retained. The remainder of the structure will be demolished and rebuilt. Attachment J is the architect's statement of what portions of the house are to remain and which will be replaced. The total amount of hardcover on the lot is proposed at 19%. Approximately .66 acre of the 1.02 acre lot is located in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The lot has more than twice the minimum lot width requirement at the OHWL. The lot is approximately 116' deep. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the expansion of the existing residence with an attached garage subject to several amendments and condition. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 41' to allow the residence to remain 34' from the designated ordinary high water level where 75' is required. Encroachment upon the lakeshore would not be further increased. Staff reconunends approval of a hardcovei variance of 14.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed and none is allowed. The amount of existing hardcover excluding landscaping underlain by plastic is 14.5%. This figure could largely be met by eliminating several proposed decks and existing patio area on the lake side of the residence. By approving this percentage, there would be no net gain in the amount of hardcover on the property, not including plastic under landscaping. tf2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenx^vod Road Variances November /7. 1997 Pages Staff recommends that all landscape underlain by plastic in the O' to 75* lakeshore setback be removed prior to the commencement of new construction. The applicant has already agreed to this provision. Staff recommends no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the future. • Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the above amendments and conditions. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey-Proposed Survey-Existing Concept Plan-Front View Hardcover Worksheets Architect's Letter Homeowner's Association Letter 02305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen 815 Partenwood Road yariances November 17, 1997 Page 6 j r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ^ 3 Date Received 7 Amount Paid J OJlO, S/S^ oo irrA:««• A r'^ \\••• j PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address P^r'j^^ttyvao^/ Roet^l ^ — Property Identification Number (P.I.D.A 0& \ \'~i«»OOQ*^_____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prnnertv Acquired_____5^/3o/ 'f'7 __________________________^(month/year) I (do) Wo nott also own the adjacent parcels of land. PreseniuS5TSi property: residential ___mother (specify). Zoning District: ________ APPLICAIVT Name Recfet^ J, OlSBH AJJ --------rt*.- O A/ Phone fhornel ^7/"* *77^3 _____ PhonefworicA ^ ^ City: __________Zip: C OWNER fif different than applicant) Name _____ Address:___________________________City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip:. ( DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated ConstnicUon Cost $ 400jQCCX Describe request in detail: Ct^:> (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width ront Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average LaJceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condi compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Lgp Ho<>ar n feoiL^ r>6>eig- -ft) ^ 1P- Ug FVM/^ A.pV-.Aia ggMnQ6L.lt.\rV -T7? < ggHocgU lai 5UCC15 U ^ ^ ISi 0-*7^ <5pLX. IWk r 8I5 loHerwwtxJ RoACi si <» ■ t 3i1 WU1MMCMU Vv (S)MlNMETfliSTA tMi ■MtCtl TWVtfl tMI -\^ 3 f ( ^ 8 1 amiHUMi ^ SEE MAP 75 “:rir“ZW^ Jennings 1 I'mC- ■' r S'/s ToLAj!/CtnoJoQ<J Aoa^ •PERMIT RECORD • Permit No.Date Type of Permit ^3hS ‘i'')l. V'7A :2po »c ID-->3 ttes ~3ti.(_ _ _ _^r7V pt&b 3f73 3-7Y UfELL.I !1A' /'I'KicJ^ J FI0 i1 LA<E ^QsreTONKA 1 SHOVEL PONT UMMCMV Monacrun I I I MT.t I« C*MM*T OLSEN ESIDENCE MAN ENTCT ENTCY PLANTNG AUGMENT SCPEEN PLANTNG SEPVCE ENTPY A0D3ESS WAUL EXISTNG TREES TO R=\WN SITE PLAN CCRTIFICATC OF SURVEY FORSSt i^BLoloFa. PARTENWOOONDNOFM COUNTY. MMNCSUTA I kBA^u>SK%;ii\p:^ Lot I. ilock i* factoiiougi U1 I Nototov oortlfy thoc tliiR Rorvoy tma profiRroi liy or y odT oy lUroct OttpREvinioo ontf ttot im • *^iv rofiRtofo^ ImU Mrvoyor oR4ur tHo IRWO of VnO tlRtO of H&RROOOUI. OOrriN ft OMNIMM. INC. Otto i tO-ll-lf ieoUf 1* • 20* o • iriw Mrlivf n.rli 0. oroo»o»f!ErMr7“bo. TJl^i fOKiiOoriii, Iar N Miirvav^rR, yUniw i-. t^iRO OiRR*».n*.i O . .. ... ^ ^ y i;.: S yW ^ ,// 4*r.’l 'n.- • a. f' oU«>eM ReMocuee » li. I- I. ' i 'L r- HAlU)COVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250*250-500*500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House LengiffJ .Width jlVS2D_s.F. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage )irvioAfl^ \t\ a..S.F. C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE A ^ B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -J- B X 100 S.F. S.F. a^s.F. S.F. 610 S.F. S.F. I.1p4A S.F. _________S.F. S.F. S.F. 61*^ S.F. fMO> S.F. '2Zy % ‘2.^(gg>0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^___S.F. S.F. O__S.F. S.F. 1 .*2.16 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % X I A B A B I r! t f • \ f HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Vo-*o-^T SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 4- ©250-500*500-1000' ?3g^n S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garagf — lv\r\\.Vv;)A A\. S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X ^CQ S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X ‘•.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F, Ig7.4\^ S.F. •t- B X 100 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 2H20-. S-F- Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage ^30 S.F. C. Driveway 4 X X ^1 \(od S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X \C\ Cj. S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Dcck X X 130 S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -5- B ___X 100 ?> |/rlOQ S.F. S.F. A B A B ALFXANDIIK 5 November, 1997 To the City Planners of Orono: In response to your inquiry about the extent of remodeling to take place at 815 Partenwood. I will describe to you the scope of the work.im:sicn c;koui 1^1 u • r t • ■ « r After being on the market for over a year, the Olsen’s purchas^ the property in June with the intent of immediately remodeling the house. The house has a sagging roof that Is in need of re-construction. The structure is of 2x4 wall construction & not up to current energy codes, is in need of window replacement, the porch foundation is in need of replacement,as well as needing much updating to pass any building Inspection for current code compliance. Much of the current foundation will remain. Foundation will only be removed at areas where the house is being expanded. The porch foundation will be re-built The lower level is walkout and has a sub-standard wall which can emer have 2x6 studs piggybacked to the existing studs or we would rebuild the wall. Rebuilding the wall is a much preferred method of remodeling and what we hope to do. The same options of construction can be applied to the mam floor walls that will remain. The main floor Is currently cantilevered at lakeside further than current codes allow for cant’s, so we will need to cut It back and re-build It without cantilevers. Given that the whole main level lakeside wall needs to be re-built to eliminate the cantilever, it has been suggested by contractors to rebuild the floor- for several reasons- to Improve constr. & eliminate rebuilding of sub-standard areas, to raise the height of the lower level to current ceiling heights, and allow for clear spans. This concept has now been incorporated into oir plans. The ceiling plate heights will be raised and a totally new roof truss system installed. The exact size and shape of the existing and proposed house are shown overlaid on the site plan submitted for variance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the Olsens or myself. Sincerely,■11)1 EAST LAKE STREET Kathryn Al^ander \VA^ 2ATA. .\l.\ ir.V'l T (61 2J 473-S””” FA.\ (6i2)473.s;:: Partenwood Architectural Committee ^OV j 2 /99; Mr. And Mrs. Roger Olsen CITY of November 5,1997 815 Partenwood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS Dear Roger: Thank you for promptly submitting your amended site plan and letter dated October 25, 1997. Your amendment addressed two areas of modification and one area of general conclusion. Based on your revised submission, the Partenwood Architectural Committee has concluded as follows: 1. Front Yard Setback. Your new plan has moved additional elements of the building up to the 35 foot set-back point. Since we have approved the previous plan at 35 feet, we continue to Approve the revised scheme at 35 feet. 2. Side Yard Setback. The movement of the building identified in Item 1 above was due primarily to conform to the required 20 foot side yard setback. The revised scheme noting the 20 foot side yard setback is therefore hereby Approved. 3. Stipulation of Exterior Color Intentions. The concept of earth tone colors is in conformance with the Declaration. Additionally, it is in harmonious conformance with the established feeling of Partenwood. Therefore, the color scheme is Approved. However, please submit samples of your final selections before beginning your remodeling. This letter constitutes Final Approval of plans dated September 26,1997 as amended by revisions dated October 25, 1997. You have worked very cooperatively with your neighbors and this committee. As a result of your willingness to work with us and your very appealing proposed remodeling of the existing residence at 815 Partenwood, we wish to give your efforts our support and encouragement. Very truly yours. 'iC r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 11/18/97 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2311 Loren Fritz 3845 North Shore Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) square feet (.63 acre) excluding North Shore Drive 35.343 total square feet (.81 acre) including North Shore Drive ^pUution; applicMt is proposing a total of 914 s.f. of additions to the existing residence The extstutg resKlence «located 7' from the rear lot line. The proposed addition wm S PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. ^^dTfrom to allow the proposed addition to be located16.1 from the rear lot line where 7' is existing and 30' is allowed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B), FILE NO. 2311 WHEREAS, Loren Fritz (hereinafter "the applicant") owner of the property located at 3845 North Shore 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a living space addition on the west side and rear of the existing residence to be located 16.1' from the rear lot line where 7' is existing and 30' is allowed as shown on Exhibit B. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2311. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The property consists of .63 acre excluding North Shore Drive, or .81 acre total. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed addition would not further encroach on the rear setback. Page 1 of 6 1 i r 2.The topography slopes downhill 10' away from the west and front side of the existing residence where the proposed addition would need to be located in order to meet the rear setback requirement. 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 preser\'e a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow 914 s.f of additions to the existing residence requiring a rear setback variance of 13.9' to allow the addition to the west side and rear of the existing residence to be located 16.1' from the rear lot line where 7' is existing and 30' is allowed. 1.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 24, 1998). 2.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 6 i 3.The lindersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th 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 24th day of November, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota mumcipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 6 r ¥ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____^ 1 99_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 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 PUBLIC 1 4 I Page 4 of 6 / ^ M ■ LEGAL DESCRIPTION! '*'1,'’/'''“.! .of'7. lownship 117, Range 213, Hennepin Counly, Minnewla. described as beginning al a point on the north line of said Government Lot 2 distant 643.50 fee' West I;™, MRs'oteuX^ot^^^ n0 N 0 •• N H H fit L OV 1 ei I h 0 0 '^4H» •■5 ’•'j HORIH UNe or CO.TT LOT z SEC. 17. T. 117. R.23 r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant October 30, 1997 SUBJECT:#2311-Loren Fritz 3845 North Shore Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 /2 Acre) Lot Area:27,489 net square feet (.63 acre) excluding North Shore Drive j5^,343 total square feet (.81 acres) including North Shore Drive Application: The applicant is proposing a total of 914 s.f of additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is located T from the rear lot line. The proposed addition will be located \vithin the required rear setback, but will not further encroach into the required yard than the existing residence. ® Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements j * ^2l\l Loren Fritz 3845 Sorih Shore Drive Variance Soxember 17, 1997 Page 1 r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yard?; LR-IC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .5 acre 100 ft.30 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .63 acre 238 ft.59.2 ft.50.3 ft.7 ft. The subject property does not meet the rear setback requirement. The proposed addition will be 16.r from the rear lot line. Structural Coverage Net Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 27,489 s.f.2,758 s.f.-existing 3,645 s.f.-proposed 10% 13.6% Structural cover exceeded. Hardcover age is not an issue with this application as the allowable 15% would not be Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 500-1,000'27,489 s.f.2,606 9,621.2 s.f. (35%) 8,492 s.f. (30.9%) none Hardcover is not an issue with this application. 9231 / Loren Fritz 3845 Sorth Shore Drive Variance November 17, 1997 Page! r I STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's statement of hardship is attached (Attachment A). The applicant should be asked fo^their testimony regarding the need to locate the addition outside of the allowable building Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The applicant wishes to move items for day to day living, such as a full bathroom and washer and dryer to the proposed addition to facilitate one level living which would be difficult to accomplish without the granting of the variance. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing residence does not meet the rear yard setback requirement. The residence was constructed prior to current zoning district yard setback requirements. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for rear setback will not change the character of the area. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. U23U Loren Frits 3845 North Shore Drive yariance November /7. 1997 Page 3 r 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. 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 existing residence was constructed prior to current zoning requirements. The downhill slope of the lot away from the west side of the existing residence makes constructing the proposed addition within the required setbacks difficult. The lot has more width than depth, which creates a narrow building pad. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The front yard has an 8' slope from the street to the front of the house. The west side has a 10 ’ change in grade. The west side also has several trees that screen the yard from the road. Due to the high volume of traffic on North Arm Drive, it is desirable for the house to be located as far from the road as possible. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owner is attempting to adapt the existing residence to enhance life-cycle housing by adding accessible space. 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. 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 topography of the lot, as well as the configuration of the house on the lot would inhibit the construction of the requested addition within the allowable building pad. U2SH Loren Frit: 3845 Sorth Shore Drive Variance Sovember 17, 1997 Page 4 j Issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The proposed addition would not further encroach on the rear lot line beyond what is existing. The existing deck, residence and proposed additions are 5', 7’ and 16.1' from the rear lot line, respectively. The topography slopes downhill 10' away from the west side of the existing residence where the proposed addition would be located if it was to meet the required rear setback. The adjacent property to the south is heavily wooded and will not experience a negative impact. A rear yeud variance was granted in 1975 allowing a rear addition located 9' from the rear lot line where 26' was existing at the time. According to the most recent survey (Attachment F), the residence is actually located 7' from the rear lot line. Attachment J is the City Council minutes approving the previous variance citing the lot being wider than deep and that the rear lot line of the subject property abuts what is considered to be the side lot line for the property to the south. The existing deck is locatedfrom the rear lot line was issued a building permit in 1981 without the granting of variances. It is likely this was considered a non-encroachment at the time according to the Senior Planning Coordinator. Wood retaining walls with landscaping are located on the neighboring property to the south. It is unclear whether or not there is an agreement with the adjacent property owner to allow the wall to encroach. The high volume of traffic (5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day) is a deterrent to locating the addition closer to the road due to the noise of passing vehicles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a rear setback variance of 13.9' to allow the proposed addition to be located 16.1' from the rear lot line where 7' is existing and 30' is allowed. Staff recommends the existing shed located on the rear lot line be either relocated to a portion of the lot meeting yard setback requirements or be removed. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the above condition. #2J// Loren Fritz 384S Sorth Short Drive Variance Sovember 17. 1997 Page 5 r Attachments A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheet Rear View of Residence With Proposed Additions Front View of Residence With Proposed Additions Minutes From 1975 City Council Meeting Approving the Rear Setback Variance yr mu Loren Fritz 3845 Sorth Shore Drive Variance November 17. 1997 Page 6 *A». ^ i Application it <^3/ / Date ReceiTed at> Amount Paid 7 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 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORi\LATION Site Address A//nc^/>ih6^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) M ■f Attach lcg3l description tu dppIicatioQ if not included on required survey DateP^wfifAcquired -----____________________________________(month/year) I (do) (oo-mflti also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: tx^esidential ___^other (specijfy) Zoning District: L //i______ APPLIC Name AlSXi? Address: ASh/^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) J/2^ _____ Phone (work) ^3/- City:C Zip: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe revest in detaU: Z///Ayk^yy, (^ach additional sheets if necessary) r VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback:Front Lot Width Hairdcover Lot Coverage Side A-^ear Average Lakeshore. Other (specify) HARDSHIPiDESCRIPf ION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY COI^ITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condition^ preventing compliance with/oning Code requirements: /) — -y------------------------------------------------ ------ - - V ----------/ -- /7 ynuwJrA /m4-iro ^ . * (attach additional sheet^ if necessarjO . / , k>yJI/ltAA ^ compliance witn ^omr MJ/J /rpM^ /rnl^^ya- uH n S'M I I g'83.f ; J(z)iiy^l Jy. J - ipr.*C I J '■'■j- ■ I /(4:' ?! '>1 J ! <' ) u; - - 6/ I ' ' e m 0 in (90)(^0) 50 4* .5(33) K < IQO • 16 g 50 77 (69) § 100 \ »o; 1$A.100 50 1 (50) 5C 22 § ^'55r(54i!(55) 5) I 50 -4 -91 26 a 27 S (56) (57) 1—1 3S 59 59 5J 59 50' 50 (60)!'., ’'I 32 P ; 65 1 5’ ;: .5^..: LO 05 (6) 65 u-) •s (39) 57 in 00 (3) 52 N ( n T I I 1525.72 RES 536.25 50 I '4 V I \ I I I W, 30 »«r-: ITTT 133.96 a( 10) V ^ - m S 143.65 .U. S 255. \ ii2i ( ---------IC97.95 - - (13) 5.59 WEST 220.77 777. .?5 224 273 (28) ^C29)V' (35) 195.56 L»L L ’99. Co i; ‘>«r i!LE1 245. 44 205. 4 I 22- P-. ^4 > 9 o'—'^ ( 16; 205 f.r'10 200. 13 — CO n )? SS ( 17) ir'TS’P iT -•a r\0 “ 'i'. : fl9l.43V./'-. 7 199. 22 '39. 86 30 i •! P!!0 121!©TooT 35 A/ortt\ I n r ...i .7»* r M Permit Mo. PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit //g«b 7-4-6& I’fAl //'^•^ 1 SStaO //-^7»- V4>//SkA/j'Ab^ ^372 g’-^^-S’v/aIqw " /i . Gc 'SOI 5 ____/0-S-SS (^3T) ^(jLAyr)^yCO W a /O-Q - ^ 7 Q-^^i-AutZ^Tu d ■f K)0•Q. M 0 M N H f£ IL I « I h 0 0 fe •) & 9J r*l::i riC;C-M,1.^ M HWW IM OF OO/t U)t 2. SE<i <’• '• ”’• ' ” 4 - 536 25- Tn r — 30 — •?. TT TUE 11S21 P . 0 iORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 9/30/1997 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. JOB NO. 971152 INSIDE & OUT REMODELERS CALL JIM PARKER. 474 7964 WITH QUESTIONS SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) FXISTINQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE •0-75' 75-250'250-500 ’Bisan "1 '■! ) • ^ l*> ' '/ ‘ : - ijy ■1 ^ S. • ‘ ‘ • • Vp r._ ftI A/B % C/D % Note; Some landscaping may not have plastic or fabric under it and perhaps sh^juld not be included, but we have included all landscaping on this worksheet I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer arj^urveyor under the ’ aws of the State of MiKnesof^ PROPOSED ADUTnON TOTAL HWer P.E. & P.S No. 9235 J a i # I Cn fi : . J 9K <Ms s li r------- FLOOR &CALL-l/gL =j: 0>cro 111oos 111 flC ..iiiimiunHuiiiiiitiMimiiniiuiiiiniMmiitHUdMHwmwmmwMmilMKHiwtMliMtwwiMWMiwuMnwwwiMni Mwmtuii c uig tn INSIDE «■ OUTX REMODELORS X **Mu.mmiiuimttHmiiitiiiUiitmuiuimMMiiMiuiiiiiMtutiuiiiuMMUuuiiimiuiiiMiiiuiMMMNiuuiiiiinmiMniuuiatinununiiy( LOREM&MARLENEFKITZ 3045 NORTH5HOREDK. 0R0N0.MN.55364 SQUJHELEyAIlQR ORONO COONCXL MEETIHG HELD KJGOSf 25, 1975 Every Teaaooable effort ehell be pot forth tc ]ceep traffic to a alnlnwi nonxtoriag traffic counte, allowing traffic to the church for the day activity center only with a review after six aonthe. Motion, Ayea (3) - Nays (0). Butler moved, Paurus eecondeo, that the request for a rear yard setback variance for Loren Frits, 3845 North Shore Drive, be approved because of the peculiar situation of this lot (the width being of larger dimension than depth) and the rear lot line of this property being the adjoining south property’s side lot line* Notion, Ayes (3) ” Mays (0)• Butler sieved, Paurus seconded, that the request for a conditional use permit of Don Ameson, 2660 Casco Point Road, for rip rap be approved, subject to I 1. Rip rap along 130* of shoreline not to extend more than 2* from shoreline. 2. Removal of old rock and pla^^e six inch granular filter blanket at base of rip rap to minixBize washing v>f fine material. Follow With **ocks over .'filter material. 3. Approval of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Page 3 OOHDXnORRL OSS PSPf!Z? 3745 Shoreline Drive (Continued) VARIANCE 3845 North Shore Drive CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2660 Casco Point Road Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). sutler moved, Paurus seconded, that the request for a conditional use permit for rip rap for Ron Tracy, 2914 Casco Point Road, be approved ' subject tot I I 1. Rip rap along 265* of shoreline not to extend more than 3* from shoreline* ! | 2. Rock fill not to exceed 3* above shoreline I . elevation with four to one ratio horizontal to vertical. 3. Rock diameter to average 10*. 4. Placement of adequate granular filter bed. 5. Approval of City Engineer. Motion, Ayea (3) • Nays (0). Henry lluhich. Building t Zoning Administrator, reported to tho City Council that the request o£ Richard Gothmenn for a variance for Mae's Pizza, 1440 Shoreiine Drive, was tabled by the Planning Conmissiem until the applicant submits more detailed sita plans and proposed sewage plan for review emd approval by the City Engineer. (Continued) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2914 Casco Point Road 4 ^ VARIANCE 1440 Shoreline Drive ■m Lc .'r. r> ■" ‘ViV ' i v.v- ■ '"Zr'- - 5rs>.- .. •< ' ’J ■£f'‘ ■ffs'i V ■ - .*'>.• I TO''V. aS?<*f; .'^m =^l *V' 1W i'j-i.* iV ' - -* \ • ■ A.* ■ '. ' , V'* > ' ' • •. ^ ^ ’'r* if-i '-"I* ■' - tlJti:?'. iV:?-- . Vt. '.H ■fe'j '■’;® Vi.- r. v>Vhf5/ yjjVws3& COUNCIL MEETING NOV 2 4 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: 11/18/97 ITEM NO.= 6 Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2313 Tom and Kari Steinke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:29,185.2 s.f. square feet (.67 acre) Application: The applicant is proposing the addition of a second story to the existing residence that encroaches into the required side setback. A variance is required to add structure in the required setback. The addition will not further encroach into the required side yard setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve a side setback variance of 17.6' to allow the existing side setback of 12.4' to remain where 30' is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. 7 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(A), FILE NO. 2313 WHEREAS, Tom and Kari Steinke (hereinafter "the the property located at 910 Dakota Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter t e ty ) and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Johnston ’s Rearrangement of Albee's Long Lake Addition (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6(A) to allow a second stoty to be added to the existing residence that encroaches 17.6 ’ into the required side yard setback where 30 is requir as shown on Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2313. The prop-rtv is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of .67 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1. The existing residence is partially located within the required side setback. Page 1 of 5 2. V ■ Granting the side setback variance would not result in further encroachment upon the south side lot line. 4 The City Council finds that the conditions existmg on this property ^e peculiar to it and do not apply geneially to other property in this zoning distnct; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor ^se 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 spint 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6(A) to allow a second story addition over the existing residence that is located 12.4’ from the side lot line where 30 is required. 1. 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 24, 1998). 2. 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. 3.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this Page 2 of 5 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 24th 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 24th 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 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 PUBLIC 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 PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 DATE /a SCALE iOeNO 97-4/S kk^ A TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant November 4,1997 SUBJECT:#23 13-Tom and Kari Steinke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance—Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 Acres) Lot Area:29,185.2 square feet (.67 acres) Application: The applicants are proposing the addition of a second story to the existing residence that encroaches into the required side setback. A variance is required to add structure in the required setback. The addition will not further encroach into the required side yard setback.__________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.23, Subd. 6(A): LR-1A Height Requirements • Section 10.23, Subd. 6(A): LR-1 A Lot Requirements 1 ! f(23I3 Tom and Kari Steinke 9!0 Dakota Avenue Variance November 17, 1997 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IA District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Real Yard 2 acres 1 200 ft.50 ft.30 ft.50 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Rear Yard .67 acre 276 ft.53 ft.12.4 ft.143 ft. The subject property does not meet the lot area or side yard setback requirements. Structural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with tiiis application. Hardcover While the subject property is located within 1000' of a protected body of water, hardcover is not an issue. Purthermore, the amount of hardcover will not be increased. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP ■ { The applicants sL J be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U23I5 Tom and Karl Sulnke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance Sovember 17, 1997 Page! r Critgria for Determining T i,idv.e Hardship 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. T^e propert>Jn question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The probity could continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state The pro^sed second story addition requires a variance due to its location above a section of the house located in the required side yard setback. property not created The existing residence was constructed prior to current zoning district requi.ements. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for side setback will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration whh this application. g? ™ “■ — <» Solar access is not a consideration. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. ^2313 Tom and Kart Stemke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance November 17, !997 Page 3 L 7. 8. 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 struct?ire of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The existing residence, as well as several adjacent homes were constructed prior to the current zoning district requirements and therefore do not meet required yard setbacks. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most residences .lutside of the immediate neighborhood have been constructed after current zoning lequirements and are therefore conforming. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. A second story that would not increase encroachment on the side yard cannot be constructed without the granting of a side setback variance. 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 var • aice will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing residence cannot increase in height without a side yard setback variance. Issues 1. The existing residence is partially located within the required side yard setback. 1^2313 Tom and Kart Steinke 910 Dakota Avenue Variance November 17, 1997 Page A J 2. Granting the side yard setback variance would not result in further encroachment upon the south side lot line. 3.A height variance is not required. The proposed second story addition would increase the height of the existing residence to 24' where 30' is allowed. 4. The zoning lot consists of .67 acre where 2 acres is the minimum lot size requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a side yard setback variance of 17.6' to allow the existing side yard setback of 12.4' to remain where 30' is required. Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Proposed Elevations of Residence i 1^2313 Tom and Kari Sie inke 910 Dakota Avtnue Variance \ovember 17. 1997 Page 5 Application H - A m ^Date Received rvi ZW 9^0=____ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORNLATWN. ^ Site Address ^l\ 0 C'Cit-/ -€■ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ m. A a * #2 o , cu <o Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired | ^ ^ 3________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; X residential ___pother (specify)^__________ Zoning District:____________________________________—------------ (month/year) a/O CU-< City: Oni O^VNER (if different th.ui applicant) Name ______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:City:.Zip:. description of request Estimated Constmction Co^ S \{e jO QQ. Describe request in detail: /J AA nr^ \ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot v/idth /Setback:Front __\X Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of unusual property conditions Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions oreven g compliance with Zoning Code requirements: }Q \a^aY ^ o ^rtrTTPja 1.1'ek i4 /fid, ----------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) btiE MAI’ Ui I ^ r\ i fm m pIBI m i V s'! im4)L » 7fj''>. l'&.^siii'f:.. aI !Fl?i!i"-0f> r»d^A^V7{ ir*W' < 'Iri ?■ 3’ i\’ M; '. a'<•- K1L‘'»' ^ .'^3I'r'^i;'<! . '-.' >■*,••’* , ■<> 1 [•-•' v'*t : '•I'.r.-.'d;' rcT'4'-/. F»r: ^Vtr^ lilv.ii.'fl ■Yf'.v:- f)r' mmp45»m ■••Kaiai SBB^n WSS^?|Hnl w^^SEI ■*■■«;s;==a= — BBWtesf B mmxi m Qy •* ^4 . ^ ^ m 05^’vl: '; -'' ‘ H? ■ Iffhp-5f i Ir' ' 1] 11$ twTji'iii.’i.' «r«3rulLV»T{i fri|1 V:' ' > l••■' I't L' r ' ■.^.' ’ ■ i infv. ' ■ r'iimjj^ cri--,/'; I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUvc,L,^_., , M \ vli m 2 4 199J Date: NovSni^95pN©7 Item No.7 Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Hardcover Policy Resolution: Plastic & Fabric : Structural vs Non-Structural List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Hardcover Policy Analysis (Drafted 1996, distributed to PC 1997) Orono has had a hardcover ordinance since 1975, but has never formally (by resolution) adopted policies for its administration. Informal policies have evolved through the past two decades into a fairly complex set of guidelines, which I have attempted to comprehensively analyze in Exhibit B. Notwithstanding staffs concern that the City has placed entirely too much emphasis on micro- managmg hardcover on individual lots, attached is a resolution at the Council's request that begins to formalize a few of Orono's hardcover policies. The resolution does the following: Makes a number of background statements/findings Defines a list of items that are hardcover Establishes that some are 'structural' and some are 'non-structural' Defines any plastic or fabric in the 0-75' zone as nonconforming Declares that any plastic or fabric contributing to a hardcover excess in other zones is non-conforming - Requires removal of non-conforming plastic or fabric prior to acceptance of an application for hardcover variance TTie resolution as drafted is, by design, extremely limited in scope as cc mpared to the many policies or procedures which could be addressed. One of the benefits of having a policy resolution in place is to clearly identify the City's policies for homeowners and applicants. Additional hardcover policy resolutions may be appropriate, or Council may wish to consider having staff draft a single, more comprehensive hardcover policy resolution. Council Action Requested Adopt or direct staff to revise the attached limited-scope hardcover policy resolution, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING THE HARDCOVER STATUS OF PLASTIC AND FABRIC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS AND DEFINING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL HARDCOVER WHEREAS, the City of Orono since 1975 has regulated the use and placement of hardcover on land within 1000 feet of lake shorelines; and WHEREAS, City Ordinances define hardcover as "Any structure, blacktop, or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground"; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinances placing limitations on the use of hardcover divide the 1000-foot regulatory zone into four tiered "hardcover zones" which are commonly referred to as "the 0-75' zone", "the 75-250' zone", "the 250-500' zone", and 'the 500-1000' zone"; and said zones are respectively allowed 0% hardcover, 25% hardcover, 30% hardcover, and 35% hardcover; and WHEREAS, the City Council has long considered that plastic sheeting and weed control fabrics (heieinafter referred to as 'plastic or fabric'; shall be considered as hardcover for the purpose of administering the hardcover ordinances, regardless of the extent to which such materials are actually permeable; and WHEREAS, the City has never issued permits for placement of plastic or fabric on private or public property, and all such material where it currently exists in excess of the allowed hardcover percentages on any given property, is considered as non-conformine: and WHEREAS, the City is continuously faced with requests for variances to the hardcover ordinances wherein applicants are required to provide calculations identifying the various types and square footages of hardcover within a property; and WHEREAS, harv^cover variance requests are commonly reviewed by the City with the underlying intent that the percentage of hardcover be reduced from the pre-existing condition; and Page 1 of3 WHEREAS, property owners commonly request hardcover variances for whi^c*, a.eir proposal includes a reduction in the overall hardcover, but typically by an increase in the Uiuuunt of'structural hardcover' with concurrent removals of'non-structural hardcover'; and WHEREAS, the City has not previously formally defined by ordinance or resolution the distinction between 'structural' and 'non-structural' hardcover, but has commonly cons ’dered such a distinction when reviewing hardcover variance requests; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be beneficial to formally define the distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is inappropriate to consider the removal of non- conforming plastic or fabric as a good-faith hardcover reduction when considering hardcover variance requests; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that to the extent practicable, all non-conforming plastic or fabric should be removed from properties for which a hardcover variance is requested, to reduce the potential for 'trading' non-conforming non-structural hardcover to gain structural hardcover. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Miimesota: 1. 2. Structural Hardcover shall be defmed as those items of hardcover which require a building permit, which extend above the ground surface or into the ground, or which are constructed rather than placed. Non-structural Hardcover shall be defined as those items of hardcover which do not require a building permit, which exist on the ground surface but do not extend substantially above or below grade, or which are placed on the ground surface rather than constructed. Page 2 of 3 r * i ‘ 3. The following items are considered as hardcover: Structural Hardcover Buildings Tennis courts Pools, incl. water surface Decks, regardless of spacing Roofs of any sort, incl. some roof overhangs Play structure platforms Temporary buildings Any vehicle, material, or equipment which prevents direct absorbtion of rainfall into the ground and which is stored for an extended period of time Non-Structural Hardcover Roads and shoulders Driveways (Concrete, asphalt, gravel, dirt) Sidewallu, ramps, etc. Any surface intended to be driven on Landscape beds lined with plastic sheeting Landscape beds lined with weed-prevention fabric Tops of rock or timber retaining walls Patios, stepping stones Porous pavements (various) 4. 5. 6. All plastic or fabric located in the 0-75' hardcover zones within the City is considered as non-conforming unless specific approval for same is granted by the City Council at some date after the adoption of this ordinance. All plastic or fabric in hardcover zones other than the 0-75' zone is considered as non-conforming when the combined structural and non-structural hardcover in said zones exceeds the allowed hardcover percentages for said zones. No hardcover variance application will be accepted for consideration by the Planning Commission or Council until all non-conforming plastic or fabric has been removed from the property. Hardcover calculations presented at the time of variance application shall reflect all hardcover remaining on the property after the non- conforming plastic or fabric has been removed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this____^day of 199__. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 3 of 3 To: From: Date: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 18, 1997 Subject: Hardcover Policy Analysis ^e attached document is intended to be a comprehensive look at how Orono has administered its hardcover ordinances since their initial adoption in 1975. The first 2 pages comprise all the nardcover ordinance language currently in effect. The next 24 pages attempt to define how the ordinances have been interpreted through the years, the rationale for those interpretations, and possible alternative methods to deal with the underlying issue qualitv and quantity of stormwater runoff. ’ ^ ^ I should warn you that some of the interpretations or policies noted will fall into a 'proposed policy' category, i.e. what I think the policy should be, rather than how it may actually be administered or understood by others. For instance, the discussion of Zone-to-Zone credit transfer is a logical (I think) extension of the ordinance, but I don't think we have necessarily formalized the use of such transfers. To a great extent, staff would like to have more flexibility in dealing with hardcover on a staff level, m order to reduce the number of formal variance requests. One way to do so is to relax the standards. pother option is to allow staff to deal with variances up to a set percentage before a formal variance is required. Let me know if you have questions or would like to review all this at a future meeting. Hardcover Policy Analysis September 1996 Review Draft Contents: I Code Sections Dealing with Hardcover II. Conceptual Basis for Hardcover Limits on Individual Properties III. Hardcover 'Zones' Concept A. Advantages/Disadvantages B. Zone Hierarchy: Zone-to-Zone Credit Transfer IV. Items Considered by Orono as Hardcover A. Listincr B. Basis tor Including or Excluding Specific Items C. No "Partial Hardcover" V.Structural vs Non-Structural Hardcover A. Definition Lacking in Code B. Historical Reasons for Distinction C. Hardcover Intensification D. Structural Hardcover vs Lot Coverage By Structures VI.Conformity A. Working Toward a Goal B. Nonconformities: 'Legal' vs 'Illegal' Hardcover C. Effect of Prior Variance Approvals VII. Administration A. Building Permit Process B. No 'Hardcover Permit' Established C. Policy Evolution D. The Variance Process VIII. Alternative Methods for Stormwater Runoff Quality Control A. Revise existing Hardcover Ordinances B. Below-Grade Runoff Filtration Systems C. Runoff Collection/Redistribution Systems D. Best Management Practices E. Neighborhood Stormwater Basins IX. Summary A. Current Policies B. Possible Actions for Consideration . S To:Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:June 18, 1997 Subject: Hardcover Policy Analysis The attached document is intended to be a comprehensive look at how Orono has administered its hardcover ordinances since their initial adoption in 1975. The first 2 pages comprise all the hardcover ordinance language currently in effect. The next 24 pages attempt to define how the ordinances have been interpreted through the years, the rationale for those interpretations, and possible alternative methods to deal with the underlying issue, quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. I should warn you that some of the interpretations or policies noted will fall into a 'proposed policy' category, i.e. what I think the policy should be, rather than how it may actually be administered or understood by others. For instance, the discussion of Zone-to-Zone credit transfer is a logical (I think) extension of the ordinance, but I don't think we have necessarily formalized the use of such transfers. To a great extent, staff would like to have more flexibility in dealing with hardcover on a staff level, in order to reduce the number of formal variance requests. One way to do so is to relax the standards. Another option is to allow staff to deal with variances up to a set percentage before a formal variance is required. Let me know if you have questions or would like to review all this at a future meeting. i i [ »Hardcover Policy Analysis September 1996 Review Draft Contents: 1. Code Sections Dealing with Hardcover II. Conceptual Basis for Hardcover Limits on Individual Properties III. Hardcover 'Zones’ Concept A. Advantages/Disadvantages B. Zone Hierarchy: Zone-to-Zone Credit Transfer IV.Items Considered by Orono as Hardcover A. Listing B. Basis for Including or Excluding Specific Items C. No "Partial Hardcover" ! V.Structural vs Non-Structural Hardcover A. Definition Lacking in Code B. Historical Reasons for Distinction C. Hardcover Intensification D. Structural Hardcover vs Lot Coverage By Structures VL Conformity A. Working Toward a Goal B. Nonconformities: 'Legal' vs 'Illegal' Hardcover C. Effect of Prior Variance Approvals VII.Administration A. Building Permit Process B. No 'Hardcover Permit' Established C. Policy Evolution D. The Variance Process VIU. Alternative Methods for Stormwater Runoff Quality Control A. Revise existing Hardcover Ordinances B. Below-Grade Runoff Filtration Systems C. Runoff Collection/Redistribution Systems D. Best Management Practices E. Neighborhood Stormwater Basins IX. Summary A. Current Policies B. Possible Actions for Consideration I. Code Sections Dealing with Hardcover 10.02 Definition 29. "Hard Cover" - Any structure, blacktop or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. (Ordinance No. 172, 1-1-75) 10.22 Regulations for LR-IA, LR-IB, LR-IC and LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning Districts: Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section {Ed note: Subd 1 allows a 20 s.f. lock box within 75 fe%.: of the shoreline). Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. 10.26 LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict: Subd. 3(D). (Standards for 50% Density Credity): D. Parcels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hard cover. - 10.30 M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District: Subd. 13. Hard Cover. The total hard cover on any one MFPR Project shall not exceed 35%. 10.31 RS Seasonal Recreational District: Subd. 9. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of any shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hard cover. t - 10.41 B-2 Lakeshore Business District: Subd. 13(D). Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations. Within 75 feet of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling. 1 r» )hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. I r- - 10.55 Flood Plain and Wetlands Management; Subd. 8, Development Restricted: Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obsuiictions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. 10.56 Shoreland Management: Subd. 16(L). Hardcover Limitations. 1. No hardcover or impervious surface shall be placed, located, or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake or tributary , except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in the Municipal Code. 2. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. - 10.03 General Provisions: Section 10.03, Subd. 4. Prohibition. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. Note: The City has used this section as its authority to require adheren ce to hardcover requirements before building permits will be issued for projects that create or replace hardcover. n. Conceptual Basis for Hardcover Limits on Individual Properties Limiting the extent of impervious surfaces near the lakeshore is but one pan of Orono's overall plan for environmental protection, as outlined m the 23-page Environmental Protection Plan element of the 1980 urono Community Management Plan (CMP). Prima^ environmental protection goal is to preserve the quality of Lake Minnetonka. This 10th largest lake in Minnesota is the smgle most significant natural feature of western Hennepin County. It has substanu^ public value as a recreational asset, as an environmental resouTM, Md as a setting for private residential development. Lake Minnetonka is dependent upon wratershed runoff for replenishment. “ '“''y susceptible to pollution Wds. The combinauon of a single-source local ivater supply relatively small watershed area, many channel restrictions betw^ ^te bays, and a single outlet, result in an extremely long 25-year t change. Once pollutants enter the Lake, they tend to remain a long time and are not easily diluted. M^ement of aomiwater runoff is essential for the protection of the water quali^ of Lake Minnetonka. Urbanization of the lakeshore, due 0 an ever-increasing demand for residential development near the ^ non-point source pollution from stoimwater runoff. The pnmary water quality problems occurring as a result of runoff Ufe oajmed by accummulation of pollutants and/or by result in immediate water quality effects. National studies have repeatedly shown that urban non-poim mputs are a significant part of total water pollution loading. The primani pollutants moved by urban stoimwater runoff are sediment, oxypn-demanding substances, nutrients, heavy metals bactena, chlondes bom road salt, oil and grease, pesticides iL PCB's’ nartf^ ‘i—1" Pollntants tend to adsorb onto fine soil Percies limiting the transport of pollutant-laden sediments into the Ae « of pnme importance. One positive way of accomplishing this to maximize the area in which runoff can be absorbed or filtered by limiting the percentage of hardsurface on properties near the lake. Minnetonka's 125 mile shoreline lies within the City of Orono, and a large proportion of Orono's shoreline is urban residential in character (50-100' lot widths typically). With so many existing lots platted decades ago at very small sizes, and the value of lakeshore skyrocketing, the tendency is for such lots to become highly burdened with impervious surfaces. It follows that limiting urban runoff in Orono must be accomplished by providing the greatest opportunity for filtration or removal of pollutants in the residential areas of the City. Most residential lots abutting or near the lake are in individual ownership and already developed, and most drain directly to the lake, hence neighborhood water quality ponding areas are not always practical. Therefore, implementacion of ordinances to accomplish filtration and pollutant removal are most feasible only on a lot-by-lot basis. For the above reasons, Orono has chosen to place a hardcover limit on individual lots in order to achieve a City-wide goal. Because the code contains no 'sunset provision' (i.e. no amortization period after which all properties must conform), achievement of such a goal will require that in^vidual properties be brought into (or closer to) conformity, one at a time, over many years cr decades. III. Hardcover 'Zones* Concept The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established a standaid of 'no more than 25% hardcover' for properties located in defined Shoreland areas. Orono has chosen to take this one step further and create hardcover zones of established depth (identified by distance from the OHWL) and with individual zone hardcover percentage allowances that increase with distance from the lake. Orono's hardcover zones are as follows. 0-75': C% hardcover allowed 75-250': 25% hardcover allowec 250-500': 30% hardcover allowed 500-1 000': 35% hardcover allowed A. Advantages/Disadvantages Using hardcover zones, the City encourages hardcovered areas to be further from the lake, maximizing the area near the lake available for filtration and stormwater pollutant removal. The zone concept effectively eliminates bulking of hardcover at the lake setback line, which can be significant for large properties. With the DNR standard, the 25% hardcover allotment on a very narrow but deep lot could all be 'clumped' near the lake setback line. With Orono's zone concept, the hardcover allotment for an individual property would have to be spread out over the various zones. Further, Orono's hardcover zone percentages result in significantly less total hardcover on a property than the DNR's '25% of entire lot area' standard. For instance, a lakeshore lot 100 feet wide and 250 feet deep would be allowed 25% of 25,000 s.f. or 6,250 s.f. total under DNR rules. Using the Orono zone concept, the same lot would only be allowed 25% of the 75-250' zone, i.e. 25%xl00'xl75' = 4,375 s.f or just 17.5% of the entire lot. The advantages noted above might be considered as disadvantages by a property owner who must meet Orono's stricter standards. One disadvantage for the City is that the hardcover zones concept is not commonly used by other cities, and it is a somewhat complex concept for the layman to correctly understand. This makes administration more difficult. B. Zone Hierarchy : Zone-to-Zone Credit Transfer 1. The transfer of hardcover allotments from zone to zone increases the complexity of administration but is often appropriate under specific circumstances: a. The City has generally allowed credit for unused hardcover allotment to be transferred to zones fiirther from the lake. For instance, a property that would normally be allotted, say, 5000 s.f. of hardcover in the 75-250* zone but is only using 3000 s.f in that zone, can credit the remaining 2000 s.f for use in the 250-500 ’ zone. Conceivably, the 250-500* zone could then have more than its 30% allotment, but would not need a variance. A record of this transfer must be kept so that it will be noted for the future that the 75-250* zone hardcover can no longer be increased to its 25% limit. b. Unused har dcover cannot be transferred to a zone closer to the lake. c. Excessive hardcover should be (but perhaps in practice is not always) debited against the allotment for the next zone further from the lake. For instance, if the 75*-250* zone has 1000 s.f. more hardcover than its allounent and the 250*-500* zone would normally be allotted 5000 s.f, then the 250*-500* zone should be allowed no more than 4000 s.f of hardcover. EXAMPLE 1. An existing house is mostly in the 0-75' zone, but its 75-250* zone has only 15% hardcover. Should the property owner be allowed to increase hardcover in the 75-250' zone to the 25% limit? No. That would make the property even less conforming. Variance required. EXAMPLE 2. Same scenario as Example 1. Should the property owner be allowed to increase 75-250' hardcover (without a variance) only up to a level equal to his 25% allotment minus the existing non-cor^forming square footaee in the 0-75'? Usually not. The property is in violation already, and any increases should be considered in the context of a variance request which provides the opportunity for possible removals or mitigations. EXAMPLE 3. Hardcover in the 0-75* and 75-250* zones is conforming, but Uie 250-500* zone is very small and already has much more than its 30% allotment. Should a permit be issued for work in the 75-250' zone that doesn't result in 75- 250'excesses? Perhaps...if the 250-500* excesses include only ’reasonable* items such as a standard width driveway or sidewalk... ' I r; I i 2. Proper administration of the hardcover 'zones' concept relies on the premise that hardcover zones are not mutually exclusive but must always be considered together. It is not reasonable to allow the 75-250' zone to increase to its 25% limit when there is hardcover in the 0-75' zone, or when a part of its allotment has been transferred to the 250- 500' zone. 3. The code docs not currently address whether hardcover excesses in one zone should preclude work in other zones that do not have excesses. The above guidelines and policies allow staff to determine when a hardcover variance should be required. : J i ... ,.T- IV. Items Considered by Orono as Hardcover « "»• "«essarily all- Structural Buildings Tennis courts Pools, incl. water surface Decks, regardless of spacing Roofs of any sort, including some roof overhangs... Play structures Temporary buildings Non-Structiin^l Roads and shoulders Driveways (Concrete, asphalt, gravel, dirt) Sidewalks, ramps, etc. Any surface intended to be driven on Landscape beds lined with plastic sheeting Landscape beds lined with permeable weed- prevention fabric Tops of rock or timber retaining walls Patios, stepping stones Porous pavements (various) B. Basis for Including or Excluding Specific Items: Slatted Decks. It can be readily demonstrated by calculation that even minimal spacmg of 1/8 to 1/4 inch between decking boards will allow total transmittal of the 100-year storm, the drip lines taking on a chara^nstic parallel pattern below the deck. However, swelHng of deck ^ards may close the spaces; cupping of deck boards coupled wi s oping them lengthwise in one direction may cause runoff- the hoi^owner may place fabric or plastic under the deck to inhibit weed growth or direct runoff away from the house; and all of these occurrences are not under the control of the City, and can lead to a deck hardcover. Therefore, the City Council in the mid-1980s concluded that decks will be considered i hardcover Sled for fhf dKorative landscape beds containing rock, bark, mulch, etc. Although, oarK, muicn, etc. Althoueh some types of plastic sheeting tend to degrade in sunlight and may in fact ^come permeable’ after a few years, such material is considered to interfere with the direct absorhfmn nf ____ ...0 interf^ with the direct absorbtion of runoff into the gmu^Sras efficiently as other more obvious forms of hardcover. 8 r r Landscape Fabric. Prior to 1991 the City Council had directed that landscape fabrics be treated as hardcover. In 1991 City staff researched the various tjqjes of landscape fabrics available, most of which claim permeability yet inhibit the growth of weeds. Staff concluded that non-woven fabrics have a range of permeability 10 to 100 times as great as woven fabrics. Further, it was found that some fabrics manufactured for other uses are treated with chemicals or resins which make them impermeable and should not be used. It was also found that some fabrics transmit water more readily when in contact with the soil due to capillary action. On May 28, 1991 the City Council voted 4-1 to henceforth consider non-woven landscape fabric as non-hardcover when placed below clean, permeable landscape rock, wood chips or similar materials in landscape beds, and directed staff to revise the City's informational materials to reflect this change. On June 17, 1991 the Planning Commission questioned whether the Council intended that in the extreme case a property owner could place landscape rock over fabric to cover the entire 0-75 ’ zone. On June 24, 1991, the City Council voted 5-0 to rescind the previous action pending further review of the matter, especially in relation to prohibiting fabric use in the 0-75 ’ zone but perhaps allowing it elsewhere. No further action has been taken on this since the approval was rescinded. It might be argued that dust and debris carried with runoff may clog permeable fabric, making it impermeable. This has not been researched by staff. Many property owners have commented that because permeable fabrics are considered hardcover, the only reasonable alternative for controlling weeds is the use of chemicals, with the obvious disadvantage that overuse will result in such chemicals running off into the lake. Gravel or Dirt Driveways (as opposed to gravel decorative rock beds). The City has concluded that all surfaces which are driven on, whether regularly or only occasionally, are considered as hardcover because they experience some degree of compaction. Therefore, gravel or dirt driveways are considered as hardcover. Decorative gravel rock beds without fabric or plastic underliner and which are not driven on, are not considered hardcover because they are permeable and not compacted. Some propert>' ow-ners have requested that porous pavements or the so- called ’grass pavers’ (a concrete or similar grid allowing grass to grow in the interstitial spaces) be allowed as non-hardcover or partial hardcover. Also, some have requested that concrete driveway tire I strips be allowed, only counting the narrow strip as hardcover. The City’s experience has been that residents soon find the grass pavers or tire strips unacceptable, and a paved driveway soon appears in their place. Tops of Retaining Walls. Because retaining walls typically have a defined width of surface ranging from 6-12" or more, they may result in a significant square footage of hardcover. However, randomly spaced boulder walls, while considered as hardcover are difficult to measure as to ground surface area covered, and they may in some cases act to evenly distribute rainfall throughout their footprint... Overhangs. Because Council never came to a conclusion as to when overhangs should be considered hardcover, staff arbitrarily has determined that all overhangs supported by posts are hardcover, measured to the outer edge of the post. Unsupported overhangs more than 10 feet above ground and 3 feet or less in width, will not be considered hardcover. It can then be argued that any unsupported overiiang with a height-to-width ratio of 3.33-to-l or greater should not be considered hardcover. Pool Water Surface. The water surface of a swimming pool or decorative pool normally will store the rain falling on it rather than discharging it as runoff. However, such pools do not allow infiltration of the rainfall, hence they 'interfere with the direct absorbticn of rainfall into the ground', and by definition must be considered as hardcover. C. No ’’Partial Hardcover ” To date staff has avoided establishing "partial hardcover" status for certain items such as decks or fabric which technically permeable but which have been declared as hardcover for non-technical reasons. Staff often receives requests to allow a percentage of such items to be considered as non- hardcover, ai d while staff sees the logic for those requests, allowing them could lead to all sorts of problems (such as making hardcover calculations even more difficult than they are now, or result in discussions about poking holes in plastic or defining to what percent it's deteriorated) which staff is interested in avoiding if possible. V. Structural vs Non-Structural Hardcover A. Definition Lacking in Code Structural hardcover as it has evolved in usage in Orono over the last 10-12 years is not defined in the Code but might be considered as including those items which: - require a building permit - extend above the ground surface or into the ground - are constructed rather than placed Non-Structural hardcover would therefore include those items which: - do not require a building permit - exist on the ground surface but do not extend substantially above or below grade - are placed on the ground surface B. Historical Reasons for Distinction The City s propensity for making a distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover is a direct result of property owners "trading" ground level plastic or fabric lined landscape areas for more intense and permanent types of hardcover such as buildings. This stems from the City ’s technical definition that hardcover includes all items that don't allow direct infiltration of runoff into the ground. One can argue that "Hardcover is Hardcover", that whether it is a 3- stoty building or plastic under a rockbed, it has the same effect of inhibiting infiltration. The counter argument, however, is that not all items Orono considers as hardcover actually limit infiltration. These include permeable weed prevention fabrics, slatted decks, and the so called 'porous pavements'. It is problematic that in the past Orono has allowed (via a long history of formal variance approvals) non-structural hardcover to be traded for structural hardcover. This has resulted in a perception by the Planning Commissi^., and Council that residents may be strategically installing non-structural hardcover prior to applying for a variance for new structure in excess of the allowed hardcover luv.its Then, as part of the variance negotiations', they agree to remove the non-structural hardcover, perhaps resulting in a net decrease of hardcover on the property, which has been used as a justification for many variance approvals. (Are Orono residents this wily? Have we forced them to become so?) The problem is further exacerbated by the City's inability to effectively regulate the placement of non-structural hardcover. With no permits required, any property owner can install excessive hardcover and violate the ordinance without the City's knowledge. To this end, the City Council has dictated that such non-structural hardcover shall aoi be taken into account when structural hardcover requests are presented. C. Hardcover Intensification The distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover becomes problematic when discussing, for instance, conversion of a deck into an enclosed porch, because both are structures. This conversion might be considered as an 'Intensification* of hardcover, peiiiaps relating to the permanence of a hardcover item. A landscape bed is less intense and less permanent than a deck, which in turn is less intense and less permanent than a screen porch, which is (perhaps) less intense and less permanent than a full season room. As the intensity and permanence increases the City has decreasing opportunity for future compliance. The result is that an increase in the permanence of existing non-compliant hardcover is moving away from the City's long-term goal. Requiring a variance in order to increase the intensity of hardcover when a property is out of compliance, gives the City an opportonily to mitigate or prohibit such activity. D. Structural Hardcover vs Lot Coverage By Structures The Hardcover ordinance was adopted in 1975 primarily and specifically to limit the development of impervious surfaces and to maximize runoff infiltration. The Hardcover ordinance applies to all properties within the Shoreland District (within 1000' of a lake, within 300' of a tributary). The Lot Coverage ordinance was adopted in 1990 primarily and specifically to address visual density and the perceived over ­ development of small lots in Orono. The Lot Coverage ordinance applies to all zoning districts throughout the City, but only for lots of 1.99 acre or smaller. There is clearly a definite distinction between the concepts of Hardcover and Lot Coverage, which unfortunately is sometimes 'muddied' by the distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover. A property can meet the 15% lot coverage standard, but still be perceived by Planning Commission and Council as having too VI. Conformity A. Working Toward a Goal In a perfect world, all pr'-perties would conform to the hardcover limits established in the Code. However, many properties do not conform and perhaps never have from the day the ordinance was adopted. Unfortunately, the City never established a baseline hardcover inventory for each property, hence we cannot know whether we are making progress. If the City's goal is that all properties should come into conformance over time, then (again in a perfect world) it would be appropriate to only rarely grant hardcover variances, to demand significant tradeoffs of structural hardcover when variances are granted (or deny the variance), to establish a program of requiring permits for hardcover, and to do a baseline hardcover inventory for all properties as of a given date. Because so many properties do not conform, it could be argued that the Code is too strict and should be relaxed so that most properties conform. This would reduce the number of variance requests and would be in keeping with the principles of good planning. The counter argument, of course, is that this would lead to degradation of the lake, that hardcover would run rampant. Yet there is little or no evidence that suggests Orono's current practice of granting hardcover variances on a regular basis when there is little or no 'hardship'shown, will yield a better result in the long run than if a relaxed standard was adopted and no variances were granted. B. Nonconformities: 'Legal* vs 'Illegal* Hardcover No attempt has been made in the various hardcover code sections to define when it is 'legal' or 'illegal'. The zoning code discusses non- conforming uses in Section 10 03 Subd. 5, but Subd 5(J) indicates the section applies "only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter". The term "use" in this context refers to the permitted/accessory/conditional uses listed in the code; for instance, it pertains to the status of a pre-existing commercial business in a residential zone, not to the lack of appropriate side setbacks for an existing house. Arguably, it does not pertain to hardcover. Nevertheless, in the accepted context of zoning regulation, any action or object which does not conform to the current code is considered "non-conforming". Those objects which existed legally (i.e. were not considered to be illegal) before the code was adopted, are generally allowed to remain "as-is" until such time that they are converted, enlarged, reconstructed or altered...UNLESS the ordinance has a provision that such uses must disappear, usually after a reasonable amortization period. The hardcover ordinance has no such 'sunset' provision. If one were adopted, it would be difficult to require all properties to conform totally, since many would have to remove structure or necessary hardsurfaces such as driveways or sidewalks. Perhaps the most the City could reasonably expect might be conversion of all landscape beds to non-hardcover by a given date. This would require extensive staff time for inspections, and the benefits gained might not outweigh the ill will generated... It is difficult and sometimes impossible to determine when various items of hardcover were placed. The hardcover ordinance came into effect January 1, 1975. Hardcover existing continuously since that time is 'grandfathered', i.e. legal nonconforming. Any changes to it, however, are only legal if they meet the current code. In a case where hardcover exceeds the current code limits (and always when in the 0- 75' zone), replacement of old plastic with new plastic under decorative rock beds would be illegal. And in the same situation, placement of any additional plastic-lined rock beds would obviously be illegal. As noted in the section on structural/non-structural hardcover, the City Council has indicated that in variance requests, such hardcover placed without benefit ofa permit and which results in excesses of hardcover, must be removed and cannot be used as a 'trade-off. C. Effect of Prior Variance Approvals It is not unusual that structures or hardcover that were the subject of a past hardcover variance approval must be replaced due to deterioration. It has been City policy that a past hardcover variance approval grants legal-nonconforming status to the approved hardcover as long as it continuously exists. However, total replacement of a structure, even with no changes to its footprint, height or design triggers a new hardcover review and the likelihood that a new variance approval will be required. Further, any changes in the nature of previously approved hardcover ! 1 VII. Administration t i A. Building Permit ProcessSince the hardcover ordinance was adopted in 1975, it has only been enforced in conjunction with the building permit process. Any request for a building permit for work outside the existing building envelope triggers a hardcover review. This is authorized under Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 4, which is a 'catch-all' statement making it unlawful to "convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter." Hardcover reviews have not been required in conjunction with interior remodeling, residing or reroofing permits. Hardcover review worksheets and instructions are included in the City's building permit application packet. The Building Department reviews the submitted surveys and hardcover calculations and determines from the submitted information whether hardcover standards are met. If not, the applicant is advised of the problem and is allowed to either revise the proposal to bring it into conformity, or apply for a variance. B. No'Hardcover Permit' Established ; .3 Orono has never established a 'hardcover permit', that is, a permit to allow the placement or installation of hardcover items which otherwise are not subject to a building permit. Such unregulated items include construction of landscape beds, as well as the paving of sidewalks, patios or driveways. This lack of a permit allows homeowners to place themselves in violation of the hardcover ordinance without any authorization or review by the City. A homeowner might become aware of the hardcover violation only at the time he/she applies for a building permit for an unrelated project. The result is that a property may be in violation for many years before the City has an opportunity to gain some degree of compliance. Establishment of a hardcover permit would likely result in significantly greater costs to homeowners, since even those in compliance would presumably be required via an expensive survey to prove their project i * : i j t will comply. Many would likely fail to obtain a permit, and claim their hardcover was placed before the ordinance, or that they merely replaced pre-existing hardcover. Without a detailed, dated pre-existing hardcover inventory, the City would be hard-pressed to prove a case. C. Policy Evolution It should be noted that Orono's attitude toward hardcover compliance was rather 'low-key' prior to the mid-1980's. When the hardcover ordinance was initially adopted, the intent was to use it as a guideline rather than requiring adherence down to the last square foot. Hardcover reviews were based on a site inspection by staff rather than requiring that hardcover items be shown on a survey. Gravel driveways, spaced wood decks, the water surface of pools, and landscape areas were usually not called out as hardcover. The City had not put together a hardcover worksheet with specific procedures or lists of what is or isn't hardcover. Hardcover variances were granted (in some cases merely acknowledged) without heated discussions about trading 'this rock bed for that piece of driveway'. This all began to change in 1984 with the infamous 'Paul Newman House' near the Narrows on Shadywood Road. A building permit was issued by staff per standard practice with only a cursory hardcover review. During construction it was determined that a deck in the 0-75' zone was proposed along wath some 0-75' filling. The resulting more detailed CUP/variance hardcover review by staff revealed 40% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Council informally directed staff to begin reviewing hardcover more thoroughly for building permits, and this led to the creation of a hardcover worksheet, more detailed policies and procedures, and a long series of staff memos and discussions with Council about hardcover interpretations, including such topics as: Defining what is and what isn't hardcover June 1985 Hardcover tradeoffs June 1985 Discussions with Dr. Hansen, FWBI July 1985 Discussions with Joel Settles, HCD re: Modeling runoff, use of underground filtration systems August 1985 Status of geotechnical fabrics August 1986 Porous pavements, strip driveways 1987-88 Guidelines for surveyors doing hardcover calculations July 1988 Eaves and Overhangs May 1990 Pool water surface as hardcover February 1991 Structural vs Non-structural February 1991 Weed control fabrics again June 1991 By way of this 'evolution', Orono has come to consider almost anything that is not vegetated to be hardcover. Building permit applicants are required to submit detailed hardcover analyses. The (perhaps originally unintended) result is that surveyors or architects often calculate hardcover to the tenth of a square foot and applicants end up negotiating with Planning Commission over whether 36.2% is acceptable as opposed to 37.5%. D. The Variance Process In some cases where hardcover review determines a project or site has a hardcover problem, minor adjustments or removals can be made to bring it into compliance. In the majority of cases, however, the magnitude or nature of the hardcover excesses makes it impossible to comply, and a variance is the usual remedy. Because so many of Orono's shoreland properties have existing hardcover excesses, many variance requests are processed in any given year. In 1995 approximately 40 of the 109 zoning applications processed involved a hardcover variance. During the early 1980's, staff usually made a hardcover analysis for a property rather than requiring the information to be submitted. In the later 1 980's when the hardcover worksheet was created, it was usually filled out by the applicant and checked by staff. In the 1990's, partly in order to avoid a conflict of interest on the part of staff and partly in an attempt to make better use of staff time, applicants have generally been required to have their surveyor complete the worksheet. However, Staffs experience has been that no matter who does the hardcover worksheet, errors are made. The cost to a property owner to have the surveyor show all hardcover and complete a hardcover worksheet is dependent on the nature and magnitude of what exists on the property. This information can, however, easily add from $200 to $ 1,000 to the cost of the survey required for the variance application (or for the building permit, for that matter). The result is that an applicant will have a fairly large investment in submittal information with no guarantee the application will be successful. Procedurally, staff will normally work with an applicant to define appropriate hardcover removals, especially in the category of lined landscape beds which in most cases have been installed without permit » * and which should not technically exist or be creditable for 'tradeoffs'. Other typical removals include sidewalk and driveway width reductions and the elimination of old accessory buildings. The Council has indicated on many occasions a desire to trade 'structure for structure', and has stated as a matter of policy that trading landscape beds for new structure is to be avoided. Planning Commission will generally review the proposed tradeoffs and indicate acceptance or negotiate with the applicant for further removals. The City has not established variance guidelines for the magnitude of hardcover that will ultimately be allowed on a given property. The final hardcover allowance is often based on what is typical in the neighborhood or related to the magnitude of reduction realized. There is no standard, however, so that staff could be in a position to tell an applicant that "45% is too much, but 35% might work". Absent such a standard, and with Planning Commission's ongoing request that information about what has been granted previously in the neighborhood nal be compiled or presented (since that information may not be relevant to the unique application under consideration), it is often difficult to predict for an applicant his likelihood of success. VIII. Alternative Methods for Stormwater Runoff Quality Control Many sources document the fact that when 'point source' discharges (sewer plants, factory discharges, etc.) have been eliminated, the greatest detriment to our lake is urban runoff, especially oil, leaves, dirt and debris from the streets, and from lawn maintenance chemicals and fertilizers. The e,xtra 100 s.f of hardcover in a room addition probably has much less impact than the fertilizers, lawn maintenance chemicals, and the constant drippings of oil and other toxics from automobiles into driveways and roads which ultimately drain to the lake. While our hardcover ordinance tries to maximize the lawn areas available for treating the pollutants generated by our occupation of Orono, we have by no means taken all possible steps to reduce the volume or intensity of these pollutants. Limiting hardcover is not the be-all, end-all solution for saving the lake. It is a time-consuming and often aggravating regulatory process. A number of possibilities might be considered for dealing with stormwater runoff quality: A. Revise Existing Hardcover Ordinance i. Revise allowed percentages to more closely match existing general conditions (might yield better compliance and fewer variance requests, but does not address whether standards are appropriate from a technical standpoint) ii. Do computerized runoff modeling on each individual lot (use topography, soil conditions, vegetation, existing hardcover to determine a maximum level of hardcover yielding acceptable runoff rates for each property). Probably too complex a process to be useful... although topographic information alone might be used to make a case that areas initially draining away from the lake might be allowed more hardcover...as well as areas of flat topography which have a low runoff rate. iii. Allow flexibility in combining other stormwater quality controls with relaxed hardcover standards. iv. Redefine certain items as non-hardcover if they don't generally contribute runoff to the lake (spaced decks, pools or other basins which allow capture and evaporation, etc.). V. Any of the above could be combined with a more restrictive set of standards as to what 'improvements' are allowed in the 0-75' zone. For instance, it Council's concern in calling permeable fabric hardcover is that someone could replace all the grass in their 0-75' with landscape beds, then place a limit on the percentage of 0-75' that can be anything but natural live vegetation... B. Below-Grade Runoff Filtration Systems This generally would consist of one or more rock-filled trenches designed to intercept runoff from an individual property and allow it to disperse underground rather than as surface runoff. These would likely be constructed at a location in the 0-75' zone where a majority of the surface runoff could be collected. C. Runoff Collection/Redistribution Systems A variation on (B), this would be collection of runoff typically from hardsurfaces in the 0-75 zone, pumping or piping it to a location outside the 0-75' zone for surface dispersal. D. Best Management Practices: -Education program regarding proper use and disposal of residential chemicals such as salt, pesticides, fertilizers,oils and paints -More aggressive street cleaning practices -Provision of yard waste dump site during spring/summer/fall coupled with more aggressive PR campaign against dumping waste in lake/street/drainageways -Required maintenance of vegetated buffer strips at shoreline (Disallow mowing within 20') -Ordinances regulating use of fertilizer and lawn chemicals E. Neighborhood Stormwater Basins These would be used mainly for sediment control, and might be most effective in conjunction with curb & gutter and stormsewers. 1 1 IX. Summary A. Current Policies Following is a summary of the City's current written and unwritten hardcover policies: 1. The items listed in Section IV-A of this document are considered as hardcover. 2. No 'partial hardcover' credit will be granted for any of those items listed, even though it may be demonstrated that they are permeable to some degree. 3. A property is considered to be not in compliance if any individual hardcover zone has hardcover in excess of the allowed hardcover square footage for that zone as established in the Zoning Code. EXCEPTION A: Allowed hardcover in the 0-75' zone consisting of a compliant lakeshore stairway, compliant lockbox, or approved retaining walls shall not constitute non- compliance, except that such hardcover shall be debited against the 75-25C ’ zone allowance. EXCEPTION B: Unused hardcover allowance from a zone closer to the lake can be credited toward a zone further from the lake. 4. Structural hardcover and non-structural hardcover is defined per the definitions of Section V-A of this document. 5. When hardcover is not compliant in a zone in which construction requiring a building permit is proposed, (or if any zones closer to the lake are not compliant?): A. No building permits for work outside the existing developed envelope of a structure shall be issued unless variance approval is granted. B. Non-structural hardcover shall not be converted to structural hardco’. er without variance approval, nor shall intensification of hardcover be allowed. EXCEPTION: A second story may be constructed above an existing building's first story without a variance if the existing building is legally located. 6. Past variance approvals for excesses of hardcover do not constitute compliance: A. when new projects not covered under the original variance review are being proposed. B. when variance approval has expired for a project covered under the original variance but never completed. 7. Additional policies established by B & Z Dept. Policy Manual: A. Hardcover must be within allowed limits before a building permit can be issued. B. Hardcover excesses in zones where no work is being done will be ignored except hardcover in the 0-75' zone will be added to the 75-250' zone. C. A permit will not be issued if the applicant is reducing hardcover but is still over allowed limits. D. Hardcover removals must be completed before the footing inspection will be approved on variance and non-variance applications. EXCEPTION: Staff may negotiate with applicants when weather prevents removal. E. Overhangs: i. Overhangs will be counted as hardcover when the overhang is supported by posts. The area under the overhang to the outer edge of the post will be counted as hardcover. ii. Unsupported overhangs more than 10 feet off the ground and no more than 3 feet out from the house will not be counted as hardcover. F. Steps and walkways within 0-75' zone count as hardcover. G. All fabric and plastic is considered as hardcover. H. Decks: i. Decks are considered hardcover regardless of the spacing of the boards or the height of the deck above ground. ii. Hardcover may be added under decks without increasing hardcover if the deck was legally built with a permit. iii. Decks or other structures(structural hardcover) cannot be added above existing non-structural hardcover such as landscape fabric or concrete without meeting hardcover limits. iv. Converting deck areas into enclosed structure is an intensification of hardcover and is subject to the meeting hardcover limits. I. A second story may be added when not increasing the footprint area of the building regardless of hardcover e,\cesses. r t ! 8. Existing and proposed hardcover must be reported by the applicant or his agents on standard worksheets which Staff will review for accuracy and completeness. Staff will not normally visit a site to measure existing hardcover except to confirm the information submitted. 9. Staff will be skeptical of builders'/homeowners' attempts to remove necessary items of hardcover in order to satisfy the requirements to avoid the variance process. Staff will advise applicants that such attempts followed later by variance requests to gain such hardcover back, are not likely to be honored. B. Possible Actions for Consideration 0. Consider whether current hardcover standards should be relaxed to decrease the number of variance requests; consider whether the current variance system is making any progress toward City's long-term goals; and consider whether the effort expended on regulating hardcover could be better channeled elsewhere. Then, assuming you conclude hardcover regulation is here to stay: 1. Formalize the hardcover policies in the form of a Resolution, rewording and clarifying as necessary and including whatever diagrams or tables are appropriate. Create a more comprehensive hardcover handout including some of the background information from this Analysis. 2. Adopt a policy that allows landscape fabric to be counted as non­ hardcover in zones other than 0-75'. 3. In 0-75' zone, establish a policy that landscape beds lined with fabric will not be allowed, that it is City's intent that the 0-75' shoreline areas shall maintain a natural vegetated appearance, and reiterate that the only allowable hardcover is 1) One 4' wide stairway and landings; 2) One 20 s.f lockbox; 3) One 'lift'; and 4) Retaining walls if approved via CUP/variance. 4. Establish whether portable play structures and portable screen rooms will be considered as hardcover. Reconsider whether other items currently listed as hardcover should not be listed. 5. Investigate and adopt fertilizer use standards (by Ordinance or by Resolution). Investigate and adopt other Best Management Practices, including maintaining an unmowed vegetation buffer within 10-20 feet of shoreline. 6. Consider having staff further investigate the concept of below-grade runoff filtration systems, perhaps for properties which cannot comply with hardcover requirements. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETINGNOV 2 4 1997cmroFORONo DATE: November 24, 1997 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Change Order No. 3, Brown Road North MSA Project We are completing the paperwork to final this project with MNDOT State Aid. We can not find any record of a change order for the substitution of concrete valley curb and gutter for the B618 concrete curb and gutter that was shown on the approved project plans. This substitution was requested by City staff when the project was constructed. This change order does not involve any change in the price for this work. MNDOT State Aid requires submission of this change order to final out the project.1 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Change Order No.3, Brown Road North MSA Project to substitute concrete valley curb and gutter for B618 concrete curb and gutter. 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\ I Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associates, me. is an Athrmative Action/Cqual Opportunity employe^Pr.ncipals Otto G Bonettroo. PE • Jojepn C, Anderl.k. PE. • Marv.n L Sorv.iM, PE •Ricnard E Turner PE • Glenn R Cook. RE • Robert G Scnunicht. RE • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE •Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eberiin. C PA.. Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R, Pfefterle. PE • Richard W. Foster RE • Oavid O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. AI A. • Mar t A. Hanson. RE. • M.chael T Rautmann. PE. • Ted K Field. PE. • Kenneth P. Anderson. PE • Mar< R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P. Williamson. PE. L S. • Robert f Kotsmith Off tees: St. Paul. Rochester. Wilimar and St Cloud, MN • Milwaukee. Wl November 14,1997 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Attn: Mr. Greg Gappa Re: Brown Road North & Watertown Road Culvert S.A.P. No. 152-107-01 BRA File No. 13972 Dear Greg: are four copies of Change Order No. 3 for the above-referenced project. Please review, sign, and distribuie copies as noted on the second page of the change order. If you have any questions, please cedi me at 604-4849. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Michael P. Spack MPS-.la Enclosures Owner HI -H, CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 BROWN ROAD NORTH AND WATERTOWN ROAD CULVERT SA.P. 152-107-01 File No. 13972 Description of Work Valley curb anr gutter shall be substituted for B618 curb and gutter along Brown Road North. B618 curb and gutter shall be used around catch basins as directed by the Engineer. The city has decided they would perfer valley curb and gutter along Brown Road North. All curb and gutter shall be paid as 2531.501 curb and gutter at the contract unit price. Item Unit Contract Unit Quantity Price Total Amount ir Original Contract Amount Previous Change Orders This Change Order No. 3 Revised Contract Amount (including this change order) $566^06.50 $81,883.65 $0.00 $648,390.15 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF ORONO cc: Owner Contractor Bonding Company Bonestroo & Assoc. 70294/oo.wb1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION • .;2T|MG NOV 2 4 1997 Date: NovemSX96,9R0NO Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Spring Hill Tunnel Agreement - City Non-Participation Option Lbt of Exhibits A - Letter from Tom Crosby 1 1-12-97 Per the attached letter. Spring Hill has initiated contact with Hennepin County regarding the possibir*v of a direct agreement between Spring Hill and the County for the County Road 6 tunnel. As orivmdlly approved in the CUP resolution, the City agreed to enter into a cooperative agreement ^ i’ounty to 'identify legal and technical responsibilities for the tunnel', and the applicants to A*:ept all reassigned responsibilities via a similar agreement between Orono and Spring Hill. The City's involvement in such an agreement was required by the County when this issue was discussed during the CUP approval process last spring. At the applicant's request, the County is now reviewing the possibility of a direct agreement with Spring Hill that does not require City involvement. The County Attorney has reviewed the proposed direct agreement with Spring Hill, and has indicated that the tunnel culvert needs to be in public ownership rather than private ownership. This appears to require the City's involvement in an agreement regarding the tunnel. However, the County would like to know whether the City would prefer to be included in or excluded from the tunnel agreement. If the City is excluded from the tunnel agreement, the City would not have to assume responsibility or liability for any tunnel maintenance, repair, etc. should Spring Hill fail to comply with any County requirements. Council Action Requested Motion to indicate whether the Council would be supportive of a direct tunnel agreement between Spring Hill and Hennepin County, eliminating City involvement. ► Faegre & Benson llp 2200 N orwest Center , to South Seventh Street Minneapous , Minnesota S5402-390i TELEPHONE 612-336-3000 FACSIMILE 612-336-3026 Thomas M. Crosby , JR. Mr. Michael P. Gaffron November 12,1997 TCroiby@^acgr«.ooiiL 612/336-3127 Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55391 Re: Spring Golf Club Pedestrian Underpass Dear Mike; As I Indicated to you on the telephone, Gary Gandrud of this ofHce and Tim Johnson met with a representative of Hennepin County on November 10,1997 to determine whether or not a direct contractual relationship with Hennepin County on the County Road 6 underpass could be made thereby eliminating the need for participation by the City of Orono. At that meeting the following documents were given to Hennepin County: 1. 2. A proposed agreement between Spring Hill and Hennepin County; The typing draft of that agreement showing the changes from the document prepared by the County for use with the City of Orono; and 3.A copy of Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes which indicates that Hennepin County does have the ability to assess the Spring Hill property for work related to the tunnel. is possible. The County is in the process of determining whether or not a direct relationship Spring Hill wants Orono to know that the discussions are taking place. By telephone yesterdsty I informed Gabriel Jabbour and Dick Flint of the discussions. These documents will indicate to you the nature of the relationship proposed which is essentially the same as would have existed if the City of Orono had been involved. Minneapolis Denver Des Moines London Frankfurt Almaty Mr. Michael P. Gafifron November 12,1997 Page 2 Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, (<jy^ Thomas M. Crosby, Jr. TMC:cfk Enclosures cc: Andrew Hunter in Tim Johnson MlKUim3.01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING NOV 2 4 1997 CnYOFORONO DATE: November 20,1997 ITEM NO: /Q Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name RonMoorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description:f Funding for Planning Intern Through December In May of 1997, staff requested authorization to hire a planning intern to assist with the Planning & Zoning work load for a six month period at a cost of $6,000. This request was approved by the Council. A planning intern has been on board from June through November. During this time, the intern has provided important assistance to enable planning applications to be effectively reviewed and moved through the city's review process. At this point the $6,000 authorized by the City Council has been expended. However, the work load continues at a high level. The Planning staff is preparing several items for the December Planning Commission meetings. These include information related to a tree preservation ordinance, proposed improvements to the planning application form, and potential changes to the Home Occupation ordinance. It also appears there will be a large number of applications for the January Planning Commission meeting since a number of applicants who wanted to be on the December meeting were delayed to the January meeting. In addition, the number of phone calls and requests for information remain at a high level. Retaining the intern through December on a part-time schedule would provide significant assistance to ensure the priority planning tasks are effectively completed. Therefore, staff is recommending the intern continue on a part-time schedule through December at a cost of $1,000.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve additional hours for the planning intern through the month of December at a cost of $1,000 to be funded from the Contingency account. REQUEST rOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ " 1997 DATE: Nove2iftrQ^)yg>' ITEM NO: ) | Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed: • Agenda Section: City Administrator's Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk #1 w Report Item Description: Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule (Information Only) Attachment: A. Summary Ordinance The proposed 1998 Fee Schedule Ordinance and Summary reflecting tlie proposed changes are attached. The proposed changes include; . Increases in some Zoning Application fees and the surcharge for staff tune. Bu\^^ovbroHming has been deleted because it is covered by building permits and . A rediKtion in standard sized water meters is reflected. This change is a result in a change toe^es in licenses and miscellaneous charges include cigarette licenses and audio tape duplication and the addition of video tape duplication and returned check charge. ; w“ “.ST—-1... .1. BoAthetonrPolice Department and the Long Lake Fire Department respond to a large n^to of false alarm calls. Not only is this expensive in terms of staff time and vehicle usage,. unnecessarily puts staff at risk in emergency response situations. The Police Department respon to 792 alarm wlls per year. This is 10% of the total calls for the Police Department in a ye . Unety-nine per cem of the alarm calls are false alarms caused by either ^ ^arm system or by human error in improperly setting the alarm or accidentally >"^"8 ^means nearly all false alarms are easily avoidable. The cty currently has a fee schedule for false police alarms. Orono does not currently charge for false ,<ire alarms. In 1996. the Long Lake Fire Department r i 1' t I i Request for Council Action page 2 of 2 Noyember 20,1997 Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule responded to 198 calls in Orono. These included 53 fire calls, 41 medical calls, 21 personal injury accident calls, and 83 alarm calls. The alarm calls made up 42% of the total fire calls. The vast majority of the alarm calls are false alarms. In contrast to false police alarms which require response by two officers in two squad cars, false fire alarms require response by a police officer plus a fire truck, potentially a tanker truck, and approximately 10 fire fighters. This is an expensive e.xercise. Because of the high expense related to false fire alarms, staff will be recommending an amendment to the false alarm ordinance to create a false fire alarm fee with the following fee schedule. 1st false alarm 2nd false alarm 3rd false alarm 4th false alarm 5th false alarm No charge $ 75.00 $250.00 $350.00 $500.00 The ordinance amendment and the revised fee schedule will be presented for Council action at the December 8 regular Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested at this time. ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance Number____, Second Series," and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that the publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. I i OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER____SECOND SERIES ordinance no .____. SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1998 FEE SCHEDULE, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 143, SECOND SERIES The following is the official summary of Ordinance Number---- approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on ----------------------------» 1997. The following sections have changes, additions an/or deletions. nrscRiPTlON 1997 FEE ZONING APPLICATIONS VARIANCE (Flexible applications involving more than one variance will require an additional $50.00 payment per each variance) $220.00 Variance for Non-Conforming Structures RENEWAL VARIANCE (No change from original application) $220.00 $120.00 SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION FEES Profession.! Time $30.00/hoor Clerical Time $ 18.00/hour 5/8" Water meter including sales tax 3/4" Water meter including sales tax 1" Water meter including sales tax $139.00 $191.00 $247.00 ALL SANITARY SEWER & MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES Various charges BUILDING MOVING OR LIFTING -Pre-Move code inspection, principal buildings a) Building within Orono to be relocated within Orono b) Building outside Orono to be moved into Orono (max. radius 25 miles) $ 50.00 $150.00 , Second Series 1998 FEE $250.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 40.00/hour $20.00/hour $130.00 $180.00 $240.00 Various charges Delete Delete (These permits are covered by building permits & demo permits nFSrRfPTION LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Central Administrative Licenses Cigarette Sales Licenses - per quarter Audio Recording Duplication Returned Check Charge 1997 £££ $ 5.00 Cost of copying service, messenger service & min. Clerical fee 1998 £££ $ 25.00 S 10.00 per tape S 20.00 DOGS AT LARGE - RELEASE FEE First Offense Second Offense Third Offense After Hours, Weekend & Holiday Release Charge ANIMALS AT LARGE (Other than dogs) - Release Fee First Offense Second Offense Third Offense Trace & Catch Animal Trailer Charge LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Police Department Administered FALSE FIRE ALARM USER FEES First false alarm Second false alarm Third false alarm Fourth false alarm Fifth & over false alarm "NO PARKFNG ORDER OF POLICE" paper signs (no lath included) Video Tape Duplication RECYCLING CHARGE Replacement (including sales tax) $ 25.00 $ 35.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 25.00 $ 40.00 $ 55.00 $ 25.00/hour $ 35.00 plus .25 mile (total distance) $ 0.25 each $ 55.00 S 65.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Added Holiday $ 55.00 $ 65.00 $ 75.00 $ 35.00/hour $ 55.00 plus .31 mile (total distance) 3 S 6.50 each No Charge $75.00 $250.00 $350.00 $500.00 $ 0.50 each $ 50.00 each tape $ 9.00 each $21.40/qtr S 1.82/1000 gal $21.40/qtr $ 22.00/qtr S 1.87/1000 gal $ 22.00/qtr $ 7.85/qtr $ 2.52/1000 gal S 8.10/qtr $ 2.59/1000 gal $ 7.85/qtr $ 2.01/1000 gal $ 8.10/qtr $ 2.06/1000 gal m m $ 25.00 per location plus area rate per 1000 gallons $ 6.50 each $ 9.00 each $ 7.75 S 8.00 S 9.50 $ 10.00 $130.00 $140.00 S 2.00 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 3.00 $ 7.75 $ 8.00 $ 5.50 RWrnFnnriw V y r COUNCIL MEETINQ NOV 2 4 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CfTYOFORONO DATE: November 18, 1997 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: ’4 Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Proposed 1998 Meeting Schedule Attachment: Proposed 1998 Orono Meeting Schedule On the attached schedule. Council is to meei. on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of the month. The only exception is May, when the fourth Monday is Memorial Day. Therefore, the Council meeting is scheduled on the fourth Tuesday, May 26. Continuing with past years’ practice, only one Council meeting is scheduled in December. Planning Commission is scheduled to meet the 3rd Monday of the month. January and February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In ■‘se months the meetings will be on the third Tuesday. In past years there has not been a me g of the Planning Commission scheduled in December. It may be necessary to hold a Planning, Jommission meeting in December to avoid a problem with the 60 day land ir Jr^Ijion rule. The third Monday in December is the 21st which is not a good date for a meeting Su:tf will work with the Planning Commission to determine a date that wall work in December. . ae other alternative is to schedule a special Planning Commission meeting in December if a meeting is necessary. In 1998 the regular starting time for Planning Commission will be 6:30 p.m. Park Commission meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of the month. The only exception is September w'hen the meeting is the first Tuesday because of a Monday holiday. All holidays are indicated wdth an "X" and Thursday, December 24 is shown as a designated holiday. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: I.*vtion to amend/approve/table the 1998 Meeting Schedule. 1998 ORQNO lyrfETTNG SCHEDULE - COTJNCTL CHAMBERSKEYj 7:00 p.m. Council meeting 2nd & 4th Monday - ____ __ A A A ak la Adopted: O <»:30 p.m. Planning Commbsion 3rd Monday ^ 7:15 p.m. Park Commission 1st Monday Other Event X Oflicial Holiday Q ‘PLANNING COMMISSION - May through October - 1st Tuesday is an alternate meeting date. 1998 T X 2 8 9 15 16 1998 F S 3 10 17 7 14 21 2? 23 24 6127 28 29 30 31 February 1998 S M T W T F S 1 A 3 4 5 6 7 8 miO 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 fU 24 25 26 27 28 8 nai 15 0 17 22 tig 24 29 30 31 UGl>s'ivKN May S M T W T 1998 F S 3 Af5) 6 10 nil ^2 13 17 © 19 20 24 27 31 7 14 21 28 1 8 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 30 June S M T 7 [81^9^10 14©16 17 ''^1 3 21 28 22] 23 29 30 T 4 11 18 25 1998 F S July S M 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 5 A(Vl 8 i2rai^ 15 w 1 T 2 9 _ 16 19 ©21 22 23 1S98 F S X 4 10 11 17 18 24 25 August S M T W t 1998 F S 261273 28 29 30 31 2 9 16 23 30 31 41 5 1^12 18 19 25 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 1 8 15 22 29 September S.'M T W 6 X A 9 13 &Wl6 20 CT 22 23 T 3 10 17 24 1998 F. S 4 5 11 12 18 .19 25 26 October S M T 4 11 1 1 13 14 ^ © 20 21 |2g|27 28 T 1 8 15 22 29 1998 F S 2 9 16 23 30 3 10 17 24 31 November S M T A1 8 cai 15 o 17 22 12^24 29 30 1998 W T F S 4 5 6 7 X 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 5 28 December 5 M T 1 6 13 20 21 22 A a 0 15 W T 2 3 9 10 16 17 1998 F S 4 5 11 12 18 19 C>C.MeKALE.LE.2XlO?? 23 >0»'26 30 31 r ^wC.VC''-'L Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 2 4 1997 DATE: NoverrfteWlcSFbJ^eiyK) ITEM NO: Department Approval: ^ Name TomKuehn Title Finance Director ’ Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Certification of Delinquent Utilities and General Service Fees Attachments: (A) Resolution providing for the collection of delinquent sewer, w ater, recycling program fees, ? cptic inspection fees, and general service fees. (B) Assessment roll. Each year the city certifies to the county, all unpaid annual service charges for the septic inspection program, the unpaid recycling program fees, all delinquent sewer and water accounts of $50.00 or more, and the delinquent general services for false alarm fees and developers improvement fees, to be collected with the following year's taxes. In addition to the outstanding amounts delinquent, eight percent (8%) interest is added to all accounts and an administrative fee i? added to the septic accounts. At this time the total to be assessed is $77,001.45, including administrative fees. This amount will be decreased by any payments received up to the final payment date of November 26,1997. A copy of the assessment roll is attached for your review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of resolution providing for the collection of delinquent charges for the 1997 sewer and water utility services, the septic inspection program, the recycling program, and for the false alarms and developers improvement fees. , seconded by,____, to adopt ResolutionPROPOSED MOTION: - Moved by,__ Number ____, providing for the collection of delinquent 1997 charges for sewer and water utility serv ices, fees for the annual septic inspection and recycling programs, and general service fee.' for false alarms and developers improvement fees. Ayes___Nays____. TO>r.C«lTrTUBVMS\^ ORD -TV... A RESOLUTION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT 1997 SEWER AND WATER UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES, RECYCLING PROGRAM FEES, ANNUAL SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT (SEPTIC) INSPECTION PROGRAM, AND GENERAL SERVICE FEES Whereas, the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota has enacted certain ordinances under Minnesota Statutes, therefore pursuant to Chapter 3, Chapter 12, Chapter 9, and Chapter 10, Orono City Code pertaining to payment and collection of sewer and water charges and annual service charges for recycling and the Onsite Sewage Treatment (septic) inspection program, and false alarm fees, and developers improvement fees, and; and; Whereas, the charges identified in the attached list of properties are delinquent in nature. Whereas, the City has obtained from the Hennepin County Auditor, levy number 14198 for the delinquent accounts, and; Whereas, the City hereby authorizes and directs the Hennepin County Auditor to extend upon the propert>' tax lists of the County and further collect said assessments thereon, as provid­ ed by law, and; Whereas, the City hereby authv)rizes and directs the Hennepin County Auditor to add eight percent (8%) interest, as directed, to all amounts due. Therefore Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota hereby authorizes and directs the County Auditor of Hennepin County to assess properties identified in the attached list, made a part hereof, fcr the amounts of delinquent utilities/fees appearing along with such properties, plus eight percent (8%) interest added as directed. Said amounts to be collected along with property taxes collected in 1998. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on November 24, 1997. attest: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor r •5*■fr«LevyNumber 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 141S8 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 1419o 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 1419? 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 Property Identification # Addition CertifiedNumber Amount Lot Block Address 20-11723 36 -11823 07 -11723 20- 11723 21- 11723 07-11723 07 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 18 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 20-11723 20-11723 20-11723 20-11723 20-11723 20-11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 20 -11723 20 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17-11723 20 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 18 -11723 20-11723 20 -11723 -31 -00 -52 -44-00-15 -41-00-18 -21-00-06 -22 -00 -11 -41 -00 -14 -32 -00 -57 -22 -00 -24 -22-00-28 -14 -00 -13 -23 -00 -17 -34 -00 -23 -44-01 -08 -44 -00 -96 -44 -OC -33 -12-00-14 -21 -00 -37 -32 -Ou -IZ -31 -00 -38 -43 -OO -35 -43-00-22 -41-00-09 -41 -00 -14 -43 -00 -53 -43 -00 -54 -41 -00 -19 -44-00-22 -43-00-11 -31-00-09 -22 -OO -29 -23 -00 -19 -14 -00 -05 -21 -00 -02 -21 -00 -20 42740 508.29 2905 CASCO PT RD 41900 223.24 45 FERNDALE GREEN 42420 181.28 1295 ELMWOOD AVE 43120 317.99 2466 DUNWOODY AVE 43180 538.57 2570 LYDIARD AVE 43620 220i9 1245 NORTH ARM DRIVI 42000 251.34 4755 TONKAVIEW LA 42060 254.47 1687 CONCORDIA ST 42060 459.46 1750 CONCORDIA ST 42220 188.76 1935 CONCORDIA ST 42225 586.74 1940 CONCORDIA ST 01777 738.64 2255 BLAINE AVE 43540 1,117.62 2260 BAYVIEW PL 43540 634.39 2300 BAYVIEW PL 43540 547.73 2305 BAYVIEW PL 42720 613.74 2447 CARMAN ST 43490 568.04 2480 CASCO PT RD 13300 921.42 2805 CASCO PT RD 43088 322.49 2990 CASCO PTRD 43640 551.97 3040 CASCO PT RD 43300 623.99 3205 CASCO QR 42420 6.3.3.63 3235 CRYSTAL BAY RD 42420 535.03 3265 CRYSFAL BAY RD 43300 603.42 3271 CASCO QR 43300 459.46 3273 CASCO QR 43540 487.18 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD 43540 477.80 3405 CRYSTAL BAY RD 42740 595.38 3485 CRYSTAL PL 42020 284.72 3753 CASCO AVE 42060 459.46 1755 FAGERNESS PT RD 42510 459.46 1825 FAGERNESS PT RD 42220 79132 1981 FAGERNESS PT RD 43102 576.69 2460 DUNWOODY AVE 42420 900.27 2520 DUNWOODY AVE r Levy Property Number Identification # Addition Certified Nnmber Amount Lot Block Address 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 20 -11723 20 -11723 20-11723 20-11723 20-11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17-11723 17-11723 20-11723 20-11723 21 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17-11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17-11723 17 -11723 21-11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 08-11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 20-11723 21 -11723 21 -11723 -24 -00 -13 -24 -00 -14 -24 -00 -17 -42 -00 -22 -42 -00 -33 -41 -00 -03 -41-00-04 -41 -00 -04 -41-00-28 -11-00-04 -11 -00 -04 -23 -00 -33 -43 -00 -76 -43 -00 -75 -43 -00 -74 -43-00-87 -43-00-09 -43-00-90 -43-00^ -43 -00 -56 -43 -01 -04 -34 -00 -26 -34 -00 -34 -44-00-67 -22 -00 -08 -44-00-58 -44-00-98 -34 -00 -50 -21 -00 -01 -31 -00 -41 -43 -01 -29 -11 -OO -31 -24 -OO -03 -24 -00 -65 42020 42020 42020 43480 43480 43040 43040 43040 43540 41390 41390 43530 42740 42740 42740 42740 42740 42740 42740 42740 42740 01777 01777 43600 43220 43540 43540 42200 41317 43620 43620 01244 42940 43085 67U8 628.17 333.68 490.91 678.57 53139 489.81 471.74 158.67 587.77 753.47 7.36.19 704.72 445.13 34934 58485 10823 396.94 638.16 441.72 962.05 586.67 65333 47833 790.14 44528 756.86 44925 503.18 840.19 374.60 51530 832.44 640.19 2700 ETHEL AVE 2705 ETHEL AVE 2755 ETHEL AVE .3516 IVY PL 3532 IVY PL 2150 KENWOOD WAY 2160 KENWOOD WAY 2162 KENWOOD WAY 2180 KENWOOD WAY 2595 LYDIARD QR 2597 LYDIARD QR 2700 KELLY AVE .3444 LYRIC AVE 3468 LYRIC AVE 3472 LYRIC AVE .3473 LYRIC AVE .3477 LIVINGSTON AVE 3499 LYRIC AVE 3525 LIVINGSTON AVE .3536 LYRIC AVE .3551 LYRIC AVE .3600 LIVINGSTON AVE 3690 LYRIC AVE 2314 OLIVE AVE 2530 OLD BEACH RD 3220 NAVARRE LA 3300 NAVARRE LA 3655 NORTH SHORE DR 3805 NORTH SHORE DR 2100 SHADYWOOD RD 2237 SHADYWOOD RD 2465 SHADYWOOD RD 2705 SHADYWOOD RD 2740 SHADYWOOD RD Levy Property Number Identiflcatioii # Additioa Certified Number Amount Lot Block Address ¥ 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11723 17 -11713 20 -11713 33-11823 05 -11713 05 -11713 05 -11713 10 -11723 10 -11713 10 -11713 10 -11723 10 -11723 08-11713 05 -11713 05 -11723 07-11713 02-11723 07-11713 05-11723 33 -11813 02-11723 02-11713 07 -11723 07-11723 07 -11713 07- 11713 04- 11713 05- 11723 04-11723 04-11713 08 -11723 08- 11713 -43 -00 -98 -31-00-33 -31 -00 -30 -31-00-17 -22 -00 -02 -13-00-11 -14 -00 -24 -14 -00 -43 -14-00-31 -31-00-75 -31 -00 -72 -31-00-22 -31-00-50 -31 -00 -36 -44 -00 -08 -24 -01 -21 -14 -00 -35 -14 -00 -13 -43 -00 -26 -41 -00 -30 -13 -00 -39 -44-00-16 -31 -00 -38 -31 -00 -14 -44-00-27 -44-00 -20 -44-00-26 -44 -00 -21 -22 -OO -06 -22 -00 -14 -23-00-04 -23 -00 -10 -23 -00 -24 -13 -00 -05 42740 42420 42420 43111 42420 43515 41900 41900 41900 42540 42540 42140 42520 42140 42005 42860 41440 43240 42760 43120 41900 42210 42560 42560 41300 41300 41300 41300 43109 41440 41520 41520 42460 42460 2,28036 540.20 298.18 47538 504.46 133530 287.62 273.49 .362.62 .362.62 362.62 362.62 362.62 .362.62 .362.62 .362.62 8435 374.25 362.62 362.62 362.62 362.62 362.62 18436 27.3.49 362.62 362.62 .362.62 .362.48 18436 362.62 195.99 18436 362.62 3412 SHORELINE DR .36.37 TOGO RD .3660 TOGO RD .3725 TOGO RD 3935 SHORELINE DR 2785 WAYZATA BLVD 285 CRESTVIEW AVE .K*0 CRESTv lEW AVE .325 CRESTVIEW AVE 1212 BRIAR ST 1245 ARBOR ST 1251 BROWN RDS 1395 BROWN RD S 2160 CRYSTAL AVE .3260 BOHNS PT LA 3770 BAYSIDE RD 3780 BAYSIDE RD 1101 ELMWOOD AVE 1165 I ERNDALE RD W 1.305 ELMWOOD AVE 3435 EASTLAKE ST 51HACKBERRYHILL 520 HANLON AVE 521 HANLON AVE 4166HIGHWOODRD 4167 HIGHWOOD RD 4174HIGHWOODRD 4175 HIGHWOOD RD 140 LEAF ST 185 LANDMARK DR 370 LEAF ST 400 LEAF ST 1038 LOMA LINDA AVE 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE r 1 f ' 1 i Levy Nomber 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 Property Identification # 02 -11723 07 -11713 07 -11713 07 -11713 07 -11723 08-11713 08 -11723 10 -11723 08-11713 08-11713 08-11713 08-11723 08-11723 07-11723 07 -11723 07 -11723 07 -11713 07-11713 06-11713 07 -11713 07 -11713 07 -11723 10 -11713 10 -11713 07 -11713 10 -11713 04 -11713 05 -11713 05 -11713 05-11713 05 -11713 05 -11713 07 -11713 07 -11713 33 -11813 04 -11723 -31-00-11 -14 -00 -20 -14 -00 -18 -13 -00 -02 -41 -00 -54 -33 -00 -75 -33 -00 -06 -31 -00 -04 -41-00-03 -41-00-07 -44-00-02 -41 -00 -12 -34 -00 -08 -44-00-64 -44-00-62 -34 -00 -03 -31 -00 -04 -32 -00 -21 -41-00-99 -32 -00 -30 -32 -00 -54 -31-00-23 -31 -00 -07 -31-00-06 -41 -00 -71 -31 -00 -16 -13 -00 -21 -34 -00 -01 -34 -00 -08 -13 -00 -21 -13 -00 -14 -13 -00 -17 -21 -00 -13 -31 -00 -38 -44 -00 -19 -22 -00 -03 Addition Certified Nomber Amount Lot Block Address 42560 42440 42440 41307 43120 42280 42280 41310 41308 41308 41308 41308 41600 42300 42300 41940 41940 42000 42620 43080 43500 43080 41310 41310 43120 41310 00954 42880 42880 41320 41320 42320 42700 43500 42210 41520 362.62 273.49 362.62 362.62 362.62 362.62 362.62 353.43 9118 362.62 362.62 1,09634 362.62 362.62 362.62 362.62 667.48 273.49 362.62 362.62 18436 262.03 362.62 18436 273.49 250.99 178.26 37415 18436 313.81 362.62 332.91 327.62 273.49 187.62 178.26 570 ORONO ORCHARD F 1015 NORTH ARM DR 1055 NORTH ARM DR 1060 NORTH SHORE DR 1.368 NORTH ARM DR 1540 NORTH ARM DR 1545 M'NNIE AVE 2080 NORTH SHORE DR 3202 NORTH SHORE DR 3260 NORTH SHORE DR 3268 NORTH SHORE DR 3324 NORTH SHORE DR 3635 NORTH SHORE DR 4040 NO k TI! shore DR 4056 NORTH SHORE DR 4425 NORTH SHORE DR 4485/7 NORTH SHORE DI 4755 NORTH SHORE DR 550 PARK LA 1310 REST PT LA 1.345 REST PT LA 1.348 REsrrpraR 1360 RAILROAD AVE 1.380 RAILROAD AVE 1.388 PARK DR 2150 PROSPECT ANTi 3180 RIDGEWOOD QR 722 TONKAWA RD 770 TONKAWA RD .309 WESTLAKE ST 348 WESTLAKE ST .372 WESTLAKE ST 1001 WILDHURSTTR 1261 WILDHURSTTR 2480 WATERTOWN RD 3195 WATERTOWN RD Total Water/Swer Accounts 63,29436 I i I ; Levy PropertyNumber Identification # Septic Accounts 14198 23 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 03 23 23 23 23 23 23 03 23 23 03 23 22 22- 22 22- 23- 10- 10- 27- 10- 27- 03- 04- 04- 04- 04- 33- 05- 31 31 31 06 06 ■11723 11723 11713 11723 11713 -11713 -11713 -11713 -11713 -11723 -11713 -11723 -11713 -11713 -11713 -11713 -11713 -11713 -11723 -11723 -11813 -11713 -11823 -11713 -11713 -11723 -11723 •11723 ■11813 ■11723 11813 11823 11823 11713 11713 -22 -CO -18 -12 -00 -10 -23-00-31 -13 -00 -20 -23 -00 -33 -32 -00 -27 -32-00-60 -32 -00 -05 -42 -00 -10 -32 -00 -70 -31-00-02 -31 -00 -02 -32 -00 -72 -31 -00 -29 -31-00-33 -31 -00 -32 -31-00-10 -22 -00 -09 -12 -00 -02 -24 -00 -02 -31-00-22 -34 -00 -03 -42 -OO -17 -13 -00 -09 -11 -00 -03 -11 -00 -05 -11-00-11 -12 -00 -18 -43 -00 -19 -12-00-21 -42 -00 -01 -42-00-09 -34 -00 -12 —21 -00 -03 -22 -00 -09 Addition CertifiedNumberAmount Lot Block Address 42660 60.00 120 BIG ISLAND 41395 82.60 130 BROWN RD S 42660 60.00 140 BIG ISLAND 42660 60.00 160 BIG ISLAND 42660 60.00 • 130 BIG ISLAND 42660 60.00 300 BIG ISLAND 42680 60.00 360 BIG ISLAND 43140 60.00 410 BIG ISLAND 01867 82.60 420 BROWN RD S 42660 110.00 450 BIG ISLAND 42660 60.00 460 BIG ISLAND 41303 82.60 465 BROWN RD S 42660 60.00 470 BIG ISLAND 42960 60.00 570 BIG ISLAND 05046 60.00 610 BIG ISLAND 05046 60.00 620 BIG ISLAND 42960 60.00 630 BIG ISLAND 42660 69.00 750 BIG ISLAND 41310 82.60 920 BROWN RD S 41310 82.60 1045 BROWN RD S 04518 82.60 1090 COX FARM RD 43072 82.60 1449 BA V RIDGE RD 42470 82.60 1920 COUNTRY CLUB RI 02196 82.60 2240 ABINGDON WAY 01647 82.60 2420 COUNTRYSIDE DR 01647 82.60 2435 COUNTRYSIDE DR 02550 82.60 2565 COUNTRYSIDE DR 05343 82.60 2735 COUNTRYSIDE DR 05752 82.60 2755 COPPIJ^ VIEW DR 03941 82.60 3485 CHRISTINE DR 41331 82.60 4245 CHIPPEWA LA 42030 82.60 4.325 CHIPPEWA LA 02554 82.60 4440 BAYSIDE RD 41306 82.60 4485 BAYSIDE RD 05490 82.60 4645 BAYSIDE RD u«i ir«iiTrrri .TiT^iTTTrnTrr mstf. ims LevyNumber Property Identification #Addition tJertiUen Number Amount Lot1419827-11823 -43-00-05 42470 82.60 14198 27-11823 -42-00-12 4247U 82.60 14198 27-11823 ^2-00-10 42470 82.60 14198 27-11823 -42 -00-15 42470 82.60 14198 36-11823 -33 -00 -09 42710 82.60 14198 02-11723 -21-00-32 42825 82.60 14198 33-11823 -43-00-06 03369 82.60 14198 06-11723 -22-00-24 41306 82 60 14198 02-11723 -21-00-09 42840 82.60 14198 06-11723 -24-00-01 41306 82.60 14198 02-11723 -24-00-03 41640 82.60 14198 04-11723 -24-00-03 41520 82.60 14198 04-11723 -13-00-01 41500 82.60 14198 06-11723 -24-00-13 05050 154.60 14198 06-11723 -23 -00-11 41306 82.60 14198 06 -11723 -31 -00 -01 43119 82.60 14198 04-11723 -31-00-01 41520 82.60 14198 06-11723 -31-00-03 00426 82.60 14198 32-11823 -23-00-03 42820 82.60 14198 31 -11823 -14-00-02 41331 82.60 14198 3t -11823 -14-00-03 41336 82.60 14198 36-11823 -14-00-04 41336 82.60 14198 32-11823 -23 -00 -04 42820 82.60 14198 36-11823 -14-00-09 41336 82.60 14198 32-11823 -22-00-07 42820 82.60 14198 36-11823 -11-00-14 03261 82.60 14198 04-11723 -43-00-07 41500 82.60 14198 07-11723 -22-00-05 41307 82.60 14198 35-11823 -41-00 -20 04865 82.60 14198 09-11723 -12-00-05 05783 82.60 14198 35-11823 -13-00-03 41335 82.60 14198 10-11723 -33 -00 -01 41310 82.60 14198 06-11723 -23-00-06 41306 82.60 14198 02-11723 -21-00-19 42840 82.60 14198 33 -11823 -42-00 -05 03842 82.60 LevyNumber Property Identification #Addition Certified Number Amount Lot Block Address1419805-11723 -32-00-01 42040 82.60 420 TONKAWA RD1419804-11723 -31 -00-12 04430 82.60 460 SUSSEX LA1419832 -11823 -21 -00 -05 41332 82.60 605 STUBBS BAY RD N1419825-11823 -33-00-04 41325 132.60 725 SIXTH AVE N 14198 26-11823 -34-00-08 41620 82.60 1295 SIXTH AVE N 14198 26-11823 -31 -00-04 41326 82.60 1.300 SIXTH AVE N 14198 11 -11723 -22-00-15 02157 82.60 1420 SHORFI ,INE DR 14198 10-11723 -42-00-18 43066 7930 1900 SHORELINE DR 14198 10-11723 -42-00-16 43066 82.60 1920 SHORELINE DR 14198 15 -11723 -21 -00 -03 42273 7131 2058 SHORELINE DR 14198 27-11823 -31-00-19 04056 82 60 2085 SIXTH AVE N 14198 15 -11723 23 -00-01 41315 82.60 2090 SHORELINE DR 14198 27-11823 -34-00-07 01553 82.60 2095 SALEM CT 14198 27-11823 -31-00-05 41327 82.60 2135 SIXTH AVE N 14198 27-11823 -32-00-14 04518 82.60 2.320 SHADOWOOD DR 14198 27-11823 -32-00-19 04518 82.60 13.35 SHADOWOOD DR 14198 28-11823 -42 -00 -03 00654 82.60 2600 SIXTH AVE N 14198 33-11823 -42-00-12 03842 82.60 2675 SILVER VIEW DR 14198 28 -11823 -31 -OO -06 00391 79.60 2905 SIXTH AVE N 14198 04-11723 -22-00-29 05435 82.60 -3010 SOMERSET LA 14198 29-11823 -44-00-01 41329 82.6 3225 SIXHI AVE N 14198 29-11823 -41-00-05 41329 82.60 .3260 SIXTH AVE N 14198 29-11823 -43-00-03 41329 82.60 .3565 Sixth AVE N 14198 32-11823 -22-00-03 42820 79.79 3825 SIXTH AVE N 14198 31-11823 -12-00-11 43210 82.60 4.360 SIXTH AVE N 14198 31-11823 -12 -00-18 41331 82.60 4.380 SIXTH AVE N 14198 04-11723 -21-00-07 02499 82.6G 80 WEAR LA 14198 33-11823 -41-00-03 41333 82.60 225 WILLOW DR N 14198 33-11823 -11-00-14 00695 82.60 325 WILLOW DR N 14198 28-11823 -41-00-02 00392 82.60 1120 WILLOW DR N 14198 27-11823 -32-00-04 41327 82.60 1160 WILLOW DR N 14198 02-!; •’23 -24-00-12 03665 82.60 1245 WOODHILL AVE 14198 27-11823 -43-00-22 00390 82.60 1990 WEST FARM RD 14198 O : 11723 -34-00-29 43570 82.60 2013 WEBBER HILLS RD 14198 03-11723 -34-00-15 43570 82.60 20o0 WEBBER HILLS RD Levy Number 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 14198 Property Identification # Addition Certified Number Amount Lot Block Address 03 -11723 34 -11823 33 -11823 33 -11823 33 -11823 04-11723 33 -11823 04-11723 32 -11823 32-11823 32 -11813 31-11813 31-11813 i; -11813 30 -11823 31 -11813 31 -11823 31 -11813 06- 11713 07- 11723 -33 -00 -04 -33 -00 -5b -41 -00 -16 -41-00-07 -41 -00 -08 -12 -00 -08 -34 -00 -04 -22 -00 -32 -44-00-09 -43 -00 -10 -32 -00 -01 ^1 -00 -05 -13 -00 -03 -24 -00 -01 -31 -00 -03 -21 -00 -03 -21 -00 -03 -22 -00 -07 -33 -00 -04 -22 -00 -16 43570 00435 03171 42435 42435 05343 41333 05583 41332 41332 41332 41331 41331 41331 41330 41331 41331 00721 41306 03487 82.60 79-30 82.60 82.60 79.30 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 82.60 2275 WEBBER HILLS RD 2350 WATERTOWN RD 2525 WOODHAVEN DR 2550 WOODHAVEN DR 2565 WOODHAVEN DR 2645 WATERTOWN RD 2900 WATERTOWN RD 3085 WATERTOWN RD 3405 WATERTOWN RD 3425 WATERTOWN RD 3940 WATERTOWN RD 4085 WATERTOWN RD 4345 WATERTOWN RD 4480 WATERTOWN RD 4555 WAYZATA BLVD 4560 WATERTOWN RD 4580 WATERTOWN RD 4607 WATERTOWN RD 4700 WEST BRANCH RD 4701 WEST BRANCH RD Total Sqjtic Accounts 13,019-39 False Alarms 14198 25-11823 -43-00-13 00634 687.50 Total False Alarms 687.50 Total Amount for Certification 77,001.45 r COUNCIL MEETING NOV 2 4 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORONO DATE: November 20,1997 ITEM NO:H Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Request to Establish Drug Forfeiture Fund For several years the City has received asset forfeitures related to controlled substances (illegal drugs), usually in the form of cash. The proceeds of these forfeitures are required by Minnesota statutes to be used as a supplement to law enforcement activities. The city has been depositing these revenues in the General Fund, but by doing so the revenues as well as any related expenditures are difficult to track. The level of revenue is impossible to accurately budget, as it fluctuates a great deal from year to year. In addition expenditures have usually been for one-time special projects, not directly charged to the police department budget, but netted against revenue. It is staffs recommendation that the City establish a Special Revenue Fund, effective January 1, 1997, to be identified as the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund, which will be used to account for all revenues received as the result of cash and property seized relating to drug and/or felony type criminal activity, donations received specifically for the police department, or such other revenues as may be appropnate or authorized from time to time, and all authorized related expenditures. As this will be a Special Revenue Fund an annual budget will be required, revenues will be budgeted conservatively, and expenditure requests not in the original budget will require Council approval for the expenditure and budget amendment, if necessary. As of January 1, 1997, the unused balance in the account is $8,347.18, revenues received to date in 1997 are $2,476.44, and expenditures to date in 1997 are $26.20. The revenue and expenditures will be reallocated from the General Fund to the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund, with corresponding budget amendments. To establish the balance as of January 1, 1997 in the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund will require an operating transfer out, and budget amendment, from the General Fund and a corresponding operating transfer in, and budget amendn ent, to the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund. r COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council authorizes the City to establish the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund, a Special Revenue Fund, as of January 1, 1997, by an operating transfer of $8,347.18 from the General Fund to the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund; to amend the operating transfer in or out budget of each fund by a like amount; and to reallocate the related year to date revenues, and expenditures from the General Fund to the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund, with appropriate budget amendments. l r r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIMEETWQ NOV 2 A 1997 CITY OF ORONO DATE: November 20,1997 ITEM NO: / Department Approval:Auministrafor Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Park Commission Appointments The Park Commission currently has one vacant position due to David Beal moving out of the city. Also the current term of James White expires on December 31, 1997. With Council's authorization, staff will contact James White to determine his willingness to serve an additional term on the commission. The Council may at this time want to determine the process to be used to fill the current vacancy on the commission. The Council interviewed a number of candidates in April of 1997 and filled two vacant positions at that time. The Council may want to review the applications of the remaining candidates from the April process, and/or advertise for additional candidates. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1.Motion to authorize staff to contact James White to determine his interest in serv ing another term on the Park Commission. 2. Motion to indicate the process to be used to fill the existing vacancy on the Park Commission. r PARK COMMISSION MEMBERS AND TERMS NAME INITIAL APPOINTMENT CURRENT TERM EXPIRATION DATE Susan Wilson, Chair 5/14/90 12/31/99 Appointed Chair 4/28/97 Sherokee Use 10/14/91 12/31/99 David Beal 5/13/96 12/31/98 Andrew McDermott 7/24/95 12/31/98 James White 4/26/93 12/31/97 Van Erickson 4/28/97 12/31/99 Peter Welles 4/28/97 12/31/99 November 19,1997 r COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NOV 2 4 1997 CITYOFORONO DATE: November 24, 1997 ITEM NO.I Lp Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Thle Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Entrance Canopy for Public Works Building This item was on the agenda for the last Council meeting. The quotations that were received exceeded the budget amount of $20,000, so this item was tabled. We are working with the contractors to revise the canopy plans to reduce the cost of this structure. We are planning to have a revised plan and tabulations of quotations for the Council meeting. 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. I COUNCIL MEETINQ NOV 2 4 1997 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: November 21, 1997 ITEM NO:n Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval On Sale Liquor & Sunday Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive Off Sale Liquor 12 Hi Liquor 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard Navarre Liquors Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive Club & Sunday Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard Club Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road On Sale 3.2 Beer Orono Golf Course 265 Orono Orchard Road Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc. 405 North Arm Drive Off Sale 3.2 Beer O'Sullivans 2420 Shadywood Road and 3340 Shoreline Drive Orono Self Service 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard On & OH* Sale 3.2 Beer Navarre Bowling Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive One Day Gambling Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. January 18, 1998 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed license(s). 970 Date: From: Novembers, 1997 Ron Moorse, City Administrator on behalf of Subject: 1998 Off Sale Liquor License -12 Hi Liquor h So *' Mr. William Wear S *" Orono Self I have no objection to the issuance of this license. November 5, 1997 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police 1998 Off Sale Liquor License - Navarre Liquors I have reviewed the past history and application of Mr. Steve Corl on behalf of Navarre Liquor. No violations of liquor law have been noted, therefore, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. Date:October 24,1997To: Subject: Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police ^ 1998 Club and Sunday Sale of Liquor License Wayzata Country Club I have reviewed the application of Mr. Richard M. Kohn on behalf of Wayzata Country Club and also police records pertaining to Wayzata Country Club. No problems have been noted and therefore, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. r Date:October 24. 1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject: 1998 On Sale Beer License Orono Golf Course 1 have reviewed the application of Mr. Ronald Steffenhagen on behalf of Orono Golf Course and also police records pertaining to Orono Golf Course. No problems have been noted and therefore, I have no objection to the issuance of this license. ! i > i I ! Date:November 12, 1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Gary Cheswick. Chief of Police Subject: 1998 On-Sale Beer License - Lakeview Golf Course I have reviewed the application and past records for Lakeview Golf Course. I have no objection to the issuance of this license. I : IP'- Date:November 17,1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject:Off Sale Beer License O’SuUivans - 2420 Shadywood Road O'SuUivans - 3340 Shoreline Drive I have reviewed the application of Mr. John O'Sullivan and checked past history in regard to the O'Sullivans businesses. I have no objection to the issuance of these licenses. t M Date:November 5, 1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject: 1998 Off Sale Beer License -12 Hi Liquor I have reviewed the past history and application of Mr. William Wear on behalf of the 12 Hi Liquor. It should be noted there was a liquor law violation in 1993 under the Orono Self Serve business name also owned by Mr. Wear. I have no objection to the issuance of this license. i r I m Date:October 24, 1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Subject:1998 On and Off Sale Beer License Navarre Bowling Lanes I have reviewed the application of Mr. Don Scherven on behalf of Navarre Bowline Lanes and also police records pertaining to Navarre Lanes. No problems have been noted and therefore, I have no objection to the issuance of this hcense. V*’ 1 . r A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF ORONO HOCKEY BOOSTERS, INC. FOR A ONE DAY OFF-SITE GAMBLING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. are licensed to conduct lawful gambling activities, and WHEREAS, the Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. proposed to conduct a one day off-site gambling activity (raffle) as part of its annual pancake breakfast at the Orono High School on January 18, 1998, and WHEREAS, the Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. is required to obtain approval of the off-site gambling activity from the city in which the activity will occur. therefore be it resolved , the Orono City Council does hereby approve the application of the Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. to conduct a one day off-site gambling activity (raffle) at the Orono High School on January 18,1998. 1997. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Orono City Council this 24th day of November, ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk r #?•f «. Jf COUNCIL MEETING NOV 2 4 1997 CTTYOPORONO r h rr! 10 Fov 1997 Tue 10:13 AM Check Humber Check Humber 55046 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55046 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 18-Nov-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UIHON Totals Check Number 55046 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION - *• ^55047 TIrMAIJ]Check Humber ITIONAL BANK OF LAKES 55047 Q "10-Ncrv-37-^^ FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 55047 10-NOV-97 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 55047 18 NOV-S7 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 55047 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 55040 55040 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 18-Nov-97 Totals Check Number GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO, 55048 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Check Number 55049 55049 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT Ik COLL 18-Nov-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 55049 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55050 55050 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 10-NOV-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 55050 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55051 55051 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 10-NOV-97 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 55051 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 55052 55052 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 10-Nov-97 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 55052 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 55053 55053 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 10-NOV-97 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OF REVQIUE 55053 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55054 55054 MN MUTUAL LIFE 10-Nov-97 Totals Qieck Number MN MUTUAL LIFE 55054 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 8.078.00 8.078.00 3.202.*<5 3.202.35 7.009.63 14.214.33 981.46 901.46 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 709.50 709.50 3.358.74 3.358.74 464.00 464.00 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON iCO26670O SKREEN iC0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H r \W 18 ItoV 1997 TUe 10:09 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Nunber Employee Name Qieck Number 043SS3 043553 FISOSNICH, DAN T. Totals Check Number 043553 Check Number 043554 043554 HANSING, CAROL J Totals Check Number 043554 Check Number 043555 043555 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P Totals Check Number 041555 Qieck Number 041556 043556 KNOLLENBBRG, KRISTIN L. Totals Check Number 043556 Check Number 043557 043557 MCNALLY, STEVEN A. Totals Check Number 043557 Check Number 043556 043558 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L, Totals Check Number 043556 Check Number 043559 043559 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMBS Totals Check Number 043559 Check Number 043560 043560 PERSELL, WILLIAM R. Totals Check Number 043560 Check Number 043561 043561 SCHOENHOPP, JOHN B. Totals Check Number 043561 Check Number 043562 Check Date 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-Nov-97 19-Nov-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 Page 3 Check Amount 1,253.11 1,253.11 384.67 384.67 9C3.16 963.16 G28.26 628.26 657.99 657.99 461.58 461.58 1,562.93 1,562.93 237.44 237.44 1,152.80 l,lbA.80 1 ■ { li I ! r 18 Vov 1997 Tue 10:09 AM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 043562 043562 THOMTON, MARK R Totals Check Number 043562 Check Number 043563 043563 TOMCOTCK, LAWRENCE F. Totals Check Number 043563 Check Number 043564 043564 TONCZYX, MARK W. Totals Check Number 043564 Check Number 043565 043565 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K Totals Check Number 043565 Check Number 043566 043566 WITTKE. ANTHONY A, Totals Check Number 043566 Check Number 04356/ 043567 BRESSLER. BRADLEY J. Totals Check Number 043567 Check Number 043568 043568 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P, Totals Check Number 043568 Check Nuihber 043569 043569 QAPPA. GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 04j569 Oieck Number 043570 043570 OMAN. LYLE E. Totals Check Number 043570 Check Number 043571 Check Date 19>Nov-97 19-Nov-97 19-N0V-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-Nov-97 19-Nov-97 19-NOV-97 Page 4 Check Amount 778.09 770.09 266.77 266.77 1.216.23 1.216.23 220.29 220.29 211.43 211.43 382.64 382.64 1.091.84 1.091.84 1.414.76 1.414.76 1.102.82 1.102.02 r 18 Rov 1997 Tue 10:09 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Nitnber Employee Reme Check Number 043571 043571 VAN 20HEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 043571 Qieck Number 043572 043572 VANG, BRC7CE L. Totals Check Number 043572 Check Number 043573 043573 NECKMAN, STEPHEN J. Totals Check Number 043573 Check Number 043574 043574 BRINKHAUS, JOHN P, Totals Check Number 043574 Check Number 043575 043575 DBBAERB, DONALD L Totals Check Number 043575 Check Number 043578 043576 OREGORT, JAMES D. Totals Check Number 043576 Check Number 043577 043577 HANSEN, STEVEN C, Totals Check Number 043577 Check Number 043578 043578 OBERAIGfJER, SCOTT G, Totals Check Number 043578 Check Number 043579 043579 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 043579 Check Number 043580 Check Date 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-NOV-97 19-Nov-97 19-NOV-97 Page 5 Check Amount 1,138.74 1,138.74 961.65 961.65 22.85 22.85 1,026.63 1,026.63 904.28 904.28 659.88 659.88 714.01 714.01 710.07 710.07 188.51 188.51 r 18 Wov 1997 Tue 10:09 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 6CheckNumberEmployee Name Check Nufliber 043S80 043580 PALMER. GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 043580 Check Number 043581 043581 RATHBtm, BARRY J. Totals Check Niin^r 043581 Check Number 043582 043582 SXREEN, DALE S. Totals Check Number 043562 CheckDate CheckAmount 19-NOV-97 646.32 646.32 19-Nov-97 1,274.07 1,274.07 19-NOV-97 766.52 766.52 r 1 ?? '» 18 Nov 1997 TUe 10t09 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Payroll User Initials RJO Tuesday 18 November 1997 10:09 AM Start 10:09 AM Finish Buffer Name Check Reg Records Read Records Selected Number of Pages 103 SO 7 Selected by Check Date And Check Date Greater Than 18-Nov-97 Less Than 20-Nov-97 Sorted by Check Number Totals No Page Breaks < . ^ 1 ! r m- f 19 Vov 1997 fled 2:21 PM Check Register City of OronoCheck Runber Date Name Check Humber 55060 55060 55060 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 24-MOV-97 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 24-Nov-97 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 55060 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Number 55061 BLACKOWIAK k SON 55061 55061 55061 55061 24-Nov-97 24-NOV-97 24-Nov-97 24-NOV-97 BLACKONIAK k SON BLACKOWIAK k SON BLACKOWIAK k SON BLACKOWIAK & SON Totals Check Number 55061 BLACKOWIAK & SON Check Number 55062 55062 BLACKOWIAK k SON 24-Nov-97 BLACKOWIAK k SON Totals Check Number 55062 BLACKOWIAK k SON Check Number 55063 BOYER TRUCK PARTS 55063 24-Nov-97 BOYER TRUCK PARTS Totals Check klumber 55063 BOYER TRUCK PARTS Check Number 55064 BUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 55064 24-Nov-97 BUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Totals Check Number 55064 BUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Check Number 55065 BUDGET PRINTING 55065 24-Nov-97 BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 55065 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 55066 CANVAS PLUS INC. 55066 55066 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 CANVAS PLUS INC, CANVAS PLUS INC, Totals Check Number 55066 CANVAS PLUS INC. Check Number 55067 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 55067 55067 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Totals Check Number 55067 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Transaction Amount 2.154.72 209.06 2.363.78 152.99 70.46 134.18 168.58 526.21 200.00 200.00 13.28 13.28 1.898.00 1.898.00 4.80 4.80 42.60 42.60 85.20 36.68 1«900.35 1,937.03 Page 1 Comments L.S. il SERVICE CRYSTAL BAY PARK SERVICE OCTOBER SERVICE OCTOBER SERVICE OCTOBER SERVICE OCTOBER SERVICE LEAF PICKUP MISC PARTS LINER-I k I REDUCTION DELIVER CHARGES PARTS FOR TRUCK PARTS FOR TRUCK il67 WUNT TIRES 8174 TRANSMISSION . ■' 4♦ i r 19 Nov 1997 Wed 2:21 PM Check Register City of Oronc Check Number Date Name Check Number 55068 55068 CITY OF NAYZATA 24-Nov-97 CITY OF WAY2ATA Totals Check Ni^nber 55068 CITY OF WAYZATA Check Number 55069 COFFIN & GRONBERG INC. 55069 24-HOV-97 COFFIN k GRONBSIO INC. Totals Check Number 55069 COFFIN k GRONBERG INC Qieck Number 55070 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 55070 24-NOV-97 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO Totals Check Number 55070 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO Check Number 55071 COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION 55071 24-Nov-97 COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION Totals Check Number 55071 COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION Check NUn^r 55072 D.M.J. CORPORATION 55072 24-NOV-97 D.M.J. CORPORATION Totals Check Nhmber 55072 D.M.J. CORPORATION Check Number 55073 DAHLGREN 5HARDL0W k UBAN 55073 24-Nov-97 DAHLGREN SKARDLOW 4 UBAN Totals Check Number 55073 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW 4 UBAN Check Number 55074 B.H. RENNER 4 SONS 55074 24-Nov-97 E.H. RENNER 4 SONS Totals Check Number 55074 E.H. RENNER 4 SONS Check Number 55075 EARL F. ANDERSON 4 ASSOC. 55075 55075 55075 24-NOV-97 24-Nov-97 24-NOV-97 EARL F. ANDERSON 4 ASSOC EARL F. ANDERSON 4 ASSOC EARL F. ANDERSON 4 ASSOC Totals Check Number 55075 EARL F. ANDERSON 4 ASSOC Check Number 55076 ELMER J. PETERSON CO. 55076 24-Nov-97 ELMER J. PETERSON CO. Totals Check Number 55076 ELMER J. PETERSON CO. Transaction Amount 3,707.75 3,707.75 220.00 220.00 898.06 898.06 98.74 98.74 4.00 4.00 1,154.03 1,154.03 17,707.22 17,707.22 1,507.07 99.47 2,014.29 3,620.83 800.00 800.00 Page 2 Cornments 4TH QTR 1997 FIRE SURVEY-MEYER DAIRY ADDN NOVEMBER INSURANCE RE-LAMP SIGNALS : 1 ASPHALT DUMPS NAVARRE MULTI-FAMILY STUD WELL 82 SIGNS, POSTS TIMBERS TIMBERS L.S. 9 CO RD 15 4 SPATES r 19 Nov 1997 Ned 2:21 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Qieck Number 55077 55077 ENERGY SALES INC. 24-Nov-97 ENERGY SALES INC Totals Check Number 55077 ENERGY SALES INC. Check Number 55078 engineering repro systems 55078 24-Nov-97 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 55078 engineering repro systems Check Number 55079 EXPRESS MESSENGER 55079 24-Nov-97 EXPRESS MESSENGER Totals Check Number 55079 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check Number 55080 FEED RITE CONTROLS 55080 24-Nov-97 FEED RITE CONTROLS Totals Check Number 55080 FEED RITE CONTROLS Check Number 55081 G a K SERVICES 55081 55081 55081 55081 55081 55081 55081 55081 55081 55081 24-NOV-97 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 24-NOV-97 24-NOV-97 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 24-NOV-97 G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICE G a X SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES Q a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES G a K SERVICES V- Totals Check Number 55081 G a K services Check Number 55082 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC. 55082 55082 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC, GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC Totals Check Number 55082 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC Check Number 55083 GENUINE PARTS CO. 55083 55083 55083 07-NOV-96 24-Nov-97 07-NOV-96 GENUINE PARTS CO. GENUINE PARTS CO, GENUINE PARTS CO Totals Check Number 55083 GQIUINE PARTS CO Check Number 55084 GOPiffiR STATE ONE-CALL INC. Transaction Amount 95.20 95.20 34.19 34.19 18.20 18.20 25.00 25.00 92.55 12.15 70.07 54.69 54.69 95.37 5.93 90.61 12.15 5.93 494.14 122.37 21.58 143.95 Page 3 Comments PARTS FOR FURANCE REPAIR REPRINTS DELIVERY CHARGES CONTAINER CHARGE STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS FLOOR MATS STEFFENHAGEN STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN 8425 PARTS •428 U-BOLTS 10.68 MISC PARTS 27.84 MISC PARTS 742.67 MISC PARTS 781.19 r^ f 19 Nov 1997 Ned 2:21 PMCheck Number Check Number 55084 55084 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55084 CX5PHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 24-NOV-97 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 24-NOV-97 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Totals Check Number 55084 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. Check Hv^sber 55085 55085 H fc L MESABI 24-NOV-97 Totals Check Number H a L MESABI 55085 H k L MESABI Check Number 55086 55086 KALLIN, DOROTHY 24-HOV-97 Totals Check Number HALLIN. DOROTHY 55086 HALLIN. DOROTHY Check Number 55087 55087 55087 HBALTHPARTNERS 24-Nov-97 24-NOV-97 Totals Check Number HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS 55087 HEALTHPARTNERS Check Number 55088 55088 J k R RADIATOR CORP. 24-NOV-97 Totals Check Number J fc R RADIATOR CORP. 55088 J 6 R RADIATOR CORP. Qieck Nuinber 55089 55089 55089 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER 24-N6V-97 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER 55089 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER Check Number 55090 55090 55090 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 55090 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 55091 55091 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 24-Nov-97 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Tot«l« Checlc Number 55091 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Check Number 55092 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 55092 24-Nov-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT TranaacclonAmount 47.25 47.25 94.50 628.35 628.35 12.87 12.87 313.51 5.325.28 5.638.79 851.62 851.62 20.00 20.00 40.00 7.39 8.34 15.73 1.05 1.05 29.02 Page 4Comments OCTOBER SERVICES OCTOBER SERVICES CUTTING EDGES MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE RADIATOR-CASE LOADER VANG-MEMBERSHIP DUES OMAN-MEMBERSHIP DUES LENS. FLASHER DRAIN PAN MISC PARTS FITTING, HOSE 11 19 Nov 1997 tied 2:21 PMCheckNumber Check Register City of OronoCheck Number 55092 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 55092 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 29.02 Check Number 5S093 MEDICA CHOICE 55093 24-Nov-97 MEDICA CHOICE 262.03 DECEMBER INSURANCE5509324-NCV-97 MEDICA CHOICE 112.29 DECEMBER INSURANCE 55093 24-Nov-97 MEDICA CHOICE 10,286.68 DECEMBER INSURANCE Totals Check Number 55093 MEDICA CHOICE 10,661.00 Check Number 55094 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 55094 21-NOV-95 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 55094 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 55095 MGCSA 55095 22-Feb-96 MGCSA Totals Check Number 55095 MGCSA Check Nu-ber 55096 MIDWEST ASPHALT 55096 55096 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 MIDWEST ASPHALT MIDWEST ASPHALT Totals Check Number 55096 MIDWEST ASPHALT Check Number 55097 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 55097 24-Nov-97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 55097 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 55098 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 55098 24-Nov-97 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number 55098 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 55099 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 55099 24-Nov-97 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 55099 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55100 MULLER-PRIBYL 55100 24-Nov-97 MULLER-PRIBYL Totals Qieck Number 55100 MULLER-PRIBYL 19 Nov 1997 Ned 2:21 PMCheckNumberCheck Number 55101 Check Register City of Orono Page 6Date55101 NSP ll-Nov-97 NameNSPTotals Check Number 55101 NSP Check Number 55102 55102 OFFICE DEPOT 24-Nov-97 OFFICE DEPOT Totals Check Number 55102 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 55103 OMAN, LYLE 55103 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number OMAN, LYLE 55103 OMAN, LYLE Check Number 55104 55104 PALMER, GkEG 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number PALMER, GREG 55104 PALMER, GREG Check Number 55105 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING 24-NOV-97 Totals Check Number PERRY'S SANDBLASTING 55105 PERRY'S SANDBLASTING Check Number 55106 55106 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC il06 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC Check Number 55107 55107 55107 RIT2 CAMERa 24-NOV-97 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA 55107 RITZ CAMERA Check Number 55108 55108 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 21-Nov-96 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 55108 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 55109 ROLLINS OIL CO. 24-Nov-97 Totals Check Number ROLLINS OIL CO 55109 ROLLINS OIL CO TranractionAmount1,199.431,199.43 CommentsNSP CHARGES 70.41 70.41 MISC SUPPLIES 43.40 43.40 MILEAGE REIMBURSmENT 19.00 19.00 CLASS A RENEWAL DIFFERENC 532.97 532.97 REPAIR TRAILER I f 19 Nov 1997 Ned 2:21 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 8CheckNumberDateName Check Number 55118 55118 WARNING LITES OF MN 24-Nov-97 WARNING LITES OP MN Totals Check Number 55118 WARNING LITES OP MN Check Number 55119 WIDMER INC 55119 24-Nov-97 WIDMER INC Totals Check Number 55119 WIDMER INC Check Number 55120 WM MUELLER 6 SONS 55120 55120 24-Nov-97 24-Nov-97 WM MUELLER k SONS WM MUELLER k SONS Totals Check Number 55120 WM MUELLER k SONS Grand Total TransactionAmount Comments 108.95 227.48 BARRICADE RENTAL 1,610.50 1,610.50 MAIN BREAK-CO RD 15 45,500.00 63,996.46 STREET PAVING STREET PAVING 109,496.46 188,893.19 * •' i I i INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEETING OF «.0V 2 4 1997 CtlYOFOnONO . •• r TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE:November 21,1997 SUBJECT: Reminder of the December 3 Truth In Taxation Hearing The city's Truth In Taxation hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3. Please mark this date on your calendars. ■ 4 '■ <A4 ”1 r f i Kennedy & Graven 470 PiUsbary Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fiw e-mail; attys^kennedy-graven com CHARTERED \ ft oft'' Q'AO James M. Strommen Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 memorandum TO; FROM: DATE; RE; All SRA City Managcrs/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Jim Stro November 17, 1997 612 Area Code Split Map 612 areatode split. Note that it completely follows m',m.cipsl boundaries. •me PUC Order has been issued and is 16 pages. It is available upon request by calling me at 337-9233. The portions of the Order of most significance to cities are. 1.me municipal Iwundary division was based on preserving the "sense of community" and identity of cities. 2.U S West did not demonstrate that the cost of a split along •• wife «n«r bo-iiirdaries would be either "unduly burdensome or unduly costly. 3.A permissive dialing period will be implemented ^Jl'" -St:" 4.in ••approximately mid-1999 ” the KJC will meet again to determme whether nece^^ry to implement a --a Pt.ase of therc^Llil tSl“i “ Minneapolis and its nearby »um anil we “fubuibs from the balance of tie 612 area code. Prehmmary indications arc that such an area code would include Minneapolis, Edina, Bloomington, Richfield and Fort Snelling. Municipal boundaries would also be maintained. This new area code may not be necessary if member conservation measures arc successful. The cities involved in any additional area code split may change. 5. The most notable SRA exception to alignment along central city and its suburbs was the inclu.sion of Burnsville with the St Paul suburbs. This anomaly was not discu.ssed in the Order. It was explained to me following the decision, however, that additional numbers were needed in the new area code because it is imbalanced between the Minneapolis and St. Paul divisions; Dakota County is not split by this decision; and, there is less disruption to the local phone company service territory in following the western Burnsville and Lakeville boundaries. This area code split is a significant decision because it acknowledges the needs of municipalities as governing entities attempting to provide service without disruption and attempting to build a sense of community. It is also significant because it may be the first decision of its type in the U.S. to deviate from wire center boundaries and partition area codes to follow municipal boundaries. The SRA was able to foster and develop this issue with the PUC through the resources of the Department of Public Service. If you have any further questions about the area code split, please contact me. JMS:sms Enclosures r i f \; Phase I Geographic Split MIN’N'PyTX rL'au6sEft^1<i This map was prepared by the Mrmesota Departrnenl of Public Servic6 at the request of the Public Utilities Corrmission. 8lZ-qof 20/20 d 001-1 0108200219 N3AVW 7 A03NN3)|:fflOJd 20:91 26-02-AON COUNCIL meeting i. < PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS NOV 2 4 1997 CITYOFORONO The city has developed a plan for parks, open space, and trails that includes the acquisition of land for parks, open space, and trails, and the development of parks and trails facilities. The accomplishment of this plan has required a substantial amount of public expenditure. The Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission has updated the Parks, Open Space and Trails goals. The accomplishment of these goals will require a substantial amount of additional public expenditure. New development increases the use of existing facilities and requires the acquisition of land for preservation and expansion of open space, and the development of additional parks and recreational facilities and trails. Based on a survey of Orono residents, the community resoundingly wants to maintain open space and natural areas, and wants trails developed to enable access to those areas. When land is developed, two types of impacts occur. First, the amount of open space is reduced. Second, new residents come to the city who also have needs and desires regarding open space, parks, recreation and trails. It is necessary that the developer of the subdivision contributes toward addressing these two types of impacts through a dedication of land for parks, open space, trails, etc; or through a cash payment in-lieu-of dedication that can be used to acquire land or develop facilities. The amount of the dedication should be roughly proportional to the impact the subdivision will have on the city's system of parks, open space and trails. Park Dedication The city does not have sufficient funds within the General Fund to make park improvements without requiring land or cash dedication in lieu of land. The park land dedication or cash in lieu of land dedication must be sufficient to acquire a significant amount of the open space and park land necessary to meet the needs of the city's residents. Collecting cash for open space acquisition and park improvements, and trails is necessary to serve new residents, thereby offsetting the demands for parks and open space that result from new development. Park Dedication from development will not be sufficient to complete open space and park land acquisi-on, and park and trail improvements. The city will use the city General Fund, park grants, cooperative efforts with other agencies, bond referendums, or a combination of these funding sources to complete parks, trails, and open space improvements. Land subdivisions or any new development that result increased land use density, and increased demand for parks, open space and trails, will be c .«.*cted to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional parks, playgrounds, open sp.' i * trails. If the individual development s density increase or impact is relatively small, or if the pro^i. . ty to be developed does not include land necessary to implement the city's parks, open space, and trails plan, the developer will be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or improvement of existing recreation facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS GOALS Continued THE CITY'S RURAL NATURAL CHARACTER AND OPEN SPACE llie existence of open space, whether publicly owned and open to the public or privately owned, is an important ingredient in the city's rural, natural, open character. The visual amenity provided by both public and private open space is an important part of the city's character. When an undeveloped area of privately owTied land is developed, a portion of the city's rural character is lost as the open space is lost. It is important that key areas of open space be preserved to ensure the preservation of the city's rural, natural, open character. 1.PARKS AND OPEN SPACE GOALS A. To provide open space and recreational opportunities diversified enough to serve all Orono residents. B. To protect and preserve natural resource areas and wildlife habitats. C. To preserve Orono's natural, rural, open character. 1. ) An area characterized by significant forested area and/or wetlands and/or other open space. 2. ) An area that contains large contiguous undeveloped land that provides a sense of plenty of breathing room. D. To preserve open spaces and natural amenities for people to enjoy for nature walks etc. 1. ) To preseiA'e natural areas and their attendant open spaces and wildlife to enable residents to feel a part of nature in their daily lives. 2. ) To preserve and protect historic or unique natural areas and resources i.e. prairies, woods, lakes, wetlands and natural features. 2.Trails Goals A. To provide pedestrian access to parks, recreation and open space facilities. B. To provide pedestrian access through natural open space areas. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS A. Funding Sources 1.General Fund r a i. ! r PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS GOALS Continued 2. Coordinate and cooperate with other agencies to fund facilities that meet joint needs. 3. Coordinate and cooperate with private land owners to preserve open space through conservation easements etc. 4. Dedication of land, or payment in-lieu-of dedication when development occurs. 3. TYPES OF PARK LAND AND FACILITIES NEEDED; A. Land for youth sports fields. B.Land to preserve open space. 1. ) To expand existing open space areas. 2. ) To preserve unique natural features and wildlife habitat. 3. ) To preserve Orono's natural rural open character. C.Land for trails. 1. ) Easements adjacent to MSA roads. 2. ) Easements for trail corridors located away from roadways (simil^ to Luce Line) to serve as recreational facilities and to provide connections between parks and open space areas. 1 t H/20'97 16:4r> FA.\ til2 725 3527 FHS ENCINKFKI.SC (2l 002 November 19, 1997 To: From: Subject: City Council Park. Open Space and Trail Commission Criteria and justification to Identify, evaluate, and acquire or secure undeveloped land for additional public use space. Mission: Provide Parks, Open Space and Trails to benefit Orono residents and maintain the natural character of the community. Problem Statement: The next few years will be a critical time in formulating the future make-up of the City of Orono ’s Parks, Open Space and Trails for the twenty-first century and beyond. The remaining parcels of undeveloped land within Orono will likely be developed within the next ten years. Simultaneously, these development pressures threaten to expand existing and open new transportation corridors. Doing this will require large amounts of land and irrevocably change the uses of the "adjacent land." Thus, good planning and a vision for the future of Orono's public use areas will enable the city to address the changes and prepare for the future. Orono’s citizens, as indicated by Digital Resources survey, are concerned about the loss of open space. The results of the survey suggested that the residents are willing to financially back an effort to maintain the natural appearance of the community by securing portions of the remaining undeveloped area. A. Open Space Goal: Protect and preserve natural areas, wildlife habitats, and open space by securing parcels of undeveloped land for the benefit of future generations. 1.Protect and preserve lakes, wetlands, woodlands, fields and other natural recreation and other amenities. Including Big Island in Lake Minnetonka. 2. Identify critical areas in Orono where we should acquire and U/20/97 16:4e FAX 612 725 3527 FWS ENCINKFKINC li]003 3. 4. 5. 7. preserve land as “open space." This effort will concentrate in the areas of the City currently deficient in public “open space.” All large open parcels within the city boundaries will be identified and evaluated for potential "open space" preservation. Designate areas for potential open space expansion that are next to existing parks or open spaces. Select and set aside a group of existing and proposed “open spaces ” for passive recreation i.e., hiking, wildlife/observation. 6. Identify and protect historic and unique natural areas 8. B. Parks Work with land owners, land steward organizations, public or nonprofit groups, and other agencies to assist the City to set aside undeveloped land as open space. Identify significant corridors of vegetation that the city should acquire and preserve as natural "buffers." Goal: Provide recreation and neighborhood gathering areas for the use and enjoyment of Orono residents. 1. 2. 3. Assess and evaluate the existing parks as they relate to location and types of recreation needs of al! citizens. Select and set aside proposed parkland for neighborhood parks. Identify critical land areas outside the current parks to acquire as parkland. Concentrate this effort In the areas of Orono currently deficient in parkland and in areas that will soon be developed. Designate areas for potential park expansion that are next to existing parks or open spaces. C. Trails Goal: Develop a city wide bike and walking trail plan that connect Parks and Open Spaces in the area; and to also function as transportation corridors. 1.The relationship between neighborhood parks, open space areas and the rest of the park system should be strengthened through the proper location and use of greenways and trails. 11/20/97 16:47 FA\ 612 725 3527 FWS ENGINEER INC .000 4 2.Develop and Improve local access to and between city and county recreation facilities. 3.Evaluate Orono’s existing bike trail plan so that it provides connectors to the neighboring communities and counties. Designate the location of trails in the Cities planned corridors. ! 4 i ! //-/S'fy Goox) Jo^ RECEIVED NOV 1 8 1997 ClfY OF ORONO \y^ ^7-^,0/? ^ ^ /5- /)/r\ ^ t>(f /2yr^^ y .y<ULcJ\ Cc <^>^yjejy ^ 1^ * O Cf-c-t^xJ t/yy/ <d^^. <?<r>j,ZliT.^^ ~to-c{^ ^ a.£u>JTi^^^o»y ..iyieeitj m ^-75