Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1997 Council PacketI r : i i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 8,1997, 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. ^0, ROLL CALL 1. Levy Adoption Hearing - 1998 Tax levy and Budget - Resolutions a 2. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES ♦ 3. Regular Meeting of November 24, 1997 4. Truth In Taxation Meeting of December 3, 1997 * PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA < ONSERVATION DISTRICT PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Janice Berg Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 5. #2264 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Request for Direction #2279 G. Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Preliminary Plat - Resolution #2279 G. Marc and Tracy Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - Final Plat - Resolution #2306 Dennis Platteter, 809 Brown Road North - Final Plat Class m Subdivision - Resolution #2308 Brook Park Realty, 3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD and Class IB Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 10. #2314 John Bessesen, 2505-2507 Kelly Avenue - Zoning Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance - Resolutions 11. City of Orono - Zoning Amendment - Land Alteration Regulations and Permit Criteria 12. Navarre Housing Study 6. 7. <^8. 9. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT '/l3. Request for Payment #6 North Long Lake/Long Lake Country Club Addition Sewer Improvement ■5^4. Request for Payment #5 Bay Ridge and Bracketts Point Sewer Improvement 15. Request for Payment #3 Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. Tobacco - Ordinance Amendment 17. Burning Permit Regulations 1^18. Fire, Burglary and Safety Alarm Regulations & Requirements - Ordinance Amendment r I i. f AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 8,1997,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued ^ 19. 19Vo Schedule - Ordinance and Summary Ordinance for Publication 20. Retirement or D?»‘othy Hallin, City Clerk - Resolution 21. Resignation of Chris Mui&r, Assistant Finance Director/MIS Coordinator ^ 22. Council Liaison to Park CommissiOii ard Planning Commission Meetings in 1998 23. 1997 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments 24. Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received X 25. Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Year 1997 26. Canopy for Public Works Building 27. 1998 Police Services Contract with the Cities of Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park if 28. Reappointment of James White to Park Commission * 29. Donation to Orono Police Department CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT * 30. LICENSES • 31. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 12/08 12/15 12/25 12/26 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. (Last regular meeting in 1997) Planning Commission Work Session 6:30 p.m. HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of Christmas HOLIDAY - Office closed 1 01/05 01/12 01/19 01/20 01/26 Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY -Office closed in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Tuesday - Planning Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. A I i I I i I iI s 1 i i >'r Public A ttendance Meeting D ate U^X' » C ouncil Planning C ommission Park C ommission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS 4,^yy\\ S. A—(/V/juN^LA ~ 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11* 12. 13. 14. 15. MUfS4 A PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER KiEa. ■:fL P,ibT^er dts.r^ tr%. ■%) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 6 JS$/ DATE: Decen,b.?5?te7 ITEM NO:/ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator ’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Adoption of the 1998 Annual Budget and Tax Levy - Resolutions The proposed 1998 Budget accommodates a number of necessary expenditure increases while holding the tax levy to the planned increase of less than 3%. A number of expenditure requirements have occurred simultaneously to cause the need to increase expenditures beyond the normal level. Although the General Fund expenditures are proposed to increase by 5.53*''o, these expenditures can be accommodated within a tax levy increase of less than 3% because several of the increases are offset by related revenue increases. Expenditures and Tax Lew The city ’s 1998 General Fund budget expenditures are proposed at $3,638,095. This is an increase of $190,490 or 5.53% over the 1997 budget. The tax levy required to fund the General Fund Budget is $1,750,000. This is an increase of $69,020 or 4.11% over the 1997 general fund tax levy. The total tax levy required to fund the overall 1998 city budget is $2,225,130. This is an increase of $63,500 or 2.94% over the 1997 levy. Property Tax Class Rate Reductions The 1997 Legislature enacted property class rate reductions for both residential and commercial property. The most significant changes in property class rates were the reduction of the residential rate for value over $75,000 from 2% to 1.85%, and the reduction of the commercial class rate for value over $100,000 from 4.6% to 4.0%. Impact of the Budget and Tax Lew on Residential Properties Because the property class rates were reduced, the city's tax capacity rate will be applied to lower tax capacity amounts for individual properties. The result is that the city ’s share of the property tax bill for homes in Orono will be reduced, assuming no change in valuations. For example, a home valued at $100,000 paid $182.41 in city property taxes in 1997. A home valued at $100,000 would pay $178.12 in city property taxes under the proposed 1998 budget. This is a reduction of 2.4%. Program Highlights The 1998 budget addresses several program needs. Two of the most significant are a planning intern and a police sergeant. The need for the planning intern is caused by a very high level of plan .ing A r i i iv. ; V! Vi- p * Proposed 1998 Annual Budget Continued and zoning activity. This activity is producing additional revenue which will be used to fund the position. The police sergeant position is needed to assist the Police Chief with supervisory and administrative duties. The budget also includes $20,000 for special project expenditures which could include fire inspection services, updating the City's Comprehensive Plan, and beginmng a fund to finance parks and open space capital projects. Mandated increase A new requirement recently passed by the legislature increases the city's pension contribution firom 4.48% of gross pay to 5.18%. This will increase the city's pension costs by approximately $11,000. This new requirement includes a new revenue source to fund it called "Payroll Aid", so the increased expenditures ''11 not require increased property taxes. Sewer .ind Water Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Utility Rate Increase. It is projected that to provide adequate funding to address long term sewer and water infrastructure needs, water rates will need to be increased 2.9% per year and sewer rates will need to be increased 3.2% per year over the next 20 years. Conclusion In summary, the 1998 budget is a fiscally conservative budget that minimizes the tax levy increase while addressing priority service needs and both short term and long term infrastructure needs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the following resolutions: 1. Resolution adopting the final 1997 Tax Levy Collectible in 1998. 2. Resolution to adopt the 1998 General Fund Budget. 3. Resolution to adopt the 1998 Special Revenue Funds Budgets. A i A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL 1997 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1998 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the final 1997 Tax Levy Collectible in 1998, is determined to be as follows; GENERAL FUND - Operations PIR FUND - Infrastructure - Storm Drainage PIR FUND - Infiastructure - Roads TOTAL GENERAL LEVY $1,750,000 40,000 14.480 804.480 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS G.O. 1992 Sewer Improvement Bond G.O. 1995 (1985) Refunding Bonds G.O. 1997 Sewer Improvement Bond G.O. 1995 (1989 Water) Refunding Bonds TOTAL BOND INDEBTEDNESS BONDS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS H.R.A. Building Bond 1991 TOTAL ALL LEVIES 35,000 35.000 10.000 105^ 235Jm0 $ 185.650 5: 735.000 p.225.130 The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 8,1997. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk i i A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1:^98 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 1998 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUES Taxes - General $1,750,000 Licenses and Permits 202,000 Intergovernmental 497,800 Charges for Services 996,660 Fines and Forfeits 66,000 Interest Income 65,400 Miscellaneous 60.235 TOTAL $3,638,095 APPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES General Government $ 795,535 Public Safety 1,981,095 Street Maintenance 508,105 Parks and Recreation 57,665 Recycling Program 72,250 Engineering - Unallocated 14,850 Reimbursable Expenditures 46,475 Special Projects and Contingency 67,120 Transfers To Other Funds 95.000 TOTAL $3,638,095 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 8, 1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor i ■ Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk .1^1 1.1 A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1998 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGETS BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 1998 Special Revenue Funds budgets are determined to be as follows: Estimated Revenues Interest Income User Fees / Loan Payment Park Dedication Fees DNR Grant Transfers from other Pack $ 15,000 25.000 50.000 Improve & Equip Outlay $ 19,000 12,400 Building Cap Outlay $ 141,000 Funds - -95,000 . . Use of Fund Balance • •482.675 Total Revenues $ 90.000 Appropriated Expenditures General Government $$ 33,975 $ 18,675 Public Safety - -4,100 - . Streets - -87,000 Parks & Recreation 59,000 • •• .. Transfers to other Funds -.605,000 Increase to Fund Balance 3 LOGO 1.325 Total Expenditures $ 90.000 $ 126.400 i 623.675 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 8,1997. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 24,1997 ROLL G %A, ^ % ’•fb The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members Barbara Peterson and Richard Flint. J, Diann Goetten and Charles Kelley were absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #5,6, 8,10,12,13, and 14 were added to the Consent Agenda. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10,1997 Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of November 10,1997. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Van Erickson had no comments. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lili McMillan was not present. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Bill Stoddard had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#3) #2279 G. MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - RECONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Mrs. Whitehead was present. GafFron reported that discussion was held at the last Council meeting regarding the park dedication fee. Pursuant to Staff discussions, Staff recommends reopening the preliminary plat resolution to enable Staff to draft for incorporation into the resolution additional findings related to the nexus and proportionality issues related to the park fee. Mrs. Whitehead had no comments. She verified Staff and Council reviewed her letter faxed to the City Office. Gaffron indicated the fax was received on this date and distributed for Council review. Jabbour informed Whitehead that the Council plans on acting on the application in a timely manner. Mrs. Whitehead said she appreciates that. Jabbour said the Council must also protect the interests of the City. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to reconsider Resolution #3966 for purposes noted. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to direct Staff to draft findings of nexus and proportionality for inclusion in Resolution #3966. BaiTett verified that the findings will include the nexus and proportionality of the subdivision's impact on parks. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#4) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 814 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4003 The applicants and architect were present. Van Zomeren reported that the 1.02 acre property is located in the LR-IB Residential District and meets the minimum lot requirements. Pictures were presented of the property. The existing house is located within 75' of the lakeshore. The lot is unusual as the lot extends along the lake but is narrow in its depth. The application is a proposal for a 4-car garage and additions to the residence. A patio with pavers currently exists. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the 41' variance for lakeshore setback for the residence 34' from the lakeshore and 15.3% hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback where 20% exists and none is allowed. 1MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997(#4 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued)The applicant had no additional comments. Jabbour asked if any of the hardcover resulted from replacement of non-structural hardcover with structural hardcover. Van Zomeren explained what currently exists and is proposed. She indicated the plan is reduced from the original proposal by removal of a dog run and balcony on the lake side. Van Zomeren said additional structure will occur. Jabbour explained the issue of concern. He noted that applications have been reviewed where illegally non-conforming hardcover is approved as part of an application becoming legally non-conforming hardcover and resulting in more permanent structure on properties. Jabbour said when the non-conforming hardcover is reviewed, the Planmng Commission assumes it has been placed their legally through the permit process but has been added since the original application for construction on the property was made. The City has not verified if the property has changed since the last application and the hardcover is used for trading for additional structure. Katl^ Alexander, the architect, said the property is the same as existed when the original permits were issued. Jabbour said his point referred to other situations. Peterson expressed her surprise that the residence was able to be built originally. Jabbour indicated that it was approved just prior to the current zoning ordinances. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4003. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#5) #2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4004 Mr. Fritz was present. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4004. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#6) #2313 TOM AND KARISTEINKE, 910 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4005 Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4005. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 4^*4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997(#7) HARDCOVER POLICY RESOLUTION NO. 4006Gaffron reported that the City has had a hardcover ordinance since 1975 but has never formally adopted policies for its administration. He indicated that informal policies have evolved through the years and are analyzed in Exhibit B. Gaffron noted that, in his opinion, the City has placed too much emphasis on micro-managing hardcover on individual lots, he has drafted a resolution at the Council's request that begins to formalize a few of the hardcover policies that have been established. The resolution includes a number of background statements and findings, defines a list of items that are hardcover, establishes that some -'’•'c "structural" and some are "non-structnral", defines any plastic or fabric in the 0-75' zoi? - as non-conforming, declares that any plastic or fabric contributing to a hardcover e'.. css in other zones is non-conforming, and requires the removal of non-conforming plastic or fabric prior to acceptance of an application for hardcover variance. Gaffron acknowledged that the resolution formalizes a few of the policies that have been established, but is not comprehensive. Gaffron reviewed the findings established in the resolution on pages 2 and 3. The goal of #6 addresses the issue that has occurred where the City receives applications where hardcover calculations include rock and plastic placed without needing a permit but resulting in a violation of the code. It results in a perceived reduction in hardcover when the rock and plastic is eliminated by the applicant who proposes adding structure to the property. Gaffron said this is not a reasonable way to show a trade-off in hardcover by applicants. Variances are only to be allowed when hardships are shown requiring the necessity. Gaffron said the ordinance was drafted to help the public understand the hardcover policy and for the Council to formally accept the policies. The ordinance will make any plastic or fabric found in the 0-75' setback nonconforming, regardless of how it got there. Plastic or fabric in other zones will be non-conforming if the hardcover limit is exceeded. Gaffron noted that the requirement of removing the plastic or fabric prior to making application will be problematic during the winter months. The hardcover calculations stated at time of application will reflect the hardcover after removal of any plastic or fabric. Jabbour suggested the removals be required prior to receiving a building permit, which would eliminate the problem with requiring the plastic or fabric to be removed during the winter months prior to application being made. Jabbour thought this would be a reasonable remedy to the problem. Jabbour cited the reasoning behind the policy as it was originally drafted. He noted the vision of those people whose goal was to eliminate any hardcover in the 0-75' setback except for stairs and erosion control. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 (#7 - Hardcover Policy Resolution- Continued) Flint expressed his appreciation of the background work provided by staff. Flint said he has concluded, however, that the whole issue should be restated rather than in a piece­ meal fashion as has occurred in the past. Flint said he appreciated the discussion of other issues as well, citing leaving the natural vegetation buffer adjacent to the lakeshore. Flint said he is concerned with focusing on hardcover and becoming blind to the big picture. He asked that the rules be restated. Jabbour indicated having attended recent Planning Commission meetings, and he believes the Commission is doing an excellent job of reviewing the issues. He believes the increasing hardcover percentages and eliminating variances w’ould not be a good solution. Jabbour felt if hardcover limits were increased, it would not eliminate variances but people will want to keep adding more and pushing the limit. He indicated problems with hardcover percentages found in other communities, and he remains satisfied with the 25% hardcover allowed in Orono. Jabbour indicated the importance of determining the reasoning and findings behind resolutions that have been adopted in the past. He suggested this policy be adopted for use as a guideline and amended in the future to reflect changes that become necessary. Jabbour said he is attempting that this be resolved at the Council level since the final decisions are made by Council. Peterson expressed appreciation of the work performed by Gaffron on this issue. She asked how the public will be informed of the policies. Gaffron said he would include the resolution in all application packets. He said the resolution will formalize and clarify what has been the policy and what has been administered over the last 22 years. Gaffron said the information can also be passed on through a newsletter or newspaper article. Flint asked about holding a series of work sessions to discuss the broader issues. Jabbour agreed with the idea of holding w ork sessions and using a committee as part of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. He felt a sub-committee should be established to begin the discussions. Flint suggested this policy be adopted and work begun on the Comprehensive Plan. Jabbour indicated that changes in staff have resulted in less background being known by staff. This policy will be a good instrument to assist in facilitating applications. There were no public comments. Z J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 (#7 - Hardcover Policy Resolution- Continued) Flint cited the Olsen application and suggested an additional way to address hardcover in the 0-75' setback be through Best Management Practices. The problem arises if the absolute is removed and circumstances are taken into account. Flint said he is trying to address the broader issue. Moorse indicated that the policy here is only addressing plastic. Jabbour said he feels there is no need for plastic or fabric but if a house addition is desired and a hardship can be demonstrated, the applicants can be asked to offset the additional structure through use of the Best Management Practices. Jabbour expressed his frustration with rock and plastic being added before an application is made and then used as a trade to offset the proposed structure. Jabbour said costs can also be saved in surveying work by not having to calculate rock and plastic in the 0-75' setback. The applicants can then offset additional structure by other means. Flint said his concern is that the ordinance is not doing what it is meant to do. Flint cited the example of his own property where nothing is allowed in the 0-75' setback of a peninsula area where the entire peninsula is in the 0-75' setback. Flint said he will support this policy but would still like to review the broader issues. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4006 with the change as noted to reflect removal of rock and plastic from the 0-75' setback to be conducted prior to issuance of the building permit. Planning Commissioner Stoddard was asked for any comment. Stoddard thought it would be helpful to receive information and demonstration by lemdscapers regarding a permeable weed barrier that could be used to keep weeds under control. While understanding the importance of the 0-75' setback, Stoddard feels the use of a geo-tech fabric should be allowed for maintaining slopes when a house is located far back on the property. He suggested a joint work session be held to discuss this. Jabbour noted that geo-tech fabric is controversial in its benefit and feels the best solution is to leave the natural vegetation. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Staff w'as informed that the Council would like to further discuss the issues. (Mayor/Council Report follows item #9.) j r !’ * MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 ENGINEER REPORT (*#8) CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - NORTH BROWN ROAD Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve Change Order No. 3, Broun Road North MSA Project to substitute at no change in cost concrete valley curb and gutter for B61 8 concrete curb and gutter. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT (#9) SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB - TUNNEL AGREEMENT Spring Hill Golf Club Attorney, Tom Crosby, and Project Manager, Tim Johnson, were present. Gaffron reported that Spring Hill representatives have initiated contact with Hennepin County regarding the possibility of a direct agreement between Spring Hill and the County for the County Road 6 tunnel as opposed to the City entering into a cooperative agreement with the County regarding responsibility for the tunnel, and applicants agreeing to accept all reassigned responsibilities via a similar agreement between Orono and Spring Hill. This would eliminate the City acting as the "middleman” between Spring Hill and the County as is stipulated in the conditional use permit. The County Attorney has reviewed the request and feels the culvert should be in public ownership but is open to hearing from the City as to what they desire. Jabbour said Council Member Peterson had expressed a concern regarding whether the issue should be reviewed by the full Council. Crosby explained the reasoning behind this request. He indicated that it had been understood that the manner in which the tunnel could be built and operated had to be as agreed on. When discussing other issues, it was found that the same responsibilities would be required whether the contract was with the City or the County. It was determined that there were other circmustances in the County where underpasses have been constructed and maintained without city involvement but done directly with the County. Crosby said he contacted the County, who said they did not want to get into a political maelstrom with the City. Crosby told them he would speak with the City regarding this possibility. Crosby said from Spring Hill's standpoint, it was a legal concern whether the County has the ability to assess if Spring Hill does not perform what was set out to be accomplished. It was found that there is a policy in place that allows this to occur. The agreement will remain the same. Crosby said he does not feel strongly about the ownership of the tunnel viewing it as a technical issue. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 I (#9 - Spring Hill Golf Club Tunnel Agreement - Continued) Jabbour informed Crosby that he feels it is advantageous for the City not to be involved with the tunnel. He believes that Kelley and Goetten most likely feel the same way. Crosby felt the agreement answers the procedural position of Jabbour but not Flint's substantive position. Jabbour said he questioned why the City should be involved in the tunnel if the public is unable to use it. Flint agreed that the ability for Spring Hill to work directly with the County solves the problem. Flint said he could not see the City being on the chain of title if no benefit is received by the City. He said work on the trail can be conducted separately. Crosby indicated that he is not yet in the position to say whether this agreement can be made but needed to determine whether the City would approve Spring Hill making a direct agreement with the County. Crosby said he does not know at this time whether the County will approve a direct agreement. Moorse said the County seems to be receptive to reviewing the matter but thought there should be some public ownership involved. Peterson concurred that she would prefer that the City not be involved in the tunnel and supports Hennepin County pursuing a direct agreement. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to give support to a direct tunnel agreement between Spring Hill and Hennepin County, eliminating City involvement. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Tim Johnson reported that more trees have been planted, the irrigation and drainage is 60% completed, resulting in being substantially ahead of schedule. The maintenance building is currently under construction. Crosby said a split rail fence has been constructed along County Road 6 on the eastern end for winter security to eliminate snowmobilers from entering the property. Flint asked when the trail construction would begin. Johnson said it depends on the weather. If there is a cold spring and other work is held up, Johnson said the trail construction may begin then or otherwise be started and completed next fall. Johnson informed Peterson that the same target date for opening is being held. 8 r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour reported a resident was questioning maintenance of the Brown Road trail during the winter months. The resident said he was informed during construction that this would occur. Moorse said trails have never been maintained during the winter. Flint noted the City lacks the equipment for doing so. Flint noted that residents on Femdale road were interested in the trail being maintained along that road. Plymouth representative had said that they maintain a large percentage of trails during the winter and prioritize what trails remain open. No comments had been made regarding the Orono trails at that time. Jablwur said residents should receive answers to questions that are asked. Gappa said he received one call from Thomas Lane regarding trail maintenance. Jabbour indicated that Mr. Lane was the person he had spoken with and asked Gappa to inform Lane of the policy and the reason behind Lane's request for maintenance. Council agreed that Lane should be informed of the policy regarding no winter maintenance of trails. Flint said he would prefer to keep the trails open in the long run but noted the City does not have the personnel or equipment to maintain it on a day-to-day basis. Jabbour reponed he attended a meeting with a representative of the MCWD, a Mn/DOT representative, Orono City Administrator Moorse, City Administrator of Long Lake, and p^t Mayor, Ed Callahan, regarding agreements between Mn/DOT and the Watershed District. Jabbour felt the meeting was positive. Discussion was held regarding density levels, impacts on the Watershed, and changes to the water elevation on Lake Minnetonka, and the increase projected for the lake and flood plain. Jabbour felt the Watershed District and City had alot of common ground. Jabbour said Gaffron had indicated the Met Council felt the City should have a 2 unit per acre density by the year 2020. Gaffron said the Met Council would apparently like to see development between now and 2020 average 2 units per acre in Orono. Jabbour feefr the Watershed District will concur with the City regarding density. Jabbour expressed the importance of the work by Mayor Callahan on issues facing the City noting his insight and ability, and the continuity he provides. Jabbour reported that he has been speaking with Park Chair Wilson and Moorse regarding park plans. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Gaffron distributed a document relating information from the Met Council. Flint asked for an explanation. Gaffron indicated the report deals with grovMh strategy policies, land use data, and transportation within the city as the basis of updating the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron said he is attempting to determine how the conclusions regarding growth assumptions were made. He does not feel it is reflective of what has occurred in the city, not what is currently planned. Jabbour said past density has been based on availability of sewer and is well founded. Jabbour feels this argument should be continued. Jabbour feels consideration should be given to sewering 2 acre zoning without requiring the zoning to change. He indicated the impact on the Watershed must be used as reasoning to maintain density levels. Jabbour cited example of the changes in water levels on Lake Minnetonka. The proposed rejuvenation of the lake from the drought years was anticipated to be 20 years but was only 2 years. (*#10) FUNDING FOR PLANNING INTERN THROUGH DECEMBER Peterson moved, Flint seconded, 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. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#11) PROPOSED 1998 FEE SCHEDULE - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (INFORMATION ONLY) No action requested at this time. (*#12) 1998 MEETING SCHEDULE Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve the 1998 Meeting Schedule. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#13) CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES AND GENERAL SERVICE FEE - RESOLUTION NO. 40v7 Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4007, providing for the collection of delinquent 1997 charges for sewer and water utility services, fees for the annual septic inspection and recycling programs, and general service fees for false alarms and developers improvement fees. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 1 f; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 (*#14) REQUEST TO ESTABLISH DRUG FORFEITURE FUND Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to .luthorize 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 amoimt; and to reallocate the related year to date revenues, and e.xpenditures from the General Fund to the Drug/Felony Forfeiture Fund, with appropriate budget amendments. Vote: Ayes 3. Nays 0. (#15) PARK COMMISSION VACANCY Moorse updated the Council cn Park Commission positions. The term for James White uill expire December 31, 1997, and authorization was requested from Council to contact White regarding his interest in continuing to serve. Peterson felt it would be appropriate to contact White. Flint agreed noting Park Commissioners gain expertise that benefit extending their serv ice time. The excellent performance of White was noted. Moorse said he would contact White regarding renewing his term on the Commission, Moorse reported that a position on the Park Conunission is open due to David Beal moving out of the City. Moorse asked the Council for direction on how to proceed with filling the vacancy and what time line should be followed. Council directed Staff to provide applications from the most recent selection process for Council review. (#16) QUOTATIONS ON CANOPY FOR PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Moorse reported that quotations were being sought to construct a canopy over the entrance to the Public Works Building. The initial quotes were higher than expected. Gappa said redesign work has been done and quotations have not yet been received. Jabbour asked that the Council review the design before bids are sent out. Gappa said the plan and costs will be presented to Council at the December 8 meeting. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett suggested discussion be held due to threatened litigation on park dedication fees. Mayor Jabbour adjourned the meeting to Executive Session. 1 ; < t I I » ! : MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 (*#17) LICENSES 1998 LIQUOR AND BEER ONE DAY RAFFLE - RESOLUTION NO. 4008 Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve the following licenses and Resolution No. : Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. On Sale Liquor & Sunday Off Sale Liquor Club & Sunday Club On Sale 3.2 Beer Off Sale 3.2 Beer On & Off Sale 3.2 Beer One Day Gambling L Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive 12 Hi Liquor 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard Navarre Liquors Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Orono Golf Course 265 Orono Orchard Road Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc. 405 North Arm Drive O’Sullivans 2420 Shadywood Road and 3340 Shoreline Drive Orono Self Service 2160 West Wayzata Boulevard Navarre Bowling Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. January 18,1998 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24,1997 e#18) BILLS Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 8:17 p.rn. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk L MINUTES OF THE TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING n HELD AT 7:30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3,19^ JSq IN THE ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS ^.1 Members present: Mayor Jabbour and Council Members Goetten, Peterson, Flint and Kelley. Staff present: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Finance Director Tom Kuehn, Assistant Finance Director Chris Miller, and Management Analyst/Accountant Ron Olson. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jabbour. Mayor Jabbour indicated the purpose of the Truth In Taxation hearing was to provide an opportunity for Citizens to obtain information about the proposed 1998 Budget and Tax Levy. Moorse provided a brief summary of the budget and tax levy. He indicated the General Fund Budget, which has the greatest impact on the Tax Levy, is proposed at $3,638,095 for 1998. This is an increase of 5.53% over the 1997 budget. The total tax levy required to fund the overall 1998 city budget is $2,225,130. This is an increase of $63,500 or 2.94% over the 1997 levy. Moorse also indicated the proposed tax levy would result in a reduction in the city's share of the property tax bill for homes in Orono, assuming no change in home valuations. Moorse concluded by indicating the budget is fiscally conservative in that it minimizes the tax levy increase while addressing priority program needs, and both short term and long term infrastructure needs. Mayor Jabbour asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the budget jfrom the public. Mr. Amoldy indicated he had a question regarding the valuation of iiis property. Mayor Jabbour indicated questions regarding property valuation could best be addressed by the City Assessor, and suggested Mr. Amoldy contact the City Assessor. There being no further comments. Mayor Jabbour closed the hearing and announced that the subsequent levy adoption hearing would be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 8, 1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1 ( A ilBIIMIllfc 1 52 ^Oa REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION d Date: December 4,1997^'^QV<0 Item No. Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2264 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Update - Request for Direction List of Exhibits A - Resolution #3946 B - Approved Site Plan C - Building Permit D - Staff Memo 8/21/97 Summary of Issue The applicant was granted variances in August for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, side setback, and hardcover for remodeling of and additions to the existing residence. One of the resolution findings that resulted in approval was that 40% of the existing house would remain; the end result would be that 20% of the final product would consist of the pre-existing house. However, it now £q)pears that perhaps less than 5% of the existing house will remain, and this may not be what Council intended, hence the job has been stopped. Discussion In June 1997 the applicant was advised that her plans to remove the entire superstructure and re-use only a portion of the foundation would be considered as a total rebuild, requiring adherence to conforming setbacks. Applicant did not want to move the proposed location to meet setbacks, and because Planning Commission indicated compliance would be necessary, the item was tabled so she could consider her options. Applicant then submitted plans indicating that a substantial portion of the house would be saved. Staff concluded from the submittal that roughly 40% would remain, and this included a substantial amount of the superstructure. Council ultimately accepted this percentage as sufficient to consider this as a 'remodel' project rather than as a total reconstruction, thus avoiding the need for a lot area variance and conformance to setback standards. However, after the approval, removals gradually occurred to a point where staff was barely is comfortable with the amount of structure that was still remaining at the time the building permit was issued on November 20. The builder was in contact with the building inspectors on numerous occasions this fall regarding whether this piece or that piece of the building hai. to be saved, and it eventually became obvious to the builder and the inspectors that the existing superstructure was more of a liability than an asset from a building code standpoint, and its incorporation into the new building could cause certain safety and structural integrity problems. As a result, in the two weeks since the permit was issued, the building inspectors have allowed the entire remaining superstructure to be removed due to its poor condition. Only a small portion of the original building remains intended for re-use, consisting of a portion of the foundation. The foundation under the wing which encroaches the «:ide setback is being totally replaced. The problem this creates is that the final product will be more than 95% new and less than 5% pre­ existing structure. Staff is concerned that this may not meet the Council’s expectations, and is a change in the circumstances upon which approval was based. Therefore, the job was stopped to(^y at my direction. The builder is quite upset that the inspectors allowed him to remove the remaining structure and then the City stopped the job a few days later because he had done so. The owner is out of town imtil Sunday, but 1 would expect the O'^tier and builder to both be in attendance Monday evening to discuss the situation. Council Action Requested Provide staff and the property owner with direction as to whether the project may proceed. Council may wish to consider one of the following options or some other course of action; 1.Allow the project to continue under the current building permit and variance approval, finding that the remaining foundation is sufficient to still treat this as a remodel. 2.Find that not enough house remains to consider this a remodel, and require that the house be moved to meet the side and lakeshore setbacks, or if that is impossible, a plan be submitted showing what is possible, for variance reconsideration: - If this is the case, then the approved hardcover percentages likely will have to be reconsidered, since part of the approval was for tradeoffs in the 0-75 zone. - Also, the variance resolution will need to be revised to reflect a finding that this is sewered property in a 2-acre zone and meets the 1 -acre/100' width standard for constructing a new house on an existing lot of record. 3.Other. jpJV I • •. A m CITY of ORONO m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 8946___NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B); AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) & (L) FILE #2264 'WHEREAS, Janet Kieman (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1491 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22. Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55. SuMivision 8; a^ 10.56 Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing “*"**““ revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revistons constmi g hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone ivhete no hardcover or “ normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone m excess of th 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroMhmg past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowec^ an sue revisions encroaching into the 30' required side vard setback where no encroachments arc normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2264. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 9 4 6 3. I The Orono Planning Commission initially reviewed a sim’lar proposal with slightly different construction and site plans as application #2166 on August 19, 1996, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances subject to the following conditions and based upon the following findings: A. The major proposed room additions to the existing house will be located behind the 75' lakeshore setback line. Some proposed revisions to existing roof lines will encroach both the 75' lakeshore setback and the 30' required side setback, however none of these additions will increase the footprint of the encroaching portions of the house, nor will walls be moved closer to the respective lot lines. Therefore, the additional impact of the additions and roof line revisions on neighboring properties is minimal. B. The existing house encroaches approximately 26' past the average lakeshore setback line, and the room additions to the north of the existing house will cause an additional average setback encroachment of a lesser magnitude. No neighboring property views of the lake are encroached upon by either the existing house or the proposed additions, hence there is no impact on neighboring properties by granting the average lakeshore setback variance. C. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to be reduced from 6.0% to 3.9% by removing certain existing hardcover items and replacing them with a terrace area at a reduced level of hardcover. Hardcover in the 75- 250' zone is proposed to increase from 27.5% to 27.6%, and the impact of this minor increase is minimal. D. The location of the existing house with its existing encroachments into the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and side setback is a hardship to the property. E. The driveway relocation is a positive improvement to the property, and the 75-250' hardcover variance is justified by the need to provide adequate off street parking for the residence since no parking is available in the County Road 15 right-of-way at this location. Page 2 of 8 4. 5. 6. 7. F. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 'ft Q 4 6 The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required 15 street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. to keep it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject to much stricter setback standards. Applicant revised the initial proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback variance and proposes to construct one additional garage stall which yields a footprint of the garage being less than 1,000 s.f. and meeting the required 15' street setback. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocation and finds the driveway configuration feasible and appropriate. The applicant submitted a new site plan and revised proposal after the initial Planning Commission review and recommendation which took place in July 1997. The new site plan and construction plans indicate that 40% of the existing house will be incorporated into the proposed additions, resulting in 20% of the final product being the pre-existing house. The Planning Comimssion reviewed this revised proposal on August 18, 1997 and concluded that this level of preservation will not trigger the need for lot area and width variances nor 4e need to relocate the residence to meet setbacks. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's finding. The revised plans indicate an additional bulk of structure encroaching the average lakeshore setback as compared to the plans approved in 1996. Planning Commission reviewed these plans on August 18, 1997 and concluded that this change in the nature of the average lakeshore setback encroachment has no impact on views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. The City Council concurs with this conclusion. 8. All other aspects of the request including continuation of the existing structwe setback encroachments of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone and the 30' side . setback, as well as the originally proposed hardcover reductions and revisions are identical in scope and magnitude with the 1996 approval. Page 3 of 8 AS liK SHO CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. g Q A fi _ 9. The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer on the propert>*. Sewer installation for Bracketts Point is underway. The City will require an easement across applicant's property for construction of the proposed sewer improvements. 10. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 11. The City Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to prese^e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping wdth the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby g^^ts variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8, Md 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone m excess of the 25% hardcover normally in that zone, and such additions and revision encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowe , and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 3.9% per the revised site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Hardcover in the 75-250 zone shall not exceed 27.6% as shown on Exhibit B. Applicant shall provide updated Page 4 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Q Q A ff ^ 2. 3. 7. hardcover calculations confirming that the limits are adhered to prior to issuance of a building permit. The hardcover removals necessary to achieve these hardcover levels shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed new construction, except that removals assc:iated with driveway reconstruction may be delayed with the approval of the building inspector in order that construction traffic not be impeded. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre-existing hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Applicant shall provide adequate grading and drainage plans for the proposed driveway relocation which must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions and site improvements. The applicant and future City Councils are advised that the current City Council intends that no future additional structure in the 0-75' zone should be approved for this property. 4. (DELETED PER COUNCIL ACTION 8/25/97) Applicant is advised that in the event the existing house is totally removed, the City shall have the opportunity to reconsider this approval. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 25, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 5 of 8 r . ^ • IIill CITYof ORONO SHOr RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R 4 6 8.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of August, 1997. ATTEST: hy M.(^llin, CiDorothy M City Clerk Gabr^l Jabbour., ^yor Pfc^perty Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN > ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of August, 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. CAROLE A. HASEMAN notary PUSUC-MNNESOU S HENNEPIN COUNTY K My CommJsjlon Expires Jaa 31. jnoo Notary Public Page 6 of 8 r f v«.. 1 II GITYof ORONO SjTfiSlW® RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _S_Q4 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this.jjrM day of _____, 199^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personaUy appeared d.__________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instr\iment,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. HBMEPOi COUNTY HyConwiH»ic>6elfisJig.ai.3noi>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 PUBUC Page 7 of 8 .<4T .-L—. k * lip. ^rrv OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway - RO. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 (612)473-7357 PERMIT . c_ PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number: Date Issued: BUIUDINti00'5/13 11/20/97 SITE ADDRESS: 1491 SHORELINS OR CH P.I.N.; 11-117-23-25-0008 iESCRIPTION: ADDITIONS/REMODEL 3ui 1 ding Permit TyP3 SF-ADD/REt'iuOtL Bu tiding Uo r k T ypo use Occupancy Cons t r uc tion T ypo Zoning C&nsus Code RENOVATE/REMODEL R-3 VNLR-IA 434 ALT. RESIDENTIAL REMARKS:■•4-irklOVSEPARATE PERMIi'S REQUIRED FOR PLUMS INS, MECHANICAL, FIREPLACE (MASONRY LAWN IRRIGATION AND ELECTRICAL (STATE). EE SUMMARY:VALUATION $700,000 Base Fee Plan Review •Surcharge Total Fee $3,737.25 $2,429.21 _ _ $S,51S.4S I « I CO INC ■ .9280 LAKE SARAH HTS DR LORETTO MN 55357 (812) 479-1645 JANET 2209 TOTEM MINNETONKA MN 55305 :::65-3303 . • I. r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 21, 1997 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administi ator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2264 Janet C. Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acres, sewer installation in progress. Application: Revised side setback, lake setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to the existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action C - Revised Final Proposed Site Plan and Elevations D - Memo and Exhibits of 8/15/97 Summary of Request Applicant was granted variances in September 1996 to permit the construction of additions and revise the roof of the existing residence, portions of which were loca-. ’ in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure in that zone. A portion of the additions and revisions encroached on the average lakeshore setback as well as the 30 required side yard setback T>e original application was intended as a remodeling and addition project which was based tSit. existing residence structure remaining substantially in place. Approval was granted via Resoiuiion #3761 adopted September 9, 1996. In June 1997 when the building permit was applied for, staff found that applicant now intended to remove the entire superstructure of the residence and reuse only parts of the foundation. It was also found that the plans submitted for the building permit had been significantly revised from those used to gain variance approval in 1996. Specifically, there was a new encroachment into the 0-75 ’ setback as well as an additional encroachment into the 30’ side setback. Staff concluded that these new encroachments and the intent to completely remove the existing residence, triggered the need for additional setback variances as well as a lot area and width variance, providing the City with an opportunity to have the new construction substantially meet Request iur Council Action continued page 2 of 3 August 21, 1997 Zoning File #2264 the City setback requirements if that was deemed feasible and appropriate. At their July 21st meeting, Planning Commission indicated a preference that the new construction be moved to at least meet the 75 ’ lakeshore setback, including the semi-circular terrace. The item was tabled at that meeting to allow applicant to further consider her options. Applicant subsequently reviewed the options for retaining significant poi aons of the existing house to avoid the need to relocate it. Two new plans, A & B, were submitted to the Planning Commission for review at their August 18th meeting. Applicant indicated on the floor plan submitted in support of Plan A, the portions of existing house which will remain. The building inspectors reviewed the proposal and concluded that both of the new plans will preserve approximately 40% of the existing house, yielding a fmal product that will be 80% new construction and 20% existing house. Applicant then confirmed that she is proposing to construct Plan B. This plan eliminates the new encroachments into the lakeshore and side setbacks, and was reviewed by Planning Commission in the context of revisions to the magnitude of average lakeshore setback encroachment. This plan (identified as Plan B) has a slightly higher profile for the addition portion as compared to the 1996 approved plan, but Planning Commission concluded that under the general parameters approved in 1996, Plan B will have no impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval of Plan B, which includes continuation of the existing lake setback and side setback variances, slightly revises the average lakeshore setback, and which is intended to result in the same hardcover parameters as were approved in 1996. Approval was subject to applicant providing a comprehensive site plan for Plan B, as well as complete elevation views, prior to Council review. These have been submitted (Exhibit C). Staff Recommendation Given that the final Plan B site plan continues the general concepts of the approved 1996 site plan, including relocation of the driveway and an addition to the existing garage, and given that the current proposal has been presented by the applicant with the full knowledge that hardcover ultimately must not exceed those limits approved in 1996, staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant must confirm that hardcover meets the limits as per prior approval, including a reduction from 6.0% to 3.9% in the 0-75' zone. f ! t Request for Council Action continued page 3 of 3 August 21, 1997 Zoning File #2264 and limited to 27.6% in the 75-250' zone. 2.Applicant to provide grading and drainage plans to be approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the proposed driveway relocation plan. 3. Given that sewer installation is underway, the limitation to a four bedroom design is no longer necessary. 4.Advisory that the current Council intends that future additional structure in the 0-75 zone should not be approved for this property. 5. Advisory that the City requires a sewer easement across the property. A resolution incorporating many of the fmdings and conditions of Resolution #3761, and incorporating additional fmdings pertinent to the current approval, is attached for Council adoption. Options for Action 1. Approve per Planning Commission and staff recommendation per attached resolution. 2. Approve with additional or revised conditions. 3. Table for further information. 4. 5. Deny. Other. P> ^ l/ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: '' 3 \ Adopt attached approval resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by , seconded by , to adopt Resolution it granting lakeshore setback, side setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances for construction of additions to the existing residence at 1491 Shoreline Drive. Vote: ayes,____nays. 1. N .. i V/ i i ’ r'* t ‘V ‘ c u. Vw .1 \ X Y 1Y'\’ A I*' 4'- rr 4l ‘’'k. 'V.v \ ii*? • , i-ra ■ “555«:h______'■^■ ■^ k-i: • -k . *• • -• > 'k^ ' V ‘ • Y - ^^S^KSNSW MPm^1 /:m^ \>r' v-- ®* •^s 1 W" “ ^ ‘V »*4|f*. 1 ^ mi». ; 9tt.' iJ?. ' V r y,r^ ■*k, X , / 1 ’> IT* COU.\wlL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 8 W97 cnYOPonoNO Date: December 5,1997 Item No, Department Approval:Adminiminbtrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2279 - G. Marc & Tracy S. Whitehead, 1220 Lyman Avenue - 3-Lot Plat - Amend Preliminary Subdivision Approval Resolution #3966 - Final Plat Approval Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution #3966 (as adopted 9/22/97 with indicated revisions)(no park fee findings) B - Final Plat Approval Resolution C - Driveway Grading Plan D - Final Plat Drawing Amendment of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966 On November 24 the Council voted 3-0 to reconsider Resolution #3966 and on a vote of 3-0 directed staff to draft language to amend that resolution by adding findings showing a nexus between the plat and the park needs of the City, as well as findings indicating the proportionality of the proposed park fee in relation to the City as a vdiole. Draft findings have not been finalized and will be presented Monday for Council consideration. Final Plat Approval The applicants have substantially completed the requirements of Resolution #3966 including: 1.Creation of flowage and conservation easements over the City-protected wetlands in Lots 1, 2 and 3 and shown on the plat as 'drainage easements'; and creation of private covenants over other wetlands on the property which are protected by State or Federal laws. * ] #2279 - Whiteh^ Subdivision December 5, 1997 Page 2 2. 3. 4. 5. Submittal of an acceptable grading and drainage plan for the driveway in Outlet B to serve Lots 1 and 2. Declaration of private driveway easement and related covenants, conditions and utility easements over the private driveway Outlet B. Declaration of restrictive covenants regarding the use of the buffer outlet. Outlet A. Granting to the City of an underlying Road and Utilities easement over the portion of private Lyman Avenue shown on the plat as Outlet C. 6. Payment to the City for legal review and filing of the plat and final plat fee of $400. The MCWD has determined that no stormwater ponding will be required for this subdivision, and has granted a variance to Rule B and waived any contribution for regional ponding. Public Services Director Greg Gappa has inspected the roadway drainage system and has concluded that it appears adequate to handle the additional anticipated stormwater fix>m the proposed driveway and home to be constructed on Lot 2, hence no drainage upgrade is required. On October 21 1 met with the neighboring property owner at 1290 Lyman, Brano Stankovsky, to discuss impacts of the driveway proposed to serve Lots 1 and 2. We concluded that any portions of proposed driveway heading directly south within Lot 1 have a potential for headlights shining onto his back yard, and that the most effective method to screen them will likely be a combination of berm and plantings at snategic locations adjacent to the driveway in Lot 1. The Stankovskys have sent the City a letter regarding this, which was included in your November 10 meeting packet. The Whiteheads have subsequently added a berm to the driveway plan which has been approved by staff (Exhibit C). The only remaining item to be completed is payment to the City of the park dedication fee, in the amount of $13,376 (or potentially some other amount pending further discussion). Staff Recommendation Staff' recommends adoption of the attached Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966 either with additional findings or as-is, and adoption of the attached Final Plat Approval resolution, subject to the plat not being released for filing until the park fee has been paid and executed copies of all required documents have been submitted (drafts have been reviewed by the City Attorney). #2279 -Whitehead Subdivision December 5,1997 Page 3 Council Action Requested 1. 2. Adopt Resolution #3966 with/without amended findings. Proposed motion: Moved by____, seconded by_____ Approval Resolution #3966. Vote:___^ayes,___nays , to adopt Preliminary Plat Adopt Final Plat Approval resolution. Proposed motion: Moved by , seconded by__, to adopt Resolution # granting final plat approval for the 3-lot plat of Lyman Woods by G. Marc Whitehead and Tracy S. Whitehead for property located at 1220 Lyman Avenue, subject to the plat not being released for filing until the Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $ ^00^ has been paid and all required final documents submitted. Vote:___^ayes,___nays. i ■* I tiiifrtlMhiriMiHi CITYof ORONO >N OF THE CITY COlRESOLUTION OF THE CITY QOUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT f L- 1220 LYMAN AVENUE C - FILE NO. 2279 ^ WHEREAS, G. Marc and Tracy S. Whitehead (hereinafter "the subdividers") on July 25, 1997 filed a fonnal 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 heaid 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 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __ 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 contain-s an existing residence. Lc: 1 is by definition a 'back lot' and meets 150% of the lot area requirement of the RR-IB Zoning District. By definition the east line of Lot 1 is the front lot line, which for a back lot normally requires 150% of the 50’ RR-IB front setback for the principal residence, or 75’ per Subdivision Code Section 11.31 Subd. 5. At its September 15, 1997 meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of a front setback variance for Lot 1, finding that due to the orientation of Lots 1 and 2, there will be no impact on Lot 2 by constructing a residence on Lot 1 only 50' from its front lot line rather than the required 75', and this relaxed setback requirement will allow construction of a residence on Lot 1 to minimize impacts to the steep slope to the west of the proposed house site. The south line of Lot 1 is its side lot line, and the subdividers have agreed to a minimum 50' setback for construction along that line where a 45' setback would normally be required for this back lot, as additional buffer to the adjacent property. All three lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site sewage treatment 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 road system. The public portion of existing Lyman Avenue is paved at a 12-15’ width currently serving 8 homes with a potential of 3-4 additional homes. The private portion of Lyman Avenue, which will continue to be used by Lot 3, is a 12* gravel driveway serving 5 homes with a potential for 1 or 2 additional homes. Planning Commission at their September 15, 1997 meeting concluded that the two new building sites can Page 2 of 8 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. best be served by a shared driveway accessing the public portion of Lyman Avenue based on the following findings: a. Due to topography, wetlands and site layout including the location of the existing residence and its septic system, the only feasible location for a private road and cul-de-sac within the property is along the southwesterly property boundary directly adjacent to the residence at 1290 Lyman Avenue. b. Because the house at 1290 Lyman is only 30 feet from where such a road would be located, its east side setback would become non-conforming as a result of such a road because the RR-IB district requires a 50 foot side street setback. c. A private road would have negative impacts on the residence at 1290 Lyman Avenue due to traffic noise, lights, etc. which would reduce the privacy enjoyed by that property. d. A private driveway serving only Lots 1 and 2 could be constructed to have relatively minimal impact on 1290 Lyman Avenue, especially in conjunction with creation of a 20 foot buffer outlot (shown on the preliminary plat drawings as Oufiot A) between the proposed 30 foot Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Outlot A is intended to remain undisturbed and function as a separation and vegetation buffer, subject to restrictive covenants. An option, but not a requirement of this approval, is sale or transfer of Outlot A to the owner of 1290 Lyman for legal combination with 1290 Lyman. e. f. The subdivider should 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 jr CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ____________—. 7.The existing private easement road at the southeast corner ot me propeny -21—- nss.-sitLnirtsaas site for Lot 2 is near the inside of this curve. Planning Commission on September 1? nded that public right-of-way be dedicated over 1«s.PO«on o u, 10 r.™ 1.111» S.SiM.'Elswav in favor of Lot l lor sepuc bybicm -------------- mate sieht 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 Ki-inft because this is part of Orono's defined rural area, it is appropriate and consistent to have the developer plat a private road ouUot rather Aan ^dicate ^ht- of-way Council further finds that no upgrades to this curve shall be requir^ as pan of'thiVsubdivision approval. Further, the City will allow the septic system to L located within 5 feet of Outlot C via an admimstrative variance. 8. 9. This subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The subdivider shall not be required to upgrade Lyman Avenue as part of this approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one « findings noted ab^e, the XT^eta?^rT« apphcation of G. Marc andTra y . h^ jj j3_ subdivision 4; su^t. au5 iKbd. b bas;d 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 pe^rtacter property lines, and 5' either side of interior lot Imes. If a retention pond or other stormwater facilities are requhed by Minneh^ Cr«k Waterslied District (MCWD). any such facilities to be develop <m^ stte also be designated on the plat as drainage easements. The final a7^tation shall not be presented for City Council approval until all MCWD Page 4 of 8 f , J . . k;. - h: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________________ approvals have been obtained by the subdivider. The City protected weUands 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 drainage plan for the shared driveway prior to final plat approval; such plan shall include drainage improvements within the right-of-way of Lyman Avenue as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The driveway when constructed by the owner(s) of Lots 1 and 2 shall adhere to the approved plan unless the City approves an amendment to the plan. Prior to final plat approval the subdivider shall submit a screening plan acceptable to the City for additional screening near the southeast v omer of Lot 1 to minimize and reduce vehicle headlights shining into the rear yard of 1290 Lyman Avenue. Such screening improvements shall be carried out at the time of building permit approval or driveway construction for Lot 1, whichever occurs first. Subdivider shall draft for Ci^y approval, and execute, restrictive covenants to be placed on Outlot A to prevent uses of said Outlot for all purposes except as a vegetative and separation buffer between Outlot B and 1290 Lyman Avenue. Septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be staked and protected prior to any land alterations on this property. Page 5 of 8 CITY of ORONO lU iiK2® RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._______________ 10. Subdivider shall designate the private toad portion ° , on the plat per the sketches by Merila & Associate s Uteled Exhibits C-1d C 2, 9-21-97, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, 97-104 ‘. Subdividet shall grant to the City the standard underlying Road and Utility Easement for Outlet C. 11 Annlicant to execute Developer ’s Agreement to ensure all greding/drainage/stormwater improvements are installed to City’s specifications and satisfaction. No land alterations can take place until wsion control is ....hiich^t and septic sites fenced and the City is in receipt of a final pding^. No improvements can begin until City Engineer has approved nlans A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully executed Developer s Aireement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed site improvements. No building petmits will be issued until all drainage facilities have been installed and approved. ’The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Admimstrator two weeks prior to the nfgular'y scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. = 200 ’. Drawing to include: A i 5 and Associates oaiea ocpiciuu^i r . ^ ^ r Lyman Avenue at the southeast comer of Lot 2 being platted as^tlot C rjr the sketches by Merila & Associates labeled "Exhibits C-1 and C-2, 9- 21-97, Sheets 1 and 2 of 2, 97-104". B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along boundaries of the property and 5' along all internal lot lines. C.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention areas and City-protected wetlands. D. Naming of plat. Page 6 of 8 r ► CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO._______________ 2. Legal documents required: A. 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. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 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 Let f Credit for site drainage and stormwater improvements. Signed and executed Declaration of Priv>..c Covenants covering upkeep and maintenance of shared private drive ay (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 fur 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 "I r m «SHO GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* A. Final plat fee = $200.0C 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 Auj^st 4. 1997 and recommended payment of a park fee in lieu of land ded'cation for parks. The City Assessor shall be directed to establish the tlie fau 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. Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular mminy heldthis22ndday of September, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of September, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 8 of 8 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF LYMAN WOODS - FILE NO. 2279 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this application for a Class III subdivision of a three-lot plat by G. Marc Whitehead and Tracy S. Whitehead (hereinafter "the subdividers"); and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 3966 of the City of Orono, the City Council approved the preliminary plat applicatioi for the three-lot residential subdivision on September 22, 1997;and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of .le RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use for development of a single family residence without the need of any variances other than those which are granted herein; and WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has determined that no stormwater facilities will be required for the subdivision, and the Orono Public Services Director has concluded that no upgrades to the drainage system are required to accomodate the proposed subdivision except as shown in the approved driveway grading plan for Lots 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of the requirements of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution No. 3966. Page 1 of4 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Creation of Flowage and Conservation Easements over the City-protected wetlands in Lots 1,2 and 3 and shown on the plat as 'drainage easements'; and creation of private covenants over other wetlands on the property which are protected by State or Federal laws. Submittal of an acceptable grading and drainage plan for the driveway in Outlot B to serve Lots 1 and 2. Declaration of private driveway easement and related covenants, conditions and utility easements over the private driveway Outlot B. Declaration of restrictive covenants regarding the use of the buffer outlot, Outlot A. Granting to the City of an underlying Road and Utilities easement over the portion of private Lyman Avenue shown on the plat as Outlot C. Payment to the City for legal review and filing of the plat and final plat fee of $400. Payment to the City of park dedication fee in the amount of $_______. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Lyman Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. Based on the findings of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966 a variance is hereby granted to Zoning Code Section 10.28 Subd. 5B for Lot 3 for a variance of 20' or 10% because it is only 180' in width at the rear of the defined 50' front yard. 2. An administrative variance is hereby formally granted by the On-Site Systems Manager to allow a septic system setback of less than 75' to the wetland on Lot 2 for three of the six identified drainfield sites. 3. A 'back lot' front setback variance to Subdivision Code Section 11.31 Subd. 5 to allow a setback of 50' to tlie front (or east) lot line of Lot 1 where a setback of 75' is Page 2 of 4 \ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. normally required is hereby granted to based on the findings of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966. The principal structure on Lot 1 shall be located to meet a 50’ setback from the south line of Lot 1 per the findings of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966. Lot 3 shall continue to be ser\’ed by the existing easement driveway access to the private segment of Lyman Avenue. Lots 1 and 2 shall access the public portion of Lymaii Avenue via Outlot li, a shared private driveway corridor. Lot 2 shall not have direct access to Lyman Avenue other than via Outlot B. A variance is hereby granted to Subdivision Code Section 11.33, Subd. 4 per the findings of Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution #3966 to allow this 3-lot subdivision to be served by a paved road system not meeting the City road width requirements. Outlot A shall remain undisturbed and function as a separation and vegetation buffer, subject to restrictive covenants executed by the developer. The driveway in Outlot B when constructed by future owner(s) of Lots 1 and ? shall adhere to the approved plan, unless the City approves an amendment to that plan. At the time of building permit approval or driveway construction (whichever occurs first) for Lot 1, the owner of Lot 1 shall 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. Such screening shall include a berm as indicated on the approved driveway grading and drainage plan, unless the City approves an amendment to that plan. Septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be staked and protected prior to any land alterations on this property. No Developer’s Agreement shall be required for this subdivision because no improvements are required as part of this approval. The applicant shall deliver either the original morigage satisfaction for the mortgage recorded against the property as Document No. 5532164 in favor of Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, or evidence that such satisfaction has been properly recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder Page 3 of 4 10. The applicant shall deliver an original partial release of the mortgage recorded as document No. 6516821 in favor of Norwest Mortgage, Inc., which release shall release all property except Lot 3, Block 1, Lyman Woods from the encumbrance of said mortgage. Such partial release shall be recorded together with the plat. 11. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before June 8, 1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements and covenants noted above The approval granted by this resolution shall expire of the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of December, 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 8th day of December, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 3 C 3 r X 3 C 0 0) Xmm H \0rn ' ' \\1 1 X \ \ \ • X i i <■^ » 1 i i />\\ \ \ i i i \ \ 1 vv -^-*V \\ / / / is i \ \ I 1* <\ i \\ \\\ \ i \ i i \ \ \\ \ I \ .......... I \ « i \ ..... \ w S N09 r33’55’W 178.91 ^UTLOT ■ T'oa|3«^g_- ^ *11 CM OVflOf N0«3S5’W /■ 2Mio' 79.91 \ 8 irwir E \ u_ i _ L • ----------i ____■___ ;S^NCtR;^l*MMCNT LA AJiO m 0 '/ ______/ WUlClHA^r "3 \ \ \ .L \ \ '•»4< I I !l :i 'P N^vX '' ill "// vP / \ I \ \ \ \ \ !/ i .%>••• ? 2 ' \ % \ i \ 2 \ L *09.*-^^ I \ I V: ^:*fA ii! y ♦ % A > / 5/;.l/. I A I ^ / I \ I I "A?.Pa ¥; r ■ / V';'.-/.. 'I • U •4 »® 0f22-ig. ■K I ^^CAyfTrr- J **».«e I 5 ■ X ^•^.S ^-------- / I /I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ j\ \ s ' \ » • • • • ' \ gHS^otS lS5?s•1 O. ^ \ \ \ \ \ I \ 1 1 -• fI •» i» y I :r - ^’1" 8i5?S5r= i fn *n rn Z D w 3 m sl?siggroo ^"•ooS^ m ' . losS.aSs! O ® 2 H ri • 1/9 — l/» 4jO Hi- --nh A°fiS ?6as -9 w I ?R5 ;.M s ■M§1 V; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 3 DATE: November 24, % ITEM NO.: L Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item D^ription: #2306 Dennis Platteter 809 North Brown Road Class III Subdivision Final Plat - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:6.37 dry acres, .43 wet acres 6.8 acres total Application: The applicant is requesting approval of a final plat "Winds Reach Estates" at 809 North Brown Road. The preliminary plat of the two lot subdivision was approved on October 27, 1997. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. Attachments: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Final Plat D - Owner's & Encumbrance Report E - Flowage & Conservation Easement & Waiver of Damages ' .M ! > I * A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF WINDS REACH ESTATES FILE NO. 2306 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a Class III subdivision of a two lot plat by Dennis L. Platteter and Ursula Platteter hereinafter (the subdivider); and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 3990 of the City of Orono, the City Council approved the preliminary plat application for the two lot residential subdivision on October 27.1997; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider hs completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1.Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3990, the resolution of the City granting preliminary approval of the plat. 2. 3. 4. Creation of a flowage and conservation easement and waiver of damages. Dedication for public use road, drainage and utility easements. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee of $6,000. 5. Payment to the City of $200 for bgal review and filing fees. Page 1 of2 r NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Winds Reach Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. The pole bam on the site shall be removed by Januar>’ 1,1998. Prior to the removal or demolition of the pole bam and new residential construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting septic test sites. 3.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or a Registrar of Titles' Office on or before June 8,1998, together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision approval. Dated this 8th day of December, 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 8th day of December, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota mumcipal corporation and said instmment was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 ... r o CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING RENEWAL OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT AT 809 RROWN ROAD NORTH FOR DENNIS PLATTETER - FILE NO. 2306 WHEREAS, Dennis L. Platteter on September 26,1997, filed a formal subdivsion application with the City for renewal of approval of a two lot residential plat of property legally described as: The South 354.75 feet of the East 990 feet, except the North 150 feet of the East 323.4 feet thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, (hereina: jr "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with ’ linnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's zoning, platting and on-site septic codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20,1997, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on October 27, 1997, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Dennis L. Platteter noting the following findings of fact; 1.The property is located wthin the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of dry contiguous buildable land within each newly created lot 2. 3. 1 hr property contains 6.37 dry acres, .43 wet acres for a 6.8 total acres. TT»e proposed plat contains two tots each meeting or exceeding the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. 4.The property is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot contiguous with Dickey Lake, a natural environment lake. Lot 1 meets the required 200' width at the OHWL, 985.5 elevation, of Dickey Lake and at the 150' building setback line. Page 1 of 4 r m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^99 0____ 5. 7. Lot 2 is 155' in width to the rear of the street setback line measured from Brown Road North. The code would require 200’ of width and as a result access to Lot 2 shall be via private driveway o itlot. 6. The pole bam on the site shall be removed by January 1, 1998. The applicant shall contact NSP and terminate the yard light due to complaints received by staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby renews approval of the preliminary plat for Dennis L. Platteter for the property located at 809 Brown Road North per the survey dated 11-15-95, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: L i 1. 2. Approval of the 2 lot plat and the lot lines as shown is based on the removal of the pole bam by January 1, 1998. Prior to the removd or demolition of the pole bam and new residential construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting septic test sites. The following list cf final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200’. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated 11-15- 95. ► Page 2 of 4 > * L y ' f CITYof ORONO m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 9 9 0 B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines (not to be designated at shoreline of Dickey Lake) and 5' each side of internal property lines. C. Portions of lot located below 985.5 at northwest comer to be designated as Dickey Lake. D.Applicant's surveyor to determine if a Type 2 or 3 wetland exists at southwest comer of property adjacent to shoreline of Lot 1. The City's wetland maps have located a protected area in that portion of the property. If the wetland exists, it should be located as a drainage easement on the plat. Dedication of 33' of right-of-way of Brown Road North. F. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. 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. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $200.00* based on 1995 fee schedule A. Legal review and filing fees = $200.00 B. *Park dedication fee to be determined upon City Assessor's valuation of fair market value of 2 acre rural lot. Park dedication fee payment is due upon the filing of the final plat and associated documents. Page 3 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R fl O ^_____ 8990 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 27th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: 'Tyu. Ma in, City Clerk Gabri« Jabbour, May STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of October 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. LINDA S. VEE notary public -wwnesota HENNEPIN COUNTY M- Commisslcn EyptesJzn 31.2000 Notary Public Page 4 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO ) ) RESOLUTION# a 9Q I, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the oroceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City^ Council held on ^ October 27_________, 1997 , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. day of In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this ’29th October ________ » 19 97 » (SEAL) I o o •t z» LO#%• s{ 9 t 1 • 1 8c:;1 --V 8 z #% #• 1 P* C m 9^ y; --CU N 66*49* 19** W 666.74 Cott irw of SC 1/4. SW 1/4. Sm. 27 - ..............✓ 437.17 ...................... .............North §nm of South 3S4.75 ft. of SC 1/4. SW 1/4. Ue. 27 WmI Ino of Coot 323.40 ft dj-' of SC 1/4, SW 1/4, Soc. 27..........................................................323.40 Iv... EXCEPTION-* South Ino of North 130.00 ft . . of South 334.75 ft of SC 1/4. : \ SW 1/4. Soc. 27 LOT 1 ! 6• •• •• •• •« •• ••11...1...• 1 • •1 ••• r— 3 1 si 1 •1••1 9 • - a c#-...........->* L 990.00 <«: ts £WMt In. of Coat «9a00 ft of St 1/4. SW 1/4, Sac. 27 0 493.50 .South Rno of SC 1/4. SW 1/4. Soc. 27 udkU lonAnarli oot orrm Cott No.*5^*'»•% t 4 « r-. I II #% 1^- N 68*49* 19** W 990.21 •» V • . • .1 • ••• * 1-# Mona Co. moa ot S 1/4 cornor of Soc. 27, | T«^ 1 16 H. R90. 23 W. of 3th P. M. 5'/ ./; . *'“ • •• .** • ^tr *, i* ► **•*:• ,*. * • * . • *.n i *• • . • . • i*■y*'*u*'l * • a li^iii>rrTliOi<liWiiriihrtf • . •• . .OrU y:'-.:. \-m ^ -..1: » ■ >-v ■/. , ' • .. atfttOn •-. *f . /• ^ •nu a a Mmawta iM rfrtlna<|« aa a amam a* tliown on ttwi plai COfK >-#K« •Ik.kMM la* flakaaW • *• • #s»a. .* •» I- V *•‘••Is REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION a Ots DATE; December 4, 1'!^^ ITEM NO.; ^ Department Approval; Name Liz Van Zomeren DUe City Planner Administrator Reviewed;Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /i'2308 Brook Park RealQ' 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive Class in Subdivision Preliminary Plat 30 unit planned residential development Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:9.9 total acres. 2.2 acres wet, 7.7 acres dry Application:Brook Park Realty proposes construction of 30 townhome units on the subject site. A preliminary plat and planned residential development review are required. The City Engineer, Landscape Architect consultant and Mound Fire Department have reviewed the proposed subdivision. Planning Commission Recommendation: To approve on a 5-0 the preliminary plat aiKl planned residential development. Before the final plat the following issues will be addressed: 1. 2. 3. 4. Water loop vs. sprinkler system; Landscape architect's comments excluding center island in the cul-de-sac; City Engineer's comments. Other issues noted in staff reports. Brook Park RealtM 3700^3760 Shoreline Drive CC J2/8/97 poge-J i I f- ; f CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To amend or approve the enclosed resolution. Attachments: A B C D E F G Resolution Planning Commission Reports Reduced Plan Sets November PC Minuter, draft Navarre streets resolution Consultant reports Public Comments H2308 Brook Park Realty 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive CC12/8/97 page-2 ! I r'q ■i'i 4 r h r*l•' A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AT 3700-3760 SHORELINE DRIVE FOR BROOK PARK REALTY - FILE NO. 2308 WHEREAS, Brook Park Realty (hereinafter the ''subdivider") on September 15, 1997, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a 30 unit Planned Residential Development of property legally described as: see attached Exhibit A (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 public hearings on October 29, 1997 and November 17, 1997, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportimity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on December 8, 1997, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Brook Park Realty noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located in the LR-lC-1, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 2.The property contains 9.9 total acres, of which 2.2 acres are wet and 7.7 acres are dry. 3.The LR-lC-1 zoning district provides a credit to increase by 50% the density, subject to compliance with the following criteria: A. All provisions of the Planned Residential Development are met (Section 10.32). B. Public sanitary sewer is available. Page 1 of 7 4. 5. 6. 7. C. All dwelling units are attached but not more than 4 (four) units allowed per structure. D. The maximum height shall not exceed 30 (thirty) feet. E. F. No more than 35% of the zoning lot is hardcover. A minimum of 2 (two) parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit. At least one parking space shall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves. The proposed plat meets the zoning requirements in the LR-lC-1 district for side and rear yard setbacks. The proposal meets the front yard setback from Shoreline Drive. The proposed townhomes are 15' from the dedicated right-of- way for Livingston Avenue and 22' from the private driveway where 30' is required for a front yard setback. The proposed 15' and 22' from the Livingston Avenue right-of-way and private driveway, respectively, meet the intent of the Planned Residential Development by preserving 25 more trees with the proposed building alignment. The subject property is deciduous woodland with large oak, sugar maple and American basswood trees. The subject property contains two isolated wetlands. The larger wetland at the south end of the parcel is a designated Department of Natural Resources Protected Wetland (Type 3 shallow marsh PEMIF) and is subject to Department of Natural Resources regulations below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). The northwest comer of the property is a Type 7 wooded swamp (PFOSC), Concurrent with the subdivision application, the subdivider has also submitted an application for a Planned Residential Development for a 30 unit townhome development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Brook Park Realty for the property located at 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive per the survey dated 9-25-97 as revised on 11/25/97 by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of7 1 s_.i 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Uh I, The DNR should be asked to determine the OHWL of Basin 27-9 MW. The proposed roadway will need to be realigned if any portion encroaches below the OHWL. A formal wetland delineation should be conducted to determine the extent of the Wetland Conservation act (WCA) wetlands. Sanitary sewer and water main designs shall be provided with the final plat set to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Sanitary and water main stubs shall be extended to the w'est property line. Service locations should be shown on the final plans with sanitary services located 3' downstream from water services. The drainage area map shall include the boundary for flows to the northerly wetland and CB.55 to verify that the proposed 12-inch RCP under Livingston A-ifcnw '■ -equate. The City Engineer shall review and approve pipe grades, erosion control measures, pond outlet controls and weir design. The proposed radius of Livingston Avenue shall be 140' instead of the required 275' (30 mph design) to allow the proposed street to be aligned to the north side and around the west side of five very large, significant oaks and maples. Reduced speed signage will be required. The subdivider shall provide typical street sections for Livingston Avenue and the private drive. A geotechnical analysis and R-value shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer to verify the proposed pavement design. The subdivider shall dedicate drainage easements over the wetlands, ponding area, and the portion of the storm sewer which is located outside of the right-of- way. The subdivider shall dedicate an additional 7' of right-of-way along CSAH 15 for a total of 40' from the centerline. This area will accommodate utilities, snow storage, signage or other public uses. The subdivider will obtain appropriate permits from Hennepin County prior to construction within the County right-of-way. All areas within the County right- of-way disturbed during construction will be restored. Page 3 of7 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The subdivider shall protect all trees and wooded areas that are to be preserved by fencing at the drip line prior to commencing construction. Good construction management and arborist practices shall be observed to minimize the potential for infection and spread of oak wilt. The subdivider shall configure and construct the pond as a natural feature. The perimeter of the pond shall be treated as a natural edge and planted with appropriate native grasses, deciduous trees and shrub masses. The subdivider shall minimize grading impacts on the site. Low, curved retaining walls shall be used to lessen grading impacts to preserve natural features. The retaining walls shall be constructed of a permanent material that blends with the natural setting. Timber walls shall not be allowed. The subdivider shall submit an internal walkway layout that is compatible with the wooded area. Paved trail connections shall be provided between Block 2 and 3 and Block 2 and 4 walkways. The trails shall follow the existing trail alignments. A trail linkage from the project area to CSAH 15 shall be evaluated. The trail plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The subdivider shall provide a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Citv Planner. The subdivider shall provide a signage plan for entry signs and monuments prior to construction, subject to review and approval by the City Planner. The subdivider shall provide a plan for mailbox location and treatment to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The subdivider shall submit a landscaping plan after tree removal, grading and rough framing have been completed in order to evaluate the sire conditions and determine the need for more landscaping and screening. The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City ’s consultant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to certificate of occupancy being issued. Page 4 of? 1 r 17. The subdivider shall identify all junk, Jebris, or hazardous materials on the site and document, remove and dispose of the materials in accordance with all applicable rules, gviJelincs and laws. 18. The subdivider is t.ffcby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one yeai‘ ‘ »f the date of Council approval, December 8, 1998. If the subdivider fails to complete the final plat within one year, a new application will be required. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator 30 days prior to the regularly scheduled Council meetings. Required 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 Westwood Engineering, Inc. dated September 25, 1997, most revised date October 25, 1997. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property. C. Dedication of 7' of right-of-way to Hennepin County along CSAH 15. D. Dedication and designation of drainage easements over the pond. E. Dedication of Livingston Avenue extension at 50' width wdth cul-de-sac. F. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. 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. B. The applicant to provide certified copies of ail recorded easements currently affecting the property. Page 5 of7 i ; 3. Signed and executed drainaee easements. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Signed and executed developer’s agreement and letter of credit for required site improvements and construction of roads and driveway. Signed and executed declaration of private driveway and drainage facilities maintenance covenants. Covenants shall also specify the relationship of ownership. Signed and executed covenants for wetland protection. Declaration of restrictive covenants for aesthetic and operational constraints for the development, including removal of additional trees or woods, prohibiting outdoor and recreational vehicles, accessory structures, use of shared commons, and limiting the number and size of vehicles parked in the driveways on an ongoing basis. Signed and executed copy of the Homeowner's Association agreement. Fees to be paid: Total due: $19.464.00* A. Final plat fee = $200.00 B. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 C. Park dedication fee = 8% of $238,000.00 = $19,064.00 f ;Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of December, 1997. i i ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 6 of7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of December, 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 ■H- Page 7 of 7 , t>r. - .WlrtUf'.i r TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator November 14,1997 #2308 Lake Minnetonka Woods Brook Park Realty 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive Class 111 Subdivision, Preliminary Plat Planned Residential Development-Public Hearing 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation:Urban Residential (1/2 acre) Zoning District:LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 a acre) Lot Area:9.9 total acres 2.2 acres wet 7.7 acres dry Proposed Density:3.03 units per acre Application:Brook Park Realty proposes the construction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre site. A preliminary plat and planned residential development review are required. Staff reviewed this plan with the applicant on Friday, November 7th. The applicant's consultants provided a revised plan on Wednesday, November 12th. The city's landscape architect has not yet completed his review of the revised plan. Staff has also not received any comments from the Mound Fire Chief. # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page—1 Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.26, LR-lC-1, One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistricts, Subd. 3 "...a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling units density," Section 10.32, PRD, Planned Residential Development Section 11.10, Subdivision Application Procedure, Approval Process, and Requirements ANALYSIS LR-lC-1 Zoning Requirements Lot Area Lot Width Front Rear Side Side/Street 1/2 acre* 50% density increase is 3 per acre 100'30 ’30 ’10 ’15’ The proposed planned residential development is claiming the 50% increase in dwelling umts, fiom 20 units to 30 units, based on the following conditions: a. b. c. d. public sanitary sewer is available; all dwelling units are attached but not more than four units to any one structure; maximum height does not exceed 30'; the lot is located beyond 100 feet of Lake Minnetonka and less than 35% of the land is proposed to be developed in impervious surface. e.A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit and are attached to the unit. Building size, location, vehicle ingress/egress must be approved by City Council. The proposed development includes 30 townhomes. Residents will purchase the dwelling umt and # 2508 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page—2 r the land underneath the unit, the lots are eiher 20' by 67' or 30' by 67', depending on whether they are end or interior units. Outlot A and B will be created to hold the open space in common ownership. A homeowner's association will be created. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The purpose of the planned residential development (PRD) is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of city residents. The proposed development provides a type and style of housing that is generally not available in Orono. By clustering the townhomes in three rows, the proposal preserves wetlands. Trees on site outside of the construction area will be retained. PRD Standards Open Space The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. The developer shall provide developer's agreements that address ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces. This shall include covenants regarding prohibiting open space use for vehicle storage or accessory structures. The developer has provided a landscaping plan for the open space area which has been sent to the City's Landscape Architect consultant. The consultant has indicated that he is concerned about the landscape plan as submitted. He indicated that a landscape plan should be created after it is determined on site which trees will remain. The developer should also address how residents will be able to use their yards, specifically, gardens, patios, outdoor storage, etc. Dedicat ion of Open Space The dedication and ownership of such open spaces shall be through a homeowner's assocation. The developer shall provide copies of all agreements regarding the homeowner's association. Site Plan The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of the proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer plans, open space for park and recreational purposes shall be # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page—3 reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The developer has submitted a preliminary sur\ey, utility and street plan, and tree removal/preservation survey. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised plans and his comments are attached as an exhibit. Trees and Wetlands Healthy trees outside of the construction area and the delineated wetlands shall be preserved. The developer shall provide legal agreements regarding protection of the wetlands, including conservation, drainage and flowage easements. Neighborhood Compatibility The Planning Commission shall consider if the proposed development is architecturally compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Staff is concerned about the units not having a door or entrance on the side where guests will be parking. The proposed massing and materials are appropriate for the site. The height of the development shall be less than 30' measured in accordance with the height definition in the Zoning Code. Landscaping A sufficient number of trees and landscaping shall be used to enhance the compatibility of the project area. Plant materials selected should include seasonal plantings such as evergreen shrubs and trees for winter livability. Visual or noise intrusion from vehicles and pedestrians should be minimized by the use of landscaping and screening. Public spaces, common areas, and private spaces should be clearly identified by the use of sidewalks and landscaping. The City's consultant is reviewing the landscaping plan. Access Vehicular access to the site shall be provided via an extension of Livingston Avenue. Pedestrian access will be provided between units. The "front" of the units is opposite the garage side and will be accessible by sidewalks. Residents will typically access the units through the garage. The Planning Commission should consider whether there should be a trail or path from the end of the 22' private driveway to Shoreline Drive to provide a pedestrian path to the bus route and commercial uses. # 2J0S Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page—4 'i The developer shall provide agreements and a letter of credit regarding installation of sidewalks, roads, and driveway. Easements Utility and drainage easements currently exist along Shoreline Drive. Hennepin County has requested 7 of right-of-way. Drainage, utility, and conservation and flowage easements are required as proposed on the preliminary plat. Staff recommends that the City should grant the additional 7' right-of-way to Hennepin County along Shoreline Drive so that Hennepin County has the same easement as the telephone company. Trash Removal/Storage Refuse and recycling containers will be contained in the individual units. Lighting Lighting shall be hooded and directed downward away from residential windows. Prior to approval of the PRD, the applicant should provide a lighting plan to be reviewed by the city's consultant. Outdoor Equipment Outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened and located away from windows. Snow Storage The developer shall provide a snow removal plan in addition or as part of the homeowner's association. PLAT REQUIREMENTS Every plat shall conform to existing zoning regulations and subdivision regulations at the time of the final plat. The development as proposed will not require any zoning variances and meets the density requirements for the LR-lC-1 district using the 50% density incrf’ase. The Planning Commission may recommend that all public improvements be installed and dedicated prior to signing the final plat. If the Planning Commission does not recommend that the improvements be made before the final plat, a letter of credit shall be posted in the amount determined by the City Engineer at 150% of the proposed improvements. Following preliminary plat approval, the developer may apply for a land alteration permit from the City to commence construction at the # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page —5 grades and elevations required by the approved plans. Park Dedication Fees accepting ^ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends further discus ^v:e;;~_d^^ ** P- -bmined. with the developer, the consultants and Ite Mom^Fh^'chi^r^ Attachments Letter from Tom Kellogg, Consulting Engi Letter from MCWD meer NOTE: Blueprints were delivered with your packet on Wednesday # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 11/17/97 page —6 '» ■» .0T t^v ......•-—fir -^iiiaii i I I 1 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 13, 1997 Ms. Eli7.abeih Van Zomcioii Cily Planner/Zoning A»iniini.sirator City of Orono P«)5I Office Bon 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 5332.3 Re. Lake Minnelonk.i Woi>d.s File No. I39-2.10H ^612 6361311 11/1A/97 10:33 l3 :02/02 N0:162 »«a .»•»./ 9.i »f»*» »»»* •%.«#» r f » • I </• •• • i> * | I It Is* ^ ’ H« u If* •. •' . 1*1 • ti • ' <A M« Jr • «.a 1*^ • V *i » •*’ < • * »i « ’• ► • 1^1 • •',fr*i.ir f si,'!* fl a bi.ftr.'l IS T'iifSit n» I I • A Hntii'Jk fi ♦ ► • M Wr*.c*'r »'l <||||1 M ►rn»lifi i mA. *rrn,n l .^n-.iiif tf i(« i*.i A .1 l*L • Rc'lh A m »'► t .P*M f| I. 'U i*» • \Af Fii'.U-i. Hb • O.iv 111 «) • |A • M.i»* A M.tmoii |'f • Ml» Mflifl T iJ.UltiM.efSM I’l a Iril Kf*r<>l • ► • amr>* jn h AiVJi i wil N PllUS Kb # P Vi'ilN Hiijufs Kb I \ • W'»0r'l ► *t .||in |r rf'br,,*., Cf A‘i.»r*i»tr» v4/*'i**i*«' .'I'*} S’ ( M.% • A!..vs •««ai . \l> i Dear Liz. We have reviewed the rcsiacd preliminary construction plans for the proposed Lake Minnetonka Wood.s planned residential devciopmeni consisting of 30 townhomes. The site is located on Lob 2 and 3 and the west 6.29 feet of Lot 4, Block 9. Townsiic of Langtion, along the north side of CSAH 15 We have the following comments in regards to engineering nuaicr.s. 1 UtUitiaa: The sanitary sewer and water main designs appear acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Details should be provided with ilic final plan set Our expectation is that Livingston Avenue will be extended westcily sometime in the future We would recommend extending the sanitary and water main stubs to the west property line as port of this project. .Service loeHiions should be shown on the final plans with sanitary serv ices located 3 feel downstream from watci services 2, Drainage: The drauunjc area map should include the boundary for flows to the nonherly wetland and CB 33 to verify that the proposed 12-inch RCP under Livingston Avenue is adequate. The 20 minute time of concentration used for some of the CHlculaiu»ns scorns high for this site. We would recommend revising the storm sewer and ponding calculations lor tlcvcloped conditions using a maximum lime of concentration of IS minutes. Pipe grades and / or pipe siecn |>ctwcvn CB32 and STMH 31 may need to be rcvisetl. A paved swale or some type of erosion control measure should he provided at the downstream end of the ft-inch HDPH pipe. Details of the pond outlet control structure and bullied wcir should be provided for review. The limber weir may be a future maintenance problem. The City muy wani to consider nn uliernaiivo outlet structure design without the weir where skimming is provided by a .submerged mlci pipe to the structure. 3. Streets: 'ITic 19 units being served by the temporary cuLde-sac on Livingston Avenue exceeds the maximum of 10 units allowed by City si.indards. The horizontal alignment proposed for Livingston Avenue does not meet the City standard for 30 mpli design. The radii should be increased to 275 feet or reduced speed warning Signs installed. All propo.scd vertical cuiuis do meet the 30 mph design standard. We would recommend that Livingston Avenue be consuucicd 10 ihe wesicily lui line as part of this project. The proposed driveway to serve the 11 units on Blocks ^ and 4 docs not meet any of the City design .standards for private streets relative to right-of-way width, minimum paved width or muxinuim nmnlK'r of units on a cul-de-sac. Emergency vehicle access to those units un Blocks 3 and 4 will be a problem omi tin City should review the plan.s with the appropriate emergency officials. Typical street sections should he provided lor Livingston Avenue and the private drive. A gcotechnicol analysis and R value recommendaiinn should he suhmilted to verify the proposed pavement design. Please contact me at 604 4h(>3 i I you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. DONF..STROO. ROSENl .. ANDERLIK. & ASSOCIATES. INC. /Oryyl Tom Kellogg 2335 West Highwity 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 612-636*4600 • Faw Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone; (612)471-0590 Fax; (612) 471-0682 Email: adminOminnehahacreelcirg Web Site; rww.minnehahacreek.org Board o( Managea: John E. Thomas President C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secretary rhomasW.LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Olfice: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator PrmM on rtcydtd paptr contiinirig «imt m poll contginor wtlti. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life October 7. 19 ‘)7 RECEIVED OCT 9 - 1997 Mr. Ken Powell Westwood Prol'essional Services. Inc 14180 We.st Highway 5 Uden Prairie. MN 55344 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES lU!: Minnetonka Woods Property. City ofOrono. MN Dear Mr. Powell: rhis is to confirm our on-sitc discussion at the above mentioned property on October 7. 1997. Alter inspecting the wetland delineation you staked on that property I find that it is consistent with WCA guidelines and meets the approval ol thc Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It is my understanding that a permit application lor this site will be submitted lor our review in the near rutiire. Plca.se call me at 471-0590 with any questions. Sincerely. Di.striel Technician ■4 :: r TO FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator October 16,1997 #2308 Lake Minnetonka Woods Brook Park Realty 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive Class III Subdivision, Preliminary Plat Planned Residential Development —Public Hearing 3 Comprehensive Plan Designation:Urban Residential (1/2 acre) Zoning District:LR-1C-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 /2 a acre) Lot Area:9.9 total acres 2.2 acres wet 7.7 acres dry Propf^sed Density:3.03 units per acre Application:Brook Park Realty proposes the construction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre site. A preliminary plat and planned residential development review are required. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.26, LR-lC-1, One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistricts, Subd. 3 "...a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling units density." • Section 10.32, PRD, Planned Residential Development • Section 11.10, Subdivision Application Procedure, Approval Process, and Requirements • 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—I ANALYSIS LR-lC-1 Zooing Requirements The proposed planned residential development is claiming the 50% increase in dwelling units, from 20 units to 30 units, based on the following conditions: a. public sanitary sewer is available; b. all dwelling units are attached but not more than four units to any one structure; c. d. c. maximum height does not exceed 30'; the lot is located beyond 100 feet of Lake Minnetonka and less than 35% of the land is proposed to be developed in imper\ious surface. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit and are attached to the unit. Building size, location, vehicle ingress/egress must be approved by City Council. The proposed development includes 30 townhomes. Residents will purchase the dwelling unit wd the land underneath the unit, the lots are eiher 20' by 67' or 30' by 67', depending on whether they are end or interior units. Outlot A and B will be created to hold the open space in common ownership. A homeowner ’s association will be created. # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—2 [ < PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The purpose of the planned residential development (PRD) is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of city residents. The proposed development provide^ a type and style of housing that is generally not available in Orono. By clustering the tovvnhomes in three rows, the proposal preserves %% etlands. Trees on site outside of the construction area will be retained. PRD Standards Open Space The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created bv the application shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. The developer shall provide developer ’s agreements that aodress ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces. This shall include covenants regarding prohibiting open space use for vehicle storage or accessory structures. The developer has provided a landscaping plan for the open space area which has been sent to the City's Landscape Architect consultant. The developer should also address how residents will be able to use their yards, specifically, gardens, patios, outdoor storage, etc. Dedication of Open Space The dedication and ownership of such open spaces shall be through a homeo ’vner's assocation. The developer shall provide copies of all agreements regarding the homeowner s association. Site Plan The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of the proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer plans, open space for park and recreational purposes shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. The developer has submitted a preliminary survey, utility and street plan, and tree removal/preservation survey. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and his comments are attached as an exhibit. The developer should be asked to respond to these issues # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—3 Trees and Wetlands Healthy trees outside of the construction area and the delineated wetlands shall be preserved. The developer shall provide legal agreements regarding protection of the wetlands, including conservation, drainage and flowage easements. Neighborhood Compatibility The proposed development is architecturally compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood The proposed massing and materials are appropriate for the site. The height of the development shall be less than 30' measured in accordance with the height definition in the Zoning Code. Landscaping A sufficient number of trees and landscaping shall be used to enhance the compatibility of the project area. Plant materials selected should include seasonal plantings such as evergreen shrubs and trees for winter livability. Visual or noise intrusion from vehicles and pedestrians should be minimized by the use of landscaping and screening. Public spaces, common areas, and private spaces should be clearly identified by the use of sidewalks and landscaping. The City s consultant is reviewing the landscaping plan. Access Vehicular access to the site shall be provided via an extension of Livingston Avenue. 18 units will have driveways off of the extension. The other 12 units will be served by a 22' driveway. Pedestrian access will be provided between units. The "front" of the units is opposite the garage side and will be accessible by sidewalks. Residents will typically access the units through the garage. The Planning Commission should consider whether there should be a trail or path from the end of the 22' private driveway to Shoreline Drive to provide a pedestrian path to the bus route and commercial uses. A trail or path could also be constructed to provide a secondary emergency access. A path would require trees to be removed and may have limited value as there is no sidewalk alone Shoreline Drive in front of this parcel. The Planmng Commission shall consider allowing the 18 units to be served by the temporary cul-de- sac on Livingston Avenue. The City standard is to not allow more than 10 units. The horizontal curve west of the cul-de-sac is 25 ft. less than the City standard. The proposed driveway for the 12 units on Block 3 do not meet City design standards. The Planning Commission should consider # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—4 whether it is appropriate to require a cul-de-sac and a wider service road. Parking will not be allowed at the proposed width. The developer shall provide agreements and a letter of credit regarding installation of sidewalks, roads, and driveway. Easements Utility and drainage easements currently exist alon~ Shoreline Drive. Hennepin County has requested T of right-of-way. Drainage, utility, and conservation and flowage easements are required as proposed on the preliminary plat. Staff recommends that the City should grant the additional 7' right-of-way to Hennepin County along Shoreline Drive so that Hermepin County has the same easement as the telephone company. Trash Removal/Storage Refuse and recycling containers will be contained in the individual units. Lighting Lighting shall be hooded and directed downward away from residential windows. Outdoor Equipment Outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened and located away from windows, S'noH' Storage The developer shall provide a snow removal plan in addition or as part of the homeowner's association. PLAT REQUIREMENTS Every plat shall conform to existing zoning regulations and subdivision regulations at the time of the final plat. The development as proposed will not require any zoning variances and meets the density requirements for the LR-lC-1 district using the 50% density increase. The Planning Commission may recommend that all public improveme.nts be installed and dedicated prior to signing the final plat. If the Planning Commission does not recommend that the improvements be made before the final plat, a letter of credit shall be posted in the amount determined by the City # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page —5 Engineer at 150% of the proposed improvements. Following preliminary plat approval, the developer may apply for a land alteration permit from the City to commence construction at the grades and elevations required by the approved plans. Park Dedication Fees The Park Commission reviewed the proposed plan on October 6,1997, and recommended accepting an 8% fee. The park dedication fee would be 8% of 238,300 or $19,064. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and the planned residential development of 30 townhomes as prepared by Westwood Engineering as dated September 25, 1997, subject to: 1 . A sewer connection fee of $40,955. 2. A water connection fee of $4,020. 3. 4. 5. 6. Park dedication fee of 8% or $19,064. Legal agreements, including covenants regarding Outlots A and B. Legal agreements regarding the homeowner's association. Drainage, flowage and conser\'ation, and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. 7. Dedication of 7' of right-of-way to Hennepin County along Shoreline Drive. 8. Review of the landscape plan and planting schedule by the City's Landscape Architect consultant. 9. Concept plan showing the future e.xtension of Livingston Avenue to the west, 10. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations shall be provided with the final plat. 0 11. The pond outlet shall have a control structure to treat runoff prior to reaching the wetland. The invert of the 18" inlet pipe to the pond should be set at the NWL (938.0). Pond design # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page —6 I ‘ should include a ten-foot wide bench with a maximum slope of 10:1 at the NWL to allow for the establishment of aquatic vegetation and to serve as a safety buffer. 12.Consideration shall be given to looping the water main by extending the line through the development and connecting to the existing 10-inch water main near Shoreline Drive. Service locations shall be shown on the final plans with sanitary sewer located 3 feet downstream from water services. 13. Resolution of the issues regarding access issues as noted in the City Engineer's memo dated October 14,199'^. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K Application Plat Map Development Summary Wetland Delineation Engineer's letter Engineer's letter Hennepin County letter Park dedication fee determination Sewer and Water Connection Fee Analysis Sketch Plan minutes Park Commission minutes NOTE:Blueprints are also enclosed with packet - # 2308 Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive PRD and Prelim. Plat 10/20/97 page—7 SEP-25-1997 12:39 BROOK eriftx.' . -■''''^ ^^ •'\ > : ' V 493 4^ P.06/07 MINIMUM MATERIAL RSQUOtEU TOR COMPtm mi»0?*ARY \. Payment of feet (refer to ‘’•ppUnXioD feeV ibud below. 1. Conip1ese4*Ppl*^^f°'P’' i. Prcliaunvy pUt infbnrKOon on Ccnifkcaxe cfSun«v. 4. Crtified Property Owner* Lift efew«criwiihi0 350* (you TQurtebiBinlhbUti bom Hennepin County Depvtnem of FinMce A>603 Oevu Center 34S>3271). 5. Ai f Q »4d«nd«m 10 this epplkft^on. pleue ottfcb « sepfrete lift of any other perioae you wish notified of th’i* application. Zenins Qffleiars Si^ature - ____________ minimum puterulioquired FOR coMPLm fln ’al application 1. Paywenr of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approve) resoliitioa and pvk fo»e if appletbie). 2. Stpied Certificate of Survey or myUr copies of formal pin. 3. Title Opinion. 4. Sasemeav. covcfianu. etc, 5. Developers Ajyeainent and Letter of Credit. Zooinz Offitiafs Sisnau'c. _____ - ■ — J. ArFXJC AtTON FEES (Eonlns Adminiseratof to cheek (X] those which apply) A. Applkntloo Rase Fees: Skeaab Phn Review (Class I. IIA UI) S250.CD _____Sobdivtsion of a Lot Lbe Rearranfcinem S350.00 Subdivision Appliemion (Class 1 A U) S3) 0.00 Issih SUMiVlSlon Appuovion i ik u; jw.ww “ Preliminary Subdivision Applicatioo 5375.00 + 525.00/lot (Oass III A all oon-resldemiol) ___Final Plat Applieadon (Clast WX) 5200 00 Lsfal Review and Filing; Subdivision only 575 JO Sobdivisien w/casementf end covc .imics min. 5200.00 . . . A ^ 11 nn X Fork Fees (to be determined per Section 1 1 -62) TT^ Lesel and Enfineerin# R*v»<w Fees (1* incuned) .................... Renewal of Claw I and U Subdivision Applicrion S2Q0.00 (No chinje from engwal applicenon) Renewal of Class III. ft^liminaty 3ubdivition Appliraiion S200.00 (No change from original application) Ranmval of Final Class III Subdivision Appl'wiion S150.00 (No change fiom original applicaUon) B. Special Improvement Fret Proposed Private Reads5600 00 * S.50/1itm1 ft.; lin. ft. * .50 ‘ ^ Proposed Public Roeds 5900 00 V $.50/lineel ft.; Hn ft. it .50 • iZ^g.SQ Reouest for City to Accept Exisims Private Road SPOO.OO \ Prooosad Sanitary Sewf r idain Ba\ensio*» 5350.00 S73/snib ____ j mmd-._________________API Oe r?^/Anik ^ fToppRwo P«nu#ry ----- X Proposed 3i/atcrnum Extension 92S0 00 * 57 5/stub X Proposed Storm Sewe/^SUm (escluding edvens) S200.00 .......................... ~ On-Site Sysioni, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to nwl subdivision appUcatloiu) sso.oaV' *0* *___ ^ C. Fleaible Applicatlou Fecf/Misc. Fee* Vadanee 5320.00 (SSO.OO per eaeli additional varlmcc) Easement Vecatlon Associated with Subdivisidn SIOO.OO ___ ^ • m • .AAA 1122.5 D imio IQflQJIO ?no no \/ 900 00 X 5347.50" PRD ApplkaUon with Subdivision S30.00/Dwellii«« .Unit ■me aoollean* hereby asreas to provide aH Information requ'ved or requesttd by the ZonoM AdmWiirator. Cljy En^iw. ^ .»4 cJLnci..««.« » pt«.s. this a.J *«l«r .p«s B p.y .n .Miunid f« W ,sec-ag.n o«----- Owner's Signature'Dale K„\kM»u.ltoveall wbmtal.ia.oOvOIT..J5dwabaf??.*er*mbtC«ow>al.<.oKlisj. Pllwi«B&»mnh^ Wli^ V. »..ld on *« ihird Meiulay er«eK tfioatli. Apptlcana oluM tepra ».ni »i aP KHeduM ravlcvr m««lajs» M r—"■ ttaa tppliewi« uaibla ta anOTla jehtdaW mmlas. ptaw anws«n>«™ ote>e»aaitonzadist«a««'><l“»*-' place and ta advi* tha Buildllll» ZaninS Oltfca of lils chanj. prior la die madoi. Z d 62soesi95roj|/£ji2ris/pji2l i6.S2 60lnHl>dnoao 38 lOIOD SD H083 2251.80 RES ppopeefN|•O' rs^ uM v9l fr \<b. <l T c-.•: .•• • • • *• J ,• 1 4J- C%r:: Development Summary Lake Minnetonka Woods Orono, Minnesota Submitted to: •• September, 1997 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5555323-0066 Submitted by: Brook Park Realty, LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Prepared by: Westwood Professional Services. Inc. 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55355 1 Table of Contents Information Summary Drawings r WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. September 25, 1997 Lake Minnetonka Woods PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Elk River, Minnesota Ref. No. 97729 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Lake Minnetonka Woods LOCATION West off the terminus of Livingston Avenue, and north of County Highway 15 OWNER Tonka Venture, L.L.C. 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55433-5894 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT Brook Park Realty, LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Contact: Bill Gleason (612)424-8525 SITE PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING. ENVIRONMENTAL Westwood Professional Service, Inc. 14180 West Highway 5, Suite 220 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Contact: EdHasek (612)937-5150 DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: Guide Plan: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: LR-lCl Undeveloped LA-2 (Residential) LR-lCl Townhomes PROJECT NARRATIVE LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Total Site Area: Total Units Proposed: Gross Density: Total Wetlands (2): Net Upland Development Area: Net Density: 9.9 acres 30 Tovvnhome Units 3.0 units/acre 2.2 acres 7.7 acres 3.9 units/acre PROJECT PHASING It is the intent of the developer to begin construction of the project in early 1998, and be completed by the end of the 1999 construction season. REQUESTED ACTION The action requested is for approval to develop 30 attached townhome units as a PRD within the e.xisting LR-lC-1 zoning district guidelines and the subdivision regulations of the City of Orono. PROJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS The 9.9 acre site can be generally characterized as upland mixed oak/maple/bassvvood woodlands to the north, and wetlands to the south. The two separate wetlands total 2.2 acres in area. The southern wetland is a DNR protected cattail marsh. The northern wetland was identified on site as a forested wetland which was probably connected to the larger wetland area in the past. The remaining developable area of the property (approximately the northern 2/3) totals 7.7 ac.-and lies beyond the shoreland impact area of three bays of Lake Minnetonka. ABUTTING LAND USES Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north and beyond the Burlington Northern rail line; duplex residential development to the east; church property across Highway 15 to the south; and an excavation/landscape operation to the west. Slightly further to the west are commercial developments and a Hennipen County maintenance facility. ACCESS Access to the property will come via the extension of Livingston Avenue from the east. Thought the entire southern boundary of the site abuts Highway 1 5, existing wetlands and sight distance preclude access from this collector roadway. SOILS/SLOPES Upland soils generally consist of loam and coarse loam of the Hayden soils series (0 - 24% slopes). These soils are generally acceptable for the types of development being PROJECT NARRATIVE LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS % WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC. proposed. A large area of the northeast comer of the property has been disturbed by past cut and fill operations. The larger wetland area to the south is classified as marsh in the county soils survey. An old driveway which once crossed this marsh has been largely reclaimed as wetland. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This proposal is for the development of 30 attached townhome units on 9.9 acres of property which can be generally characterized as wood and rolling with significant wetland areas. The living units have been chosen, and the project has been designed and laid out to respond to the character and amenities found on the site. All living units are tuck-under in design, with garages on the lower level, and the main guest entry around and to the front of the building. This unique design will allow significant areas of the wooded portions of the site to be preserved, and provides the opportunity to tuck the structures into existing slopes to further reduce grading impacts to the site. Given the extensive wetlands along Highway 15 to the south, the rail line to the north, and undeveloped property to the west, access to the site is left to a stub provide off Livingston Ave. through the multiple residential project to the east. Livingston Ave. has been designed to extend across the project and to the western property line. While the R.O.W. necessary to constmct the entire road will be dedicated at this time, it is not yet clear if this will ultimately be the best way to provide access to property to the west. In an effort to preserve as many trees and as much of the natural character of the site as possible, a cul-de-sac will be constructed mid-way through the project providing an emergency and service vehicle turn around. A 22 foot private drive will access units to the south and along the wetland. This drive will have an inverted crown designed to collect and carry surface water run-off back through the storm sewer system and into the storm pond located on the western edge of the property. It is the intent of the developer of this project to preser\ e and protect the natural character of the site to the greatest degree possible through the use of custom designed units, quality construction and construction management practices. LIVING UNITS As proposed, the townhomes are a Victorian Seaboard style unit with tw’o bedrooms, two baths, tw o decks, and a double garage. The units are designed as tuck-unders, with the main entry to the rear. The gradual slopping terrain of the site allow ’s the majority of the units to fit naturally into the site. The unique design of the units, with height windows to the front and rear, will provide for extraordinary views. The non w’ooded areas of the site will be sodded and landscaped to include an in ground irrigation system. The structures are designed to be maintenance wdth vinyl siding, and wrindows, and aluminum soffits and facia. The units will be priced to include central air, kitchen appliances, and garage door openers. PROJECT NARRATIVE _____________________________________ LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS I***- Westwood Professional Services, Inc September 24, 1997 Mr. Jim Hafher Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 I4180W«st Highway? EiJen Pfaine. VN 55344 Phont: 612-937 5150 fa«: 6I2-937-5822 Toll Fret: 1-888-937-5150 Emati: wps^estwoodps.com Ref: 97648 Re: Request for Written Wetland Boundary Confirmation for Wetland Delineation of Lake Minnetonka Woods Property, Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, SE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 17, T117N, R23W, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hafher: I am writing to request written confirmation from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that the wetland boundaries delineated for the above referenced site are acceptable for local administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. The following te.xt and attached data forms provide the required documentation for the delineation. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY Wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field by Westwood Professional Services on August 11,1997 using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987). This manual is currently followed to delineate wetlands regulated under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The level two routine delineation method was used in which sampling transects were established in a representative transition zone of each identified wetland. Transects consisted of one sampling point in obvious upland and one in obvious wetland. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology information were recorded at each point on data forms. Species dominance for vegetation measurements was based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for the tree and shrub layers and a five-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Prior to delineating the wetland boundaries in the field. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, the Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota (USDA, 1974), and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Mapping (1981) were reviewed. The soil survey shows the southern and western portions of the property mapped as Marsh with the remainder being Hayden loam and Cut and Fill Land. The NWI map shows two PEMF (Palustrine emergent, semipermanently flooded) wetlands in the southern portion of the site within the area designated as Marsh on the soil survey. The DNR Protected Wetlands Map for Hennepin County shows Protected Wetland 27-914W on the southern half of the property roughly corresponding to the NWI-mapped wetlands. Wetland areas were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39 : Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al. 1979). Throughout the remainder of this report, wetland areas are identified first by their Circular 39 Classifications. Cowardin Classifications are included in i ' Mr. Jim Hafner September 24.1997 Page 2 parentheses and written out only the first time they are cited. Common names for vegetation identified in this report and on the attached data sheets correspond with the nomenclature used in the National list of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North Central (Region 3) (USFWS, Reed, 1988). RESULTS 1 Wetland Descriptions The site contains 2 isolated wetlands that are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. In addition, the larger wetland at the south end of the parcel is a designated DNR Protected Wetland and is subject to DNR regulation below the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The remainder of the site is deciduous woodland consisting of sugar maple, American basswood, scattered oaks, eastern cottonwood and a large number of common buckthorn shrubs. Basin A is a Type 7 wooded swamp PF05C (Palustrine forested, dead, seasonally flooded) wetland in the northwest comer of the property. The basin appears to have been isolated from past disturbance. I observed mounds of soil surrounding the basin, a pioneer plant community on recently disturbed soils located on the west side of the basin, and soil mapping that shows the entire northwest comer of the property as marsh. Dominant plant species observed in the wetland include purple loosestrife, spotted touch-me-not, reed canary grass, water plantain, and bittersweet nightshade as well as dead elm and ash trees. The northern, western, and southern boundaries of the basin are bordered by deciduous woodland consisting of species such as common buckthorn, thicket creeper, box elder, wild grapevine, garlic mustard, bedstraw, wood violet, white ash, poison ivy, enchanter ’s nightshade, and hog peanut. The western boundary is bordered by disturbed, open field of primarily pioneer, weedy plant species including sow thistle, curly dock, Canada thistle, horsetail, Canada goldenrod, aster, common mullein, yellow sweetclover, yellow wood sorrel, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, common dandelion, quackgrass, common plantain, common ragweed, leafy spurge, giant goldenrod, red clover, and bull thistle. Soils and hydrology information above and below the wetland boundary were recorded for one representative transect in the northeast comer of the basin and can be found on the attached data form for Basin A. The delineated edge primarily follows an abrupt change in topography and a transition in plant communities as c’'scribed above. Basin B is a Type 3 shallow marsh PEMIF (Palustrine emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded) wetland occupying most of the southern half of the property. Vegetation observed in the wetland includes purple loosestrife, narrow-leaved cattail, sedge, willow, spotted touch-me-not, clearweed, reed canary grass, American elder, red-osier dogwood, sensitive fern, green ash, green bulrush, giant goldenrod, boneset, broad-leaved cattail, water parsnip, and giant ragweed. A dirt trail partially bisects the center of the wetland and an additional dirt trail runs along a portion of the north edge. The slope up to County Highway 15 forms the southern boundary. The remainder of the wetland is bordered by deciduous woodland consisting of species including common buckthorn, thicket creeper, hog peanut, ash, wild grapevine, poison ivv, sugar maple, American elm, box elder, garlic Westwood Professional Services, Inc. '■I Mr. Jim Hafner September 24.1997 Pages mustard, wood violet, staghorn sumac, American basswood, bedstraw, honeysuckle, currant, red oak, lopseed, enchanter’s nightshade, bluegrass, and creeping bellflower. Soils and hydrology information above and below the wetland boundary were recorded for one representative transect along the northern border of the basin and can be found on the attached data form for Basin B. The wetland boundary primarily follows a change in topography and a change from reed canary grass, willow, and purple loosestrife in the wetland to deciduous woodland on the adjacent upland. CONCLUSIONS The weUand boundary staked in the field for Basin B generally corresponds to NWI mapping, however. Basin A does not show up on the NWI map. Both basins occur Avithin the same mapped hydric sotl area (marsh) The OHWL for Basin B (DNR Protected Water 914W) has not been set by the DNR, but the DNR lists the basin as a 2.5 acre Type 3 wetland with a 100 year flood elevation of 935.5 and a 10 year flood elevation of 934.8. The wetland boundaries were marked using pink “wetland delineation pin flags. All flags were located by professional surveyors and are recorded on the attached Existing Conditions Map. Approximate transect sampling points arc recorded on the map as well. Note that preliminary site plans do not involve wetland encroachment. Please call me at 937-5150 if you have any questions regarding this delineation. Oflicrwise please send the requested written confirmation that the wetland boundaries delineated for this site are acceptable (for local administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act) to my attention at Westwood Professional Services. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Ken Powell Environmental Scientist Enclosures cc: Mike Gaffron, City ofOrono, P.O.Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Bill Gleason, Brook Park Realty, LLP., 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Fran Hagan, Wesuvood Professional Services, Buffalo Office cwvooeui«wrr«iirf Westwood Professional Senrices, Inc. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site:Date; Appticant/Owner County: lnvestigator(s):Westwood Professional Services, Inc/- ^!State;MN Basin/Area ID:ISa ^Number of Flags:-jA------- SAMPLE POINT- VEGETATION XZdminon Name C JiStratum »,i%'Cover ■Ind.'Status : >SiO %ofDooiinants FAC or wetter ifjn Renurks: C^mnibh Name i/..ScJanUfIcNanW/r.' . ‘;; Stratum % Cover. lndJStatus\ W yo-o rwc- S •=r ■ 'T •> ^AVfC.— r •7%0 F^CA^ H >SLC h a !( ^ ^ ^ 9 r IF4<.xa/ i/.+rr //>/».V Avfc-i^ Hjf k* ^ l-i®>4>/L|^K/ef y)Q X-^6!o^^ci y FAC % of Dominants FAC or wetter: ^ 3 Remarks: ' SAMPLE POINT- M/e-F HYDROLOGY neld Observations . ' “Wetland Hydrology Indie Btors (Insert Sample^lO) vt*- - Sample ID: 1 Sample ID:Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators (2 Reg.) Depth to Free Water O *"• Depth to Free Water in.\Y Inundated Oxidized Root Chaiuiels Depth to Saturated Soil: q in. Depth to Saturated Soil: in./ Saturated S 12**Water-Stained L'taves ■f- • 53J4C''‘ ->*Does the Area have Wetland Hydrolbfly? Water Marks \/ Local Soil Survey Data Yes ./ No 1 Drift Lines FAC-Neutral Test Assumed (Explain): U4\Vt»' fall fvrPac«^y Sediment Deposits Other - Explain: y/ Drainage Patterns SAMPLE POINT- ;ReId;Observatlons : «7-‘ators (Insert SampledO)''%v 't:l Sample ID: f Sample ID:Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators (2 Reg.) Depth to Free Water. — in. Depth to Free Water. in.Inundated Oxidized Root Channels Depth to Saturated Soil: in. Depth to Saturated Soil: in.Saturated i 12"Water-Stained Leaves fc"/f?55B^^-^Does the Area'have Wetland HydieIdov?.*-fSSr:'':<?i??5 Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Yes No ./Drift Lines FAC-Neutial Test • Assumed (Explain):Sediment Deposits Other - Explain: Drainage Patterns Ref. r ProJect/SIte; SOILS w▼ ▼ Westwood Professional Services. Inc. (lnch<MSl Sample 11 JHo'rizori} >; 1 Location: 'j, * t,elou/ itJVK •?// ^'li(MunselI wKist) 4 ifiY/e 1 JAbundance/Contrast ^ (Texturo,'Concrotion»7\ :»TC^Striictore;>atc.^ A __H_16) Yt^ Y /X WYiL Hydric Sc •II Indicator Histisol Histic Epip Sulfldic Od OnNationa s v/ edon lor J Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Gleyed or Low-Chroma C Organic Streaking in San( On Local Hydric Soils Lu Reducir Colors Aquic X ly Soils High Oi 5t Other (T >g Conditions floisture Regime •g. in Surface in Sandy Soils ixplain in Remarks) 0 Hyaricsoii? >/^ Yes -----------------------—---------------------------— Remarks; -------------------------------------- SAMPLE POINT- M SamphID: j ^■§^Mols«V/(Munsell Moist) /1 -i Location: <f,' Abundanco/Cohtrast« to YiL xn lO i/i ^!x Hydric Soil Indicators _____Histisol _____Histic Epipedon _____Sulfldic Odor ___ On National Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List Hydric Soil? Remarks; .Yes \/ No Reducing Conditions Aquic Moisture Regime High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) WETLAND DETERMINATION SAMPLE POINT- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is the area a wetland? ✓ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No y Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No / Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No \/ Yes No Remarks; ^Jjasttieama been altered sufficiently to render me presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation. Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not appUcable? SAMPLE POINT Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes i/ No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*... . '•0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes y No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?_ Yes* Hydric Soils Present?Yes y No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*Nv. Is Ute area a wetland?Yes y No Remarks; Has the area been altered suffldenUy to render the presence of Hydrophyte Vegetation. Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? COMMUNITY SUMMARY Overall Community Type T\/fi;if> e Jutu^ Overall Community Type Ptcicfuou f u/o^cHoi^ kitift'a* fOverall Vegetation €Jtnr\l a <.k / fiurpfe. ioo'AiW)^Overall Vegetation Imfh /Mapped Soil Type(s)Mapped Soil Typc(s) Revised 08/7/97 Project/Site: Applicant/Ownen Westwood Professional Services Inc DATA FORM ROUTINE WETI.AND DETERMINATION METHOD lnvestlgator(s): Westwood Professional Services. —T77 Basln/Area ID: . ----------------------s . Date; County: SAMPLE POINT- _______ lOo ca VEGETATION state: ^L\ Number of Flags: stratum v^Cover SAMPLE POINT- l;ommon Nama3.5^^\V"i" .. SAMPLE POINT- Field Obsarvatlons HYDROLOGY Sample ID: Depth to Free Water Ia '"• Sample ID: Depth to Free Water Depth to Saturated Soil: ^ ^igPoe s the Area havo WaUjinW Hyrtr^ingy? v v/ No — - Depth to Saturated Soil: ^ in .ct: Assumed (Explain): i/ Saturated^ 12** Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Water-Stained Leaves \/ Local Soil Survey Data ___ FAC-Neutral Test Other - Explain: SAMPLE POINT - \Jifi Field Observatloris Sample ID: / Depth to Free Water — in. Depth to Saturated Soil: ^in. Sample ID: Depth to Free Water Depth to Saturated Soil: Wetlandjjydrology Indicator (Insert Sample ID> Primary Indicators in. in. y^i^^^jgDoes the Area hive WeUand Hydrology?^' :r^- Yes Nn ✓ Assumed (Explain): Inundated Saturated^ 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators (2 Reg.) Oxidize I Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves _ Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other - Explain: Ref. SAMPLE POINT. Vti . SOILS .Depths (inches) iO|:^Mo^*CoIori^^> );:C>!(Mur^l Moist) !s-^ j. iiVw’ M6Wo|:«5ji?\' T. AbiiridanM/Contrast rTeittu re,'Concretions; -1 -r^“.:Structuro* etc.''--■ 1 Samp/e/0: J_ Location: ^ IcJouj 1 4 A/ t/o •------ -----F--------—•f‘-----=--------------------------------- / Histisol ____Histic Epipedon ____Sulfldic Odor / On National Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Glcycd or Low-Chroma Colors Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Aquic Moisture Regime High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil?s/ Yes No Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- A.D«pthj{ iHwteoro jMatrbt;^lor^(Mu^^^ Mottle Colors flnchw4^j|l^^| Moist) > <: StmpItID: J_ Location: to' aL»u^ ___________ ; . ‘ Mo We ’•■'Sr ’ Abundaiice/Contrast - ^Tejtture; Cori'eretions,' ■ Structuis.'etc^’T^'' • (9 -Xj A y/3. Hydric Soli Indicators _____Histisol ______Histic Epipedon _____Suindic (Mor ______On National Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Cleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Aquic Moisture Regime High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil?.Yes y No Remarks; SAMPLE POINT. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?y Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Wetland Hydrology Present?J Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Hydric Soils Present?v/ Yes ' No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Is the area a wetland?Yes No Remarks:• Has the area been altered sufficiently to render the presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? SAMPLE POINT • Hydrophytic Vegetabon Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is the area a wetland? Yes ✓No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Yes ^J No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Yes t/No Remarks: 1 Has the area been altered sufficiently to render the presence of Hydrophytic Vegetalion. Welland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? COMMUNITY SUMMARY Overall Community Type Overall Community Type Overall Vegetation Overall Vegetation Mapped Soil Type(s)/v\ h Mapped Soil Type(s) Revised 08/7/97 ' I k' RirsiCNS 1 r W Weslwoo_d )^ 99 mmm »f •« v •f^ r•»«»«•• maruo I I »••• W9, 90m 90 •900 9 90 !••«• •* ■ «. | | ■ " ■'"^*pnnoK PARK REALTY, UP if’. ■, k.' A-. r- H O o ; II I I 2 LANE SUBURBANsrasMs??w"“SKHIt»-«W»l COMPATABLE ROADWAY NMItf A finUlli MASE UMAH "OAlimY » «NmPAno.MCHT vwa ACOUBimM SMOUIO K ■AlCD ON UMAN MANE IVfCAl SICnONl cool 0^ SMAflQ VM nw UNE SO' ACCOMWIODATION »•O' IT 10' , :S ^ 1 H +I __J{ ^ WUlWtCW CWI fUmiVUSE MIH OUIUIX nil IIMCS ABIMCIHNM) UDUIft AM> (luo oMcn CmOINAl: JANUARY 1990 RPdSfD; JANUARY BIT 20' smif A* MP«« ««K iw* —1 fIGUNE 0.2 8 i H %2 Is u • • S I r> 2 O H O *JD O D • b UJ CITYof ORONO MimidiMl OfDcts Phi Office Box 66 CrysUd Bay, Miimcsola 553254)066 TO; Orono Zoning Department FROM; Rolf Erickson, City Assessor DATE: / 0 - 8 " 9 7 *^eCEIVED OCT I 4 1997 RE^ Park dedication fee of; ___AlivA«Ae“Vou uJo^ci 17-111- zs-iV- oooo Rh opd>5~ed ^0 ci«A\4'g.</i !■ I 2.CI ^ I €. C eS ~~ cAJer4~j iiJ_Acres « S i QOQ,, /38.300. f TELEPHONE-473-7357 • FAX-4750510 • 1 From; Date: Subject: File #2263 Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 5,1997 Sewer & Water Connection Fees Analysis #2263 Brook Park Realty - 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD Proposal Legal Description: Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Towusite of Langdon Park Parcel Identification: Lot/Block West 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 East 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 North 2/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 South 1/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 PINS 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0006 17-117-23 34 0007 17-117-23 34 0008 Plat/Parcel 42420 - 4300 42420 - 4350 42420-4410 42420 - 4420 Basis for Review: Although sewer (1963) and water (1970) were previously assessed to this property to some extent, the assessed-for facilities do not provide readily accessible service to the rear of the property where development will occur. However, easily accessible sewer and water lines were constructed in 1982 as part of the Schlee Builders twinhome project. The Brook Park property was assessed an area sewer trunk charge for this 1982 project (as did all properties in the defined trunk service area), but no unit, bypass, plant or lateral ch j. Per Council Resolution # i412 adopted September 13,1982, these 1982 facilities were int' ?d to serve the development on the Brook Park properties and it is reasonable that Brook Park pay the current (1997) sew’er and water connection charges for the 1982 facilities. ..i ;>> credit for the 'current value' of assessments paid for the portions of the 1963 and 1970 project- '. aat will not be used. n.Summary of Connection Charges Due (Based on a 30-unit development) Sewer: $40,995. Water: Total: 4.020. $45,015. Note: The property was assessed for road improvements in 1982, for the portions of Livingston Avenue which will serve the property, per Resolution #1412. The property was not assessed for storm sewer constructed in that 1982 project, and will only be required to pay a storm sewer connection charge if it makes use of that system. Following is an analysis of the sewer and water connection charges. Page 1 of 4 i m.Sewer Connection Charge Analysis 1963 Sewer Assessment: 1. Trunk Sewer TS 63-IB (Levy #3302) Assessed at $110.00 per acre Plat/Parcel Area 42420-4300: 2.36 ac 42420-4350: - 42420-4410 1.51 ac 42420-4420 3.59 ac 7.46 ac Total Assessed $ 259.60 166.10 394.90 $ 820.60 (Note: This assessment was for the main sewer trunk in County Roads 19 and 51 which serves the entire southwest portion of the City) 2. Lateral sewer LS-63-1B (Levy # 3307) Assessed at $8.00 per front foot Plat/Parcel 42420-4300 42420-4350 42420-4410 42420-4420 Footage 132.0' 50.0’ 182.0' Total assessed $ 1,056.00 400.00 $ 1,456.00 Total Assessment for 1963 Sewer” $820.60 + $1,456.00 — $2,276.60 Current Value for 1963 Sewer Lateral per 1997 Fee Schedule: $37.20/front foot 1963 Sewer Current Value: 182.0'x $37.20 = $ 6,770.40= Total Creditable Value 1982 Sewer Assessments: Original Project Assessments Amounts: Trunk Area Charge (82-1 B, Levy # 9086): $2,000.00 per acre Trunk Unit Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $ 760.00 per unit Trunk Byyass Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $ 150.00 per unit Sewer Lateral Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $1,851.82 per unit Actual Assessed Amounts: PINS# 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0006 17-117-23 34 0007 17-117-23 34 0008 Trunk Area Trunk Unit Bypass Lateral 1.34 ac = $2,680.-0--0-NA 1.43 ac= 2,860.-0--0-NA -0--0--0-NA 3.13 ac= 6.260.-0--0-NA 5.90 ac = $11,800. Page 2 of 4 Development of the subject property is not responsible for the 1982 Sewer Lateral Charge, since the cost of the laterals constructed in 1982 was spread over the properties they directly served. The Trunk Unit charge of $760. per unit has inflated to $1,095. per unit in the 1997 fee schedule and is due for this new development, as is the $150. per unit Bv'pass charge. Also, because the proposed development density uses credit for the wetland area (allowable because it is sewered property), an incremental Trunk Area charge of ± 9.8 ac- 5.9 ac= ? 6 acres should be charged at an inflated 1997 rate of (1095/760)x $2,000 = $2,882. per acre, or a total of $10,375, Sewrer Connection Charges Summary (Sample calculation based on 30 units) Trunk Unit & Bypass: $1,095. + $150. = $1,245. per unit x 30 units = Trunk Area: $2,882./acre x 3.6 acres = Less credit for LS -63-1B lateral sewer Total sewer Connection Charges Due $37,350. 10.375. $47,725. ( 6.770.> $40,955. rV. Water Connection Charge Analysis 1970 Water Assessment: Project 1970 LW-1 (Levy # 5383) Original Project Asessment Amounts:$580.00 per residential unit $870.00 per commercial unit $ 5.80 per residential front foot $ 8.70 per commercial front foot 1970 Property Assessment: Usm Parce Assessed footage: Assessed units: Footage amount: Units amount: Oversize Service @ $225. 4300 4350 4410 132.00* 5 comm'l 132.00' 5 conun'l 264.00' 3 comm'l 7 comm'l $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 225.00 $ 2,296.80 $2,610.00 $ 225.00 $ 6,090.00 $ 5,498.40 $ 5,723.40 $5,131.80 $ 6,090.00Total assessed by parcel Total 1970 Water Assessment: $22,443.60 Note that the value of commercial units was 1.5 times the value of residential units, so the 20 total commercial units assessed is equal to 30 re.-ddential units. Therefore, if the water system in Shoreline Drive is used, there will be no water connection charge since the property has been fully assessed for 30 residential units. Page 3 of 4 1^ i 1970 LW-1 Water Current Value (per 1997 fee schedule): 30 residential units x $2,039.00 per residential unit = $ 61,170.00 528 front feet x $ 20.35 per front foot = —10.744,8Q $71,914.80 1982-1A Navarro Water Project Original Charge (1982): $1,566.51 perunit (Subject property was not assessed for 1982 ® water project) Current Charge (per 1997 fee schedule): 1982-1A Navarro Water connection charge: $ 2,173.00 per unit Sample Water Connection Charge Calculation (If Navarro Water is Used): 30 units X $ 2,173.00 per unit = $65,190.00 Credit for 1970 units paid = 6U7Q..QQ Due for water units $ 4,020.00 Since the lateral system in Co. Rd. 15 provides value to the property for fire protection, etc., no credit for the 1970 lateral charge is granted. Water Connection Charge Due (Based on a 30 unit development) = $4,020. Page 4 of 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sar dra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sheny Frost. Council Member Goetten was present. Vice Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. (The meeting began with Agenda Item #23. Items #1 and following continue after discussion of this item.) SKETCH PLAN (#23) #2263 BROOK PARK REALTY 3560-3700 SHORELINE DRIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW The applicant was represented by Bill Gleason of Brook Park Realty and John Gleason of Eagle Crest Builders. Gaffron reported that the 9.8078 acre property is located west of the twin homes in Navarre, which are the only multi-family dwellings in Orono. The property abuts Shorebne Drive on the south and the Dakota Rail to the north. West of the property is a gravel and landscaping — business, which is non-conforming in its use. The subject propeity' is located in the LR-lCl, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The LR-IC allows for two units per acre. The ICl allows for a PRD with a 50% increas: lO 3 units per acre. The proposed development would be four units per building. There are wetlands located to the front of the property and the northwest. Runoff drains to the south into Carman's Bay from Casco Point to the east. The concept plan results in a development density of 4.6 units per acre. Per the zoning requirements, the 9.8 acre property would allow for 29 units where 45 are proposed. Gaffron reviewed the code sections that apply to the development plan. Section 10.30 Subdivision 16(1) disallows rezoning of the site to M-6 Multiple Family PRD because the site is adjacent to an LR district. M-6 is the only zoning district which would allow densities such as that proposed. Section 10.55 Subdivision 15(A)(3) allows credit for wetlands for density purposes for sewered residential property. Section 10.60 Subdivision 2 disallows density in excess of 4 units per acre of dry buildable land. The property in question has about 7 acres of dry buildable allowing for about 28 units. Section 11.10 Subdivision 14 prohibits the granting of variances to the density provisions of the code. This results in the proposed 45 units being too many to consider under the current code standards. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 y s, (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the memo regarding wetlands, hardcover limitations, engineering issues, and sewer and water cormection charges. There is a concern about possible wetland encroachment along the west side. The wetlands require confirmation and may require some restoration. There is a 35% hardcover limit for a PRD in the LR-IC District. A letter is included from the City engineer regarding the proposal. The preliminary determination for sewer and water connection charges is approximately $3800 per unit. The memo also outlines PRD standards for consideration. Gaffron informed the Commissioners that under a PRD they have the opportunity to create w'hat they would like to see for such a development and give direction to the developer. The applicants were asked to comment. Bill Gleason indicated that they had been unaware of the limitations on the property being adjacent to the LR District. It is their plan to develop affordable housing tlirough higher density. A portion of the development plan is laid out on neighboring property not yet acquired or part of this proposal. He noted there is a driveway currently crossing over wetlands. The wetlands will be preser\’ed. Entry into the property would be from Livingston Avenue. Gleason said his goal is to provide a lower unit cost through higher density. He proposes a umt would cost about $135,000 or less if the 48 unit density was allowed. Gleason said they would redo the plan if the 48 unit plan was not allowed. Each unit will include two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double garage, central air conditioning, and appliances. There will be a front entry with garage entry on the other side. There will be four units per building. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicant had reviewed the letter from the City Engineer. Gleason said he had no issue with the contents of the letter. He said he thought the driveway may be a problem. John Gleason asked what would be involved with restoration. Gaffron said it would likely include reexcavation and revegetation. Gaffron said the driveway has been a long standing issue for the City as it encroaches on property being developed and needs to be resolved. He felt it was resolvable. Hawn asked what the cost figure.*: are for affordable housing. Gaffron said the top of the affordable range is a $120,000 valuation, which results in the estimated $135,000 cost per umt not meeting tlie affordable criteria. More density would be required to reduce the cost. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Berg indicated that the land value attributes to the cost. She felt the proposal was too high density. Smith said the plans are an «mprovement over what is on the property now but saw a problem with resolving the density issue. Hawn questioned whether the same size units would limit the type of residents who would purchase the property. She asked whether the develope*’ has considered building some units bigger to allow for more of a mix of residents. Bill Gleason said the main issue was with keeping costs down. They are gearing their development to young couples or singles. They originally considered providing housing for empty nesters but there is not enough room for one level housing. The acreage would only allow for 16 one-level units, and Gleason felt empty nesters would desire a housing cost less than $130,000. Berg asked if the interior units in the building would be smaller. The applicants said they were all the same size at just under 1500 s.f. finished. Berg asked what market analysis the developer has done to determine who their buyers would be. Bill Gleason said he thought $150,000 per unit would be too high for townhome buyers. He acknowledged that land costs were high but felt the street and infrastructure costs w'ere the main concern. Berg inquired what the development cost per unit would be. John Gleason said it would be about $30,000 with the lot. He noted that access to the property would be through an existing neighborhood which sets the tempo for the housing. Gleason said the hon. * have maintenance free siding. He also indicated that an association would be forni-«. The entry cost would be $120,000 with options available that would increase the cost. The homes would include a set package. Gleason said building two level towTihomes is more affordable. Bill Gleason said the unit development cost would be about $15,000 to $16,000 not including the land. Berg noted that the cost would increase for the premium lots. McMillan questioned the road access to CoRd 15. Gaffron said it is shown in concept only if the adjacent property is similarly developed in the future. (Schroeder arrived at this time.) ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JUI.Y 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) McMillan asked about guest parking. Bill Gleason said each unit would have room for two cars in the garage and two cars in front of the units. There will be room elsewhere for parking and a public road going through the development. Green spaces will be provided. Hawn asked if it was impossible to rezone the area. Hawn indicated that the property is the last area available for affordable housi*- The proposal is way over the density that can be allowed but Hawn said she favors the effort. Bill Gleason reiterated that they misunderstood the zoning. Gaffron said any higher density would require rezoning. He informed the Commissioners that in order to allow mo.e than three units per acre, a new zone would have to be created. Hawn asked if there were any other area where low cost housing could be built. GafTron said he did not think so, this is the only area zoned for multiple family in Navarre. Hawn said she would like to pursue rezoning of this property. Berg said she would consider reviewing it but not for the number of units as proposed. McMillan agreed with Berg. Berg said she understood the concern but felt the number proposed was too dense. Smith agreed with Berg. McMillan noted that any density between 29 and 45 units would still require rezoning. Gaffron said this would require changing the LR-lC-1 zone standards or creating a new zone which takes time. Smith also indicated that the unit price would not necessarily come down much in cost. Smith said she overall supports the proposal but does not favor rezoning to the extent needed for the density requested. She said the other issues are probably solvable. Berg said she liked the look of the proposal. John Gleason said they would try to maintain the price. He asked what the time fram:* was for rezoning. Gaffron said the Council would likely want to review all of Navarre on a comprehensive level and estimated a minimum of six months. John Gleason asked if the Commission thought the proposal with less density was favorable. Berg concurred noting the desire for affordable housing while still meeting the benchmark density. Gleason asked how they could come up with a density level. Smith infoimed him that any density level over 28 or 29 units would require rezoning. Gaffron reiterated that density over 28 units would require at least six months for review of the zoning. i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Really - Continued) Bill Gleason asked how the determination of 28 units was made. Gaffron said it was determined by the dry buildable and would result in 28-30 units. Berg said the applicant also has to consider the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal will increase the traffic which has to be considered. She noted that the addition of the adjacent parcel would result in the County reviewing the traffic as well. McMillan indicated that with no code allowing density over 28 units, the density level cannot be determined at this point. Bill Gleason said they could review and re-tool the plan if rezoning was a possibility. Gaffron said if the Commission would like to consider rezoning, the Council should review the sketch plan first to see if they support the idea of rezoning. John Gleason clarified the water and sewer connection charge of $3800 per unit. Gaffron said density level would not change the unit cost. (Dale Lindquist arrived at this time.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:12-7:24 P.M. The Applicant, Robin Helgager, along with Neil Hcupel, were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a continuation of a public hearing for remodeling of the residence. The applicant recei. . approval for a 5’ east lot line setback in 1996 and removal of the existing dctacned garage and addition of an attached garage, a family room, and a change in the driveway. A revised proposal was reviewed early in 1997. Gaffron indicated that the property requires a 50' setback from CoRd 6, 150’ setback from Lake Cleissen, a 30' side setback, all of which leaves little room for expansion of the footprint. The lakeshore setback requirement has increased since the original residence was built. r L MINUTES OF THE .^GULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 Bcfll said he is concerned with the fact that no tree policy yet exists. White said he would prefer taking cash. He feels it is unlikely that the land would be altered and casement would be an aid. White thought it wiU be difficult to develop Lot 3 and feels the cash would be of more value than the land. McDermott informed the Commissioners that the Saga Hill Preservation Group also did not think Garden Lane would be developed. Erickson said he preferred to take the cash. Welles moved, Beal seconded, to recommend cash payment of 8% of the assessed land value of the Garden Lane Subdivision for Park Dedication Fee. Wilson asked for comments regarding Lot 3. White said it was not part of this issue. McDermott suggested the City consider acquiring Lot 3. Gappa noted there was a time frame conc^r.i. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 1, McDermott. B. BROOK PARK REALTY Commission reviewed the sketch plan of Brook Park Realty Subdivision in the Navarre area. Gappa indicated the plan under review included a possible future expansion of the subdivision but there are no assurances that the expansion would occur. The subdivision consists of a higher density townhcme development. The first concept reviewed by the L minutes of the regular orono park commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 Planning Commission was over the allowed density levels. The Commission informed the developer that they must hold to the density maximums. Gappa suggested an area that could be considered for taking of land in the subdivision. It was located along a wetland area that may aUow for fiirther expansion if the adjacent property was developed. This land would allow for a park to be located in the Navarre area that is of higher density. Wilson noted there was little land available. Gappa said it would require the additional park land in the potential expansion area to make an adequate park. The plan and topography of the land was reviewed. Beal questioned whether the covenants were reviewed. He noted the nature of the community also is a factor. Gappa noted that the developer had considered quaUfymg for the lower income housing but v/as unable to meet the $130,000 maximum unit cost with the density level. The Planmng Commission wiil be reviewing the subdivision for preliminary plat approval at their October meeting. The cost per unit is estimated at about $150,000. WeUes moved, WUson seconded, to recommend cash fee for Park Dedication for the Brook Park Realty Subdivision. Beal was informed that Livingston Avenue would be extended into this property. Gappa noted the property size is 10 acres, one half of which is wetlands. minutes of the regular orono park commission MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1997 WeUes said he thought a homeowners association would provide some play ground area for the children living there. Wilson noted there was no location for an adequate playground. Beal questioned whether a trail would be located along this property. McDermott said it would be a connector to the Dakota Rail property if that was developed for a trail. McDermott said he would recommend taking land as he is concerned with the native vegetation and maintainmg open space. He indicated this was one of only a few spaces left m the Navarre area with open land. He said the land above the wetlands has agnificam oak Uees and rolling temun. Wettes thought the developer would leave this area as an amenity to the property owners. Beal noted that the developer, however, would cut down alot of trees to dev..lop the property. White suggested the City could make better use of the property than this proposal presents through a tax generated project and use the funds for providing a park in the Navarre area. He explained how such a process worked. WUson asked ifthis would be feasible. McDermott thought it should be of interest to the City. Beal was informed that a road will be platted to extend to the western property for future expansion but there is no guarantee that the development will occur. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Beal, McDermott. 8 \ *-*t rv%>4 ' Westwood Professional Services, Inc.c November 26, 1997 104 Marty Drive. Suite 3 Bu«a!o, VN 55313 Liz Van Zomeren Cit}' Plunner/Zoning Administrator Cit)'o.'Orono 2750 Kcllc>- Parkway Post Office Bo.x 66 Crvstal Bay. MN 55323 Phent: C12-M2-2SI7 Fa>: 612-682-2639 Toll Free 1-888-682-258F Email: wps9westwoo<fps.com Ref; #2308 Lake Minnetonka Woods Revised Preliminary Plat Submission Dear Liz: Please find enclosed 8 sets ful' size and 1 set 11” x 17' reduced set of the revised preliminary plat drawings for Project #2308, LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS, for your review and approval. As we discussed, we have revised aforementioned preliminary plat submission drawings to add a hammerhead at the end of the private drive. Should you K't’.t .my questions, please calf Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC. Francis D. Hagen, II, P.E. Enclosures cc: Bill Gleason, Brook Park Realty, LLP John Gleason, Eagle Crest Homes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 T) construction, he would not be allowed anv structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen aamowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to meet toady's standards. Alexander n^d that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes is still deemed h^cover. Lindquist said they were. Ale:^der said eliminating 1.5% of hardcover would con^st of 497 s.f. When asked by Hawn what items are necess^, it was noted that the dog kennel could be gravel and the patio could be remind jrydize. This would amount to less than the decrease being required. The patio iK.810 s.f. and could be reduced. / / / // There were no public comments. / / 0 / Stoddard moved, Ha(vn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback. / hardcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Sra^ recommendation including a 41' lakeshore4etback variance for structure to remain at 34'frpm the OHW, hardcover varian^for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and pl^s^ under landscaping movpd in the 6-75' setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75'^back will be !cided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE - PLANNED ^ RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 P.M. Bill Gleason was present representing Brook Park Realty. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Van Zomeren reported that the application was tabled at the last meeting to allow time for the applicant to meet with Staff, City Engineer, and landscape architect consultant from DSU. A revision was provided last week by the applicant. Engineering comments have been received. Van Zomeren did not receive comments from the landscaping consultant. She did speak with a representative of the fire depairtment. The revised plan includes construction of 30 townhomes on 9.93 acre site with access from Livingston Avenue. The units are connected with four per building. The northerly units will be served by a road. The southern units will be served by a driveway. The Mound Fire Department would like to see the 6" water main looped, which will increase the unit cost by $1 .50-S2.00 per square foot, or the units sprinkled. The 22’ road width was recommended by the landscape architect in order to maintain trees. The City Engineer has agreed to that w idth, while noting it does not meet City standards. The issue involved is fire safety versus saving trees. The City Engineer supports the sanitary sewer and water design, which conflicts with the opinion of the fire department. Details will be required for final plan. City Engineer Kellogg recommended Livingston Avenue be extended to the west and sanitary and water main stubs be extended as well. The drainage area map was thought to show high calculations at 20 minute concentration and recommendation is made for a maximum time of concentration of 15 minutes. Pipe grading or sizes may need to be revised. A paved swale or erosion control should be provided downstream from the piping. Details of the pond outlet control and weir should be provided for review. The timber weir may present a future maintenance problem and an alternate outlet structure may be desired. The 19 units served by temporaiy cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum of 10 allowed. Van MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Zomeren noted there is no history in Orono of similar townhouse development and questioned whether this should be maintained or changed. Livingston Avenue design is not built to a 30 mph speed and the radius should be increased to 275 ft. or reduced speed warning signs installed, which Staff recommends. The City Engineer also asks that a typical street section be provided to verify the proposed pavement design. Van Zomeren said the landscape consultant has indicated that the revised plan is an improvement and noted the identification has been provided for the larger stands of trees. The preserv'auon level of trees is at about 50%. Van Zomeren said it was her opinion that the application be tabled to the January meeting in order for review of fire department and engineering recommendations. Since there is a two month span of time, Van Zomeren said a recommendation could be based by the Planning Commission based on the comments received by the City Engineer and landscape consultant. Mr. Gleason said he received a letter dated November 13 from the landscape architect. Van Zomeren reported that she had not received it. A copy was given to Van Zomeren for her immediate review. Gleason said the 6 w'ater line will come to the property line and there had been concern over the amount of water flow. As far as looping the main or sprinkling the units, Gleason said he would do what is required and asked if there was a way that the system could be looped. Gappa said he was unfamiliar with it and would have to review the layout to see if enough water could get to the location. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Lindquist asked for comments from the applicant regarding the road width. Gleason said the fire marshal thought a 20' width was satisfactory' and 22' is proposed. He tliought there was no other option for the dead-end cul-de-sac. Gleason said the ow ’ner of the property to the west is currently not interested in selling. Van Zomeren said the road would not be extended to the end of the property, only the sewer and water improvements would be located there. The driveway would dead-end at the cul-de-sac. Lindquist agreed that whatever occurs with the property to the west does not factor into this application. Hawn asked if the driveway could extend to CoRd 15. Gleason said no. Concern was voiced regarding the inability to turnaround at the dead-end. Lindquist questioned whether a cul-de-sac could be built there. Hawn was informed that the driveways would be two car lengths. No parking would be allowed along the side of the road. Guests would have to park in the driveway of the units or gain permission from other residents to park in their driveways. There were no public comments. Lindquist asked about the time schedule. Gleason said he was beginning to enter a time crunch due to having to redesign the subdivision. He noted that he was uninformed of any problem with the driveway until now. The fire department had not indicated that having to back into a driveway to turnaround would be a problen:. Gleason said it is not a through street, only a private driveway, and access can be gained. Gleason did not believe there was room for a cul-de-sac and additional trees would be lost. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17. 1997 Lindquist noted that three residences are allowed on private driveways for single family residences and in this proposal, there are 11 units. Gleason noted there were no guidelines for townhomes in Orono and as a result, new issues are continually being raised. Stoddard indicated that the Commission was attempting to balance safety with tree preservation. He supported having a turnaround. He did not envision a problem regarding the looped water main or sprinkler system since the applicant was willing to do what is necessary. Gleason suggested the possibility of constructing a hammerhead at the end of the driveway instead of a turnaround. Gappa thought that was feasible noting it has been done elsewhere. Gleason said this would solve the problem of inadequate room for a complete turnaround. Gleason said he would mark the driveway as a private drive. Lindquist asked if there were any problems with the landscape report. Gleason indicated there were no problems as far as he was concerned. He said he is in favor of adding landscaping and reducing the setback for saving trees. He questioned the need for a buffer from the garages facing CoRd 15 as there is a considerable distance separating the two. He said landscaping is beneficial for marketing. Gleason thought the landscape plan could be approved when the final plat is presented. McMillan noted the design for the front doors being in the middle of the units. She asked if this was advantageous for those in the middle units having to walk all around. She asked if this was a question ot providing a common area versus losing privacy. Gleason thought the residents will use their garage entries. Guests may walk around or possibly r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 use the garage entr>- as well. Gleason feels the courtyards will be attractive and be private with the trees surrounding them. Any problem would be more for guests than for the residents. Gleason said there was the possibility of moving the two middle units forward and placing a service door on the side of the garage. Gleason did not believe this was an however, with only four units per building. McMillan said some privacy would beissue, lost by the middle units with walking traffic going back and forth, McMillan asked about snow plowing. Gleason said the shoveling will be provided by the homeowners association. He added that the area would be very wooded and walkways will wind around the treed areas. Gleason thought the courtyards will be used by the residents noting there are patios by the front doors as well. Lindquist noted the issues of the 6" loop or sprinkler, hammerhead, landscaping recommendations, and fire chief report have been reviewed. Van Zomeren said she would like to know what the applicant is required to do regarding the road. Lindquist iiidicated the 22' width and hammerhead would be a sufficient tradeoff for preserving trees and was satisfactory with the fire chief Hawn asked if a 22' width was the ma.ximum that could be provided. Gleason did not know if any wider road could be provided and did not see any reason to expand that width. The length is more of a concern but is solved with the use of a hammerhead. Gappa noted the difference between single family and tovvnhome units and the ordinance applying to single family residences. He thought the shorter length was a trade-off. Van Zomeren said the preliminar plat and PRD Nvill move forward to the Council for their review. Conformity to subdivision regulations will be reviewed. A letter of credit MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 will be necessary or public improvements installed. Lindquist thought a letter of credit would be satisfactory. The next step after Council review will then be final plat. Hawn asked about the center island suggested by the landscape architect. Van Zomeren said the reasoning was to lessen the amount of pavement made by a cul-de-sac. Gleason said he thought the decision was made to eliminate a circle. Van Zomeren said the City Engineer did not favor the circle but the recommendation was made by the architect. Gappa reported that a circle is noi desirable for effective snowplowing. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2308 for preliminary plat. Before final plat review, the water loop or sprinkler system will require verification, plan revised for hammerhead turnaround, inclusion of landscape architect recommendations of November 13 excluding the center island, incorporation of City Engineer's comments, park dedication, and other recommendations listed by Staff. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - 7:39 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that 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 I . %iCITy^^> City of OROIVO 3flr\'>bi 1- fmpm.: l;QRQNQ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL , NO. ^m> ^ DESCRIBING FUTURE STREET LOCATION PLANS IN THE NAVARRE AREA WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota? and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462, the City of Orono has adopted a Comprehensive Community Management Plan and subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, City ordinances and planning policy require dedication of street rights-of-way and construction of streets and utilities as a part of every Sv LaiV'i'''on application wherever such new services ar^ made necessary by such land subdivision or development; and WHEREAS, it is within the scope and intent of compreh^ . planning to look beyond the immediate property undergoing devex pme. to coordinate a rational and economic system of public improveni->ri for an entire area; and WHEREAS, even though it is necessary to plan a system of purJic improvements on a broad basis, it is not always desireable to accurately locate or physically design said improvements until such time as an actual plan for development is submitted for the affected property; and VIHEREAS, extensive traffic studies were undertaken as a part of the recent review of Schlee Builder's, Inc. subdivision applications S585 and f^671, from which the City Council has identified a need to plan for future public streets and utilities to serve both the Schlee property and the adjacent tracts of land west of the Schlee property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby makes the following findings of fact and intent as regar s the overall planning of future streets and utilities v/ithin the Schlee subdivision, and on the properties adjacent thereto: 1) The area of the City involved in this plan is all that land south of Northern Avenue and the Burlington Northern Railroad, west of Blaine Avenue, north of Shoreline Drive (County Road 15), and east of the east line of the Hennepin County Shops (east of the SWJ^ of the SV.’’^ of Section 17). Page 1 of 8 ^Wii^r City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412_ _ _ _ J«*^woperty included in the above area is; Owner Tax Parcel Existinq Development a)Martha Batdorf 17-117-23 34 0004 1 residence b)Mary Sohns 17-117-23 34 0003 1 residence ^c)Tonka Corp.17-117-23 34 0005 none II II 0006 II II 0007 tl II 0008 II II 0009 d)Schlee Builders 17-117-23 34 0010 none e)Robert Harding 17-117-23 34 0012 • office building f)City of Orono 17-117-23 34 0011 water plant The above property, exclusive of the last two already of which is zoned LR-lC-1, 3 units per acre with approval of a Planned Residential Unit Conditional Use Permit. 4) Assuming potential development at maximum zoned density, there cculd be up to 70 residential units built in the area where there now exists only 2. 5) The Schlee property is currently undergoing subdivision review for 24 units, leavxng up to 44 future units possible on the remaining land. 6) There is no point within the proposed Schlee Builders plat where a good intersection onto County. Road 15 can be developed. The best available locati'^n has less desireable sight distance characteristics than does the Blaine Avenue intersection according to Hennepin County Department of Transportation and City staff reports. 7) There is no point at all within the Tonka Corp. property where any direct access can be made onto County Road 15 because of the extensive wetlands/floodplain area dividing Tonka’s dry buildable land from the County Road. Page 2 of 8 \ent W m RONC City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 8) The Batdorf and Sohns properties each have an existing driveway onto Cou^'ty Road 15. The Sohns driveway location has bette. sight distance to the west than the Batdorf driveway because of a rise in the profile of County Road 15 to the west. 9) Sight distances and intersection characteristics at the existing Sohns driveway location are excellent, and are the best of any location along County Road 15 anywhere between Dunwoody Avenue and Coun :y Road 19. 10) The Burlington Northern Railroad Track forms a barrier along the north side of all this property eliminating any individual driveway connections, and severely restricting the potential for any future public street connection to Northern Avenue. 11) One potential street crossing of the railroad has been located at a point where there is no vertical grade separation and where there is good sight distance along both the railroad track and Northern Avenue. This location would have better sight distance and highway traffic pattern characteristics than does the existing Northern Avenue/Blaine Avenue railroad crossing location. 12) Possible street connection locations along Blaine Avenue are practically limited to continuation and extension of existing Livingston and Lyric Avenues. 13) The existing Navarre Heights neighborhood east of Blaine Avenue has existing traffic problems caused by: a) Narrow streets, especially Blaine Avenue and Navarre Aveune. b) Poor intersections, especially Blaine at Crystal Place, Crystal Place at Shadywood, Lyric at Navarre Avenue and Blaine at County Road 15. c) Excessive through traffic on Northern Avanue and Crystal Place, especially during plant shift changes in Spring Park. d) Heavy traffic flows and too many unplanned or marginal intersections and curb cuts on County Road 15. Page 3 of 8 pillitssi ?vV^ I City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _1412 14) Navarre Heights and Northern Avenue residents are justly concerned about increased traffic in and through their neighborhood. The intent of the City Council is to accommodate any new traffic flow from this large study area in the safest manner possible, with the least adverse effect on the immediate neighborhood, and on the public generally. 15) The Council is concerned with maintaining and improving the safety and traffic handling ability of County Road 15. Increasing the number of curb cuts increases traffic conflicts and decreases safety. Eliminating poorly designed or located curb cuts improves safety and reduces the need for major changes in roadway design. 16) The traffic studies forecast about 70-80% of the new trips generated by future development within the study area would eventually travel east of Navarre on County Road 15. The studies recommended three routes for this traffic: a) Use of a widened and improved Blaine Avenue, including an improved intersection of Blaine Avenue and County Road 15. The long range plan would be to install traffic signals at this intersection because it also serves opposing Casco Point Road. b) Use of the existing signalized intersection at County Road 19 and 15. The best route from the study area to this intersection is via Livingston Avenue because Livingston is wider than Crystal Place or Lyric, because Livingston has the best intersection with County Road 19, and because Lyric and Crystal Place each have poor intersections within the existing neighborhood. c) Continuation of a new street through the study area to a new intersection with County Road 15 located in the approximate area of the existing Mary Sohns driveway because of the superior intersection characteristics of this location. Page 4 of 8 mmmmmm City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO_ _ _1412 17) In addition to the above traffic routes, an alternative connection to Northern Avenue has been studied as a traffic dispersing devise for both eastbound and westbound traffic, and as a possible safety improvement/replacement for the existing Northern Avenue/Blaine Avenue railroad crossing. 18) Any future development within the study area will increase the traffic volume on County Road 15 and on any other connecting street. But since any development will be residential, any new traffic will be residential in character and thus compatible with traffic expected within a residential neighborhood. AND BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that the Citv Council of the City of Orono hereby adopts the future street plan described below and as indicated on attached Exhibit A as the plan to be implemented at the time the Schlee, Tonka, Sohns and/or Batdorf property should be subdivided or developed in the future: A. It is the intent of the Council to provide for safe, adequate streets sufficient to handle all traffic that may be generated by future development in the study area, including a street layout which will provide multiple accesses to the area; which will maximize use of an improved Blaine Avenue/County Road 15 intersection; which will minimize adverse traffic floy through existing neighborhoods; and which will minimize the number of intersections and conflicting traffic movements on County Road 15. B. It is the intent of the Council to limit direct intersections or curb cuts onto County Road 15 to only the one proposed public street intersection and no individual curb cuts between the western edge of the Batdorf property and Blaine Avenue. C. It is the intent of the Council that all vehicular access to the properties or development within the study area will be only from the proposed internal streets and will not be allowed to have any direct access or curb cut to County Road 15. This shall not preclude the design of additional internal streets or driveways intersecting solely with the proposed streets as shown on Exhibit A. page 5 of 8 i City of OROIVO K<\ ' ?-y -■-• llQRpNO); RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 # E. I It is the intent of the Council that Livingston Avenue will be extended from the existing Livingston/Blaine Avenue intersection through the Schlee, Tonha and Sohns properties to a proposed intersection with County Road 15 to be located at the approximate site of the existing Sohns driveway. It is the intent of the Council that Lyric Avenue will be extended from the existing Lyric/Elaine Avenue intersection to an internal intersection with extended Livingston Avenue. F. It is the intent of the Council that Blaine Avenue must be widened and improved between Crystal Place and Shoreline Drive before any new development is allowed on the Schlee or Tonka properties. G. It is the intent of the Council to pursue the eventual installation of a traffic signal at the Blaine Avenue/ Casco Point Road/County Road 15 intersection. As determined in review of the Schlee Builders, Inc. proposed development, it is the intent of the Council that the improvement of Blaine Avenue and that portion of extended Livingston and Lyric Avenues located within the Schlee property must be dedicated and constructed in order to accommodate the traffic generated by that development, but that continuation of Livingston Avenue west of the Schlee property is not immediately necessary to accommodate said traffic. Although final alignment and internal design details may vary, it is the intent of the Council that future development of the Tonka property will require dedication and construction of proposed Livingston Avenue all the way through from the Schlee property to the proposed County Road 15 intersection in order to accommodate the incremental traffic increase from such development, whether or not the Sohns property is developed at that time. It is also the intent of the Council to make a final determination about the potential Northern Avenue railroad crossing at this same time. Page 6 of 8 1 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1412 It is the intent of the City Council that any future development of the Sohns property will include dedication and construction cf that portion of extended Livingston Avenue within said property, unless it shall already have been completed as a part of prior development of the Tonka property. It is also the intent of the City Council that any future development of the Sohns property shall plan for and allow internal access between extended Livingston Avenue and the adjacent Batdorf property. K. It is the intent of the City Council that any future development of the Batdorf property should be designed to provide access solely via the proposed extension of Livingston Avenue. If the Batdorf property is developed prior to the Sohns property and/or prior to completion of extended Livingston Avenue, then a limited, temporary access may be allowed directly to County Road 15, provided this access is closed as soon as internal access to extended Livingston Avenue becomes available. L. It is the intent of the Council that these proposed street plans will be self-sufficient within themselves and will not require or prematurely cause widening, repaving, channalization nor any other change to any existing street except for the specified improvements to Blaine Avenue. M. These future street plans are in conformance with the transportation chapter of Orono's Comprehensive Community Management Plan. This resolution may be used in the future to initiate an Official Map pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.359. Adopted by the Orono City Council this 13_ _ September_ _ _, 1982 by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 day of nays ATTEST: Alberta M. Strom, City Clerk page 7 of 8 >a\)-TLS •»# - %I • ‘oQ.u*I w • • s . ^ "S.o\■ 1 /EXHIBIT Resol. tf .412 September 13, 1982^qt:^•\(■Potential RR Crossing ?coP°:oUd t.o^ Avenue nortWer PROPOSED STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY y J Alignment V Known• ♦ •. Future } T Alignment V ' V*. _:v >7 , May Vary LIVINGSTC i vr 14* • •■» ij # ^ • f,. : II • IC 9 a iftt) f«) '♦») I i • ^ . • * •'IS 14 15 IC 17 ' 18 10.; 20 21 22 .... v^v.! 1(0'.,.; i * •'*: NORTH ! iV") ' /v>J > Vii / Mil No Direct Access Permitted 12 • II • lO . 9 8 Til.' 5 ., 4 . 3 . 9 ! 6 ',0»: /' ; . ; I . 16 . 17 I® 19 r. . *. :-.*MJ4 i^^u. nJq4u. jp;>K"v H •'shoreline Boulev-ard -•». • 4t« Permanent Direct Access Not Desired ' Acceptable Public Intersection Location \ 1 '"ofS r.oi r» ’ friLto .« : •• ••ty' g k a» «f° c \ ,\ % \ \-----uj“3 ? I V ^ 7\ l\\ Nov-17-97 01:32P VIes't.wood Bu'T'Fal 612 682 2639 P . 02 DAIll (iRLN SI lAKDl .OW AND lilUK DSCfVfe . 8>eC0HMEMDftT\0Kj ittcoaToIXriS CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 33401 012 339 3300 PHONE 612337 S0OI FAX DATE: TO: 13 Novombor 1997 Elizabeth Van Zomeran Planning and Zoning Adnniniatfator City of Orono FROM:Wallace L. Casa, ASIA Landscape Architect/Planner RE:Review of Revised Plans Class HI Preliminary Subdivision and Planned Residential Development Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive Application #2308 As we discussed during our meeting with Bill Gleason and Fran Hagen and on Friday, November 7, I have reviewed the revised plens and have the following comments. My comments are directed primarily toward site planning, environmental and aesthetic issues, and they do not address compliance with the zonirtg ordinance. The proposed plans for the development were revised in response to the concerns expressed by the planning commission and city staff/consultants. Woodland Impacts! The proposed layout and grading were revised to reduce the impact on the wooded portions of the site by reducing the numbers of large oak, maple and basswood trees that would be lost, and by preserving more of the central woodlands. The revised plans include realigning the proposed public road, realigning the internal walkways, adjusting building locations and reducing the front yard setback to 15 feet. Development of e heavily wooded site such as this will always result in the loss of large trees and significant amounts of woods. However, the combined effect of the proposed changes has done much to reduce this loss. The following proposed Ros HT Fsh Nets 7671 \ l/l^^ cc/a^eny efiefJo c«. p^v) -2.5*07 1 O:>J0SS\1 •09.AM 1 »7MTKA.H0M Noy-17'-97 01 : 33P Wos'twood Bu'f"Pa 1 11/13/97 19:Z4 Joi Mww«612 6S2 2639 changes will result in the preservation of approximately 25 large oak, maple and basswood trees, and additional parts of the higher quality central woods. 1 . The proposed road alignment shifts the clearing limits toward the north and northwest, away from the west central uplands. This results in preserving at least five very large oak trees, and saving more trees in the high quality woods in the central area. 2. Reducing the front yard setback lessens the amount of driveway paving and the associated visual impact, and results in increased open space and woods preservation at the rear of the units. 3. The side yard between the units on blocks 3 and 4 was increased to 69 feet. This Increased separation will preserve approximetely 8 large basswood and oak trees. The wooded buffer at the ground level and the high canopy of these large trees will help reduce the apparent scale of the buildings and will visually separata the units when viewed from County Road 16. 4. Preserving as many of tha largar specimen trees and as much high quality woods as possible will reinforce the wooded character and visual appeal of tha development and surrounding area. 5. In tha event that the project is approved, it is imperative that all trees and wooded areas to be preserved must be protected by fencing at the drip line prior to beginning construction. In addition, good construction management and arborist practices must be observed to minimize the potential for tha infection and spread of oak wilt, in addition, there must be appropriate recourse for correcting damages, in the event that these practices are not adequately observed. StormyArngnity Pend ? According to the project design engineer, shifting tha pond to the south and reconfiguring it to accommodate a trail connection is not foasible because of the space and flood plain constraints imposed by the site. A pond at tha proposed location or anywhere in tha southern part of the site, will be visually prominent when viewed from County Road 15. For this reason the pond should be configured and constructed to serve as a visually attractive natural feature. The perimeter of the pond should be treated ss a natural edge and planted with appropriate native grasses and groups of deciduous trees and shrub masses. P-03 -2- Nov-17-97 01 :33P Westwood Buf^f^al I V «#«» •612 682 2639 Cijl-Dft-Sac: The City should consider requiring a landscaped island within the proposed cui*de< sac. The cul-de-sac would easily accommodate a 35 to 40 feet diameter island. An island could be constructed with a 3-feet high sodded crown section and landscaped with three deciduous canopy trees. Such an island would reduce the actual and visually apparent amount of paving, and as the plants mature it would serve as an open space focus at the end of the curve. Snow removal would not be significantly impaired by the island. Gradlnp and Walls: The developer has refined the plan to reduce the grading and has shown two retaining walls at the eastern project entrarwe at Livingston Avenue. These walls appear to be approximately 6 feet in height. The developer should continue his efforts to minimize the grading impacts on the site. Low, curved retaining walls should be used where needed to lessen grading impacts and to preserve natural features. Retaining walla must be constructed of a permanent material that will blend with the natural setting. Timber walls are not acceptable. Battered walls constructed of boulders or stone walls would be preferred. Wfllkfi and Trnilar The developer has refined the layout of the internal walks to reduce impacting the woods. If the project advances, the developer should continue to refine the walk layout to bland with the natural features of the site and to avoid damaging quality woods. In addition, the developer should provide two to three paved trail connections between the block 2 and 3, and block 2 and 4 walks. These walks/trails would allow access between neighbors living on opposite sides of the central woods. These trails should follow existing trail alignments to avoid impacting the woods. The developer should also look at providing a trail connection to County Road 15. If it is not feasible to connect along the western side of the site, a trail linkage along the eastern side should be evaluated. Lightii This project involves placing the front entry on the side that is typically the rear of the unit. It also relies heavily on the interior walk system serving that side of the building. This walk system and the interior soace could become a very park like woodland setting. However, a sensitively designed walk light end street light system needs to be incorporated into the project for safety, security, and aesthetic -J. P.0.4 Nov-17-97^ 01:33P Wes^^wopd 1 612 682 2639 P . 05 reasons.I 7^® «»®veloper needs to provide a lighting plan that identifies the tvoe ‘oc^jon of street lights and walk lighting. All lighting should be desiqned to reduce or eliminate both internal and off site glare. resigned Mailboxes and Entry Sions/Monumant^* The devdoper needs to submit plans for entry signs/monuments and for the mailbox treatment and locations for review and approval prior to construction. LanHg/»apa Plan; The^to^ has revised the landscape plan by increasing the number of deci^ous and evergreen trees. The revised plan adds approximatalv 1 B r^wSus^Mtort ® Considering the large amount of nee '"Wmal at best. a^ y*“ 'S '"se amount of woodeda prMervMa and the relatively small amount of disturbed land that will >irtii«iiw wnditiins.* P'»" -"‘V be acceptable with the tollow mg 1 . ^proval of tha landscape plan should be subject to review and adiuatmon* ,f* «e.!::i't*Sc?^r H-bercoZe1.^~^^^^^ 21/2 mch feet h^ght. ««es 1 1/2 inch cehper. evergreen trees 6 to B «ohe ten S f “‘'"i" *'’• ®» «he Pond to:x.r.X'rr *“ -4- Nov-17;97 01;33P Westwood Buffal 612 682 2639 P. 06 7. If tho rMommendsd island is added in the cul-da*sac, it should be crowned and landscaped with deciduous overstory trees and sod. Junk. Trash. Haiardous 1 . Any junk, debris, or hazardous materials found on site shall be properly identified, documented, handled, removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable rules, guidelines and laws. Declaration of Raatrictive Covananta; 1 . The developer is to submit a copy of the a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for review artd approval. The approved covenants will become part of the PUD. These covenama are to provide adequate aesthetic and operational constraints for the development, including restricting removal of additional trees or woods, prohibiting outdoor and recreational vehicle storage, end limiting the number and size of vehicles parked on the drives on an ongoing basis. Architectural Review? 1. The developer is to submit the palette of materials and colors for siding, trim, and roofing to the City for review and approval. If you have questions regarding these comments, or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at 339*3300. DAHLGREN, SHAROLOW, AND UBAN, INC. Wallace L. Case, ASLA Landscape Architect/Planner -J !| ! I ! i 1 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects Boncitroo. Rosene Anderhk snd Associates, fnc. is «*n Affirmative Action Equ*^i Opportunity Employer Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderiik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala, PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schumchi PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rcsene. PE and Susan M Eberlm. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keah A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I .A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE. R S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee. Wl August 5,1997 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Brook Park Realty File No. 139-2263 Dear Mike, Our previous letter of July 16 did not mention the fact that a portion of the wetland area on site is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, designated at basin 27-914W. DNR wetlands are regulated at the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The OIWL is an elevation determined in the field by the location of certain wetland features. It is likely that additional wetland areas exist around the fringe of the OHWL, at higher elevations. These wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Corps of Engineers. The DNR does not allow the impact of wetland areas under their jurisdiction for development purposes. If the development proceeds, the DNR should be asked to determine the OHWL of the wetland. The proposed roadway will need to be realigned if any portion encroaches below the OHWL. In addition, a formal wetland delineation should be conducted on the property to determine the extent of the WCA wetlands. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK, & ASSOCIATES, INC Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Cc: Mr. Greg Gappa, City of Orono Hennepin County ^ An Equal Op^rlimiljEmplojer Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 October 15,1997 BECEWeO Re: Proposed Plat - Lake Minnetonka Woods CSAH 15 Section 17, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2431 Review and Recommendations 0C1 21 W91 C\'V'<O.' Or.Oi'^O Dear Ms. Van Zomeren: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Sur\ eys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: * The developer should^edicate an additional seven feet of right of way along CSAH 15 for a total of 40 bikeway plan and/or any future roadway snow storage, signage or other appropnate public 1 diiLiuiu ail auuiiiuuai v. _ _ feet from centerline. Based upon Hennepin County’s bikeway plan and/or any future roadway improvements, this action will accommodate utilities, sr ‘ uses. (See attached typical section) The proposal indicates no access to CSAH 15 and none can be permitted. • Thanks for the timely submittal on this proposal. We at Hennepin County appreciate being included early in these activities to be sure all issues are appropriately addressed. All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning consuuction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. f Jk1vun\<~ Thom^ D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc: PeteTulkki Dave Swenson Department of Pul>Hc Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 55343-S496 (612)930-2300 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(6l2)930-2696 Secyded Piper 2 LANE SUBURBAN right -of-way |BW)MSSgSPiwS"™*$KED;3S - <0 MPH COMPATABli ROADWAY HOn:f A nmJK WA« URBAN ROADWAY B AMnWAnaWBMI Of WAY tlOBUSmM IMOUIO il BAStO ON UBBAN MANI TVfRAl SfCnONl toot Of ORMWO lANC RW FUUaccommodation I .l.f a.s: lAL JANUARY I99B REViSH); JANUARY 1997 I 8 12 I FIGURE B.I ^ I Bcnestroo. ,7oscne AnJcrtik t^nj AiSOOMei Inc n Affirm^itive AcTion Equ^I Opportunity Ernployer Prmcip^li Otto G tJcnestroo PE • Joseph C Anpemk. P£ • M^irvin L SorvHk^ PE • PichiUd E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook PE • Robert G Schunfcht PE • Jerry A Bourdon PE • Robert W Rosene PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA . Senior CorisuUants Associe*re Prmcip.^li Howard A Sanford PE • Kedh A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferie PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota PE • Robert C Russek. A l A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rauimann. PE • Ted K Field, P£ • Kenneth P Anderson PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul Rochester Willmar and St Ooud VtN • Vi; .saukee. Wl ' ■■ Vwl.'*- Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects November 13,1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomcrcn City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Lake Minnetonka Woods File No. 139-2308 Dear Liz, We have reviewed the revised preliminary construction plans for the proposed Lake Minnetonka Woods planned residential development consisting of 30 townhomes. The site is located on Lots 2 and 3 and the west 6.29 feet of Lot 4, Block 9, Townsite of Langdon, along the north side of CSAH 15. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1 Utilities: The sanitary sewer and water main designs appear acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Details should be provided with the final plan set Our expectation is that Livingston Avenue will be extended westerly sometime in the future. We would recommend extending the sanitary and water main stubs to the west property line as part of this project. Service locations should be shown on the final plans with sanitary services located 3 feet downstream from water services. 2. Drainage: The drainage area map should include the boundary for flows to the northerly wetland and CB 55 to verify that the proposed 12-inch RCP under Livingston Avenue is adequate. The 20 minute time of concentration used for some of the calculations seems high for this site. We would recommend revising the storm sewer and ponding calculations for developed conditions using a maximum time of concentration of 15 minutes. Pipe grades and / or pipe sizes between CB52 and STMH 5 1 may need to be revised. A paved swale or some type of erosion control measure should be piovided at the downstream end of the 8-inch HDPE pipe. Details of the pond outlet control structure and bat tled weir should be provided for review. The timber weir may be a future maintenance problem. The City may want to consider an alternative outlet structure design without the weir where skimming is provided by a submerged inlet pipe to the structure. 3. Streets: The 19 units being served by the temporary cul-de-sac on Livingston Avenue exceeds the maximum of 10 units allowed by City standards. The horizontal alignment proposed for Livingston Avenue does not meet the City standard for 30 mph design. The radii should be increased to 275 feet or reduced speed warning signs installed. All proposed vertical curves do meet the 30 mph design standard. We would recommend that Livingston Avenue be constructed to the westerly lot line as part of this project. The proposed driveway to serve the 11 units on Blocks 3 and 4 docs not meet any of the City design standards for private streets relative to right-of-way width, minimum paved width or maximum number of units on a cul-de-sac. Emergency vehicle access to those units on Blocks 3 and 4 will be a problem and tlie City should review the plans with the appropriate emergency officials. Typical street sections should be provided for Livingston Avenue and the private drive. A geotechnical analysis and R-valuc recommendation should be submitted to verify the proposed pavement design. Please contact me at 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK, & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 11/20/97 17:23 FA\ 012 723 3327 K'NS tNCIMlKINC Qool 0[ November 20, 1997 To: LizVanSomeren From: Park Commissioner, Andrew McDermott III RE: Navarre townhouse development As I stated to you, at the last meeting, I feel the elevations of the townhouses and the relationship of the garage to the front door could be greatly improved, i found two typical elevations in one of my architectural magazines. If Navarre’s townhouses resemble either of these it would vastly improve them. I have also inclosed one that I feel Navarres will look like if they construct them as proposed. The City has an obligation to its citizens to assure that the appearance and function of the townhouses conform with the image Orono has developed. The builder only has to unload them, but the City has to deal with them for the next fifty years. r 11 97 17;:i3 FA\ 72T> 3327Busiivtss KWS ENCINKKKINC122On a Mission fi om page 1 20 Qool' Sfir:wn--'Fv./.:.: . mmmm ^rz ^' :3 & ' ■]• inI. ii¥(iHq^ 4r T1i€ lais^ Httnteiyrood Vilag^ havt (oiff bedrooms and two and a had baths. Hunterwood Village Huibton 1 ‘I3 singU-family homes Size: 1,121 to 2.10S siju.irc feet Price;S6^.90nioSvS,WU Affordability component: Qiulifial house buyers receive tmaiuing .rssiswnce through the Homes Fur Houston prujiraiii. Builder. Simon Homes r4«» I IIA ^ .*1 |7 « I' * T Sit. •Mui Simon Homes acnuireJ I hmtei- wood Village to purtieipste in Homes for Houston. Hunterwood Vill;igc wun outside the city liMil's iind faced such 'j „ ' l henvy taxes to build iiid supply inumei- g pal services tliat dcvclopiiicni l» ul i * come to a halt Simon I lomes bought the laiul Milijcct to .uiiHN.Uion by tire city of I bniNlou, and wbeu the bud ssas .mnexed in J.im.avy 1W7, Simon I lomes st.irtcil luiildiiu;. The one- and iwo-story bouses feature three or four bedrooms, txvo or two and a half liaihs, .uui two-ear aUached gar.igcs. The houses la.ivc brick and I lardiplank exteriors. Through tire middle of the summer. Simon had sold 1" hou.scs .uid ex|M-«s to sell out the projett by the end ot 1998. Homes for l louston proxidcs Cjuali- ficd buyers xviilr closing assistance. Buyers xx'iih an income ot or less of the median income receive $9,500 as an interest-fice, soft second mortgage; ifdiey stay in lire house for live ye.ars, the mortgage is bargiven. Buyers with 80% to 100% of the meilian income receive Sx.OOO. Adtlituanally. Homes for Houston provides counseling and education lor these buyers, many of whom arc the first homeowners in tlieir families. ► See page ! Fuse Floor nr nr "Tiili 2 uf building or % / rrnuvnting 25,000 attord- V V able houses b) 2000, Homes lor HoiJafon has been a |>riucrful force in ihc area since ils mcepiion in Feb­ ruary Several duicn builders par- licipaie in the program, which provides closing assistance of up to Sy,5U0 lor «]ualiheJ buyers in new lu^mc develop ­ ments within till* city of I louston. s NOVEMBER 1997 BUIIOKB ■ ■— ..r.f*; r.f,•»,v. 11 20 97 17:24 l\\ 01 2 727. .):>2T 1-MS lAClM l KlNC GT’oo.i Stone Facec A i (^li.rk• in the VWioik, /-\ Altici i 1 lomcs ofkTs X ^ ;i (k'grco ot liixuiy unliLMnl of in the B.iltimorc .irenV entrv-levcl tounhoiisc tiKirkct: Slone cxtcnois tnul ;i v.iriety of euvtomi/eil options. ineUuling Roor j)I.in ch.tnges. Alticn's I.SOO- to 2,400-Mnr.ire- loot lownhouscs Ic.nurc six clc- v.Uions, ;ill with stone .icccnts. l ur .111 iklditional S4.000. buy ­ ers can got a full stone front. The cukurcfl stone veneer installs in three d.ivs, savs• • .‘Mtien’s Scott Ailashek, and Comes in dillereiu cokirs, pai- terns, anil stx les. “Wo saw this project as an opporiuniiy lor us to serve a niche market of professional It ''••-4 4'm : ■' J —- i.•'J hi I j ^----«| • At Castle in the Woods near Baltimore, Aitieri Homes' stone facades stand out ill a saturat ­ ed townhouse market Sales are averaging three a month. *ir,sl-iiine Inivers who uaiU greater choices.” says Aikishek. An in-house design center .illows huyers lo customize their louiihouscs uith proiluct upgi.idcs and lloor plan clianges. Proicct arelntect Ronald.)ohnsti>n modifies plans li»r huyers, as long as pi o[)osed changes mcci code rei|uire- mcnls. Rian changes such as moving walls, adding custoin cabinets, and reconfiguring the bcdnxmis can he made within 48 hours. In .uklition, huvers 0 may select options such as carliedr:il ceilings, lu.xuiy baths, ski lights, and wooii-hurning fireplaces. I’riees range iVuni S14'>.V'M) to the Sl‘^()s, dimend- mg on the options selected. 1 laril costs are .S4’^ a square foot. )VEAABER 1997 BUILDER BUILDER NOVEMBER 199 7 •hrfri.:-; ,«-r.:r:U¥ -: ii ■ f ■'* . M • *•» “• * ' '■ ______mm sssav'J nr^ H 0*/.*«i: jS- % II M#. , |»* r V*i U-/A .. J I Ii I •• 1- -^ . ^ Sccolul I lour y c» X)a <% CL o'S g ^ ^ 09 p.. 2..° 9 g a 09 7 3 t-j "0 (OO 3 I 3 <* 5‘2. ro^g o » o>?2.* w Wo§ OiE;3•lasra -Sww o (D 09 3o "0 o 3 o O 3 ® s• • o CD 00 n ^ 4^ hJ 4^ I 00 Oi rvj (Ji '5 S’ T) g. CD O n = -^§ -^o5'Q 2 o 55 ^CO U1 I (%a sI 2. 5- O cO a* oi 4^ 04 & O o 3 O 0) (D K) ■-? . »; ^ 'vi §! I! 1 V s S + O na C0"D 05 3 (Q CO bfnoT>» ?• ^ iC I > m ^ )• O -PiS $ iiar.C^^CD 2 '"8* !“( "At •fO o > § m INfi hia-« Ih f! i; !! I§i|S3 s > om 3 HJBL •8 4 a fjiiSr??o> o Hi f5> Ip?P !?l Xmo nj . ' zp c|! It* ■xj •Sj o»1^ll /_ I - I iS • 2" / •liDi ■ f I 1 \ •! •' / i / I i; / * y,./y ^'.yj / ..y ■'-->44 //fe' Ji I -------L,—IT------------------- '> \ Hi y' ^ .\V. - \ W ‘ • 1 •>s. . . W > ■ \'‘ ^; \ ■•'-r''--. (|iP- •'!• ' ’ '' \ 5 rn 5 ■• f-■ -V ':1,-'.' -------v >3/§5§ / J0^ fx /'/ / , , » r ■» / ' * '^,- \ -- ‘ N^®16*06"E , \ I <*. (> i\ * i» » -. t « I 1 • XI * r J / f •> ' •' '^t- » -\\ f i^---y--------- / hy/ f:i^-ycy A f --w.-..\ / \'yi y ~ r- \ \,/"' /- \W;\ II ^ / J y^' / ' y!' . ^ *o •iL / y A o .: rn w V- / >/'■, ,yA- "f»■"■'" ~ y/i- Zy M y\. Z \ p v-iR- '^j. 'X\ V-- \7' '-3 h } %\\ / I !:'..'k ^ A __V n i/>r^ i 5 o I • » *•i i tj r j - o •" UB \i\v *"''^vv>rv' \ **’•.. "' y /m u ^ (lr4 /y '' i •■' ^ m I ’ : ■-:^ ir-“~ :-'i-.-.. m e !M \ X ri,^‘Ml (. \ \ Mr i yi try Vr ^ /‘hi % ‘ \ \- M ^ \ \ ! i'AZ? / X ii' \ / 7ZMM •.LI.'-1 —" H m ^ zy ^ ■ -y V LYR ■ u o iC> Ui mo» «>» O ♦• O'♦ t. -.1 01^ WVI 2(jf u) pyx- 20i/y-u>‘ H* tr=*,. L / 3 M- \f 11^: \ 5 D rn Jn.x x2> »0 S I _ n I ri •j3 XO It^ liX .J» U« tj4 >4o a - -* %)ri 2 2 ? * o ^ -i > UJ tu< < < #» ^ INI *I14) «o u) i.n 1.4 0« Cr««o u> vO < > § § iw § e / \ \ , \ \ \ , -i' • I r> ( \.y i’>* •-l?iS 'f* e S / / / \ -r. X \ iv ■(■ . . - '•\ \\ ■ ■.NO0®16‘O6*E . ' • i A * <>f • T •» I $ V• h-U 75! 76* 1 ^^700 400 or V \N -:rv i«ii995. /^\ / a\ \ \\ iM ./\ X * s. m m> awa \ So / 5:<d| ///I ' u; :■ fl , > \i \ A y / ^ u % ■ N. la V./ / %;' .' ' /V 4 •.' / / < 8-* 3!^„ jSOKirg tJ_o’ ' .' / ' ^7 /■‘ yUjY'' i^! X X lixx -IJ^liiM■• - I- -• > i i / \ iS 59610 t9' X 3.0r.C2ttiOS “ 8 l?flO SF 2^- >4 04 V Jiao SF ® a»64 55-1920 SF 55 I N00®18^26*C •4 . »9 N5 ^1962 SF w 3 1280 SF N00®16*26"E >i lo 64^ 1920 SF r u) S. i 5^2 ® O 1 o 04 • -64IM <soo*i«rw I / 64 I -64 ^jj M 1920 SF ROW •x. \ \ ( \ y//1, < \ \\ r »C^\r 70\> I ,'NOO®J^*2rE ' ,4 \ ’ !i ‘ " .--— J-‘-'^'.> \ 'I 'i'.X- --T -»:r-'X x -::^—•1 SS7.«S \ V \ .X V \ , S00°t6’26'W \ \ \ ) ' ' X ..( X- \. f\ r (.Q31ri---:r..--;^ fiA 1 » • rX r • \ / « 1 » / ^ r 1 1 y ' 1 ••>A 1^'> » • • I t • •*• ;C'"^ / / /'( ( 'V i%\ ii> >->!t>, ^IioV * i^MS \ \. / \ \r r ■»• AVE.L y / X CD GO CD < rn 4^ "id% MIN.i U< ‘‘ 3J c;» :o f’.o'^ocrg"g^t»l -^fTl ■o30 C jy> M —< o p82^o II-c 5 ???» rm 5 I 55°*Z 9 U) ml o i/^ ,-H N) moy* </> —< o> ir- :o r O VJ rn.SeSsla^-g as*-5pi ?°s° -SS 5 r- CD§SB in' f> dgK! > ™ o > OJ > > xcoor SRoa°°a^-p§a,>a siSf^g > U) > s 5S?C52 “ S oooco§gg- 8S3>Si'*^ §gl==|gS ^>“■0 ^Si m ^ y n z zqO'ooo ^ IDfO ^ *wo m o z c O n Om -I O > O r“ ;;o C k O'" J r»i >4 Vj vj I I I I I N “* ll ll III li 'vj -vl 'vl >4 "vl -Q I I I I t m K) K> K) KJ ro ;o 04 04 Ol Ul I I I i I c 04 04 04 Zrrrrrooooo88888 CD 00 >4 0> LT> » o Ki Ki 33 so8§g3aal3 $ KMrsJ ^ 00 * cj N o> ^ — I n 4 j rS 04ID ^ 04 00 04 SS8t55a ;;: ^ — LH O ^ m ID 00 tn ^mcD*n Xp^- > O} <}l P>nS Oi>4<7» tp o a 9>b?* -*(/> —t/UD H-P> «o • ko •NO•>J> CO > O > P^P H-^M- ’i‘!C5 ii* i?i 6 te' -f mf i ■4•« r /-/' /! r ''!n\ 'Vv >*f c I •'/ / / > / f / m \ / • \ ( i •7; \ 1/.7/ '■ .1 iis" ” ■«• ■ s -K V Si'?'-'ip •• ...................... 7 ■./,-•/ S '" / .'. 7 7 "" ■ I J; -V-. r, ■ • • • ,/ / 'I — i' -iX ** b ** ’V^/' -vv ' N ?/' m / \ rs / W-- • .-. , y\ f1;•.^ v *«^„ .1 ( \ 'S k I ; f f ; rJ / io “ I* /'•M At ' A '• TT^V'T^^T^'v ^. ■iiyTtV'^kCN-kv/N: ^ '■■•A ‘ ik \ ii t t' i 1 7- I I tfi Ijp spiiij ^2 o9. ^<.<r.g 71 V •••' ■■■/i|H7 ‘ % xi '. *v ‘) 1 ' b c ■ •5 oC< c tt> *>i y V '■'* \ \ "/ / i ■§“> 5 «:> 1^8 f '■<■f ¥ N. _ b>S 9 ►» 4i^ ) c# - ;«T:, *V^ W t:-.» S i»s I \ \'1 V Jf5v7# ivAi^ /A. ;>/ iif * «o5> \ ^ 2*..>' ■» \ \t ^ f 1 \ \ s7)v-^ >-'■ /<' <15? 81 •; ^ - j>/ ./ .'1" :-T>> l‘. / T»»hV » • <>' / / / '•X." V’ »' /•/ ■ / /:/ ' ‘‘X-* r :<? <0 NJ *—1- ■ 7 i- ^ 5 era ► \r~ ^ ‘f*. * fi IKo \ \ M r . //N - • * to ;* ■^ •-------- --------- K- --------------------------------- 4y*, W» 4*^ c* O' “*f—\ V X ‘.*' '' 1^'c. 'X \ I X \ \ ■’- -■ y \\ / / \ 7 % • -'ir i'S ^_47iia ;- X-v:;~X7S '•3'' ' 4i' !P \ ^r K 5 ♦• ' f I I. .K-Wl /La.Til- "JsfP LK - S|^ ii f s"x&i yo-rv-Y-Xf ^ 5S?5 \ goj.<r— x> 55?:-—. \i \3x4 \ »4' II.-' ^ #■ •* » - j \ -•"' r'-' ' /■ .Y'*,vfx •»*t \ \ 1 /•5 -..( . \\ LYR H --(«■ « K ♦ HI •!< ft*.p t** 0 *> V « • 1 » Y ; 1 'i > '♦ Sx ' ,1 L lliliii §||pi§ ns E s '.fC % C tv c on Uu>:‘<n o ^ *. r1 § \ \ M -. ► n . w / o ^ m 1/1 O m X j* 1/1 2 51:9 I 5 m ^ > a Vi* ?oo o > fn 3 -f II «>a * 2e3 V 1 li O • Q • 0 4 A * d mom u REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION %a Jiff. % DATE; DeSShsJt l. 199?^^ ITEM NO, Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed; Item Description: Agenda Section: Zoning #2314 Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Zoning Code Amendment re: Duplex Credit Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One-Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:43,975 sq. ft. (1.01 acres) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map: Urban Service Area & Urban Residential, 1 acre Application: The applicant is requesting approval to remove the existing legal, non-conforming duplex to construct a new two-family residence. The subject property does not currently qualify for the duplex credit because the lot is not adjacent to a commercial or industrial zoning lot and the proposed structure is not within 200' of a commercial or industrial district. Further, a planned residential development (PRD) is not available because the proposal does not meet the density requirements. Two acres would be required to establish a PRD. Therefore, a zoning code amendment, conditional use permit and variance are required. BACKGROUND: The applicant has a purchase agreement for the subject property. The applicant's intent is to 02314 Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue C. U.P. and Zoning Code amendment 12/08/97 page-] remove the existing duplex and construct a new two-unit townhome. The subject property is zoned LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 1 acre per unit. The subject property is 1.01 acres which meets the minimum lot area requirement for a single family residence. The comprehensive plan designates the subject property as being located in the urban service area where urban residential development should occur at 1 acre density. The area is sewered. The existing structure is considered to a be a legal, non-conforming use. The subject property is not eligible for a duplex credit in accordance with Section 10.20, Subd. 3, (I) Duplex Credit, because it does not comply with the criteria. First, the subject lot shall be adjacent to a commercial or industrial lot. The subject lot is between two zoning lots that are zoned residential. Historically, "adjacent" in Orono for the purposes of zoning interpretation has been interpreted to mean contingent. Therefore, this lot is not adjacent. If a zoning lot meets the first criteria, then the second test that is applied is whether the proposed duplex is located no more than 200’ from the commercial or industrial district. The proposed townhome is located beyond the 200' requirement. The applicant is presented with two problems, his lot is neither adjacent or within 200' of the zoning district. A zoning code text is required to allow the proposed use as a conditional use. A variance cannot be granted for the use. The state law prohibits municipalities from granting variances for uses that are not permitted in the zoning district. Therefore, the duplex credit eligibility area would need to be amended to allow the proposed duplex as a conditional use. A variance would then be needed to allow the proposed duplex to be constructed more than 200 feet from the boundary of an industrial or commercial district. The redevelopment of the subject lot is further constrained by the presence of "Outlot A" along the lakeshore which provides joint docks for the four units to the north. Historical minutes indicate that this outlot was created based on a staffs recommendation to minimize impact on the wetland/lakeshore. The applicant believes that the presence of this outlot makes it difficult to develop the lot as a single family residence. The applicant has been directed by the Planning Commission to work with the townhome owners to determine if the outlot can be eliminated. The Planning Commission discussed this matter and generally supported removal of the existing structure but did not come to a consensus. The motion that was adopted supported granting a conditional use permit for a new townhome and amending the distance requirement to 250' from the B-3 district. Staff has revised the zoning amendment based on Planning Commission's direction. Colored maps are included in this report that explain the areas where the duplex credit is in effect. The amendment would extend the eligibility area another 50' and would include property that is not adjacent. (See Exhibit D, Colored Maps ) The text amendment is shown by a dotted line 250 feet from the B-3 district shown in orange. The subject lot is the only lot impacted by the amendment. 02314 Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue C V.P. and Zoning Code amendment 12/08/97 page-2 Alternatives Analysis 1 . No Change The "no change" alternative is to decide to keep the existing zoning and comprehensive plan land use map designation and the deny the request for a zoning code amendment, conditional use permit and variance. The duplex credit process would remain intact. If this alternative were selected, the existing legal, non-conforming duplex would probably remain. This alternative is not consistent with previous City actions which indicate that a future townhome would be constructed on the site. 2. Single Family Residence The second alternative has always been available to future property owners of the site. It is to remove the existing duplex and construct a single family residence in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan land use map and existing zoning. The duplex credit would remain intact. The subject property meets the minimum density requirement and could meet all hardcover requirements. This alternative has not been selected to date because of the presence of Outlot A which serves the adjacent townhomes. This alternative is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but is not consistent with past discussions regarding a townhome on this site. 3. Planning Commission Recommendation A third alternative was selected by the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote. This alternative amends the zoning code to narrowly apply to the subject lot only by expanding the duplex credit eligibility area by allowing parcels within 250' of a B3 district to become eligible for the duplex credit. A conditional use permit and variance would be needed to invoke the duplex credit and allow the proposed townhome to be farther than 200' from the commercial boundary. This would essentially be a "one-time" text amendment applying only to the subject property. This would appear inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it in effect changes the density from 1 dwelling unit per acre to 2 units per acre through an "overlay district", the duplex credit process. It is consistent with past actions that favored a townhome on this site. 4. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zoning Study The fourth alternative is to table the application until the City conducts a townhome study to determine where townhomes exist, their current density, and determine where future townhomes are most appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan map would possibly need to be amended and the Zoning Code may need to be amended as well. This would require several months and delay the application. i23I4 Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue C. U.P. and Zoning Code amendment 12/08/97 page-3 Planning Commission Recommendation; The Planning Commission recommended on a 3-2 vote to ^rove the application for constmction of a duplex and amend the single zoning lot to include the duplex credit approval for construction within 250 ’ of the B-3 zoning district due to the existing structure's classification as a legal, non- conforming use. A motion to eliminate the duplex credit from the Zoning Code failed. (See Attachment E. 11/17/97 PC meeting draft minutes). CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve the enclosed resolutions for a conditional use permit, variance and zoning code text amendment which would amend the duplex credit eligiblity area and allow construction of a new duplex on the subject property. Attachments: A B C D E Amended Resolution Resolution as Introduced CUP for duplex Colored Maps Draft PC minutes from 11/17/97 Staff report with exhibits to Planning Commission 92314 Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue C.U.P. and Zoning Code amendment 12/08/97 page-4 s ' ra ------!•*'» ri M 1 ' 1(••»LAXI I ?IST -' *• J3I » . • J> I'll 4 1— iiSt » ..V •1 ‘iV'. ' _ Eutjae l»IM&Tet*C -Trt-Ttir ♦?ASX 1 f . { 1 'M a (III 1 tm- t *• -m 3 ------JLS___ r^- 1 Cu<^cr\f ”* AOc>* fior^ - C£>fwy\| 0^ Ini. nv_^-V€c:IZ ar't rx c -M.Ilf 0^(^" k0- ^\i/^ ^ cf (10) Y - l «3) ^ ( 1?) -, \ «s( • •) w :» «» I4S tL, ■». f C 4 t 1' ij) i T—_^?9> '2^3 ---- . ^ ! i.7) : -Cisaji J (3s CuffCrt4- ^CXS <y indus4fial ^od Isk Ci edi- N'avar re ♦- - 9 1" • t i«. I m___ r KELLY COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Fnl 2497 Kelly Avenue Excelsior. MN 55331, USA InlciEr. Telephone (612) 471 -1170 Fax (612) 471-1184 fiEC 4 1397 # A * « Decembers, 1997 Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 55356 Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members: Re: 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue I write on behalf of all the members of this association: Austin H. Evans - 2497 Kelly Avenue Syvia A. Bertagnoli - 2499 Kelly Avenue Todd C. Jones - 2501 & 2503 Kelly Avenue As immediate neighbors to the above property we wish to express our support of the redevelopment proposed by Hoyt Development to demolish the existing building and develop a new two-unit townhome. The existing building is both an eyesore and blight to the area and such a development as proposed would serve to enhance and improve the neighborhood. It is our understanding that the property has been for sale for a number of years and this proposal appears to be an economic solution to the redevelopment of this site. We urge you to grant the application. Yours sincerely, Austin H. Evans President ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES Pl^nivv^ ^>3rvNvAiss i ^ AHachme»^l A AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE BY AMENDING THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE ZONING LOTS WITHIN 250 FEET OF A B-3 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (I), Duplex Credit, is hereby amended to read as follows: One duplex may be located as a conditional use up)on application therefore provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, or WITHIN (250) TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FEET OF THE B- 3 DISTRICT, and the duplex is constructed within 200' (feet) of the commercial or industrial district. Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and become eftective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this ____, 199_by a vote of____ayes and_____nays. day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. P6> I A'fVodu.Gec/ -ft> Planning CoYv^mi'ssion Medr\r<)ei\\- ?> , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE BY DELETING THE DUPLEX CREDIT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN 200 FEET AND ADDING A DUPLEX CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS LOCATED WITHIN 400 FEET OF A B-3, SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (I), Duplex Credit^ is hereby amended to read as follows: Oad€. TV=«ft! New Unglue One duplex may be located as a conditional use upon applicatior ■ therefore provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjf cent to a eommcfeinl or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial'Of industrial district. A duplex is defined-as a two-family unit reaidential building: ONE DUPLEX IS ALLOWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD SERVED BY PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SERVICE IF SAID LOT IS LOCATED WITHIN 400 FT. (FOUR HUNDRED FEET) OF A B-3 SHOPPING CENTER ZONING DISTRICT. Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this ____, 199_by a vote of ____ayes and_____nays. day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor f\Htxchr(\0\^^■ C A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (I) DUPLEX CREDIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, LR-IB, ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FILE NO. 2314 WHEREAS, Hoyt Development (hereinafter the "applicant") is the assignee of the purchase agreement for 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 1, Navarre Cove, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "pioperty"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance from Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (1) to allow construction of a new two-unit townhome. A variance for constructing a duplex more than 200 feet from an industrial or commercial zoning district is required. A conditional use permit for the duplex credit is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2314. The property is located in the LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore District where the minimum lot area requirement is 1 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 1997 and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The subject lot is 1.01 acres. Page 1 of 4 B. The existing structure is a legal, non-conforming duplex. C. The existing structure does not meet the required front setback. D. The proposed stmcture will meet all setback and hardcover requirements. E. The presence of "Outlot A" restricts redevelopment as a single-family residence. F. The subject lot is not adjacent to a commercial or industrial district. G. The subject lot is within 250’ of the B-3 District. H. The proposed building site is approximately 100' from the front property line and within 400' of a commercial district. 4. 5. The C^’mcil fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do n» ply generally to other propcity in this zoning district; that granting the varia. would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a new two-unit townhome will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger lo neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 1. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Oiono City Council hereby grants a variance to increase the required 200' from the commercial or industrial district to allow a new two-unit townhome to be constructed on the subje^'t lot where the proposed townhome is beyond 200 feet per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24 and 10.20, Subdivision 3 (I), to permit the removal of an existing, legal, non-conforming duplex to construct a two-unit townhome that complies with all setback and hardcover requirements, subject to the following conditions: Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (December 8, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the "erms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of December, 1997. ATTEST: 2. 3. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Tabbour, Mayor Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of Decembe- 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corpoi itior and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Citv. Notaiy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. O’, this day of within and for said County, personally appeared 199 , before me a Notary Public known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they)■* cuted 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 4 i ^ > MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 Bressler reviewed the four issues as indicated in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Steinke had no further comments. Mrs. Steinke indicated that the addition would be a bedroom over the dining room. The residence currently has a walk-up attic. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2313 for a side yard setback variance of 17.6' to allow the existing side yard setback of 12.4' to remain where 30' is required. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2314 JOHN BESSESEN, 2505-2507 KELLY AVENUE - ZONING AMENDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7:49-9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported the applicant is requesting a zoning amendment to revise the duplex credit district. If that approval is received, a conditional use permit would be required. As the ordinance is currently written, a conditional use permit would only be possible if the duplex is adjacent to an industrial or commercial zone and built within 200' of that zone. I la,-...--, — r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 Van Zomeren showed the location of the Highway 12 industrial area and the residential area within 200' that is not separatea b>' a roadway. The area eligible is located to the south of the highway. Su has historically required that adjacent lot lines be contiguous. If a more liberal viewpoint vs as taken and the road was not considered, that area could possibly cross the road. The other location is in Navarre. Van Zomeren displayed where the subject lot and commercial zoning is located. Van Zomeren said the terminology in the code needs clarification. The existing location where the fire station was located is not eligible for duplex credit as it is outside the commercial zone and the 200' limitation. Van Zomeren said she and Gaffron discussed modifying the duplex credit. The B-3 zoning is the only zoning that could be extended to capture that lot and eliminate the 200' requirement. The 200' eligibility could be changed to reflect 400' from the B-3 district. The B-1 and B-6 zoning districts would be eliminated for duplex credit. Van Zomeren said, if the City's intent is to allow duplex housing, it first needs to be determined where that housing should be located and then place it in the zoning. She does not feel it makes sense where the use is currently allocated. She says it is important to buffer the industrial and commercial areas with higher density but not with the distance requirement. She feels they should be separated, the correct location determined, and the ordinance changed to reflect it. The zoning has to change first to make the area eligible, then the conditional use pemiit process would be initiated. Van Zomeren is concerned with the zoning becoming a moving target as to what property is eligible. 16 1 t f r k i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17. 1997 Van Zomeren reported that there are alot of small lots where duplexes can currently be located as the location is eligible under the current zoning. She feels this should not be encouraged. The church property is also within the 200’ eligibility and needs to be eliminated in her opinion. Van Zomeren asked if the non-conforming structure should be demolished and the area zoned for duplex. With the outlot, the applicant has said it would be difficult to build a single family residence. Research found that the reasoning behind the outlot had to do with a concern over multiple docks on the wetlands. Van Zomeren said the most restrictive way to change the ordinance to allow the property to have a duplex constructed on it would be through the B-3 district. This would not affect the existing duplexes. John Bessesen had no comments at this point. The hearing was opened for public comments. Todd Jones, 2501 and 2503 Kelly Avenue, reported that his property is adjacent to the subject property. Jones said he is unclear on what four lots are affected. Van Zomeren explained where the lots are located. The 400' limitation would add two single family lots to the south. Jones said he cannot see the single family lots being utilized for the duplex use. He agrees the site is blighted and understands the problem with setback. He believes the opportunity for duplexes would be good for the city. He believes the plan is reasonable and would clean up the property. r minutes of the orono planning commission meeting held on NOVEMBER 17,1997 A>.E„Evans,2497KdWA«„ue.nv«nonhofU.»ubiec.p.opc«yIna»^^ citad text antendment. He said the subject property has been on the market or . .ears and its current condition is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He unders an le economical problems with providing a single family residence. He feels changtng .oning to accomplish the rec,uest is extreme. He feels changing the existmg ^ «es aoning allowing one dwelling unit on 1/2 acre is more feasible. Evans feels the only of the property as it is now is to have the City condemn it and make it a park. Ev believes all the residents along Kelly Avenue would support the redevelopment to a duplex. is not sure —r=r. this would be the right solution. Nadler wanted the applicant to answer whether he will do as he is proposing. If so, Nadler said he would support * application. He believes the proposal would result in a high quality ^ indicated that OuUot A creates the problem for creating a single family res. ence .vinced that the ou.lot could no. be eliminated if the townhome restdents and C.ty not con’ work toget. Evans said he would be willing to aid in eliminating the outlot and get all docks in the same location Jones dtought this solution could be worked out but wanted to matn more lakeshore for walking. intain the right to enjoy MINUTES OF TI IE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Bessesen said he had presumed the property was zoned for duplexes when the purchase agreement was written. He found out differently when the property was surveyed. Bessesen said the plans call for duplexes at a value of $350,000-5400,000 for each side. He did have a concern with the gas station nearby but had a Phase I EIS conducted, which showed no problems. He *’ en found that the permitted use was for single family site but with the outlot as noted. Bessesen said the Kelly Avenue Association owns property all around u^e subject and is concerned with that. "Tie outlot is virtually landlocked and could result in a single family purpose being denied. If the outlot was eliminated, he would prefer to build a single family residence. The townhomes would accommodate other associations. Bessesen said he represents the owner. Bradley Hoyt. He would like the opportunity to work out any problems if possible to improve Kelly Avenue. Stoddard said he appreciates Staffs initiative in extending the zone to 400'. He believes it will affect four lots, two of w hich have sold for over $1,000,000. He does not believe it would be a good idea to change the zoning in order to change these lots. Stoddard said the outlot has presented a problem for perspective buyers of the property. H? believes single family housing is preferable in the neighborhood. He s^’d consideration could be given to change the zoning for the one lot. Bessesen responded that State law does not allow this to occur. Bessesen noted the rights of the tow nliome owners regarding the outlot and would like to be able to build another. He indicated that Ho>1 has listed his home for sale and plans on living in one of the units. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 Stoddard suggested Bessesen speak with the neighbors regarding their feelings and obtain information on the background of Outlot A. Van Zomeren said Staff is concerned with impacts on the wetlands if more docks were established. She believes the outlot involves reasoning behind the docks. Van Zomeren said other regulator}’ bodies will have to be contacted regarding establishing docks in front of townhomes. She noted the amount of wetlands is large. Steve Weckman had informed her that the map is confusing and requires further investigation on impacts. Berg noted there were similar docks located on Carman Bay. Nadler said he had been informed that Outlot A had been negotiated with the City and dealt with where the townhomes were built and the desire of a property owner to have docks located in one area. Jabbour agreed that dock clustering was encouraged at that time. Nadler suggested working with the property o\vners to have docks located in front of thw units if proven economical. Jabbour said the history behind the outlot needs to be determined and the Commission needs to either agree or disagree with whether economics is dictating the location Berg noted that the lot acr*. .he street is unbuildable. Lindquist indicated •that the action to be taken at this time is for conceptual approval, Commission noted difficulty in changing the zoning. Commissioners all agreed that new development is desired but questioned whether it should be single family residence or a duplex. 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 Hawn said she would be w illing to look at eliminating Outlot A if it can be done and changing the zoning. She agrees with Van Zomeren that rewriting the zoning around one property is not a good solution and Commission should determine where duplexes should be located in the City. Bessesen said he understands the reasoning behind Van Zomeren's suggestions and the need to determine what vehicle can accomplish it. Hawn said the issue needs to be reviewed comprehensively. Berg said researc! must be done on the history of Outlot A. Van Zomeren read the minutes of the 10/3/77 Planning Commission Meeting regarding Outlot A. She asked if the docks could be re-established for each duplex in order to eliminate Outlot A. Berg said the townhomes first have to be reviewed. Lindquist said rezoning can then be done. Van Zomeren said the existing townhomes and this site could be rezoned and the density changed by text amendment using 400’ or less. She noted she is not particularly in favor of using a distance measurement. She would prefer to eliminate the duplex credit as it currently exists. Jabbour informed the Commission how the duplex credit was established with the Shoreland Ordinance in the early 1990's. He noted there would be two PUDs for consideration in the near future. Jabbour thought the areas could be changed and the application done as a PUD. Van Zometen said because the property does not quality for a conditional use permit, she does not believe it meets the acreage requirement for PUD. 21 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 The legal non-conforming use status could be reestablished on the lot of record if setbacks are met and added to tlie code but Van Zomeren said she is unsure how it would affect other lots. Hawn asked what would take longer, the 400' text amendment or determining location for duplexes. Van Zomeren said the problem lies with spot zoning not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She is reluctant m do this with the upcoming changes regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Stoddard noted the neighbors comments that were made regarding the legal nnn- conforming use, zoning for the neighborhood, and the blighted site. He felt the outcome is dependent on the applicant. He suggested the applicant speak with the neighbors regarding changing the outlot and then construct a single family home, which he felt would be the best solution for both the City and the neighborhood. However, Stoddard said the issue before the Commission is to determine if a duplex would fit in with the neighborhood. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2314 approving a duplex at that address due to the existing legal non-conforming use and change the zoning to establish the legal use provided no otlier variances are required on the construction.5 Lindquist questioned whether this can be done. Van Zomeren said it would be an amendment to another section of the zoning code but there is no language to that effect. She indicated this cannot be drafted without r^notif^ ing the public. Van Zomeren said a text amendment can be broadly done. This motioii would require the application to be ; MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 reviewed again in January. Van Zomeren cited the ordinance sections suggesting the text amendment be extended in the B-3 zoning 250' from the commercial zone. Stoddard vvithdrew his motion. Jabbour indicated that this would require a 4/5th majority vote by Council and could not be reviewed until December 8 when a full Council would be in attendance. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2314 for construction of a duplex amending this single lot zoning to include duplex credit approvals for construction 'vithin 250’ fror B-3 building due to its legal non-conforming use. McMillan questioned whether the property was more than 250' from the B-3 zoning. fhe number of docks (3) and their length (25') were noted. They are located adjacent to the neighboring property and allows people to walk across the outlot. Stoddard noted thut the motion would allow the applicant and Staff to see what can be done before review at the 12/8 Council meeting. McMillan noted that LMCD approval would be required for moving the docks. It was noted that the language as it currently exists in the ordinance needs to be narrowed and limited to the B-3. Stoddard said there may be no need for an amendment as he feels the distance is less than previously thought. 23 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNIT4G COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 Stoddard amended his motion to eliminate the existing language in the code regarding duplex credit. McMillan seconded the amendment to the motion. Lindquist questioned how the Commission could get duplex zoning back in place with this motion. It would require Comprehensive Plan review and changes made. Van Zomeren noted there were also lot acreage and PUDS in the applications forthcoming. Lindquist said the motion would allow this application to go forward but additional work would be required on zoning commercial areas. Hawn questioned whether the motion could legally be done noting the current rights of the property owners. Van Zomeren said the public notice posted would serve as notice for this motion. The motion was separated into two motions. 7 f The motion read: to approve Application #2314 for construction of a duplex and^man^i single lot zoning to include the duplex credit approval for construction within 250' of the B-3 zoning district due to its legal non-contbrming use. Vote: Ayes 3, McMillan, Stoddard, Berg; Nays 2. Lindquist. Hawn. Motion passed. Stoddard moved but received no second to eliminate the language to allow duplex credit to the zoning code. 24 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 McMillan suggested the issue be further reviewed before sending the recommendation to the Council. Lindquist said he voted against the motion as he is against spot zoning but supports the plan itself. The applicant was asked to research the background of Outlot A prior to the Council Meeting on December 8. Bessesen will work with Van Zomeren to solve issues of concern. (#8) CITY OF ORONO - ZONING A.^1ENDMENT - LAND ALTERATION REGULATIONS AND PERMIT CRITERIA - 9:10-9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted, Gappa reported that the zoning amendment is a housekeeping matter to streamline the current code. The code currently requires a conditional use permit for any land alteration over 100 cubic yards. This creates a problem for what may be minor work. Staffhas concluded that a Staff permit process should take place and change the ordinance to reflect the need for a CUP for land alteration over 500 cubic yards. TTiere were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the Zoning Amending for Land Alteration Regulations and Permit Criteria. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 25 TO Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE;November 10,1997 SUBJECT:#2314 Hoyt Development, as assignee of purchase agreement for 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue Coiiditioi:D> Lse Permit for Duplex Credit and Zoning Amendment to revise the distance requirement for duplex credit —Pubi ic Hearing _ Zoning District: LR-IB, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Size:43,975 sq.ft. (1.01 acres) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Designation: Urban Service Area, Urban Residential, 1 <tcre Application:The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code regarding lots eligible for the duplex credit. Currently, lots that are located within 200' of a commercial or industrial district may apply for a conditional use permit for a duplex credit. The subject lot is farther than 200* from a commercial or industrial district. Subsequent to a zoning amendment to increase the distance requirement, the applicant is requesting a conditional use penmt for duplex credit. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.20, Subd. 3, (I), Duplex Credit "One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefore provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial or industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building." r LR-IB Zoning Standards Subject Property Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeshore 1 acre 140’35'30'75' or average lakeshore setback Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeshore 1.01 acres 146' at lakeshore setback 4’ existing 30’ and 40' existing 250+ existing The subject property meets the minimum lot area requirements and lot width for the LR-IB district. The existing structure does not meet the street yard setback. The proposed duplex would meet all setback requirements. Hardcover Setback Area Lot Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Allowed Hardcover 0'-75’9,905 sq. ft.None None None 75 ’-250’25,210 sq. ft.None 3,516 sq. ft. (13.9%) 6,302. sq. ft. (25%) 250’-500'8,860 sq. ft.2,034 sq. ft. (22.96%) 1,385 sq. ft (15.63%) 2,658 sq. ft. (30%) The proposed duplex would be located behind the 75' lakeshore setback as required. The amount of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback would increase from none to 13.9% where 25% is allowed. In the 250 ’-500' setback, hardcover would be reduced from 22.96% to 15.63%. This application does not require any hardcover variances. Building Information The existing structure was built in 1920. The current owner is Peter Chow. The most recent valuation indicates that Hennepin County values the land at $98,000 and the building at $82,500, for an assessed value of $180,500. The property last sold in September 1982 for $155,000. Net ta.<es for 1997 were approximately $4,700. The adjacent duplexes were constructed in 1977 and their values range from $158,800 to $181,000. Land Uses in the LR-IB The LR-IB zoning district allows single family houses on 1 acre zoning lots. The conditional uses allowed in the LR-IB district refer to uses also allowed in the Rl-A district. The conditional uses allowed include duplexes if the zoning lot is adjacent to commercial or industrial zoning districts and the duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial and industrial districts. Historically, adjacent has been interpreted to mean abutting either a commercial or industrial district. The subject lot is not adjacent to a commercial or industrial district and the proposed duplex would be constructed farther than 200 feet from a commercial district. Distance Requirements for Duplex Credit The 200 ’ distance requirement is based on the land use theory that commercial or industrial districts should be buffered from single family residential by medium to high density residential uses such as an apartment building. This theme is apparent throughout the Twin Cities area w here apartments and townhomes are built around commercial development with single family homes behind the higher density residfr'dal uses. An example of this is the new development at Hopkins Crossroads and Hwy. 394 in Minnetonka. Buffering Single Family Uses from Commercial or Industrial While a buffering scheme between commercial or industrial and single family residences is common, it is unusual to use a distance requirement to achieve it. Typically, a community will use a development pattern that has a zoning classification that allows higher density residential zoning that is mapped adjacent to commercial or industrial. The 200' requirement has the effect of being a "moving target" overlay zoning district. That is, every time a commercial or industrial rezoning occurs, the eligibility area for the duplex credit moves. Therefore, a property owner in a single family residential district could become eligible or their neighbor's property could become eligible based on the actions of others without notice. Most property owners are probably not aware that although their property is zoned single-family, it could become a duplex if it is located within 200 ’ of commercial or industrial zoned areas. A map showing the current areas that are eligible is included in the exhibits. Staff would prefer that areas where higher density should occur, specifically duplexes and townhouses, be mapped rather than be floating zones tied to commercial or industrial zoning. In the Navarre area, both the LR-IB and LR-IC areas are currently eligible for duplexes. This means that a 1 acre lot in the LR-IB district and a 1/2 acre lot in the LR-IC district could have duplexes. In the area along Hwy. 12 that is zoned industrial and commercial, 2 acre zoning lots in the RR-IB zoning district would also be eligible for the duplex credit. The Hwy. 12 area may be an area where the City may want to encourage densities higher than 2 units per acre. The duplex credit has the effect of being a te.xtual rezoning by changing the allowed density, without a map amendment. i HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In May 1976, the Orono City Council considered a rezoning and subdivision of 2500 Kelly Avenue for Daniel Lindsay. Conceptual approval for a conditional use permit for three duplexes was recommended on condition the third duplex unit not be constructed until the existing duplex is removed from the site and a maximum of two boats per dwelling unit for four boats per duplex be permitted dockage on the channel. The Planning Commission showed concern about the possible conflict in the ordinance as to provisions for duplex credits within the 1000' lakeshore setback requirement for multiple family residences. The conceptual approval of the concept plan for the planned residential development (PRD) and preliminary plat was approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendations on May 24, 1976. On October 3, 1977, the Plaiming Commission considered application #310 to consider issuing a conditional use permit for two new duplexes at 2505 Kelly Avenue. Dock rights for all three duplexes were also requested—one for the existing duplex and one each for the two proposed duplexes, for a total of slip usage for six households. The Planning Commission approved the PRD and the duplex credit for the construction of two new structures within 200 feet of the commercial zone. However, they did not grant approval of any dock rights at that time. On October 11, 1977, the City Council considered the conditional use permit for planned residential development and the duplex credit. The proposal included a request for a joint use dock with four slips for the new units. No dock existed for the existing duplex. The City Council approved the conditional use permit for the duplexes. No consideration was given to the dock issue at that time due to a moratorium. In March 1978, the City Council approved a joint use dock permit and license for Kelly Avenue Holding Company for construction and use of six slips at 2505 Kelly Avenue. Issuance of the permit and license did not vest any permanent rights for multiple dock or moorage on this property. Minutes from previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings indicate that tliere was concern about riparian rights. Staff recommended a private outlot over the existing dock area to lessen the impact on the wetland and dismiss the need for a variance to the Flood Plain Wetlands Management Ordinance. In August 1979, the City Council approved Resolution #1058 to plat Navarre Cove. The resolution included creation of an area designated as Outlot A to be used as a joint use dock area for all three (3) lots, which outlot is to be owned and maintained by a homeowner's association comprised of the owners of all lots in this plat. Use of the dock area was subject to annual licensing and limited to six boats, one per dw elling unit. Creation of private easements for walkway purposes to provide access to Outlot A and for driveway purposes to access Kelly Avenue in favor of Lot 1 over Lots 2 and 3 and in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 3 were also established. Public notice was also give in Resolution #1058 that the existing duplex on Lot 3 (the subject property) is a legal non-conforming use of land. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT The subject lot is zoned for 1 acre single family residential. The existing structure is a legal non- conforming use that severely encroaches into the required street yard. The presence of Outlet A at the lakeshore possibly restricts the ability to develop the property for single family residential. The duplex cannot be removed and a new duplex constructed without a change to the zoning district and/or revision of the duplex credit. At the time the application was submitted, staff prepared a notice regarding amending the duplex credit to be available to lots within 400 feet of the B-3 District. The effect of this amendment is to eliminate the duplex credit for se\ -red areas next to commercial or industrial districts where a duplex would be constructed within 200 feet. The areas that this would effect are shown in Exhibit . The existing duplexes, the subject site, and four other single family residential lots would become eligible for the duplex credit. All areas within 200* of commercial and industrial districts, excluding the B3 district would no longer be eligible for the duplex credit. The language to exclude the duplex credit to lots within 400' of the B3 district is provided in the exhibits . The proposed text amendment conflicts with the comprehensive plan land use map which indicates that this area should be developed at 1 acre density. ISSUES 1.The subject lot is zoned for single family residential development at a density of 1 acre. The subject lot is 1.01 acres. 2.The existing structure is a legal, non-conforming use. The building encroaches 29' into the required front yard setback. 3.Outlet A exists to provide joint docks for six dwelling units as follows: Owner A H & D Evans RV & MS Dahl Todd Jones Todd Jones Peter Chow Peter Chow Taxpayer Austin and Diane Evans Resident Sylvia A B^rtagnoli Resident Todd Jones Todd Jones Mary Management Mary Management Address 2497 Kelly Avenue 2499 Kelly Avenue 2501 Kelly Avenue 2503 Kelly Avenue 2505 Kelly Avenue 2509 Kelly Avenue ™Chy"of however, was at no time regarded as a permanent situation by 4. % The presence of outlot A restricts the ability to develop the subject lot for single family use. 5.Past Plying Commission and City Council minutes seem to indicate that the subject lot was to be developed a duplex after the existing structure is removed. 6.The subject lot is not eligible for the duplex credit because it is not adjacent to either a commercial or industrial district. The proposed location is also farther than 200 ’ from a commercial or industrial district. 7.The proposed text amendment would eliminate the duplex everywhere in the City of Orono with the exception of the zoning lots along Kelly Avenue that are within 400 ’ of the B3 distnct. 8.A condmonal use permit cannot be granted for a new duplex until the zoning iissues are OPTIONS i^23N Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly Avenue PC-November 17, 1997 page-6 1. 2. 3. Deny the text amendment and conditional use permit which would prevent the construction of a new duplex and restrict new development to a single family residence. Approve the text amendment which would limit the area where the duplex credit would 1^ available. Single family lots which are currently not eligible would become eligible for the duplex credit. Also, grant the conditional use permit for the new duplex. Consider rezoning the existing duplexes and the subject lot to a density that allows one dwelling unit on 1/2 acre. A comprehensive plan amendment would be required to change from 1 acre to 1/2 acre. No conditional use permit would be required, as the duplex would then be considered a permitted use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed text amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, staff does not recommend adoption of the text amendment. However, staff recognizes the opportunity that this proposal presents to remove a legal, nonconforming use that is located in a required front yard. Staff also recogmzes that p^t City officials recognized that the existing duplex would be removed at some point in the future. However, the zoning district was not changed to allow the density to change f residential on 1 acre lots to two-family residential. The Planning Commission should determine if the proposal merits amending the comprehensive plan land use map and rezoning the subject lot and adjacent properties. Exhibits A B C D E F G H I J L M Application Platmap Topo Mapt Shoreland/Wetland Map Land Use Plan Applicant's letter Proposed plat Hardcover calculations Permit record Resolutions #892 re: joint dock license Resolutions #1058 re: Navarre Cove Proposed text amendment Colored maps ^2314 Hoyt Development 2505/2507 Kelly A venue PC-Sovember ! 7, 1997 page-^7 10-'24^9T IX-.ZZ RE rwx EXCELSIOR ei2S5l4<?43: P^r^«»or.,c Ri-tx srsren pmdne no. :mqvt CC*’ELCr^^’E’i-NO.072 002Oct. 24 1997 12:10PN P2f y pes i>:t U *07 10:13R£OXJI1ULD submittals 1 2 .Sy'.•r i // /* ■:] i-*-; ;.:;j k 5 6 < .jL Completed Application Form. Describe request in deuil. — Certified Property Owners List of owriers within ?5Q-. labels and plat ma^S^u Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) • refer to handout for survey Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes sn elevation (grades). List of the !eg^ names (include -.uiial status) of all persons with an interest in we property. This would include nAr,ic(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (sw staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this app'^’cai on. SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARC.E DOCV7VIENTS OR COPY SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be su Dfn ittc<i. j The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember Wat vour application is not compJeie if the above information has not been included Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_____________________________ ________ 8. 9. APPLlCAiVT'S SIGNATURE The i^pUcant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Ad^iustrmtor. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) arm/or unusual oepenses incurred in rd\*iaw of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature _ ____________________Date ________ ’•^4.,0'WNER'S SlONAff^RE The oiwer hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and ftirthcr authoxizwi reosc^able entry onto th^ proporty by City staff, consulfants, agents, commission mombars, and Coiirtcil members forp^poses of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature ea 4 1 4 X Hoyt Development C O M P A N Y 13400 15th AVENUE NORTH.SUITE F PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55441 Phone 612-551-4944 Fax 612-551-4943 1-800-551-HOYT F October 30,1997 Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P. O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 J ; RE: Site Plan Review 2505 and 2507 Kelly Avenue Dear Ms. V.an Zomeren: As the assignee of the purchase agreement between John Bessesen and the fee owner, Peter Chow, I am requesting the following approval. As you kn«./ the subject property presently is used as a duplex. The existing structure, it is my understanding, was originally a fire hall and has long since been converted to a duplex. The building is very close to Kelly Avenue and represents a blight condition. Also, the proximity to the roadway causes undue traffic hazards due to turning maneuvers in and out of the driveways. It also represents a visual obstruction and diminution to the neighborhood as it's appearance is not keeping with the adjacent homes. The zoning code for the subject lot is single family and the code allows for a duplex to be constructed within that zoning district. It is my understanding that there is a restriction that the lot be located within 200 feet of commercial and this lot does not meet that perimeter. However, 1 do not see the logic or the nexus of this distance as it relates to the use for duplex. Further, the property is currently used as a duplex. It also suffers a significant hardship that is unique to this property in the existence of an outlot that is for the benefit of the two adjacent duplexes located at Navarre Cove. Originally, the developer anticipated the construction of three twin homes on three lots. It appears as though the outlot located on our property intended to serve the association and all three docks for the three lots are located on our property. We believe a more fitting solution would be locate each of the property's docks on their lake frontage and will explore this possibility with the neighbors. Due the existence of this easement this property is not suitable for a single family residence. MINNEAPOUS • TAMPA DEVELOPMENT • CONSTRUCTION • MANAGEMENT • INVESTMENT Ms. Van Zomeren Page 2 October 30,1997 Our prim^ goal in the development is to construct a more suitable residence that is set back properly from Kelly Avenue so as not to visually impair the neighborhood. Additionally, the resulting project will greatly enhance the tax base of the area as the current property is valued at well below $200,000. The adjacent uses are identical to the north, and we believe that this use was also anticipated oit this lot. The uses to the south are single family. I own the home at 2523 Kelly Avenue as my principal residence. My motivation is to enhance the neighborhood and to, possibly in conjunction with this project, work with my adjacent neighbors to potentially realign our driveways to avoid a hazardous condition that resulted in the near demolition of my neighbors garage last winter by a moving van. It is my belief that a safer, more attractive and environmentally sensitive manner of access can be designed for the six homes on this section of Kelly Avenue. It is anticipated that construction of the homes would commence in the spring and be completed by fall of 1998. I appreciate your consideration and invite any questions or comments Very truly yours. Bradley A. Hoyt BAH:kc ( I /-A/^.// / HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7n\r A. House 75-250’250-500'500-1000' '/■// Length Width • « • B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ - B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF A. House Length Width D. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X ^Jo X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _-(• B ss S.F. «S.F. a S.F. •S.F. V *•; • =S.F. c S.F. •i»S.F. S.F. =S.F. • • V_ 8 .S.F. \ ^ «S.F. (■S.F.X •S.F. =S.F. B S.F. S.F.A m S.F.B m o % _ S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 - _ _ _ _S.F. A _ _ _ _S.F. B O % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE. (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*dSii))250-500’500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE O - B asz/o X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X ^c/e,c^Length Width X X D. Garage C. Driveway X X 720 D. Sidewalk //O X X 2ZO E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3^/^ ^ B 23Z/0 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.,. .. S.F. S.F. S.F. '. . S.F. S.F. -J ‘ .• < S.F. S.F. _'N 'l‘ \ '' ^ 'S.F S.F. ' S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % 97354' * «L~. ^ ^ f t > f: . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X 7^-250 ’250-500;500-1000' Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ZO?4‘ V B 08^ Z£>34 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF A. House ______________ Length Width D. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ___ + B 8Si»£>X 100 S.F. S.F. « a S.F. S.F. ® S.F. P... S.F. S.F. S.F. ,• > S.F. , ' S-F. ^ A 1/ S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____S.F. ____S.F. % A B r PERMIT RECORD Permit No, IID5 Date a-iudr Type of Permit (-~?gs 3u^^-fg>-T7 4->H U lAi/mjoAsJLA'li JRESOLUTION NO. 892 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT USE DOCK PERMIT AND LICENSE FOR KELLY AVENUE HOLDING COMPANY WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning and lakeshore regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have considered the application of Kelly Avenue Holding Company for Joint Use Dock construction and use of six (6) slips on their property known as 2505 Kelly Avenue; Tract A, RLS 1428; and WHEREAS, Tract A, RLS 1428 is occupied by 3 duplex structures containing 6 residential units as authorized by Conditional Use Permits issued October 11, 1977; and WHEREAS, Tract A, RLS 1428 contains approximately 400 lineal feet 'f Lake Minnetonka shoreline; and WHEREAS, the Orono Zoning Code Section 34.440 authorizes private docks subject to the requirement of the Orono Municipal Code Chapter 74, Joint Use of Lake Facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves a Joint Use Dock Permit and 1978 license for Kelly Avenue Holding Company subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Maximum of 6 boats to be moored at this property. Maximum of 3 dock structures, each structure a maximum size of 5' 6” X 25' 0", as shown and located on Exhibit A attached. Installation and use of more than one dock structure on this property will be subject to a Joint Use Dock License which must be renewed annually and which renewal may be subject to revised conditions according to then current dock regulations. Issuance of this permit and license is subject to the approval of all other agencies having jurisdiction, including the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Dept, of Natural Resources. Issuance of this permit and license does not vest any permanent rights for multiple dock or moorage on this property. 6. Kelly Avenue Holding Company shall review and approve of this Resolution, which approval shall be indicated by the endorsement of an authorized representative hereon, and shall cause an original copy of this Resolution to be filed as a permanent covenant in the chain of title of the property, such filing to occur within 30 days of the approval of the Resolution by the City Council. 1 AGREED: Kelly Avenue Holding Compann Dated this day o f March , 19 78 . William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: 7Walter*^ Benson, Clerk/Administrator RESOLUTION NO. 1058 2. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF NAVARRE COVE organized ^d^e^i^ring^ and e City Council of the City of Orono has adooted of lanr:"hln"thrcu;/:nd''’* development £ VCity Council has considered the anolication Che platti:;rr^^^iat1:n:t^^;^f^Ci^;! ^ 1. °£ Drainage Easements and Drainage and Utility Easements on the plat. ^semen^°rp‘K-^'?® ^ Howage and Conservationsement (Exhibit A) providing for limitations on e ^se o wetlands as shown on the plat and as described therein. • • Creation of an area designated on the plat as Outlot A o be used as a joint use dock area for all three (3) lots, which outlot is to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association comprised of the ou-ners of all lots in this plat. Use of dock area is subject to annual licensing according to ordinance and is limited to six (6) boats, one per dwelling unit. Creation of an area designated on the plat as Outlot E which area is a lagoon and open water connected to the main body of Lake Minnetonka, which outlot is to' be deeded to the City of Orono a public body. Creation of private easements for walkway purposes to afford access to Outlot A and for driveway purposes to afford access to Kelly Avenue, all in favor of Lot 1 over Lots 2 and 3 and in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 3. 3. 4. 5. Resolution No. 1058 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Navarre Cove, Hennepin County, Minnesota: subject to the following conditions: 1. The aforesaid plat shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before February lA, 1980 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the Flowage and Conservation Easement, Exhibit A. as noted above, and a quit claim deed to the City of Orono for Outlot B attached as Exhibit B. 2. Public Notice that the existing duplex on Lot 3 is a legal non-conforming use of land pursuant to the current Zoning Code of the City of Orono. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 14 day of August 1979. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Be^^n, C!^erk/Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO Clerk/Adn.i„istSt:“ortL o original Resolutiorpa^ed 5^ the Vitv^Sl'T f of Orono on Aucust M ^ the^Crty Council of the City of Navarre~^ve -------------------- approving the plat—y_- VO Aire vxjve ________________ - --------sl _ of Orono!^" office of the City Clerk/Administrator, City Walter K^enson, Clerk/Administrat Dated this d^ of _ Auaugyf ; (Seal) ’ ^U,aiMfciic iHi "iiHiii i»wu» a FLOKAGE AJ.-D CONSERVATION* EASE^lEirp 7»ND WAIVER OF DAJVtGES /Vi. 1058 —• THIS INDENTURE, mad J , 197 and entered into this by and bctKcen /^^/day of ■ —— —^ ^ ***••»' J ww w^^wil ^ y / t ft ^ fj^A i/^Ki C* ^ ^ M.-*/2- I , heirs, assi9ns, successors (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Crantor(s)) and the City of Orono, its suc­ cessors and assi9ns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee). WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to Grantee the right to restrict and Grantor(s) agree to limit and pre* elude the use, improvement and development, under the condi­ tions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: t/k. <’f a7?_v'iki-< . as follows: « 1. Grantor (s) hereby coven«.nt and agree (s): A. No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land including without limit­ ation, fences, fireplaces, steps, docks, piers, hard-cover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improve' ment inconsistent with the natural state of the Land. B. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. C« No earth, loeun, peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material or substance shall be moved or removed from the Land and there shall be no dredging or excavation of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. •IS i^riuljll br^ii DC |-'j>ici.*a, uu;:i^*ea ut storca up^n Lfic D^nu "'O waste# trash or 9arba9c shall bo placed# dunped or stored upon the Land, E. No use shall be made of the Land except uses# if any# which will not chan9e or alter the natural condition of the Land# and no use which would tend to chan9e the draina9e# flood control# water conservation# erosion control# soil con­ servation# fish and wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Land or the water situated thereon. F. Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures# uses# materials# substances# or unnatural mat­ ter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. 2. Grantor(s) hereby 9rant# 9ift# quit claim and convey to Grantee# a perpetual flovaoe easement and right and privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Land. 3. Grantor(s) herein do hereby remiss, release# acquit and forever discharge# forever# the Grantee «nd any and all of its officers and employees of and from any and all claims# demands or causes of action of any kind or nature whatsoever which may arise or accrue by virtue of any flowage or trespass with water within terras of these agreements. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have# the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or other­ wise# except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein .described are free and clear of all erc«imbrances except: All the provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs# successors# representatives# grantees or assigns of the respective parties^hereto- /J to ifsSTATE or MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this of _ _ _ _, 1977 , before me, a Notary Public within and for said County and State# personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be tne pei son (s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that they executed raid ips.i^rumont as their .own free act and deed. JULIE T. RENNER NOtAtt runic-MIMMIIOTA MtNMtrtN eOUMTf •. tM» Statd ubdd Tax Due Her^h: Notary^ Piblic Exempt This Instrument was drafted by: POPHAM# HAIK# SCHNOBRICH# KAUFMAN ( DOTT# Ltd. 4344 IDS Center# Hiniicapolis# Minnesota 55402 (612) 335-9331 3nbcnturc. 1058 s Kelly Avenue Dupletes^Co.. a^’limited'VirtnershiJ! Of......... 19 1^ , party of iKo oeeond part.a eorporation undsr tKs laui of ths StaU of^^ Minnesota _ gne and *o/10*0*^Ul -0^ *** '’* of ths ntm of Out^ot B, Navarre Cove V ! Jn <C«tinwnp Iflbtrrof The toid ,»rty of ,Hs fi„, pan has hsreunlaut its hatul the day and yrne fint aboir untUn. ® NORTHWESTERN DEPOT ( TERMINAL RAILWAV company. General'Partner BY 0 James K." Lindsay ' Its President i : REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C/° J99? 8 i)C',- *“‘9n> Date: Decembers, 1997 Item No. = / Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P, Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Zoning Code Amendment - Land Alterations - Ordinance on List of Exhibits A«Draft Ordinance B - Existing Code Sections: -10.03 Subd. 19 -10.03 Subd. 21 - 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(4) C - Legal Notice D - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 11-17-97 Summary of Proposed Code Revisions The primary intent of this ordinance is to increase the current maximum 100 cubic yard limit staff-issued land alteration permits to 500 cubic yards. This change will be of benefit to residents who wish to fill, excavate or regrade their properties in amounts over 100 cubic yards for various purposes, but who would under the current ordinance need a Conditional Use Permit. Under the new ordinance, permits could be issued by staff for up to 500 c.y. of earth movement for those projects which are determined on a case-by-case basis to have no negative impacts Any projwt involving more than 500 c.y. would still require a CUP, and staff would have the authority to refer to Counciljoi: land alteration project where negative impacts are anticipated, regardless of the amount of fill involved. As a gauge of the impact of 500 cubic yards of fill, this is the equivalent of fifty 10-yard dump truck loads. 500 cubic yards would create a berm 3’ high with 3:1 sideslopes, 500 ’ in length. Or 500 cubic yards would cover a 1 -acre lot about 4 inches deep. Section 10.03 Subd. 19 is proposed to be reorganized for clarity but exhibits no substantive changes in intent. This Section indicates that all grading requires a CUP. Land Alterations Zoning Code Amendment December 3,1997 Page 2 Section 10.03 Subd. 21 is the "Exceptions" to the provisions of Subd. 19. The current Subd. 21 limits to 100 c.y. the amount of land alteration allowed via staff permit. The proposed revision: - reorganizes the wording of Subd. 21; - changes the 100 c.y. limit to 500 c.y.; j • - adds a sentence requiring a land alteration permit for work that is not being performed m . conjunction with a building permit; and - adds an 'intent' statement regarding the use of fill for protection of frost footings. Section 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(4) regarding land alteration permits in the shoreland Overlay District, is simply revised to reflect the change from 100 c.y. to 500 c.y. Planning Commission Recommendation On November 17 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment, and subsequently voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance because it will give residents more flexibility in conducting land alterations without the typical 2-month delay caused by the CUP process; because it gives staff the authority to refer questionable projects to the Council for review; and as a si e benefit, may slightly reduce the number of CUP’s needing processing. Council Action Requested Adopt the attached ordinance. Proposed motion; Moved by seconded by to adopt Ordinance No. _, Second Series An Ordinance Amending the City of Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 and 21, and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16 (J) to Revise and Clarify Requirements and Limitations on Land Alteration and Land Alteration Permits. Vote:__ayes,----nays. r ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19 AND 21, AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (J) TO REVISE AND CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON LAND ALTERATION AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 19 substituted in its place as follows: Subdivision 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the Council: A. Remove, fill, use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar earth material within the limits of the City. B. Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. All of the above-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Section 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 21 substituted in its place as follows: Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: 1. Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. 2.Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Page 1 of3 1 i t i ‘ Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The following land alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations': A.All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. B.Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing surrounding topography. C.Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts. Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J)(4) is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 16(J)(4) substituted in its place as follows: J. Topographic Alterations / Grading and Filling. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: a. For movement of 1-500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. Page 2 of 3 Section 4. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 8th day of December, 1997 by a vote of____ayes and _____nays. ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ♦ r Page 3 of 3 § 10.03 B. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26» 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 C. Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not over eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 _ _ _ _ _,Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful--fox_ailY-RfirJ5QI>-to A remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the s^_^th^. city;! to fill or reclaim any land by depositTng such material or by grSicTTng of existing land so as to elevate__qr_alter the existingaraainq or exxstiny xauu aw aa UW 'I natural grade ;J or to buiId,“aiter , dr repair any seawall, retaining wai 1,—err" €b"otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshor^21 JL X f OX uO OuneiwxoC ^— ---------— rpi;er^»itnout a cart'dp_erinit issued by ^he Counc ,1 All^of above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as definea in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other com*:etent person showing the location of the proposed excavation o storage and shall state the amount of material which is removed, excavated or storrsd, filled or graded, and such other information as the Council may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the City, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant. ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) 1 * § 10.03 Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary grading in the drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved ^ ® Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the providing that a plan showing proper drainage and adioining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be fo® Buildinq Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council ror action in accordance with this Chapter. The shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 __ • 1 Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakeshore to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. rip-rap lakeshore property within the limits ^^®. ^ h permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the Planning Commission and Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 167 Effective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. Application for Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing showing the of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the City Engineer may require from time to time. Applications shal filed with the City Administrator and shall accompanied by in the ^ount prescribed by the current City fee schedule payable the Ci y Source: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 ORONO CC 258-1 (4-1-84) I I I I I I I I I I § 10.56 2. intensive '^=9=tation clearing feet of the shoreline and on of shrubs and Overlay District is prohibited. /nd pruning and trisunlng of trees of any sxse to accomodate the water from the principal ^ . picnic areas, access Dlacement of permitted stairways lock boxes,paths, beach and watercraft access areas^^andpe^_^ orovided that the ^g_. assuming summer, leaf-onfacilities as viewea rrom the water, assuminy conditions, is not substantially renuced.----------------------------------------- Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. , . f i llinc and excavations necessary for the ^o^struction^of structures^^ «Vse*“Acl\\-|rdo “"fot r^^^ grading and-falling permit. ^'tion of structures, sewage rr«;tt’^.tTy^t::t,^^nTd^^v^°w^^ to the grading and filling standards of this section. 2. Grading, filling and thi prohibited within ’5 ’ n.e public waters enumerated in Subdivision / ot 3. Public and private roads, ‘^^^^^^hall parking areas, and public Q^^lnary^Hi^^^ater Level of lit ^Sbll=*wlte«" e^ia^ated in Subdivision 7 of this section ^If tVn a\*d”^*=Arg%-Aalce -view shall ?lkrinto account the following considerations: a. Such improvements shall be ^®®tgned to take advantaoe of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. b. All roads and parking ®teas shall be -tt^rV^o^ntift-el^rwnit \h^^^ jurisdiction._____ —^ 4. Except for those projects follows: ORONO CC 376-14 (2-^24-92) f s 10.56 material anywhere within^he JorTS^ issued land alteration permit shall he requxr Conditional use permit approval by the__Cxt^Coun= addition to the required land aluerac.on^- - - - - - - c following considerations and |rrti\'s?%ralLranf ?rA in, ^p^sf'oonirtronaf uTe''^erm\t°s, variances and subdivision approvals: a Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, and retention;(2)Storage of surface run-off to prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; (4) Recreational use; ^ • i ■: ^avion*(5) Shoreline or t>ank stabilization^ (6) Noteworthiness, includig P cial qualities such as historio siqnifioance, orxtxoal habxtat endangered plants and animals, or othe . This evaluation must also include a determination of «h;ther the wetland^alt« lVoa\X of whether tne wetx«..- _ , ’i state or ^Squires permits, districts Federal agencies includxng "ot^ “f; the Onite< Army Corps of Engineers. C Mulches or similar materials ;-^anerreg-a\^-“/oVei°musrbl°«^^^^^^ ^ __ _andd. Methods to minimize joil erosion^d to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) R R R R R R R (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping — R R R R ■ ■ i f 1 f I I 1 \ 1 I l 1 ! ! ! ! § 10.56 ll^tSct%*tnd“he rilfed ftat« Soil Conservatico Service, f. Fill or excavated material nust not . <-Via+•* creates an unstable slope;be placed in a manner that creates an Diene to olace fill excavatedg. Plans . city Engineer for 30% or greate , excavated material must not v%o nlaced in bluff impact zones; *iaVt “fnsrbrau\”hon%°d ’'ty"the !i^issi”er%7\he^^pari^enr:i^ Resources under Mrnnesota StatutesF Seciton 105.42; ^ „„iv !^d"lo°not^ adverse\/affecril°aLnt or nearby including associated \ht®f L"r,h^of%“he "r "P «p"above the Ordinary High Water ^Le«^^ aoy S&mUVSi Se^t^^n ISforiub^iv^s^ons .S. S3 and 3% of thrs zonxng code. connections to Public ^sSch^'a^ cnncurrent "• . =.^°Tna"irapo “"!radditi;r ^''‘th^se'’st’andards ot the Orono Municipal 1 When possible, existing natural arainageways wetland^^,^“nd'^Stfif a^°o^V^at^r'run-off before discharge ®to°p1ilic waters. 376-16 ORONO CC ! CITY OF ORONO 2750 K«llty Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Phono (612)473-7357 Fax 473- 0510 NOTICE /. The Planning Convntssion will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley wkway on Monday. November 17,1997 on the matter of proposed revtsiorts to Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subd. 19 and 21. and Section 10.56. Subd, 16(J) relating to requirements and limitations on iar)d alteration and land alteration permits. The meeting begins at 7.-00 p.m. Ail persons wishing to be heard will appear at .this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed revisions is available in Ihe City offices for review. Dty of Orono By: Planning Commissio.i Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator (Publish^ ‘Ov’Ths Lp)fer and. <Pfoneer Nov. 1*1997) ^ • . « . . Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A. ) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B. ) The printed Proposed Rpvlsiona Orono Zoning Code_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ which Is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for__1 successive weeks: It was first published Saturday the—1___day of November iq 97 and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, Subscribed and sworn to me on this 1___day of November ^ 97 KB.STIHoW”’' [•1 notary PU8LC • MINNESOTA COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 31. 2000 >flat»ln tefniation (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: Si2.20 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law lor above matter: $12.20. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.00 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.05. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 McMillan suggested the issue be further reviewed before sending the recommendation to the Council. Lindquist said he voted against the motion as he is against spot zoning but supports the plan itself. th j [I The applicant was asked to research the background of Outlot A prior to the Council Meeting on December 8. Bessesen will work with Van Zomeren to solve issues of concern. (#8) CITY OF ORONO - ZO.NING AMENDMENT - LAND ALTERATION REGULATIONS AND PERMIT CRITERIA - 9:10-9:12 P.M. The AfGdavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gappa reported that the zoning amendment is a housekeeping matter to streamline the current code. The code currently requires a conditional use permit for any land alteration over 100 cubic yards. This creates a problem for what may be minor work. Staff has concluded that a Staff permit process should take place and change the ordinance to reflect the need for a CUP for land alteration over 500 cubic yards. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the Zoning Amending for Land Alteration Regulations and Permit Criteria. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 25 I TO:Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant December 2,1997 ^'^yor - ■ ^•‘^ovo SUBJECT : Navarre Housing Study Throughout the summer I had woiked on a study addressing the housing needs of the Nav^e area of Orono. The jtudy is comprised of mo parts. The first is a mail survey which was sent to 247 residents in the defined study area. The surveys were color coded to break the study area into four specific sub-areas to identify differences in needs within the study area. The second portion of the study is a survey for which I walked the neighborhood and evaluated several features of the properties from the street. This involved the evaluation of 248 properties. A property without a residence was evaluated, which accounts for the discrepancy in numbers between the two surveys. By using a checklist form, each pioperty was evaluated by giving it a rating of one through five where one is excellent, mo IS good, three is fair, four is poor and five is dilapidated. Also noted are various features of the property such as type of siding and driveways. The map attached in the following report shows where these study areas G-IV) are located. Overall, this portion of the study provides an account of existing conditions and a method for determining whether a visual inspection of the study area coincides with the mail survey. The following report is a summary of my findings for the two portions of the study. • i ! i i , NavaiTe Housing Study ■am Mm^:- Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant City of Orono Decembers, 1997 ABSTRACT In July 1997, the City of Orono conducted a housing study to explore housing issues in Navarre. Two portions of the survey were used to determine such issues. A mail survey was ^ed to identify housing issues in Navarre. The response rate was 49%. The purpose of this survey was to determine whether there is a perceived need for housing rehabilitation by the residents of Navarre and if they would be interested in applying for grant funding for home repairs. This survey is attached as Appendices A1 and A2. The second part of the survey was conducted through a visual survey, assessing the conditions of properties in the area. TOs checklist is attached as Appendix B. The following study is En cvEluHtion of the findings of these surveys. Navarre Housing Study PURPOSE The purpose of the study was two fold. The first was to gather data about the existing housing stock and how it is perceived by residents. The second was to determine if there is an interest among the residents of the study area in obtaining grant money for housing repairs. '1 o determine differences in perceptions and housing conditions within the study area, four sub-areas were identified. Appendix C shows the entire study area and respective sub-areas. Both surveys broke down the study area in this fashion. The ultimate purpose of the study is its potential use in the comprehensive plan update and in applying for housing rehabilitation grant funds. PART I: MAIL SURVEY RESULTS Table U Rate Of Response for Mail Out Survey Rate of Response rent returned Areal 76 40 (53%) Area II 71 28 (39%) Area II 25 13 (52%) Area IV 75 41 (55%) Total 247 122 (49%) Almost half of the residents receiving surveys responded. The response rate was over 50% for three sub-areas. Area II had a 39% response rate. Table 1.2 Number of Residents Rentine or OwTiine Their Residence Ownership rent • own Area I 1 (3%)39 (98%) Area II n/a 28(100%) Area II 2 (15%)11 (85%) Area IV n/a 41(100%) Total 3 (2%)119(98%) Residents were asked whether they rent or own their residence. The vast majority of respondents own their own home Navarre Housing Study Table 1.3 Length of Residency in the Neighborhood Longevity < 1 year 1-3 years 3-10 years 10-20 years > 20 years (n/a: 1) Area I Area II Area II Area IV 4(10%) 4 (14%) n/a n/a 2 (5%) 4 (14%) 1 (8%) 7(17%) 11 (28%) 9 (32%) 11 (85%) 17(41%) 9(23%) 13(33%) 3(11%) 8(29%) n/a 1 (8%) 9 (22%) 8 (20%) Total 8(7%) 14(11%) 48(39%) 21(17%) 30(25%) Respondents were asked how long they have lived in the neighborhood. Most residents have lived in the area for a significant length of time. Most have lived in their home for 3 tO 10 years or over 20 years. The smallest percentage was for those living in the neighborhood for less than one year. It appears that turnover in the area was relatively low. These percentages were fairly consistent for all areas, with the exception of Area III, where the percentage living in the neighborhood for 3 to 10 years was 85%. This may have been due to the construction of new units in the mid 1980’s. Table 1.4 Ages of Children in Households Children < 5 years 6-10 years 11-14 years 15-18 years n/a Areal Area II Area II Area IV 7(18%) 6 (21%) n/a 6(15%) 8(20%) 7(18%) 1(3%) 25(63%) 2(7%) 2(7%) n/a 18(64%) n/a n/a 1(8%) 12(92%) 5(12%) 3(7%) 4(10%) 26(63%) Total 18(15%) 15(12%) 12(10%) 6 (5%) 81 (66%) Participants were asked if they have any children living at home and if so, to indicate their ages groups. An overwhelmingly high percentage of respondents did not have children living at home. Of those respondents who did have children, there was a fairly even distribution between the under five years, 5 to 10 years, and 11 to 14 years old categories. The number of households in Area III with children is low; 12% of the households have children. Navarre Housing Study Table 1.5 fTTiplovnient Status of Head of Household Employment employed employed home- rhead of household) fulltime part time maker student, employed retired self employed other Area I 19 (48%) 1 (3%)1 (3%)n/a 11 (28%) 7(18%)1 (3%) Area II 18(64%) 1(4%)n/a n/a 2 (7%) 7 (25%)n/a Area II 7 (54%) n/a n/a n/a 6(46%) n/a n/a Area IV 30 (73%) 1 (2%)n/a 1 (2%)5 (12%) 4 (10%)n/a ■ Total 74 (61%) 3 (2%)1 (1%)1 (2%)24(20%) 18(15%) 1(1%) Respondents were asked to indicate the employment status of their head of household. Most heads of household are employed full time. There was also a significant number of residents who were either self employed or retired. Table 1.6 Total Household Income in 1996 Before Taxes Household Income $5,000- $10,000- $20,000- $30,000- $50,000- >$75,000 no $9,999 $19,999 $29,999 $49,999 $74,999 response Areal f(3%) H8%) 4(10%) 11 (28%) 5(13%) 6(15%) 10(25%) Area II 1(4%) n/a 2(7%) 10 (36%) 6 (21%) 4(14%) 5(18%) Area II n/a 2(15%) 3(23%) 3(23%) 3(23%) n/a 2(15%) Area IV n/a 1 (2%) 6 (15%) 17 (41%) 8 (20%) 2 (5%) 7 (17%) 2 (2%) 6 (5%) 15 (12%) 41 (34%) 22 (18%) 12 (10%) 24 (20%) Households were asked to indicate their household income in 1996 before taxes. The highest percentage of incomes were in the $30,000 to $49,999 range. There is also a sizable proportion in the $20,000 to $29,000 and $50,000 to $74,999 ranges. This was consistent for three of the study areas. Area III has a much more even distribution. Households making less than $43,000 per year are the most eligible for grant money for home improvements. This would include householders on the lower end of the $30,000 to $49,999 range. Many of the residents in the area would be eligible for grant money. Navarre Housing Study Table 1.7 Respondent ’s Highest Level of Educational Attainment Highest Level of Education elementary high some technical elementa some college other school school or technical school ry school college graduate _________GED school graduate Areal Area II Area II Area IV Total 1 (3%) n/a n/a n/a 4(10%) 5(18%) 4(31%) 5(12%) n/a 1 (4%) n/a 2 (5%) 9 (23%) 2 (7%) n/a 7(17%) 1 (3%) n/a n/a n/a 10 (25%) 14 (35%) 2 (5%) 8(29%) 9(32%) 3(11%) 5 (38%) 3 (23%) 1 (8%) 13 (32%) 12 (29%) 2 (5%) 1 18(15%) 3(2%) 18(15%) 1(1%) 36(30%) 38 (31%) 8 (7%) The respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of educational attainment. The highest proportion of respondents had indicated that they had either graduated from college or had attended some college. There were also smaller groups who attended high school and have graduated from technical schools. These figures remained relatively consistent for all areas. The level of education coincided fairly closely with the level of household income indicated. It appears that those with a technical school degree or college degree earn $30,000 to $49,999 or more. Table 1.8 Ability to Afford House Repair*; Could Afford House Repairs yes no Area I Area II Area II Area IV don ’t know no responsp 29 (73%) 18 (64%) 11 (85%) 28 (68%) n/a 1 (4%) 1 (8%) 4 (10%) 11 (28%) 8 (29%) 1 (8%) 8 (20%) n/a 1 (4%) n/a 1 (2%) 86(70%) 6(5%) 28(23%) 2(2%) Residents were asked if they could afford repairs to their house if needed. The majority of residents indicated they could. This was most certain for Area III respondents. There was a significant number of householders who were unsure as to whether or not they could afford house repairs. Table 1.9 Willingness to Apply for Loans or Granf^; Willingness to Apply for Funding yes no don't know no response Area I 19(48%)12 (30%)9 (23%)n/a Area II 19(68%)1 (4%)6 (21%)2 (7%) Area II 7 (54%)3 (23%)1 (8%)2 (15%) Area IV 26 (63%)8 (20%)6 (15%)1 (2%) Total 71 (58%)24 (20%)22(16%)5 (4%) Navarre Housing Study Respondents were asked if they would apply for loans or grants to pay for house repairs. As to whether or not the residents would use loans or grants given the opportunity, the majority indicated they would. This contradicted the response for the previous question. Perhaps the respondents who can afford house repairs would none the less be interested in loans or grants if they were available. Area II expressed the greatest interest in grant or loan money. Many respondents indicated they would not or did not know if they would use grant or loan money. Table 1.10 Number of Respondents That Would Apnlv for Grants Grants >'gs_______don't know no response Areal Area II Area II Area IV Total 13 (33%) 16(57%) 4(31%) 22 (54%) 55 (45%) 2 (5%) 3(11%) 1 (8%) 6(15%) 12(10%) 7(18%) 4 (14%) 2(15%) 6 (15%) 19(16%) 18 (45%) 5 (18%) 6 (46%) 7 (17%) 36 (30%) Residents were asked if they would apply for grants. This question was asked to identify what type of assistance residents would apply for if funding was available. The highest proportion of respondents indicated they w'ould apply for grant money. Areas II and IV showed the greatest interest in grant money. Areas I and III had a high proportion which did not respond. Table 1.11 Number of Rpspnndents That Would Apply for Low Interest Government Loans Low Interest Government Loans yes no don't know no response Areal 15 (38%)2 (5%)8 (20%)15(38%) Area II 16(57%)2 (7%)3(11%)7 (25%) Area II 4(31%)2(15%)1 (8%)6 (46%) Area IV 20 (49%)7 (17%)4 (10%)10 (24%) Total 55 (45%)13(11%)16 (13%)38(31%) Residents were asked if they would apply for low interest government loans. The overall interest in low interest government loans was equally strong as the highest proportion of respondents indicated they would be interested in the loan money. Areas II and IV showed the greatest interest at 57% and 49%, respectively. Area I showed slightly more interest, while Area III again had a high rate of no response. Navarre Housing Study Table U2 Number of Respondents That Would Apply for Low Interest Private Loans Low Interest Private Loans yes no don't know no response Areal 14 (35%)3 (8%)8 (20%)15 (38%) Area II 13 (46%)2 (7%)4 (14%)9 (32%) Area II 6 (46%)1 (8%)1 (8%)5 (38%) Area IV 21 (51%)5 (12%)4 (10%)11 (27%) Total 54 (44%)11 (9%)17(14%)40 (33%) Respondents were asked if they would apply for low interest private loans. The survey results showed that 54% of households would be interested in private loans at low interest rates. Table 1.13 Number of Resoondents That Would Not Aoolv for Grant or Loan Funds Would Not Apply yes no don’t know no response Areal 6(15%)4 (10%)10 (25%)20 (50%) Area II 1 (4%)8 (29%)3(11%)16(57%) Area II 1 (8%)4(31%)3 (23%)5 (38%) Area IV 7(17%)7(17%)1 (2%)26 (63%) Total 15(12%)23 (19%)17(14%)67 (55%) Residents were asked if they would not apply. Most respondents did not answer this question. Only 15 respondents indicated they would not apply. Table 1.14 Affordable Housing for First Time Homebuyers in Navarre yes no don't know no response Area I 24 (60%)1 (3%)11 (28%)4 (10%) Area II 23 (82%)1 (4%) ■3(11%)1 (4%) Area II 7 (54%)1 (8%)4(31%)1 (8%) Area IV 34 (83%)3 (7%)1 (2%)3 (7%) Total 88 (72%)6 (5%)19(16%)9 (7%) Residents were asked if they felt there was affordable housing for first time homebuyers in Navarre. There was strong agreement that there are affordable houses for first time home buyers in the study area. There w ere a sizable number of respondents who did not know if this was true in areas I and III. This may be due to the higher longevity rates in the area. Navarre Housing Study Table 1.15 Perceived Affordability of Housing Houses in Neighborhood are Affordable yes no don't know no response Area I 25 (63%)2 (5%)11 (28%)2 (5%)Area II 23 (82%)2 (7%)3(11%)n/a Area II 10(77%)1 (8%)2(15%)n/a Area IV 35(85 n/a 4(10%)2 (5%) Total 93 (75%)5 (4%)20(16%)4 (3%) Residents were asked if they felt houses in the neighborhood are affordable. Three out of four respondents indicated that houses in their neighborhood are affordable. This response rate strongly coincided with the response for the previous question. Overall, there appeared to be strong agreement that the housing in the neighborhood is affordable. This study area comprises the majority of Orono ’s affordable housing stock. Table 1.16 Stability of Neighborhood Property Valiie<; Stable Neighborhood Property Values yes no Area I Area II Area II Area IV don't know no response Total 17(43%) 4(10%) 17(61%) 3(11%) 9 (69%) n/a 23 (56%) 6(15%) 16(40%) 3(8%) 8 (29%) n/a 4(31%) n/a 10(24%) 2(5%) 66(54%) 13(11%) 38(31%) 5(4%) Residents were asked if they felt property values in the neighborhood were a concern. The stability of property values did not appear to be a concern. The majority of respondents agree that property values were stable. Table 1.17 Perception of Houses on Respondents Block Being in Good Conditinn Houses on Block in Good Condition yes no Area I Area II Area II Area IV Total don't know no response 18(45%) 15(54%) 10(77%) 22 (54% 12(30%) 11 (39%) 1 (8%) 15(37%) 8 (20%) 2 (7%) 2(15%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) n/a n/a 2 (5%) 65 (53%) 39(27%) 14(11%) 4(3%) Respondents were asked if they felt the houses on their block were in good condition. There w^ no consensus on this issue. While the highest proportion said yes, a very large number indicated otherwise. In Area III there was overwhelming agreement that the 8 Navarre Housing Study housing was in good condition. Area III has newer housing which may be perceived to be in better condition. Table 1.18 Perception oi Houses in the iNcighborhood Being in Good Condition Houses in Neighborhood in Good Condition yes no don't know no response Areal Area il Area II Area IV 20(50%) 9(23%) 7(18%) 4(10%) 14 (50%) 11 (39%) 3 (11%) n/a 9 (69%) 1 (8%) 3 (23%) n/a 18 (44%) 15 (37%) 6(15%) 2 (5%) Total 61(50%) 36(30%) 19(16%) 6(5%) Residents were asked if they felt houses in their neighborhood were in good condition. The response was very similar to the previous question. Most respondents indicated the houses in the neighborhood were in good condition, with a significant number that disagreed. Table 1.19 Affordable Rental Housing in the Neighborhood There is Affordable Rental Housing in yes the Neighborhood no don't know no response Areal 1 (3%)9 (23ro)29 (73%)1 (3%) Area II 2 (7%)5(18%)21 (75%)n/a 11 3 (23%)4(31%)6 (46%)n/a Aiea IV 4(10%)3 (7%)31 (76%)3 (7%) Total 10(8%)21 (17%) 87 (71%)4 (3%) Respondents were asked if they felt there was affordable rental housing in the neighborhood. Most residents were unsure about this question. This was most likely due to most residents owning their homes. Table 1.20 Number Indicating a Need for A Larger Home Would Cause Them to Move in the Next XSSL Need for Larger Home yes no don't know no response Area I 8 (20%)17(43%)5(13%;10 (25%) Area II 11 (39%)10(36%)n/a 7 (25%) Area II 3 (23%)7 (54%) n/a 3 (23%) Area IV 14(34%)19(46%)2 (5%)6 (15%) Total 36 (30%)53 (43%)7 (6%)26(21%) Navarre Housing Study Respondents were asked if the need for a larger home would cause them to move in the next year. The majority of respondents indicated that they would not move if they needed a larger home. The exception is Area II, where a higher proportion indicated they would move. This was likely due to the small size of many of the houses in the neighborhood. Table 1.21 Number Indicating a Job Change Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Year Job Cnange yes no don't know no response Area I 11 (28%)12 (30%)7(18%)10 (25%) Area II 7 (25%)13(46 n/a 8 (29% Area III 7 (54%)n/a 2(15%)4(31%) Area IV 10(24%)20 (49%)3 (7%)8 (20%) Total 35 (29%)45 (37%)12(10%)30 (25%) Respondents were asked if a change in jobs would cause them to move in the next year. Most residents indicated they would not move due to a job change.A notable exception was Area III, where the majority indicated they would move and no one indicated they would not move. Table 1.22 Number Indicatinc a Change in Household Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Year Change in Household yes no don ’t know no response Area I 7(18%)17(43%)7(18%)9 (23%) Area II 11 (39%)10 (36%)4 (14%)3(11%) Area II 4(31%)6 (46%)1 (8%)2(15%) Area IV 14(34%)15(37%)3 (7%)9 (22%) Total 36 (30%)48 (39%)15(12%)23 (19%) Residents were asked if a change in their household, such as a birth or death would cause them to move within the next year. The response to this question coincides with the job change question. The highest proportion of residents would not move, however. The exception was Area II, where a slightly greater number indicated they would move. Table 1.23 >e Live Closer to Work yes no don't know no response Area I 2 (5%)21 (53%)7(18%)10(25%) Area II 1 (4%)18(64%)1 (4%)8 (29%) Area II 1 (8%)6 (46%)1 (8%)5 (38%) ■ Area IV 4 (10%)26 (63%)2 (5%)9 (22%) Total 8 (7%)71 (58%)11 (9%)32 (26%) to Navarre Housing Study Respondents were asked if they would move wthin the next year to live closer to work. The majority of residents indicated that they would not. A very small number indicate they would. Table 1.24 Number Indicating Neighborhood Nu'sances Would Cause Them to Move in the Next Ysai Neighborhood Nuisances yes no don't know no response Area I 12(30%)11 (28%)5 (13%)12(30%' Area II 6(21%)12(43%)1 (4%)9 (32%) Area II 1 (8%)7 (54%)n/a 5 {W/o) Area IV 11 (27%)18(44%)5 (12%)7(17%) Total 30 (25%)48 (39%)11 (9%)33 (27) Residents were asked if they would move within the next year due to neighborhood nuisances. Most residents would not leave because of neighborhood nuisances such as noise and traffic. This coincided with comments made on the survey regarding the level of traffic and noise on County Road 19. Table 1.25 Pprrpntinn That Navarre Park is in Good Condition Navarre Park is in Good Condition yes no don't know no response Area I 10(25%)8 (20%)21 (53%)1 (3%) Area II 7 (25%)6(21%)15(54 n/a Area II 3 (23%)3 (23%)6 (46%)1 (8%) Area IV 11 (27%)18 (44%)12(29 n/a Total 31 (25%)35 (29%)54 (44%)2 (2%) Residents were asked if they felt Navarre Park is in good condition. Most respondents did not believe that Navarre Park is in good condition. While the greatest proportion did not know what kind of condition the park is in, the exception was Area IV. Those who live closest to the park felt it is not in good condition. In the other areas, the response was split or slightly in agreement that the park is in good condition. Table 1.26 Households Using Navarre Park Household Uses Navarre Park yes no don't know no response Area I 6(15%)31 (78%)1 (3%)2 (5%) Area II 3 (11%)23 (82%)2 (7%)n/a Area II 1 (8%)11 (85%)1 (8%)n/a Area IV 11 (27%)28 (68%) O*' /"7/nO/ \ 1 (2%)1 (2%) Area I Area II Area III Area IV To 6 7 2 8 23 10 2 n/a 6 18 2 9 n/a 5 16 2 1 1 9 13 n/a 3 3 7 13 1 1 n/a 2 4 1 2 n/a n/a 3 n/a 1 n/a 1 2 1 n/a n/a 1 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 1 1 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 Table 1.28 Navarre Housing Study Other Concerns of Respondents Other Concerns II Traffic (noise, speeds, volume, etc.) Unkempt Yards Unkempt Houses Animal Control (loose, barking, Cic.) Condition of Streets Street Lighting Lord Fletcher's Externalities High Taxes Poor Telephone Lines Revamp Navarre Park Appearance of Church Area Overgrown Trees Boat Traffic Gas Stations Over Restrictiveness of Zoning Regulations Poor Snow Removal Children Playing in Street Piles of Railroad Ties Along RR More Crosswalks More Police Patrol Cannot Afford Home Improvements Low Income Driven Out by High Income Too Much Chlorine in Water Increasing Property Values Condition of Municipal Parking Lot Unstable Electricity During Storms Theft by Lake Access: Unfamiliarity With Neighbors Hazards Presented by RR Clogged Drain Tiles Two Families in One Family Dwelling Need for Sidewalks/Trails Limit Building Attitude of Wealthy Better Recycling Program Area I Area 11 Area III Are 6 1 1 8 2 2 2 5 i 3 n/a 3 1 2 n/a 3 1 n/a 1 3 n/a n/a n/a 5 4 1 n/a n/a 2 1 n/a n/a 2 1 n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 f?‘a n/a n/a n/a 2 n/'a n/a n/a n/a I I n/a n/a n/a 2 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 I n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a I n/a n/a n/a n/a I n/a n/a n/a I 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/'a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a I n/a 1 n/a n/a Total Respondents were asked to list any miscellaneous concerns they had regarding the neighborhood. The response for this question was very similar to the previous one. While the order of concern is different, it is important to keep in mind these were secondary concerns, where the previous question addressed primary concerns. Traffic was the most important issue, with unkempt yards second. The areas where issues were Traffic Dilapidated Houses Unkempt Yards Inadequate Street Lighting Inadequate Streets Animal Control There were six concerns listed by 10 or more respondents. Traffic was the primary concern, with the condition of houses being a close second. Pooi yards was the third most identified problem. Street lighting was a major concern in Area IV. Inadequate streets and animal control were listed as problems, particularly in Areas II and IV. Overall, it appeared respondents in Area IV, had the most concerns. r Navarre Housing Study PART II: WINDSHIELD SURVEY RESULTS Housing Table 2.1 Type of Hou«;ing Type single multi-family seasonal n/a other Area I 75 (99%)n/a n/a n/a 1 (1%) Area II 62 (86%)n/a 8(11%)2 (3%) n/a Area II n/a 24 (96%) n/a 1 (4%) n/a Area IV 71 (95%)1 (1%) n/a 1 (1%) 2 (3%) Total 208 (84%)25 (10%) 8 0%)4(2%) 3(1%) The type of housing was noted in the yisual suryey. The overwhelming majority of housing in the neighborhood was single family. The notable exception was Area III, which IS entirely multi-family.This is the area of duplexes near the water tower. There were a few houses in Area 11 near the lake which appeared to be seasonal in nature due to a lack of cars on the property, a lower level of maintenance and/or a great deal of mail having accumulated in the mailbox. Table 2.2 Number of Houses Appearing Lived In Lived In yes no n/a Area I 75 (99%)n/a 1 (1%) Area II 68 (94%)2 (3%)2 (3%) Area III 24 (96%)n/a I (4%) Area IV 73 (97%)2 (3%)1 (1%) Total 240 (97%)4 (2%)4 (2%) Houses were eyaluated as to whether or not they appear liyed in. Most houses are occupied. There are a few hous» *’ '’»d not appear to be occupied that were in serious disrepair. Table 2.3 Condition of Rnnf«; Roof excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area I Area II Area III Area IV 12(16%) 10(14%) 4(16%) 7 (9%) 27 (36%) 25 (35%) 20 (80%) 28 (37%) 21 (28%) 20 (28%) n/a 22 (29%) 13(17%) 3(4%) 11(15%) 4(6%) n/a n/a 15(20%) 2(3%) Total 33(13%) 100(40%) 63(25%) 39(16%) 9(4%) r Navarre Housing Study of residences was evaluated. Most roofs were in fair to excellent Table 2.4 Conditi on ofSidjlng on Siding Areal Area II Area III Area IV Total excellent 24 (32%) 20 (-8%) 12(48%) 27 (36%) good 31 (41%) 23 (32%) 7 (28%) 23 (31%) fair 15(20%) 20 (28%) 5 (20%) 17(23%) poor 6 (8?/o) 5 (7%) n/'a 7 (9%) dilapidated n/a 2 (3%) n/a n/a83 (33%)84 (34%)57 (23%)18(7%)2(1%) mmlT Tlir °I- ?" “ evaluated. This issue was of minimal concern especially tmeUho^iLsSvi'M ‘"f' ''f siding in *e dilapS ea«,o^ “ "“P’' -«» Table 2.5 Type of .Siding on Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total ^'ood ____brick ^C>(74%) l(lo/o) 58(81%) l(lo/o) 20(80%) n/a 48(64%) 1 i\%) vinyl stucco other Ti (14%) 7(9%) f(T%) 7 (1 0%) 4 (6%) n/a 4(16%) n/a n/a 18(24%) 6(8%) igo/o) 40(16%) 17(7%) 2(i^182 (73%) 3(1%) Table 2.6 Condition of Fonridf»tion nr| Foundation Area I Area II .\rea III _______Area IV Total need paint 9(12%) 9(13%) 7 (28%) 8(11%) 33(13%) g excellent 20 (26%) 11 (15%) 11 (44%) 4 (5%) good 35 (46%) 33 (46%) 13 (52%) 45 (60%) fair 17 (22%) 21 (29%) n/a 20 (27%) poor 2 (3%) 3 (4%) n/a 4 (5«/'o) dilapidated 2 (3%) 2 (3%) n/a 1 (1%)46 (19%)126 (51%)58 (23%)9 (4%)5 (2%) Navarre Housing Study The foundations on residences were evaluated. Almost all foundations were in fair to excellent condition. This was especially true in Area III where all foundations were in good to excellent condition. The number in poor to dilapidated condition was very small. Table 2.7 Condition of Window ’s on Rp<iH«*nr<»c Windows Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total excellent 29 (38%) 21 (29%) 14 (56%) 18(24%) 82 (33%) good 32 (42%) 37(51%) 10(40%) 43 (57%) 14(18%) 1(1%) 8(11%) 2 (3%) 122(49%) 33(13%) 5(2%) dilapidated n/a 2 (3%) n/a n/a 20%) The condition of windows were evaluated. Windows were in good to excellent condition overall. T^ere were a few structures that have older window frames and were experiencing minor rotting or weathering. Many of the traditional wood frame windows m the neighborhood have been replaced by vinyl or aluminum. Table 2.8 Number of Windows Brok en or Having Screens Missing nn Rp<;iHpnrPc Areal Area II Area III Area IV broken 1 (1%) 1 (1%) n/a 1 (1%) screen s missing n/a 2 (3%) n/a n/a Total 3 (1%)2(1%) Windows that were broken or having screens missing were noted. As the previous question states, most windows w'cre in relatively good condition. Table 2.9 Overall Appearance of Hnii<;e<^ Overa ll Appearan ce Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total excellent good ______fair_____ poor 14(18%) 44 (58%) 15 (20%) f(4^ 12(17%) 34(47%) 18(25%) 5(7%) 12(48%) 12(48%) n/a n/a 5 (7%) 47(63%) 18(24%) 3 (4%) dilapida ted n/a 1 (1%) n/a 1 (1%) 43(17%) 137(55%) 51(21%) 11(4%) 2(1%) The overall condition of houses were documented. Most houses were in fair to excellentcondition overall. Few residences were in poor to dilapidated condition. Navarre Housing Snidy Garages Table 2.10 Number of Attached and Detached Garages Attached or Detached attached detached both n/a Area I 13(17%)48 (63%)1 (1%)14(18%) Area II 25 (35%)34 (47%)n/a 13(18%) Area III 24 (96%)1 (4%)n/a n/a Area IV 13(17%)36 (48%)1 (1%)25 (33%) Total 75 (30%)119(48%)2 (1%)53 (21%) A^^iiether garages were attached, detached or non-existent was noted on each property. Most garages in the area were detached. These duplexes were built on wider lots than most houses i.n the older parts of the neighborhood. Duplexes in Area III had a much higher proportion of gamges in the good to excellent categories than the other areas. There were also many properties that do not have a garage at all. This may be due to the lot sizes and width > that make the construction of a garage in the side or rear yard difficult. Table 2.11 Condition of Roofs on Garages Roof excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area 1 Area II Area III Area IV 10(13%) 17(22%) 23 (30%) 9(12%) 3(4%) 7(10%) 22(31%) 16(22%) 10(14%) 4(6%) 4(16%) 20(80%) 1(4%) n/a n/a 3 (4%) 19 (25%) 15 (20%) 10(13%) 3(4%) Total 24(10%) 78(31%) 55 (22%) 29(12%) 10(4%) The condition of garage roofs was examined. The majority of garage roofs are in the fair to excellent categon'*c. There were a few garages which have roofs in poor to dilapidated condition. In some cases, the roof may be beyond repair. Table 2.12 Condition of Siding on Garages Siding excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area I 19(25%)25 (33%)10(13%)8(11%)n/a Area II 16(22%)15(21%)23 (32%)3 (4%)2 (3%) Area III 12 (48%)7 (28%)6 (24%)n/a n/a Area IV 6 (8%)20 (27%)16(21%)3 (4%)5 (7%) Total 53 (21%)67 (27%)55 (22%)14 (6%)7 (3%) r Navarre Housing Study The siding conditions for garages was examined. Once again, there was a fairly even distribution between excellent, good and fair siding conditions. There was a large number in poor to dilapidated condition. Most garages have wood siding. Table 2.13 Tondition of Foundations on Garages Foundation excellent dilapidated n/a The condition of foundations on garages was examined. It does not appear as though garage foundations were as great of concern as other structural components. There was a small number that showed cracking and skimping. Table 2.14 rnndition of Windows on Garages Area I Area II Area III Area IV excellent good fair _____poor 20(26%) 28(37%) 10(13%) 1 (1%) 16 (22%) 29 (40%) 8(11%) 3 (4%) 14(56%) 10(40%) 1 (4%) n/a 6 (8%) 30 (40%) 11(15 n/a dilapidated n/a T(T%) ^3%) 3 (4%) n/'a n/a 2 (3%) 1 (1%) Total 56 (23%) 97 (39%) 30 (12%) 4 (2%) 6 (2%) 3 (1%) The condition of garage windows was evaluated. Most garage windows were in fair to excellent condition. Table 2.15 Overall Appearance of Garages Overall Appearance _______excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area I Area II Area III Area IV 12(16%) 33 (43%) 10(13%) 7(9%) 12(17%) 24(33%) 17(24%) 3(4%) 12(48%) :2(48%) 1(4%) n/a 3 (4%) 24 (32%) 12 (16%) 7 (9%) n/a 3 (4%) n/a 4 (5%) j^\ 39(16%) ^(38%) 40(16%) 17 (7?/o) 7(3%) 'fhe ove all appearance of garages was evaluated. Overall, (he appearance of most garages could be considered fair to excellent. The proportion in the excellent and good categories was slightly lower for garages than it was for houses. Area III had nearly all garages that were in the good to excellent categories that are attached. Navarre Housing Study Yards Table 2.16 Condition of Driveway and Sidewalks Driveway/Sidewalks excellent good fair poor dilapidated Areal 23 (30%)31 (41%)15(20%)7 (9%)n/a Area II 25 (35%)18(25%)22 (31%)5 (7%)1 (1%) Area III 16 (64%)8 (32%)1 (4%) n/a n/a Area IV 24 (32%)29 (39%)20 (27%)1 (1%)n/a Total 88 (35%)86 (35%)58 (23%)13 (5%)1 (1%) The condition of sidewalks and driveways was evaluated. In most cases, driveways and sidewalks were in good to excellent condition. Those in fair and poor condition were experiencing cracking or overgrowth of weeds, depending on whether or not they were paved. There are also some driveways in these categories that had potholes. Table 2.17 Number of Paved and Unpaved Driveways paved unpaved both n/a Area I 41 (54%)33 (43%) 2 (3%)n/a Area II 37(51%)31 (43%)3 (4%)1 (1%) Area III 25 (100%)n/a n/a n/a Area IV 39 (52%)34 (45%)1 (1%)1 (1%) Total 142 (57%)98 (40%)6 (2%)2(1%) Whether driveways were paved, unpaved or both was noted. While most driveways were paved, there is a sizable number that were unpaved. Every driveway was paved in Area III. Table 2.18 Presence of Debris and Outdoor Storag e tdoor Storage excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area I •22 (29%)28 (37%)16(21%)5 (7%)5 (7%) Area II 6 (8%)23 (32%)24 (33%)13 (18%)6 (8%) Area III 12 (48%)10(40%)2 (8%)n/a 1 (4%) Area IV 12(16%)33 (44%)20 (27%)6 (8%)4 (5%) Total 52 (21%)94 (38%)62 (25%)24(10%)16(6%) The presence of debris and outdoor storage was observed. With the exception of Area III, all other areas had numerous properties in the poor to dilapidated categories. Many residences had miscellaneous items in their yard. NavsTC Housing Study Table 2.19 abandoned vehicles recreational vehicles weeds, brush Areal 6 (8%)8(11%)18(24%) Area II 3 (4%)12(17%)37(51%) Area III n/a n/a 2 (8%) ArealV 6 (8%)11 (15%)28 (37%) Total 15(6%)31 (13%)85 (34%) Specific items of debris and outdoor storage were noted. There was a significant number of abandoned vehicles and recreational vehicles on properties in the study area, by far the greatest concern was the presence of excessive weeds and brush observed. A third of the properties had excessive weeds and brush. Table 2.20 Overall Appearance of Yards Overall Appearance excellent good fair poor dilapidated Area I Area II Area III Area IV 23 (30%) 6 (8%) 13 (52%) 12(16%) 31 (49%) 24 (33%) 10 (40%) 32 (43%) 13 (17%) 23 (32%) 1 (4%) 21 (28%) 7 (9%) 13 (18%) n/a 6 (8%) 2 (3%) 6 (8%) 1 (4%) 4 (5%) Total 54(22%) 97(39%) 58(23%) 26(10%) 13(5%) The overall appearance of yards was documented. The overall appearemce of most yards were in the fair to excellent categories. There were some that needed to remove debris and weeds. Table 2.21 Additional Observations Additional Comments weeds and brush along lake excessive bush/vine growth weedy/overgrown yard dead grass new house junk in yard house additions/remodeling deck in disrepair small cabin very small residence unsightly fence potholes in drive Areal AreaII Area III AreaIV Total n/a 14 n/a n/a 14 4 4 n/a 2 10 5 2 n/a 3 10 1 3 1 2 7 2 4 n/a 1 7 3 3 n/a n/a 6 3 n/a n/a 1 4 1 2 n/a 1 4 2 1 n/a 1 4 2 n/a n/a 1 3 2 n/a 1 3 1 1 n/a n/a 2 Navarre Housing Study Additional Comments (continued) garage doors in disrepair landscaping taking place ice fishing house in yard r’gnificant front setback porch in disrepair pile of gravel double wide trailer noisy/loose dogs new landscaping construction materials lying around empty lot garage roof in disrepair dead bushes foundation in disrepair excessive amounts of flowers have tennis court dilapidated retaining wall storage shed in disrepair cracking chimney should be razed has extra cabin landscaping becoming shoddy noxious weeas steep topography outdoor car storage natural looking yard old shop garage in disrepair terraced front yard flower planter in disrepair missing front steps wood piles Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total 1 ll/a n/a 1 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 n/a 1 n/a 1 2 1 n/a n/a 1 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a n/a n/a 2 2 n/a 2 n/a 2 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 I n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a 1 n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 n/a n/a n/a 1 Noteworthy features of properties not on the checklist were specifically noted. When the neighborhood was inspected, notable features were cited specifically. There were three comments which were cited 10 times or more. In Area II, many properties had weeds and brush growing up along the lakeshore. There was excessive growth of bushes and vines in many areas. There was also a significant number of properties that were weedy or overgrown. These top three additional comments related to the maintenance of yards. FINDINGS The mail back and visual surveys conducted in July 1997 that there is an interest in funding for housing improvements. Survey results indicate that many residents may qualify for some types of loans or grants based on income reported. The visual survey substantiated that there are properties that would benefit from repair. r Navarre Housing Study Navarre contains the bulk of what can be considered affordable housing in Orono. Affordable housing is defined as $120,000 per unit in this part of Twin Cities metropolitan area according to the Metropolitan Council. The houses in the area are ’ generally smaller and more affordable th^ other houses elsewhere in the community and lake area. The city is required to update the comprehensive plan and address housing issues. Orono is working with other Lake Minnetonka area communities t .levelop a housing plan. It is expected to be initiated in January and completed within six months. f 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. Appendix AI NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY For theXoUowing questions, please check the box left of the answer most applicable. Do you rent or own the property you live in? D Rent □ Own How long have you lived in the neighborhood? □ Less than 1 year □ 2-3 years □ 5-/0 years □ 10-20 years □ Over 20 years If there are children under 18 in your household, please indicate all age groups that apply □ Under 5 years old □ 6-20 years old □ 12-14 years old □ 25-18 years old What is the employment status of your head of household? □ Employed full time □ Employed part time □ Homemaker □ Student, unemployed □ Stiident, employed □ Retired □ Unemployed □ Self employed What^was your total household earned gross income in 1996? (wages and salary before □ Under $4,999 □ $5,000- $9,999 □ $10,000-$ 19,999 □ $20,000-$29,000 □ $30,000-$49,000 □ $50,000-$74,999 D Over $75,000 □ Choose not to answer What is the highest level of education you have completed? □ Elementary school □ Some high school D High school or GED □ Some technical school □ Technical school graduate □ Some college O Post graduate U Other Is your house adequately equipped or designed to meet your needs? For example, do you have or will you have mobility limitations that make it difficult for you to continue living in your home? ^yes UNo UDon^tKnow 8. If your house needed repair would you be able to get it fixed?□ Yes □ No □ Don’t Know • • If you own your home, would you consider major remodeling or other improvements to your home if affordable loans and grants were available?□ Yes □ No □ Don’t Know Please see other side of page Appendix A2 10. yo^ could not afford to get your house fixed, would you apply for any of the following types of funding options? (rate all that apply) Q^ts n Don ’t Know Low interest government loans ^ ^ ^ Don t I^ow Low interest private loans ^ O No □ Don t l^ow Would not apply U Yes O No O Don t Know I 11. Do you agree with the following statements? There are houses in the Navarre area that are affordable for first-time home buyers to pt^chase. ° S Houses in the neighborhood are affordable. ° □ Don f J^ow The property values in the neighborhood are stable. □ Yes O No □ Dont l^ow The houses on my block are in good condition. ° Yes O No □ Dont mow The houses in the neighborhood are in good condition. □ Yes O No □ Dont mow There is affordable rental housing in the neighborhood. □ Yes ONo □ Don t Know 12. Which of the following reasons would cause you to move from your current residence within the next 12 months? _ _ ^ ^ ^ W««i for a larger home ° D Wo n Don, W Relocating due 10 a job change OYes ONo ODontl^ow Change in household or family (birth, death, etc.) OYes ONo ODont^ow Need to live closer to work ° Yes □ Wo □ Do« r Know Neighborhood nuisances (noise, traffic, etc.) tD Yes ONo □ Don t Know Other __________________________— 13. The neighborhood park (Navarre Park) is in good condition. □ Yes ONo □ Don ’t Know 14. My household frequently uses the neighborhood park (Navarre Park). □ Yes ONo □ Don't Know For the following questions, please write in vour answers in the spaces provided. 15. What is the single most important improvement that should be made in your neighborhood to improve things in the future? • _________ ____ 16. Are there any other issues or concerns that you have regarding your neighborhood? PT .F.ASE RETURN IN POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE BEFORE Thank you for your participation! .Y11.1997. street; Appendix 6 HOUSING CHECKLIST Address: Owner; House: . excellent 2-good • • • • 3s: fair 4^ poor 5= dilapi^ted • 1. • Type r •• □ single family □ multi family number of units: □ seasonal 2.Does It Appear Lived In □ yes □ no . 3.Roof 1 •2 3 4 5 4.Siding 1 2 3 4 5 □ wood □ vinyl O brick □ in need of paint • 5.Foundation 1 2 3 4 5 6.Windows □ screens missing □ broken 1 2 3 4 5 7.Overall Appearance 1 2 3 4 5 Garage: 8.Attached or Detached □ attached □ detached • 9.Roof 1 2 3 4 5 10.Siding 1 2 3 4 5 11.Foundation 1 2 3 4 5 12.Windows 1 2 3 4 • • 5 13. • Overall Appearance • 1 2 3 • 4 5 • Yard: a 14.Driveway/Sidewalks U paved □ impaved 1 2 3 4 5 15.Debris/Outdoor Storage 1 2 3 4 5 □ abandoned vehicles □ recreational vehicles □ weeds/brush 16. 17. Overall Appearance Additional Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 NA\ /vivAvjLii xiO USll oiJ^ARiiAS -sy INI \ 111.1^ |Hl . • IM^ l.UfI----- • 1 fe‘• i lif i * L 111 1 IvVv' m "ihir S. \ caW>' . . .1 *•• — • — • , cl»*l IIII.M Ml « • '.r.nvl I Of 0 ADDENDUM DATE: TO; 12/2/97 Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: RE: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant Affordable Housing Study of Navarre ATTACHMENTS: A B C Affordable Housing in Navarre Sale Values of Properties in Navarre: 1996 and 1997 Navarre Housing Study Area Map As an addendum to the Navarre Housing Smdy, the amount of housing that is considered affordable in Navarre was calculated in November, 1997. The Metropolitan Council defines affordable housing as housing that costs $120,000 per year or less per dwelling unit. This is based on an average family of four spending 30% of their income on housing. The total assessed value of each property was calculated by adding the value of land and buildings for each property that includes a residence according to the Hennepin Count}/ tax records. Table 1 is a summary of the findings in Attachment A, the spreadsheet examining affordable housing in Navarre. Table 1 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total Affordable Properties (<$120,000)43 42 24 74 183 Other Properties (>$120,000)31 27 0 1 61 Total Properties 75 7a 24 75 244 Percent Affordable 57%60%100%99%75% The majority of housing within the study area has assessed values that qualify as affordable. In Areas I and II slightly over one half of the housing is affordable. Almost all of the properties in Areas III and IV are affordable. The value of houses along the lake in Areas I and II skew the percentages in these two areas as lakefront property is generally of higher value than other properties. If properties on Shadywood Road and Crystal Bay Road abutting the lake were eliminated from the study, nearly all properties in the study area would be considered affordable. Overall, three quarters of the houses, or 183 units in the study area fall into the affordable category. 1 !r The average assessed total property value is $107,801. The average sale value of properties is lower, at $60,825. This is largely attributable to many of the properties being sold a number of years ago when property values were lower. The average date of sale is February 1990, which indicates that home ownership and mobility are stable. Table 2 is a summary of the findings in Attachment B, which identifies market values of properties sold in the study area during 1996 and 1997. Table 2 Sale Values for Properties In Navarre Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total Affordable Properties (<$120,000) Other Properties (>$120,000) Total Properties 6 2 8 6 4 10 1 0 1 6 0 6 19 6 25 Percent Affordable 75% 60%100%100%76% Of the 25 properties that sold during this time, 19, or 76% sold at or less than $120,000. This is almost the same percentage that are considered affordable overall in the area based on assessed value. Also consistent with the assessed values is the location of properties that sold at a price within the affordable category. Due to proximity to the lake. Areas I and II had the lowest percentage in the affordable category. All properties in Areas III and IV were affordable. The sale value is only slightly higher than the assessed value for the properties. As an average, the houses sold for $100,882 where $107,801 is the average assessed value for the entire study area. Overall, houses in the study area are affordable, with the primary exception being those along the lakeshore. The Navarre study area provides approximately 183 units of affordable housing, based on the analysis of assessed value and a review of sales during the previous two years. These units represent 6.5% of the housing units in Orono. The median value of owner occupied single family homes is $173,000. The average owner occupied single family home is $227,300. Orono has 24% of its housing stock valued at $75,000 to $125,000. The Navarre area contributes significantly to the affordable housing stock in Orono. Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARREStfMtNumber Study Sub-Aree Lerul Value BuBding Value Total Aesessed Value >$120,000 Sale Amount >$120,000 Sale DateNorthern Avenue Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Shadywood Road Togo Road Sh^5*V^ood hor - Shadywood Road Togo Road Northern Avenue Northern Avenue Togo Road Shadywood Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Shadywood Road Togo Road Northern Avenue Shadywood Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road 3590 3670 3660 3725 3780 2227 3795 2237 2189 3700 3670 3680 3675 2229 3637 3720 3785 3645 2213 3685 3640 2117 3601 3690 3710 3765 2259 2245 2199 2205 3745 3680 3740 3640 3790 $22,400 $21,900 $29,500 $30,900 $20,500 $25,500 $31,000 $25,500 $25,500 $27,500 $25,500 $29,500 $25,600 $29,500 $27,500 $27,500 $25,500 $27,500 $25,500 $34,500 $24,000 $35,500 $33,500 $27,500 $27,500 $25,500 $24,500 $25,500 $30,000 $34,700 $35,000 $25,500 $42,000 $35,500 $25,500 $13,900 $18,000 $14,500 $25,200 $40,500 $38,500 $55,000 $43,500 $44,500 $42,500 $45,500 $41,500 $45,500 $42,500 $45,500 $46,500 $49,500 $48,500 $52,500 $43,500 $55,000 $45,500 $47,500 $53,500 $55,500 $58,500 $61,500 $61,500 $58,000 $53,600 $54,000 $63,700 $48,000 $57,500 $67,500 $36,300 $39,900 $44,000 $56,100 $61,000 $64,000 $64,000 $69,000 $70,000 $70,000 $71,000 $71,000 $71,100 $72,000 $73,000 $74,000 $75,000 $76,000 $78,000 $78,000 $79,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $83,000 $84,000 $86,000 $87,000 $88,000 $88,300 $89,000 $89,200 $90,000 $93,000 $93,000 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE rVa $32,155 n/a $45,000 $56,925 $57,000 $64,000 $47,000 $89,900 $56,000 $75,000 $15,000 $51,500 n/a $75,000 $53,600 $73,500 $84,000 $96,000 $69,000 n/a $66,500 n/a $80,000 $65,000 $83,000 $69,000 $71,000 n/a $109,900 n/a $83,000 n/a $52,500 n/a n/a TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE n/a TRUE n/a TRUE n/a n/a Sep<96 n/a Ocl-90 Apr-89 Feb-90 Feb-86 Oct-93 Oct-94 Apr-87 Oct-93 Nov-72 Feb-92 Mar-95 May-92 Nov-80 Oct-96 Jan-97 Aug-96 Jun-92 n/a May-88 n/a Jul-96 Mar-83 Aug-96 Dec-86 Oct-90 n/a Mar-93 n/a Apr-94 n/a Oct-83 n/a Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARRENorthern Avenue Togo Road Togo Road Northern Avenue Northern Avenue Shadywood Road Northern Avenue Togo Road Shadywood Road Togo Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road 3630363537763700 3780 2177 3760 3600 2171 3760 2195 2264 2000 2256 2024 2216 2200 2184 2130 2032 2232 2172 2208 2224 2080 2016 2240 2248 2178 2064 2092 2100 2118 2106 2142 2190 $23,000$41,000$21,800$47,500 $31,500 $25,500 $30,000 $31,000 $42,500 $34,000 $25,500 $92,500 $91,500 $108,500 $84,000 $114,000 $114,000 $114,000 $136,400 $88,300 $114,000 $144,000 $106,300 $114,000 $187,000 $136,500 $114,000 $114,000 $114,000 $152,500 $144,500 $156,400 $208,000 $186,000 $163,500 $203,500 $71,000$54,000$74,800$51,500 $70,500 $80,500 $79,000 $79,000 $70,500 $93,000 $118,500 $64,800 $69,500 $56,500 $86,000 $57,000 $59,000 $60,000 $38,900 $99,800 $81,000 $52,000 $96,100 $94,000 $112,000 $80,500 $115,000 $117,000 $126,000 $89,500 $68,900 $130,700 $83,000 $108,000 $131,500 $124,500 $94,000$95,000$96,600$99,000 $102,000 $106,000 $109,000 $110,000 $113,000 $127,000 $144,000 $157,300 $161,000 $165,000 $170,000 $171,000 $173,000 $174,000 $175,300 $188,100 $195,000 $196,000 $202,400 $208,000 $217,000 $217,000 $229,000 $231,000 $240,000 $242,000 $287,100 $287,100 $291,000 $294,000 $295,000 $328,000 TRUETRUETRUETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE n/an/a$67,000n/a $82,500 $76,000 n/a 72500 $92,000 n/a $95,700 n/a n/a n/a n/a $32,000 n/a $167,000 n/a $219,500 $62,000 n/a 190000 n/a n/a $275,000 $61,000 n/a $204,000 n/a $174,000 n/a n/a $155,000 $215,000 n/a n/cn/aTRUEn/a TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE n/a n/a n/a n/a TRUE n/a FALSE n/a FALSE TRUE n/£ FALSE n/a n/a FALSE TRUE n/a FALSE n/a FALSE n/a n/a FALSE FALSE n/a n/an/aMar-87n/a May-91 Sep-81 n/a Aug-84 Jun-81 n/a Jul-82 n/a n/a n/a n/a Aug-71 n/a Jul-92 n/a Feb-96 Mar-76 Dec-94 Mar-93 n/a n/a Oct-96 Jun-77 r^a May-83 n/a Oec-91 n/a n/a Feb-79 Ju!-91 Aug-94 Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARREShadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Crystal Bay Road Bayview Place Navarre Lana OHve Avenue Kenwood Way Kenwood Way Olive Avenue Bayview Place Bayview Place Olive Avenue Shadywood Road Olive Avenue Olive Avenue Navarre Lane Onve Avenue Shadywood Road Crystal Bay Road Olive Avenue Kenwood Way Bayview Place Bayview Place Navarre Lane Olive Avenue Bayview Place Bayview Place Shadywood Road Navarre Lane Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road Bayview Place Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road 204C2138 2056 3447 2225 3286 2328 2180 2150 2338 2250 2253 2344 2293 2318 2350 3320 2314 2341 3445 2306 2160 2265 2240 3324 2300 2245 2275 2377 3210 2215 3345 2300 2305 3349 $148,000$135,500$185,500 $193,700 $181,500$194,900$175,500 $167,800 $329,500$330,400$361,000 $361,500 FALSEFALSEFALSE FALSE $365,000 $255, '00 n/a $340,000 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II FALSEFALSEn/a FALSE Aug-95Aug-93n/a Jul-89 $17,400 $17,800 $35,200 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $25,500 $19,500 $45,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $40,000 $8,000 $48,000 TRUE n/a n/a Jun-95 $25,500 $30,500 $56,000 TRUE $76,000 TRUE Mar-81 $25,300 $33,300 $58,600 TRUE $68,500 TRUE Dec-93 $22,500 $38,500 $61,000 TRUE $90,000 TRUE Mar-97 $25,500 $36,500 $62,000 TRUE $57,000 TRUE Jan-64 $25,500 $38,500 $64,000 TRUE $56,200 TRUE Jun-89 $25,500 $38,500 $64,000 TRUE $62,000 TRUE Dec-88 $26,500 $37,500 $64,000 TRUE $50,000 TRUE Mar-86 $25,500 $38,500 $64,000 TRUE $111,000 TRUE Jan-95 $25,500 $39,500 $65,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $25,500 $39,500 $65,000 TRUE $96,500 TRUE Sep-94 $25,500 $40,500 $66,000 TRUE $94,000 TRUE Nov-92 $25,500 $42,500 $68,000 TRUE $150,117 FALSE Jan-97 $25,000 $43,500 $68,500 TRUE $75,000 TRUE May-92 $49,500 $20,500 $70,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $25,500 $44,500 $70,000 TRUE $75,000 TRUE Apr-83 $29,000 $42,000 $71,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $25,500 $48,500 $74,000 TRUE $60,000 TRUE Jun-92 $25,500 $48,600 $74,100 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $22,500 $52,500 $75,000 TRUE $140,000 FALSE Nov-96 $29,500 $45,500 $75,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $25,500 $52,500 $78,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a $25,500 $53,500 $79,000 TRUE $13,000 TRUE Aug-70 $27,500 $52,500 $80,000 TRUE $60,500 TRUE Dec-85 $31,500 $49,500 $81,000 TRUE $42,400 TRUE Feb-93 $30,000 $53,000 $83,000 TRUE $120,000 TRUE May-96 $50,400 $36,900 $87,300 TRUE $38,000 TRUE Aug-95 $25,500 $64,500 $90,000 TRUE $129,000 FALSE Feb-95 $25,500 $65,500 $91,000 TRUE $61,000 TRUE Mar-96 $51,500 $43,700 $95,200 TRUE $75,500 TRUE Mar-93 Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARREBayview Place Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Navarra Lane Crystal Bay Road Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Lafayette Ridge Court Crystal Bay Road Lafayette Ridge Court Lafavatta Ridge Court Crystal Bay Road Lafayatta Ridge Court Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Lafayette Ridge Court Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Bayview Race Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road 22003329 3369 3355 2230 3335 3435 3365 3339 3300 3407 2205 3359 3325 3375 3399 3285 3309 3225 3245 3415 3215 3315 3265 3265 2195 3385 3255 2260 3295 3205 3393 3235 3215 3405 3285 II II II II II tl II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II It II II II II II II II II II II II II II $28,500 $56,500 $59,500 $62,500 $30,000 $60,000 $66,300 $54,500 $64,000 $30,000 $76,500 $30,000 $55,600 $56,500 $65,000 $77,500 $41,500 $83,900 $41,500 $41,500 $77,500 $41,500 $97,000 $76,500 $41,500 $31,500 $62,500 $83,000 $38,000 $86,000 $83,400 $70,000 $82,500 $66,900 $88,000 $98,000 $67,500 $40,500 $37,500 $36,50C- $79,000 $51 OOo $47,000 $59,500 $51,000 $85,200 $43,500 $98,000 $74,200 $76,500 $68,000 $56,400 $95,500 $53,700 $102,500 $107,500 $72,600 $108,500 $53,500 $74,500 $110,500 $122,500 $91,500 $75,000 $121,000 $76,000 $81,600 $95,000 $85,500 $107,700 $89,000 $88,000 $96,000 $97,000 $97,000 $99,000 $109,000 $111,000 $113,300 $114,000 $115,000 $115,200 $120,000 $128,000 $129,800 $133,000 $133,000 $133,900 $137,000 $137,600 $144,000 $149,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,500 $151,000 $152,000 $154,000 $154,000 $158,000 $159,000 $162,000 $165,000 $165,000 $168,000 $174,600 $177,000 $186,000 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FA;.>E FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE $68,000 $74,500 rt/a $48,000 $67,000 $65,000 $67,888 $78,900 $63,000 $56,000 n/a $150,000 n/a ’ n/a n/a $117,500 n/a n/a n/a $182,500 n/a $167,900 $153,250 $139,900 $190,000 n/a $165,000 $134,900 $125,000 $36,000 $100,000 $327,000 $144,500 $123,900 $144,500 $160,000 TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a FALSE n/a n/a n/a TRUE n/a n/a n/a FALSE n/a FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE n/a FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE FALFE FALSE FALSE FALSE Apr-87 Oec-93 n/a Jun-93 Jun-91 Sep-94 Apr-96 Nov-96 Jan-96 Nov-89 n/a Sep-93 n/a n/a n/a May-91 n/a n/a n/a Aug-94 n/a Dec-94 Mar-95 May-94 Sep-96 n/a Apr-95 Sep-85 Jul-90 May-70 Oct-81 Sep-95 Jun-94 Aug-87 Apr-96 Sep-95 Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARREKenwood Way Navarre L*ar>e Livingston Averuje LMr^gston Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Blaine Avenue Blaine Avenue Blaine Avenue Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue 22153280 3670 3680 3692 3615 2265 2255 2285 3600 3685 3660 3625 3645 3650 3640 3697 3695 3650 3665 3655 3675 3640 3690 3630 3635 IIII $39,500$52,000 $172,500$402,000 $212,000$454,000 FALSEFALSE n/an/a III III 111 III III III III ;ti III III III 111 III III III III III III III III III III 111 III $16,600 $17,000 $15,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17 000 $15,700 $15,800 $17,000 $16,300 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $57,700 $60,000 $63,400 $63,000 $63,300 $64,000 $64,000 $64,500 $65,000 $67,400 $69,500 $69,000 $69,900 $70,000 $70,000 $71,000 $72,000 $72,000 $74,000 $74,000 $77,000 $77,600 $78,500 $79,000 $74,300 $77,000 $78,400 $80,000 $80,300 $81,000 $81,000 $81,500 $82,000 $83,100 $85,300 $86,000 $86,200 $87,000 $87,000 $88,000 $89,000 $89,000 $91,000 $91,000 $94,000 $94,600 $95,500 $96,000 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a $65,000 $66,800 $64,600 $79,900 $91,900 $77,500 $77,000 $60,000 $71,500 $83,900 $97,000 $84,691 $76,900 $92,000 $91,000 $77,730 $89,000 $68,500 $92,500 $87,000 n/a $56,500 $81,780 n/an/an/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE Sep-94n/aAug-95 Jul-90 Sep-90 Jut-91 Sep-83 May-84 May-94 Jul-92 Sep-90 Mar-91 Jul-92 Mar-95 Apr-91 May-89 Nov-92 Sep-92 Dec-90 Dec-96 Jul-89 May-83 Dec-92 Jun-94 Mar-93 Apr-89 Lyric Avenue 3536 IV $17,900 $12,700 $30,600 TRUE n/a n/a n/a Uvingston Avenue 3436 IV $24,500 $20,500 $45,000 TRUE $27,000 TRUE May-85 Crystal Place 3555 IV $30,000 $18,000 $48,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a Crystal Place 3473 IV $25,500 $23,500 $49,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a Uvingston Avenue 3551 IV $25,500 $23,500 $49,000 TRUE $27,000 TRUE Sep-77 Lyric Avenue 3541 IV $25,500 $28,500 $54,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a Lyric Avenue 3585 IV $25,500 $28,500 $54,000 TRUE $39,500 TRUE Dec-96 Livirtgston Avenue 3435 IV $25,500 $29,500 $55,000 TRUE $46,500 TRUE Jul-89 Lyric Avenue 3438 IV $23,000 $32,000 $55,000 TRUE $18,500 TRUE May-77 Lyric Avenue 3477 IV $23,000 $34,000 $57,000 TRUE n/a n/a n/a Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARRECrystal Race UvifHlston Avenue Lyric Avenue Shadywood Road Crystal Place Crystal Place Livingston Avenue Shadywood Road Livingston Avenue UvifHlston Avenue UvifHlston Avenue Livingston Avenur UvifHlston Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Livirniston Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Crystal Place Uvingston Avenue Uvingston Avenue UvifHlston Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Shadywood Road Lyric Avenue Crystal Place Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Shadywood Road Crystal Place Crystal Place Lyric Avenue Uvingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue 359336773472 2296 3449 3599 3572 2304 3438 3477 3541 3444 3520 3559 3505 3422 3445 3473 3485 3473 3475 3414 3596 3500 2324 3444 3493 3496 3468 2308 3443 3457 3513 3460 3499 3554 IVIVIVIVIV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV $22,000$25,500$25,500$22,500$25,500 $25,500 $30,000 $25,000 $25,500 $25,500 $25,300 $25,500 $25,500 $30,000 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $30,000 $23,600 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $27,000 $30,000 $25,500 $28,000 $25,000 $12,200 $25,500 $21,500 $25,500 $30,000 $30,000 $36,800$34,400$34,500$39,500$37,500 $37,500 $33,000 $38,000 $33,500 $38,500 $41,300 $41,500 $41,500 $37,000 $41,500 $42,500 $42,500 $42,500 $44,500 $40,000 $47,000 $45,500 $45,500 $45,500 $46,500 $45,500 $43,000 $47,500 $45,400 $49,000 $62,200 $49,500 $53,500 $51,500 $47,000 $47,000 $58,800$59,900$60,000$62,000$63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $64,000 $64,000 $66,600 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,600 $71,000 $71,000 $71,000 $72,000 $72,500 $73,000 $73,000 $73,400 $74,000 $74,400 $75,000 $75,000 $77,000 $77,000 $77,000 TRUETRUETRUETRUETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/an/an/a$53,000$41,521 n/a n/a $45,000 $37,300 $44,900 $83,900 $69,000 $17,000 $54,000 n/a n/a n/a $52,900 $68,000 $58,000 $24,000 $50,000 $18,900 $59,900 $56,600 $24,000 n/a $61,300 $63,000 n/a n/a $74,900 n/a $65,500 $46,000 $61,500 FALSEn/an/aTRUETRUE n/a n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a n/a n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE n/a n/a TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE n/an/an/aJun-96May-93 n/a n/a Mar-93 Apr-96 Sep-84 Jun-94 May-96 Jun-74 Sep-87 n/a Sep-94 Aug-95 Feb-91 Aug-94 Apr-90 Sep-76 Aug-84 Aug-70 Mar-80 Feb-90 Aug-91 n/a Oct-87 Mar-91 n/a n/a Sep-94 n/a Nov-91 Feb-79 Nov-92 Attachment A: AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN NAVARRELyric Avenue Crystal Place Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Livingston Avenue Crystal Place Livingston Avenue Livingston Avenue Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Crystal Place Shadywood Road UvifHlston Avenue Lyric Avenue Livingston Avenue Livingston Avenue Livingston Averuje Livingston Avenue Livingston Avernie Lyric Avenue Lyric Avenue Crystal Place Crystal Place Livingston Avenue Livingston Avenue Livir^stcn Avenue A¥9f9ges 3551347734433559 3452 3422 3525 3495 3465 3533 3585 3525 3508 3533 2314 3472 3465 3556 3508 3405 3580 3599 3520 3596 3505 3585 3554 3505 3488 IVIVIVIV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV $25,500$25,600$25,500$30,000 $25,500 $29,500 $30,000 $30,000 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $25,500 $21,000 $25,500 $30,000 $30,000 $29,500 $29,500 $28,500 $25,500 $21,000 $30,000 $47,000 $29,200 $30,000 $29,500 $25,500 $31,600 $52,500$53,400$53,500$50,000 $55,500 $52,500 $52,000 $53,000 $58,500 $58,500 $58,500 $59,500 $60,500 $66,000 $61,500 $58,000 $60,000 $62,500 $65,500 $67,500 $70,500 $75,800 $68,000 $51,000 $70,000 $71,000 $71,500 $79,500 $91,800 $78,000$78,900$79,000$80,000 $81,000 $82,000 $82,000 $83,000 $84,000 $84,000 $84,000 $85,000 $86,000 $87,000 $87,000 $88,000 $90,000 $92,000 $95,000 $96,000 $96,000 $96,800 $98,000 $98,000 $99,200 $101,000 $101,000 $105,000 $123,400 TRUETRUETRUETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE $82,900$73,500$54,900$67,000 $25,000 $77,500 $88,400 n/a $71,000 $85,000 $97,280 $79,500 $69,900 $80,000 $26,500 $79,900 $79,700 $80,000 n/a n/a $83,000 n/a $79,000 n/a $62,500 $100,000 $95,900 $88,500 $130,000 S44.904 $63,023 $107,801 TRUE $60,825 Area I Area II Area III Area IV Total TRUE Count 43 42 24 74 183 FALSE Count 31 27 0 1 61 Grand Count 75 70 24 75 244 Aarcenf Affordable 57%60%100%99%75% TRUETRUETRUETRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE n/a n/a TRUE n/a TRUE n/a TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE Jun*95Jul-94Feb-86Jul-92 Jan-74 Nov-95 Aug-96 n/a Apr-82 May-94 Mar-96 Apr-92 Nov-88 Jul-88 Jul-76 Jun-88 Feb-89 May-92 n/a n/a Jul-91 n/a Jul-87 n/a Dec-94 Feb-90 Jul-94 Nov-91 Aug-94 Feb-SO • i Attachment B; SALES VALUES OF PROPERTIES IN NAVARRE FOR 1996 AND 1997Stf—t Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Togo Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Shadywood Road Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Crystal Bay Road Kenwood Way Bayview Place Navarre Lane Crystal Bay Road Olive Avenue Lafayette Ridge Court^ Lyric Avenue Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Shadywood Road Livingston Avenue Lyric Avenue Livingston Avenue Avwage Sals VaAie TRUE Count FALSE Count Grand Count AffordMth Area I 36703785369037653645 2213 2032 2016 2305 3339 3435 3365 2150 2215 3324 3405 2314 3265 3665 3438 3585 2296 3525 3585 $21,900 $25,500 $27,500 $25,500 $27,500 $25,500 $88,300 I $136,500 II $25,500 $64,000 $66,300 $54,500 $22,500 $30,000 $22,500 $88,000 $25,500 $41,500 $17,000 $25,500 $25,500 $22,500 $25,500 $30,000 $25,500 II II II II II II II II II m IV IV IV IV IV IV $18,000 $49,500 $53,500 $58,500 $48,500 $52,500 $99,800 $80,500 $65,500 $51,000 $47,000 $59,500 $38,500 $53,000 $52,500 $89,000 $42,500 $110,500 $72,000 $38,500 $28,500 $39,500 $41,500 $52,000 $58,500 Area II Area III Area IV Total 6 2 8 76% 6 4 10 60% 1 0 1 fOO% 6 0 6 100% $39,900 $75,000 $81,000 $84,000 $76,000 $78,000 $188,100 $217,000 $91,000 $115,000 $113,300 $114,000 $61,000 $83,000 $75,000 $177,000 $68,000 $152,000 $89,000 $64,000 $54,000 $62,000 $67,000 $82,000 $84.000 $95,612 19 6 25 76% $120,000 Sale Amount TRUE $32,155TRUE $73,500TRUE $80,000TRUE $83,000TRUE $84,000TRUE $96,000 FALSE $219,500 FALSE $275,000 TRUE $61,000 TRUE $63,000 TRUE $67,888 TRUE $78,900 TRUE $90,000 TRUE $120,000 TRUE $140,000 FALSE $144,500 TRUE $150,117 FALSE $190,000 TRUE_ _ _ _$89,000 TRUE $37,300 TRUE $39,500 TRUE $53,000 TRUE $69,000 TRUE $88,400 TRUE $97.280 $100,882 > $120.00 Sale Date TRUE Sep-96TRUE Oct-96TRUE Jul-96TRUE Aug-96TRUE Jan-97TRUE Aug-96 FALSE Feb-96 FALSE Oct-96 TRUE Mar-96 TRUE Jan-96 TRUE Apr-96 TRUE Nov-96 TRUE Mar-97 TRUE May-96 FALSE Nov-96 FALSE Apr-96 FALSE Jan-97 FALSE Sep-96 TRUE Dec-96 TRUE Apr-96 TRUE Dec-96 TRUE Jun-96 TRUE May-96 TRUE Aug-96 TRUE Mar-96 ^Attachment C: NAVARRE HOUSING STUDY AREASHMrsu»».1 J*• 1 _ul! _M_ 1 : uyciiojif INI W \0 fMmM r<^ ••••••I m cxv mil /jttnt ,. ARI'.A l' (IJlnc) <S5> .•nii ■ ! |HI ...*•.'w III h. /Uhli/ /7t *y*V» \'***V \\>*^ 1 A « «• • 9 1 i. « •u 1 1*j • Ml M t ♦\i' t* •1tJ/Is .1 1^’ H. t \ Kl • r • • f.U1 •• UC—-\—kw\ -"f'l” 4^muca 111 I -,tvfr (Giccn) •■>?v f ••• 1 I .■ J s/ .« 1/ *i V/• • *'•' *// A^- jlilxy-r MU !•» ! y-v • • «*• hJ/ ira nMTOJPi ARRA IV (Lil’,''> Yellow) i§^', '•'••* "Ul. I »•« • »r*. *»/ .r.^tji«u_^4J^jrtO(lGlVllt;7]; l-J/JU'* *“ c,•nn“"inTri A-!'\ w M r • hill I I -y i* 1 • ; IH». il'ji7* J I ««ri CAi^ , Cli.i Mii.n Ml V If \\A’ •'"•• |i r-.. i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION (9 ^9.DATE: December '‘'^9/ *C^"a ITEM NO.: / Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment #6, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment #6, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $16,945.72 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :02/1A N0:438 i/||Botmtroa Owner CilV uf Ororuv P O. Box fyf\. C*rvs»1til Bay. MN .S.S*^23*0066 Pntc: December 2. 1997 RAnderiliC Fur Pcrioil:November 4. 1997 lo December 2. 1997 Requttci ^ 1^1 ASSOCMtl M^IMri4ArdiilWll lufMJBiaAM (\>nir.Klor:Baii^arnssa Sons. IVO But 3b7. Osseo, MN .S5.369 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NORTH I.ONC LAKE ANU I.ONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No. mu {Jit llr d (^^lk\C\L SUMMARY 1 Original Conirucl Amount 2 Change Order • Addiiitm .1 Change Order - |)educlion 4 Revi.\cd Conifftti Amount 5 Value Completed to Date A Maicnul on Hand 7 Amount Camod 8 Less Kctainiige 501 ‘) Subtotal 10 l^ss Amount Paid Previctusly 1 1 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT’ NO. $ $ 77.490.00 737.00 $ S % $ $ S 874.930 01 $___ 951.683 01 S 741.271 .Mt 0.00 741.271.50 37.063.58 704,207.93 687.262.21 16.945.72 1^': Recommended for Apptovul by: BONKSTKOO, ROSENK, ANOERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Coniraoior; BarbariwKa & Sons Approved by Ownei ; City of Orono Speciiled Contract Completion Date:Date: I At 39\ 1 39Se\PEQUF ST6.W82 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES © 612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 g :03/1A NC No.llcitt Unit Cnntnict Quantity Unit Quantity Price to Date Attiouol to Date 1 8" PVC. .SDK 35. 0.8- deep in place L.I'232 28.00 139 3.89200 2 8" PVC, SDK 35, 8‘- I0‘ deep in place LF 752 29.00 1.071 31,0591X1 \X" PVC. SDR 35. lO’. 12* deep in place LF 1.303 30.00 974 29.220.00 4 8** PVC, .SDR .35, 12'- 14* ilrcp in place LF 9X1 31 00 1.30')40.579.00 5 8" PVt:. .SDR 3.5. |4'. 16' deep in place LF 1.024 32.00 968 30.9760t) 6 X" PV(', SDR 35. 16 ’. 18’ deep in place LF 63 33.00 I8S O.lOS.tX) 7 H" PVC\ SDR 26, 14*. 16' deep in place LF 220 35.00 1.38 4.83000 it g- PVC, SDR 26, 16*- 18* deep in place LF 188 36.00 t>8“ DIP, 10’. 12'deep in place 40 38.00 40 1.520.00 i()8- DIP. 16 ’. IX' deep in place LF 20 41.00 20 820 00 11 Scd. MH W dp.. 4‘ du., w/R ir>42H csig.EA 24 1.440.00 24 34.560.00 12 MH depth greater than 8' deep LF 97 100.00 102 7 10.270 00 1.1 Directional hore 4” IIDPK SDR 17 LF 140 20.00 140 2.800 rxi 14 4" HOPE. SDR 17 LF 5.812 8.40 .5.716 48.014.40 15 Air release monhole EA 2 1.9(Xf 00 2 3.800 Ot) 16 1.1/2 ' curb stop and box EA 3 3SIUK)3 1.050.00 17 Connect 4” HDPH intocxisliiig manhole EA I l.fXXI.OO 1 1.000.00 18 4" 45 degree HDPR bend F.A 16 30.00 10 500.00 l‘)4” tee with cap liA 1 55.00 2 1 lO.UU 20 X 2“ HDPE ICO EA 3 5000 3 150 00 21 4 ' X 4- HDPH lec EA 1 .50.00 22 2 ’ a 1.1/2“ HDPR reducer EA 3 3.5.00 3 103.00 2.1 2" X 45 degree: HDPE bend EA 3 30.013 4 120.00 24 4" X 2“ wye EA 2 30.00 1 30.00 25 8" X 4" PVC service wye branch EA 48 50.00 55 2.750.00 26 8" X 2" wye EA 5 .50.00 2 100.00 27 2" X M/2" reducer EA 7 30.00 7 210.00 28 4" PVCJ .service pipe in place. SDR 26 LF 1.465 18.00 1.28.5 23.130.00 29 4" PVC service riser pipe in place. SDR 26 LF 35 18.00 44 792.00 30 4" HDPE service pipe Uiretlionul bore LF 225 20.00 197.5 3.950.00 31 1.1/2* HDPE .service pipe dircclional bore LI-225 10.00 561 5.610.00 32 Improved pipe I'dn. in 6" incremeni deplli LF 6.5IX>0 01 6,500 63.00 33 Mechanical trench compaction LF 6.500 1.00 4.X44 4,844.00 34 Insulation .SY 50 lU.OO 22 22000 35 Sanitary sewer television inspection LF 4.8U8 042 36 .Sobmcrstble Pump I .ill Station 1 US 1 44.200.00 0.90 3‘J.780.00 37 Submersible Pump Lift Station 2 US 1 44.700.00 0.90 40.230.00 I \l3»\13ft66vnEQllCSTG.WB2 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :03/14 NC No.Item Unit Conlrscl Quantity Uall Price Quantity In Dale Amount to Date I ft'* PVC, SDR 35, U - 8’ deep in place U-232 28.00 139 3.892.00 2 8" F*VC, .SDK 35, 8‘- 10* Jeep m place l-K 752 29.00 1.071 31,039.00 3 K • PVC. SDR 35. I0-. 12* deep in place LF 1..303 30.00 974 29.220,00 4 8" PVC. SDR 35. 12'- 14* deep in place LF 9X1 31 OO 1.-309 40.579.00 5 8- PVt:. .SDR 3.5. I4-. 16' deep in place LF 1.024 32.00 964 30.97600 6 8" PVC. SDR 35. 16'- 18' deep in place LF 63 3.3.00 185 6,105 (XI 7 H" PVC, SDR 26, 14*. 16’ deep in place LF 220 35.00 138 4.830.00 8 8“ PVC. SDR 26. 16-. 18- deep in place LF 188 36.00 9 8" DIP. 10'- 12'deep in place LF 40 38.00 40 1,520.00 10 8“ DIP. 16*. IR'deep in place LF 20 41.00 20 820 00 1 1 Mel. MH 8 dp.. 4* du., w/R 1M2H CSIg.EA 24 1.440.00 24 34.560.00 12 MH depth greater than H’ deep LF 97 lUO.UU 102 7 10.270 00 13 Dirccliunal bore 4** HDPK SDR 17 LF I4U 20 00 140 2.800.00 14 4" HDPE. SDR 17 LF .5.812 8.40 5.716 46.01440 15 Air rdca-sc manhole F.A 2 1.900 00 2 3.800.00 16 1-I/2" curt) .stop and bo*RA 3 350.(K»3 1.050.00 17 Ct)nneci 4" HDPH into existing manhole KA 1 l.OOtl.tXI 1 1.000.00 18 4" 45 degree HDPn bend KA 16 .5IMKI 10 500.00 19 4" tee with cap RA 1 55.00 2 1 lO.tKI 20 4“ X 2“ HDPE tee EA 3 50.00 3 150 00 21 4“ X 4" HDPH tee HA 1 50.00 22 2" a M/:*' HDPP. reducer EA 3 .35.00 3 105.00 2.)2“ X 45 degree HDPE bend EA 3 .30.00 4 120.00 24 4" X 2“ wye EA 2 30.00 1 30.00 25 8" X 4” PVC service wye branch EA 48 50.00 55 2,750.00 26 8" X 2" wye KA 5 .50.00 2 100.00 27 2-x I-1/2" reducer EA 7 30.00 7 210.00 28 4" PVC? .service pipe in place. SDR 26 LF 1.465 18.00 1,285 23,130 00 29 4” PVC service riser pipe in place, SDR 26 LF 35 IH.OO 44 792.00 .30 4“ HDPE service pipe dirccliotml bore LF 225 20.00 197.5 3.950.00 .31 1-1/2" HDPE service pipe directional bore LI ‘225 10.00 561 5.610,00 32 Improved pipe Idn. in 6" incrcmeni itepiti LF 6.500 001 6,500 65.00 Mechanical trench compuclioii LF 6.5<X»LW)4.844 4.844.00 34 Insulation .SY 50 lO.OO 22 220 00 35 Sanitary .sewer television inspection LF 4,808 042 .36 .Submersible Pump l ift Station 1 LS 1 44.200.00 0.90 39.780.00 37 Submersible Pump |jll Slaiion 2 I.S 1 44.700.00 0.90 40.230.00 Total Pan I - I^ns l,akr Samiary I \i3&M36ee\n£QUCSIC.WB2 S373.I91.41) BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :0A/14 N0;A3b 38 39 4U 41 42 43 44 45 4ft 47 4H 49 50 .51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ftl ft2 63 64 65 ftft 67 68 69 70 71 72 Part 2 - Water Main 8" DIP. Class 52 12" niP.CIaiS 52 6 - DIP. Cla.s.s 52 Cui into existing 8" CIP ^ •nu> existing ft" DIP HyJrant 6" gate valve mid box H“ gate valve and box 12 “ buitcrlly valve and hciX Filling^ Mechanical trench coinpnctioii Improved pipe tounJation in 6 ' incremeniH Total Part 2 • Watermain Part 3 • Restoration Clear and gisib Z X 3‘ sump tulch basin 4' diameter sump catch basin manhole Catch basin manhole overdeptli Bituminous .surlucing removal Common excavation Class 5 oggregatc base (I005( cnished) Type 31 bituminous base cwirsc Type 41 A bifuminoujt wcanng course Gcoicxlili! lahric Bituminous material for lack, coat Bituminous street patching Sawcul concrete driveway Sawcul bituminous Bituminous driveway rcstoratloo roncreic driveway restoration 12" RCP in place 15"RCP in p'. ice 15" R('P. over 6‘ deep 15 “ Rc:p llnrcd end in place with trash guard Mechanical trench compoelton Improved pipe fnd. io 6" increment depth Remove existing CMP culvert |.\139\139<W>ftbQUEST6.WB2 LF 95 20 00 46 920.00 LF 490 26.00 583 I5.I58 0O LF 5 19.00 10 190.00 F.A 1 l.OtlO.OO 1 1 .OtHl.OO EA 1 800.00 1 800 00 EA 1 2.000 00 1 2.000 00 EA 1 600.00 1 600.00 EA 2 75000 2 1.500 00 EA 1 1,000 00 1 1 ,000 IK) LB 1.370 1 (Y)850 85000 590 l.tX)6.^9 63900 LT S')5 o.ot |igt 1 00 $24,658.00 EA 20 300.00 51 15.300.00 EA 2 1.000.00 2 2.000.00 CA .5 1.200.00 5 6.000.00 1.F 17 125.00 5 h25.(X) SY 11,600 1.00 11.500 11.500.00 CY 3.700 3.25 4,532 14,729.00 TN 8.000 9.20 9,206 X4.695.20 TN 1.200 23.50 1.496 35.156.00 TN 9<K)27.50 SY 11.000 1 00 10.819 10.819.00 CJL 550 1 00 .SY 300 6.50 LF 100 5.00 I LF 650 1.50 i SY 1.5.*»0 6.50 1.453 9,444.50 SF .3.200 3.50 160 591.50 LF 233 22.00 86 l.892.(M) LF 141 24.(«>121 2.9O4.0O LF 20 26.00 EA •>900.00 1 900.00 LF 595 1.IH)207 207.00 LF .595 0.01 LF 450 2.00 100 200.00 i ! t BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 60 82 83 84 K5 K(S 98 Furnish and install 15" CMP cu 1v «mi 15" CMP llarcd end Riprap. Class III hand placeil 5*»->d with 4“ topsoil Seed with topS(»il. inukh itud fiTtili^cr Erusiun cuntrul fence Wuud Tiber blanket Furnixh and plant F.vergreeit Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4‘ diameter Remove and replace wootl or chain link fence LT Remove and transplant bushes Remove and transplant tree • Dcsiduuus Remove and Iraiisplant tree • Coniferous .Sulvttge and reinstall wood guard post Total Port 3 - Rcstoratiun 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :05/14 N LF 450 1200 3b7 4.404.00 EA 30 100 00 1ft l.ftOOOO CY 12 30 00 h 240.00 SY 28,«-)00 2 25 AC 2 l,.5.50tXl li--l.OOO 2.50 l.OOO 2.5(X).00 SY 750 1 50 329 493.50 EA 6 225.00 EA 6 500.00 1 500.00 LT 600 15.00 [•A 12 75 00 EA 12 150.00 FA 15 150 OU P.A II 30 (K).5.50 275.00 Part 4 • Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Total Part 5 • Lift Station ft Kenovniion Part 6 • l.in Station 12 Modiflcatlnnit Remove existing impellers and wear rings I.M 39\l 3908^R£QUEST6.WB2 S20ft.975.70 87 Duplex xuhmcr.sihte grinder station LS 1 18.600.00 0.70 1.1.020.00 88 2" HOPE. SDR 1 1 LF Ufto 600 1.105 6,630.00 89 Connect to existing manhole EA 1 1,000.00 1 1.000.00 90 2' HOPE 45 degree bends EA 2 SO.tXJ 2 100.00 TfHal Pan 4 - Ice Arena Duple.s Grinder Station $20,750.00 Part S • Lift Station 6 Renuvatiun 91 Temporary controls. ptimp.s and piping for interim conveyance LS 1 2.000.00 92 Lift station deiiioliliun US 1 S.OfXl.OO 93 New pumps, piping. valve.s, lop hatch and slab LS 1 35.000.00 94 New control panel, ho.se slab, dialer, and miscellaneous electrical LS 1 24.000.00 95 .Sod SY SO 2.25 96 8" Class 5 oggregate base TN 75 12.00 97 3" thick bituminou.s driveway TN 30 45.00 $0.00 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES & ©612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 (3 :06/1 A NO:438 8fij place new impellers uiul wear nngs LS Toial Pan 6 • Lift Siati<)n 12 Mmlificafions 2,052 00 7 • Forcemain Alignment Deducf Change Order \o. A Add 12 ” comigrtied PE pipe 12 " PE F.E.S. with trash guard LF OA 154 19.U0 I 625.00 147.00 1.00 I \ta9\t33B0\r»LaULST0 WB2 so.oo 99 4" lorccmnin directional hs>(c (llcm No. 13)LF (140)20 00 Add. 1(30 4" HDPE loiVcmHin, SDR 17 LF 643 R.40 643 .5.401.20)0I 4 HDPK forct^ti'ikiir). SDR 17, directional bore LF 45 20.IX)45 900tM)102 Air relea.se manhole HA 1 1,900.00 1 l,9fK).(M) 102 Sod with 4" Toprioil •SY 1,367 2.2.5 104 Bituminou.s driveway resiorntiun SY .11 15 50 Total Part 7 - Foa'cmain Alignment S8.201.20 Part 8 - kesidentai Siibmtriilbk Grinder SlaUoas 105 R.^iJcnul .simplex grindei puinp Mations F.A lU 3.290 00 10 32,900.00 Total Pan 8 • Rcsidemal .Submersihle Grinder Stations S.12.<)0r)00 Alternate Nn. I • MH 22 to MH 22A 106 8 SDR 1,5, 10" - 12' deep in place LF 19.1 30.00 172 .5.160.00107Au^cr or cJircclional Kiie H*' PVr LF 5.5 7.5.00 84 6,.10t).n0 lOK .Sul. MH 8 ’ dp.. 4' dia , w/R 1642B estg FA 1 I.440.(K)1 t.440.00 109 MH depth greater than 8" deep LF 2 100.00 5.20 320.00IK)Remove & tran:.plant tree - coniferous FA 10 L50.IK)0 Total Allcmate No. 1 - MH 22 to ,MH 22A SI 3,420.00 Change Order Ni». 1 Kl Furnish & plant .shade tree (Sugar Maple)EA 1.5 500.00 15 7.500.00 11 Std MH 8" dp.. 4’ dia., w/R|642B c.stg.EA 3 1,440.00 3.00 4,320 00 12 .MH depth greater than H‘ deep LF 6 100.00 6.00 600.tlO Total Change Order .No. 1 SI 2.420.00 Change Order No. 2 1 4" riser pipe extension EA 2 845.00 Total Change Order No. 2 $0.00 2.79.1.00 62.5.00 p bo K estroo and associates ©612 6361311 66 M 52 53 54 55 63 67 M 50 55 56 56 57 58 61 Delete 12 * RCP in place 15" RCP flared end in place with lni5»h guard Total Change Order No. 3 Change Order No. 4 4' diam. ^uinp catch ba^in manhole Catch basin manhole overdepth Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavaimn Sawcut bituminous 15 * RCP in place I5‘* RCP flared end in place w/ TC* c:iear and grub Total Change Order No 4 Change Order No. S Common lixcavaiion Class 5 Aggregate Base (100^* Crushed) Total Change Order No. 5 Change Order No. 6 Modular bh'ick retaining wall Total Change Order Ni>. 6 Change Order No. 7 f*las.s 5 aggregate base (l(X)‘/t» crushed) Type 31 bituminous base Course Type 41A biulminous wear course Bituminous street patching Total Change Order No. 7 roial Part 1 • Total Pan 2 - *rotal Part 3 • Total Part 4 • *l*oial Pan 5 - ‘foul Pan 6 - l otal Pan 7 - Total Part 8 - Alternate No, Long Lake Sanitary Watcrmaln Restoration Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Lift Station 6 Renovation Lift Station 12 Modincalioits Forcemain Alignment Re.sidemal Submersible Grinder Stations I -MH22 10MII22A 12/02/97 17:02 0 :07/14 N0:438 l:\139\139BB\REQUE5T6 WB2 L UMb. UF (134)22.00 (154.001 (3..3H8 00) EA (1)900 00 (1)(9(X)(K)) ($870.1X)) HA 4 1.200.00 4 4.800.00 LF 3 125.00 3 375.00 SY 400 1.00 400 400.00 CY 5.400 3.2.5 5.400 17.55000 LF 206 1.50 206 309.00 LF 209 24.00 209 5.016.00 ea 1 900.00 1 9(X),00 EA 7 300 (X)7 2.10000 $31,450.00 CY 480 3.25 480 1,560.00 TN 940 9.20 940 8,648.00 St 0.208.00 SF 500 18.40 .379 6.973.60 $6.97.3.60 310 9.20 108 993.60 TN 150 23.50 TN 110 27.50 SY 480 6.50 5993.60 373.191.40 24.638.00 206,975.70 20.750.00 0.00 0.00 8.201.20 32.900 00 13.420.00 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^ 612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :08/1A NO:438 Total Change Order No. 1 Total Change Order No. 2 TiHal Change Order No. 3 Total Change Order No. 4 Total Change Order No. 5 Total Change Order No. h Total Change Onier No. 7 1'otal Work Completed to Dale 12.420 00 000 (870.00) .31,4.S0 (K) 10.208 00 #..y7.^.60 993 60 S741.27I.50 ’ * I:\139\139B8\HEQUF.5T6WB2 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :09/14 NO:A38 PROJECrr PAYMENT STATUS Own*r Cily of Orono Projccl N(i. 13988 ElUNo. 13988 Contractor Barbarossa & Sons chan <;k orhers No. 1 Pate 0/^06/97 Additional trees and manholes as a result «>f easemeni neeotiations 12.420 00 2 06/10/97 rxtend hvD.iss pipinK in valve 1.690.(K) 3 06/18/97 Substitute coriuj^aicd puilycilivIcnL* pipe ft>r RCI* siiTrm srufcr-----------(737 (M)) 4 08/06/97 Consinjction of pondinc area nnd insi.ill.nion of storm sower 31.450 00 5 08/19/97 Additirnial Class 5 __________________________10.208(8) 6 10/08/97 ('onMruciion of modular block reiaining wall 9.200.(8) 7 KWOK/97 Ref«radimf and pavini; 5(H)’ of I.onj; Lake Boulevard 12.522 00 Total Chanite Orders $76,753.00 PAYMENT SUMMARY So. Pcrtod I s 6 Start 07/01/07 08/06/97 09/03/97 07/01/97 08/06/97 (W/03/97 10/07/97 10/07/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 12/02/97 PavnKnt 195.908 86 316,864.61 49,031 45 65.02.5.79 60.431.50 16.945 72 ReUlnaee 10.310 99 26,988.08 29..56K.68 32.991.09 36.171.70 37.0/.3 58 Comnleted 206.219 85 .5.39.761.55 591,373 60 659.821.80 723..»33.90 741.271..50 Material on Hand I'ciiiil Pdvnient to PaU*$704,207 93 Omtinal Coniracl $874.93001 uf>iiiintiiu*. Piivrncni No b 37.063 58 ChanKC Order«i 76.753 (8) Total Amount named $741,271.51 Revised Contract $951,683 01 |.\t39\139B0\REQueS76 W82 r O.'t/1. request FOR COUNCa ACTION - DATE: Decembe?')i'^997'^ no ----------------------------- item NO.; / (i ~ ^ issssssr Engineer’s Report :r Project I I i COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Point/Ba, R.,e Sani.:, Sew. I.oiec. f?' BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^ 612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :10/1A NO:438 RoMne Owner;Ciiy of Orono. P.O. Bot Cry.stal Bay, MN 55!^2.^Date December 2. 1997 Fur Penud October 15. 1997 to November 4,1997 Request No; 5 roiiinicior: • Biirbnri'SNa Sc Sniis, P.O. Box Osseo. MN REQUEST FOR PAYMENT RAY RIDOR AND BRACKETTS POINT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS File No 1 3990 F<^k 11-0 CaiLi c iL. A/i ri' 1 ifjY-. 2 4 SUMMARY I Orii;iiiiil Cunirau Amount Chunge Order - Addiiion Chtmjtc Order Deduction Revised Contract Amtiuni 5 Value Completed to Date (t Material on Hand Amount Earned Les4 RclaitiMgc SuMoial 10 Lev* Amount Paid Previously II amount DUK IUIS RHQUhJn FOR I'AYMIiNT NO. S s 55,53800 7 8 9 $ $ $ S $ $ $ s Recommended for Approval by: BONF^STROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor: Barbarossa & Sonx Approved by Owner; City of Orono Specified Contract CttmplcUon Date:Date: l:\139\13880\REQUE ST5.WB2 523.740.00 579.278 00 454,100.75 0.00 454,100.75 22.705.04 431,395.71 403,320.36 28,075.35 »i BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 |3 :11/14 N Cotfitnet Unit Quantity Amount No.Utm Unit Quantity Price In bate to Dale 1 B" PVC, SDR 35, O’- 8’ deep in place IJ^97.5 31.00 823 25.513,00 3 H” PVC. SDR 35. 8’- I0 ‘ deep in place LF 547 .32.00 Sll 16.3.52.00 3 8- PVC. SDR .15. lev- 12- deep >n plate LF 831 33.00 1.2.17 40.821.00 4 r PVC. SDR 35.12’. 14’ deep in place U-582 .14 00 581 19.754.00 5 8“ PVC, SDR 35, 14*. Wj* deep in place LF 95 .35.00 55 1,925.00 fl H“ PVC. SDR 35. If.'- JK* deep in place LF .10 36.00 76 2,7.»6(W 7 8’’ PVC, .SDR 26. \2‘. 14’ deep in place LF 41 36.00 10 360 00 B 8- PVC. SDR 26. 14*. 16’ deep in place LF 82 37 00 1.50 3.350.00 9 8'' PVC. SDR 26, 16’- 18' deep in place 210 3800 170 6.460.00 10 8 ' DIP. B'- 10' Jeep in place LF 20 .30.00 20 |,0(X).(K) II R" DIP. 14-- 16'deep in place LF 12 54.00 4 21600 12 Sid. Mil 8'(Ip.. 4' dm.. W/RI642B cs(|;.EA 17 1.700.00 15 25,500.00 13 MH depth greater than 8' deep IJr 39.4 8500 43.3 3.680.50 14 Force main access nianliolc EA 1 2.000.00 1 2.000.00 I4A Oiil<iiJc' drop LF ft 2 10(100 4.i |.230.(K) 15 Directional bore K " IlDPP, SDR 17 LF 6.10 29.00 624 |H,(196.(M) 16 3 ' HOPE, SDR 11 LF 1.B15 20.00 1.772 35.44(M»0 17 Directional bore .3" IIDPI' SDR 11 LF 1H4 24.00 184 4,416.00 IB Connect 3" HDPH to exist. MCGS FM stub EA 1 .1.000.00 1 .I.IKN).(X) 19 Cimnecl 3" HDPE into cxi.sting manhole RA 1 l.OOo.(K)1 1,000.00 20 Lightweight aggregate LF I.OlO 30.00 1,010 30.300.00 21 y X y HDPC tec with cap EA 1 50.00 22 2" X 1-1/2" HDPO reducer Ha 1 25.00 23 3’* X 4.5 degree IIDPE bend F,A 5 .10.00 60.00 24 8" X 4' PVC service wye branch EA 22 30.00 26 780.00 25 ft" X 2 * wye F.A 1 50.(X) 26 4" PVt; tervitc pipe in place. SDR 26 LF 850 20.00 65.1 13.060.00 27 4" PVC service riser pipe in place. .SDR 26 LF 35 2(MX) 28 4" HDPE .service pijic dircctioii.«i bore LF 300 24.00 200 4,800.00 29 1-1/2* HDPE .service pipe directional bon?LF I2U 24 00 30 . Improved pipe I'dn. in 6“ increment depth LF 1.950 .3.00 1,000 .I.Ot'iA.Otl 31 Mechanical ireiich compaction LF 1.950 1.00 2.144 2,144.00 32 Insulation SY 20 2().(K)II 220.00 33 Sanitary sewer television inspection LF 4.075 0 60 34 Suhmer^ihii^ Funtp Lifi Staiion 1 I..S 1 40.000.00 0.9 J5 SulMiiersiblc Pump Lilt Siation 2 LS 1 40.000.00 09 36.000.00 Tiual Part I - Sanilary Sewer 5341.413.50 ■At 39\13990\RCQUE ST5.WB2 / .. ' "* BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 0 :12/14 NO:438 Part 2 • Rratoratlon 36 Diluminuus Hutfacing tcmnvul 37 Cununun excavation 38 Class 5 aggregate base (100'#' crusheU) 3') Type 31 hituimnoiis base eourso 40 Type 41A bituminous weaxiiig course 41 Gcoicxtilc fabric 42 OituininuuK material for task coal 43 Bituminou.': street patching 44 C'learing and grubbing 43 Sawcut biliiniiiiuus 46 Uitununuus dnveway restoration 47 Concrete driveway resioraiioii 48 27" diam. catch basin with casting 49 Remove existing CMP culvert 50 Furnish and insiall 15“CMPculvcn 31 13" CMP flared end 52 Boulder retaining wall 53 Sod with 4” tupsmi 54 Seed with topsoil, mulch and lerlili/cr .5.3 Erosion control fence 56 Wild flower seeding 57 Furnish and plant Evergreen Trrr (Blur Spmee) 6' high 5H Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4" diameter .59 Remove and replace wtKul or chain link Icncc 60 Rcniuvc and transplant bushes 61 Remove and transplant tree • Desiduous • 62 Remove and transplant tree - Conifeittus '1‘otal Part 2 • Restoration .SY 4,000 1.50 4,<KM)6.000.00 C'Y 2.100 3.50 710 2.48.5.00 TN 2.300 9 IK)1.721 15.489 00 TN 6(M)28 50 .599 17,071 .50 TN 600 29 00 .SY 4.700 1.25 2.687 3,358,75 fil.300 1.20 SY 700 6.73 LS 1 5,000 00 10 5.0<HH)0 LF 100 600 SY 600 6 75 .Sh 100 10 (Ml EA 1 1.000.00 1 1,000.00 LF 150 500 65 323 00 LF 1.50 20.00 5.3 1.060.00 EA 4 1 .50.00 .SF 80 14 00 66 924.(h) SY 1.3.000 200 4.656 9.312.00 AC 0.4 3.280.00 LF 1.000 200 590 1,180.00 SF 800 0..30 EA 20 220.00 EA 20 600.00 6 3,600.00 LF 300 1600 97 1,352.00 EA 40 .50.00 6 300.00 EA 15 300 00 n 600.00 EA 15 .300 00 $69,257.25 Change Order Nil. t ADD Uesidentuil simple grinder pump stations Tnial Allcrntiic No. 2 F.A .3.600.00 $0.00 I Alternate No. .t Did • Directional Bore K" HPPn, MIM ioMN-9 l:\139\l3990\nLOUfcST5 WB2 ir •:*, iv l:\130M 3990\REQUEST5WB2 BONISTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 01:13/1A N ADO 65 Dircclionat bore 8‘* UDI*. *SI3R 17 LF 1010 ‘HHK>1010 90.900.00 DRDnCT 66 8 ' HVC. SDR 35. 10'-12’ deep IJ-.400 33.00 -400 {13.2fK)00) 67 8” PVC. SDR 35. 12 -14' deep I.F -515 34 00 -515 (17.510 00) 68 PVC. SDR 35. 14'. 16* deep LF -45 35.00 -45 (1,375 001 H“ PVC, SDR 35. 16* 18' deep LF -50 36 (8).50 (1 .MX) 1)0) 7(1 Lightweight aggregate LF -1010 30.00 -lOlO C30.300.00) Total deduct ($64,385.00) Total Alcernaie No. .3 $26,515.00 Change Order No. 1 17 Directional bore 3" HOPE. SDR 11 LF 783 24.00 691 16.584.00 65 Directional bore B“ HOPE, SDR 17 LF 446 ^00 376 33.840.00 67 8“ PVC. SDR 35. 12 14' deep LF IIS 3400 11.5 3,9)0.00 6K 8" PVC. SDR 35. 14'-16. deep LF 5 35.00 5 I75.(M) 70 Lightweight aggregate IJ*40 30.00 40 1.200.(K) Tulul $55,709 00 DEDUCT 1 ft- PVC. SDR 35.0' 8’ deep U--253 31.00 -253 (7,843.00) 16 3“ IIDPB, .SDR 11 IT .783 20.00 -783 (15.660.00) 66 ft" PVC. SDR 35. in .ir ileep LF -435 3300 -435 (14,355.00) M K- PVC. SDR 35. 16 -18'tleep LF -26 .36 00 •26 (936 00) Total ($38,794.00) Total Change Order No. 1 $43,430.00 Total Part 1 - .Sanitary .sewer $.M 1.413.50 Total Part 2 . Restoration $69,257.25 Total Change Order No. 1 $43,430.00 Total Work Completed to Date $454,100.75 BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 12/02/97 17:02 l3 :14/14 NO:43a PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. 13990 File No. 13990 Crtntroetor Bdrbaro:i.s;i & Soon CHANGE ORDERS No.Date DraciipUon Amoufil 1 08/1 g/07 ChiUlurs clue In un.stiibk* soiU cncoumpreii SS,S3R00 1*» 1 ToUl Change Orders S55.53S 00 PAYMENT.SUMMARY 1 Slurl 09/03/97 117.259 45 6.17! 35 123,431.00 2 09/03/97 10/06/97 167.485.24 14.986 56 299.731 25 :i 10/06/97 10/15/97 94.305 55 19.9.50.0!399.000 25 4 10/15/97 11/04/97 24.270.12 21,227.39 424,.547.7.5 5 11/04/97 12/02/97 28.075..35 22.705.04 454,10075 6 7 8 9 III MilerisI on Hunt! r«tal Paymcnl u> Dale $431,395.71 Original cromraci $523,740.00 Reiainage, P.tymcnt Nt>. .5 22.705 04 Change Orders 55.538.(K) Tuidl Amuiiiil Ciimcit .$454. IfK) 75 Rcvi.HcJ ConUuct $579,278.00 I \138\139BO\nEOUEST5.WB2 ‘!.\G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ i99r DATE: ITEM NO.:J Department Approval: Name Gregoiy A. G^pa Thie Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment #3. Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Project to Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $42,964.31 1 Bonotroo Ikscnc AndeAC1 in^wB4ArdiftKd Owner City of Orono. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Date: December 3. 1997 For Period: July 8.1997 to December 3.1997 Request No: Contractor__Buffalo Bituminous. P.O. Box 337. 2852 Co. Rd. 12 N.. Buffalo. MN 55313 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT 1996 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS File No. 13985 SUMMARY I Original Contract Amount Change Order • Addition Change Order • Deduction Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously II AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 3 A 5 6 7 $ $ $ $ % $ $ $ $ $ Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROQ/ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor.Approved by Owner City of Orono Specified Contract Completion Date:Date: l:\139M 3985\REQUEST3.WB2 1 i 164,136.00 164,136.00 149,805.56 0.00 149,805.56 2,000.00 1 V;,805.56 104,841.25 42,964.31 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Item Clear and grub trees Remove CMP or RCP culvert Remove bituminous pavement Saw bituminous pavement Relocate mailboxes, sign, etc. Common excavation Common borrow (CV) Topsoil borrow (CV) Subgrade preparation Aggregate base, CL 5,100% crushed Agg.base, CL 5,100% crushed (walk) .‘.gg.base, CL 5.100% crushed(dwy) Type 41 wearing course mixture Type 31 base course mixture Type 41 bit mixture for walk Type 41 bit. material for driveway Bituminous material for tack coat 12" PVC pipe culvert, SDR 26 15" CM pipe culvert 15" CM pipe apron 15" RC pipe culvert (CL 5) 15"RCPF.E.S. 18" PVC pipe culvert Construct CBMH, Design SP-3 Concrete curb & gutter, Design B618 Furnish & irtstall "No Parking" sign 4" wide solid line • white paint Spruce Colorado Blue • 4' Ht B & B Spruce Colorado Blue • 6‘ ht. B & B Maple Sugar • 3" CAl. B & B Ash Summit-3'CALB&B Silt fence, preassembled Roadside seeding Seed, Mixture 500 Sodding, type lawn Mulch material. Type 1 Disc anchoring Commercial fett. Analysis 20-10-10 ^ I:\139M 3985VtEQUEST3.WB2 Unit Contract Quantity Unit Price Quantity to Date Amount to Date LS 1 1.00 LF 90 10.00 115 1,150.00 SY 200 2.50 203 507.50 LF 750 2.00 744 1,488.00 LS 1 200.00 1 200.00 CY 400 5.00 412 2,060.00 CY 1,000 10.00 633 6,330.00 CY 180 15.00 150 2,250.00 SY 660 1.50 632 948.00 TN 55 12.00 TN 360 12.00 342.16 4,105.92 TN 35 12.00 23.17 278.04 TN 45 45.00 45 2,025.00 TN 90 45.00 143.50 6,457.50 TN 170 45.00 170 7,650.00 TN 16 45.00 12 540.00 GL 50 2.00 50 100.00 LF 20 20.00 20 400.00 LF 30 30.00 30 900.00 EA 2 125.00 2 250.00 LF 30 35.00 30 1,050.00 EA 1 500.00 1 500.00 LF 150 35.00 150 5,250.00 EA 1 1,300.00 1 1,300.00 LF 700 12.00 683 8.196.00 EA 4 100.00 LF 1,310 0.65 1,264 821.60 EA e 160.00 EA 6 175.00 6 1,050.00 EA 6 250.00 3 750.00 EA 6 250.00 3 750.00 LF 250 3.50 35 122J0 AC 0.3 1,000.00 0.30 300.00 LB 30 10.00 30 300.00 SY 1,400 3.00 1,690 5,070.00 TN 0.6 1,000.00 0.60 600.00 AC 0.3 1,000.00 0.30 300.00 TN 0.06 1,000.00 0.06 60.00 39 4” PE corr. perf. pipe drain LF 1,000 4.50 40 Modular block retaining wall SF 500 13.00 560.5 7,286.50 41 Install wood board fence • 6' high LF 300 15.00 355 5,325.00 42 36* wide solid white line - paint LF 32 5.00 43 Class 3 rip rap CY 4 80.00 Total Part 1 - Old Crystal Bay Road - Trail 76.671.56 Part 2 - Old Crystal Bay Road - Trail 44 Clear and grub trees LS 1 1.00 45 Remove CMP or RCP culvert LF 100 10.00 93 930.00 46 Remove bituminous pavement SY 275 2.50 261 652.50 47 Saw concrete curb LF 3 10.00 5 50.00 48 Saw bituminous pavement LF 950 2.00 962 1,924.00 49 Relocate mailboxes, sign, etc.LS 1 100.00 1 100.00 50 Relocate guard post £A 10 25.00 51 Common excavation CY 400 5.00 400 2,000.00 52 Common borrow (CV)CY 1,500 10.00 1,311 13,110.00 53 Topsoil borrow (CV)CY 400 15.00 103 1,545.00 54 Subgrade preparation SY 850 1.50 866 1,299.00 55 Aggregate base. Cl. 5,100% crushed -T>i 40 12.00 56 Agg.base, Cl. 5,100% crushed (walk)375 12.00 250 3,000.00 57 Agg.base, Cl. 5,100% crushed(dwy)TN 135 12.00 58 Type 41 wearing course mixture TN 60 45.00 60 2,700.00 59 Type 31 base course mixture TN 120 45.00 143.5 6,457.50 60 Type 41 bit. mixture for walk TN 170 45.00 170 7,650.00 61 Type 41 bit. material for driveway TN 20 45.00 12 540.00 62 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 50 2.00 50 100.00 63 15" CM pipe culvert LF 90 30.00 90 2,700.00 64 15" CM pipe apron EA 4 125.00 4 500.00 65 22" span RC pipe arch culvert (Cl. 3)LF 16 60.00 16 960.00 66 Install 22" span RCP arch bend (Cl. 3)LF 8 100.00 8 800.00 67 Reinstall ex. 22* span RC pipe arch apron EA 2 300.00 2 600.00 68 18" RC pipe culvert LF 25 35.00 25 875.00 69 Reinstall ex. 18" RC pipe apron EA 1 250.00 1 250.00 70 12" PVC pipe culvert, SDR 26 LF 20 20.00 20 400.00 71 Adjust frame & ring casting EA 2 250.00 2 500.00 72 Adjust irafTic control handhole EA 1 150.00 1 150.00 73 Concrete curb & gutter. Design B618 LF 900 10.00 834 8,340.00 74 Furnish & install "No Parking" sign EA 4 100.00 75 4" wide solid line • white paint LF 900 0.65 900 585.00 I:\139\13985VIEQUEST3.WB2 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 9 13 33 34 36 37 38 Spruce Colorado Blue - 4‘ Hl B & B Spruce Colorado Blue • 6‘ ht. B & B Maple Sugar - 3" CAL B ft B Ash Summit • 3'CAL B ft B Silt fence, pteassembled Roadside seeding Seed, Mixture 500 Sodding, type lawn Mulch material. Type 1 Disc anchoring Commercial fert, Analysis 20-10*10 4” P.E. corr. perf. pipe drain Total Part 2 - Old Crystal Bay Road - Trail Change Order No. 1 Subgrade preparation T3rpe 41 wearing course mix Roadside seeding Seed, mixture 500 Mulch material, type 1 Disc anchoring Commercial test analysis 20-1048 Total Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Part A Total Part B Total Part A Total Part B Total Change Order No. 2 l:M39M3985\nEQUEST3.WB2 EA 2 160.00 EA 2 175.00 4 700.00 EA 2 250.00 EA 2 250.00 LF 200 3.50 AC 0.7 1,000.00 0J3 530.00 LB 70 10.00 100 1,000.00 SY 500 3.00 120 360.00 TN 1.4 500.00 1.40 700.00 AC 0.7 500.00 0.46 230.00 TN 0.14 1,000.00 0.04 40.00 LF 600 4.50 62,278.00 SY 1,350 2.00 1,28£2,576.00 TN 160 45.00 160 7,200.00 AC LB TN AC TN 0.75 0.30 0.60 0.30 0.06 •i-afc 1,000.00 10.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 Saw bituminous pavement LF 130 2.00 0 Remove bituminous SY 275 2.50 0 Remove curb LF 120 5.00 0 Salvage existing Class 5 SY 275 2.00 0 Class 5, aggregate base TON 75 12.00 0 Type 41 bituminous for driveway TON 50 45.00 0 Common excavation CY 50 20.00 0 Bituminous material for tack GAL 12 2.00 0 B618 concrete curb and gutter Total Part A LF 120 12.00 0 PartB B618 concrete curb and gutter LF 60 12.00 60 Type 41 bituminous fordriveway TON 8 45.00 8 9,776.00 0.00 720.00 360.00 1,080.00 0.00 1,080.00 1,080.00 I- I► i ‘ Total Part 1 - Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Total Part 2 • Old Crystal Bay Road > Trail Total Change Order No. 1 Total Change Order No. 2 Total Work Comidetcd to Date 76,671.56 62^78.00 9.776.00 1.080.00 $149^5,56 |;\139\139a5\REQUEST3.WB2 J PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project No. 13985 File No. 1398S Contractor Buffalo Bituminous CHANGE ORDERS PAYMENT SUMMARY No. Period Material on Hand l:\139\13985VREQUEST3.WB2 C'r>'■’C'i C/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <5» V ^S<O.v '*<5^ Department Approval;Administrator Reviewed: Date; November \^X991 Item No: j (q Agenda Section; Name; Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Item Description; Proposed Tobacco Ordinance Exhibits; Draft City Ordinance DlSCUSSm^^wing infonnalion is to provide Councii a model tobacco ordinance and policy for consideration. The U S Food and Drug Administration issued regulations govemmg the sale of tobacco. Of oartilular importance is the FDA's prohibition on self-serve displays. The only exception forLlf-service displays in establishments that do not allow minors on the premises. The 1997 Legislature adopted a new law seeking to prevent the sale of tobacco to minors. „ ,„b3cco. If cities do not do so, the county is reouired to license such sales. a1 Sales of tobacco through vending machines IS prohibitea. 3 s“rce displays of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are P™h.t«ted. «cept in retail stores that derive at least 90% of their revenue from tobacco products and that do not violations i prSte* must include notice and a hearing. Licensees who sell to minors or vi “e sales Ltrictions am subject to the following administrative penalties: a. first time: $75; b. second time within 24 months; $200; and c. third time within 24 months: $250, and at least a 7-day license susPen'JJ"^.,j^.g„5ees ^^o make an illegal sale must be charged a $50 fine. 5 Licensing agencies are required to explore alternative penalties for minors. 6 Licen in! agencies are required to conduct compliance checks using minors to attempt ■ purcha^ng toba"cco*(''ftings''). This must be done with evety licensee at least once a year. Both the federal and state actions require the city to reconsider the current tobacco licensing ordinance. The following questions need to be answered. 1. Should the city continue licensing tobacco sales or defer this responsibility to the county? Should the city undertake the required "sting ” operations? The reasons to continue this regulation at the city level are: ► The regulation would be enforced by the governmental agency closest to the people. The city is in a position to be more responsive to perceived problems. The city encompasses a smaller area than the county but is large enough to have an enforcement staff to administer the regulations. ► Traditionally, this city has opted for city control over matters that could be given to the county. The reasons to defer to the county are: ► The state law invades the enforcement discretion traditionally left to the local units of government. It mandates certain penalties and enforcement procedures. ► Recently, Orono has avoided the use of "sting" operations, choosing to work with its businesses rather than trying to "nail" someone. ► The sting operations would require an additional amount of time for enforcement personnel because these are required for each licensee each year. Although the state law allows cities to raise their licensing fees to cover the costs of increased enforcement, there would still be an additional administrative burden placed on staff. Further, the law imposes the Legislature's "micro-managing" rather than allowing each city to determine its own enforcement priorities. Because of concerns particularly about the "sting" operations, some cities are opting to defer the licensing authority to the county. Rochester (pop. 77,000) is one such city. Therefore, the city must make a decision about whether it wishes to continue licensing tobacco sales under the restrictions imposed by the Legislature. Despite the traditional reluctance to use sting operations, the Council could decide that it is appropriate to ‘•tart using this enforcement technique. Some cities have achieved some dramatic reductions in sales to minors as a result of this enforcement method. As an example, Edina started "stings" for tobacco sales about three years ago. During the first operation, approx. 50% of the businesses sold to minors. In subsequent operations, there have been very few violations. One operation found 100% compliance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve City Tobacco Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt proposed ordinance and the changes required by state and federal law. ORDINANCE NO.___SECOND SERIES an ordinance relating to CITY AND TO THE by minors . the city council of the city of ORONO does ORDAIN: Section 5 24 adopted April 1, 1984 , and entitled 5 ^ MopKdVpntL^Sd and ^;:^l?MalcV2t\Ca^d^" ate HeteEy repealed and replaced with the following: Section 100. Purpose. Because the City '“"^‘“^^"XcraTroducls, and tobacco related purchase or otherwise obtain, “ violations of both State and Federal laws; wd devices and such sales, possession, and use ate vioia ^at K^..J studies, which the City hereby accepts, adopB^ age of 18 years and that those peisons ^rsmokers begin smoking before they hava^h^the sigtUficantly less likely to tagin who reach the age of 18 ye^ of several serious health proWeim smoking; and because smoking has been sho government; this Ordinance shall be which subsequently place a tobacco products, and tobacco related intended to regulate the sale, possession, ,.victinc laws to protect minors against th for the purpose of enforcing »d p,„'duCs, and tobacco relat^ serious effects associated wj^ State of Minnesota in regard to preventing Section 200, Denuilious and aTc"!^p^dXui^^^ implied by context, all teims shall be gi''" . , .y^,g masculine shall include the feminine ■rcm^^AepluralandthepluraUtail^ ..may" means definitions given to them: Subd. 1. Tobacco or Tobacco <=>«“*• substance or item containing ^ J cheroots; stogies; perique; granulattd, pipe tobacco; snuff, fme cut or other mbacco; snuff flowers; cavendtsh; plug cut, crimp cut, scraps, clippings, cuttings, and SS f™ aTto be Liable for chewing, sniffing, or smoking. Subd. 2. Tobacco Related Devices. "Tobacco related devices" shall meiin any tobacco product as well as a pipe, roiling papers, or other device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing, or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products. Subd. 3. Self-Service Merchandising. "Self-Scr\'ice Merchandising" shall mean open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical e.xchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee. Self-service merchandising shall not include vending machines. Subd. 4. Vending Machine. "Vending Machine" shall mean any mechanical, electric or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of payment directly into the machine by any person. Subd. 5. Individually packaged. "Individually packaged" shall mean the practice of selling any tobacco or tobacco product wrapped individually for sale. Individually wrapped tobacco and tobacco products shall include, but not be limited to, single cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form, and single cans or other packaging of snuff or chewing tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single pack or other container as described in this subdivision shall not be considered individually packaged. Subd. 6. Loosies. "Loosies" shall mean the common term used to refer to a single or individually packaged cigarette. Subd. 7. Minor. "Minor" shall mean any natural person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen (18) years. Subd. 8. Retail Establishment. "Retail Establishment" shall mean any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices are available for sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include, but not be limited to, grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants. Subd. 9. Moveable Place of Business. "Moveable Place of Business" shall refer to any form of business operated out of a truck, van, automobile, or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions. Subd. 10. Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter, or other consideration. Subd. 11. Compliance Checks. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the system the city uses to investigate and eniure that those authorized to sell tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices are following and complying with the requirements of this Ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized by this Ordinance. Compliance Checks shall also mean the use of minors who attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by State and Federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate Federal, State, or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices. Section 300. License. No person shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related device without first having obtained a license to do so from the city. Subd. 1. Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices shall be made on a form provided by the City. The application shall contain the full name of the applicant, the applicant's residential and business addresses and telephone numbers, the name of the business for which the license is sought, and any additional information the City deems necessary. Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Administrator shall forward the application to the council for action at its next regularly scheduled council meeting. If the City Administrator shall determine that an application is incomplete, he or she shall return the application to the applicant with notice of the information necessary to make the application complete. Subd. 2. Action. TTie council may either approve or deny the license, or it may delay action for such reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the application or the applicant it deems necessary. If the council shall approve the license, the City Administrator shall issue the license to the applicant. If the council denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the applicant along with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the council's decision. Subd. 3. Term. All licenses issued under this Ordinance shaU be valid for one calendar year from the date of issue. Subd. 4. Revocation or Suspension. Any license issued under this Ordinance may be revoked or suspended as provided in the Violations and Penalties section of this Ordinance. Subd. 5. Transfers. All licenses issued under this Ordinance shall be valid only on the premises for w’hich the license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was issued. No transfer of any license to another location or person shall be valid without the prior approval of the council. Subd. 6. Moveable Place of Business. No license shall be issued to a moveable place of business. Only fixed location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed under this Ordinance. ^ ‘ Subd. 7. Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the general public on the licensed premise. Subd. 8. Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this Section shall be handled in the same manner as the original application. The request for a renewal shall be made at least thirty days but no more than sixty days before the expiration of the current license. The issuance of a license issued under this Ordinance shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license. Section 400. Fees. No license shall be issued under this Ordinance until the appropriate license fee shall be paid in full. The fee for a license under this Ordmance shall be determined from time to time by the City and published in a fee schedule adopted by the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Section 500. Basis for Denial of License. The following shall be grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license under this Ordinance; however, except as may otherwise be provided by law, the existence of any particular ground for denial does not mean that the City must deny the license. If a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a person, it shall be revoked upon the discovery that the person was ineligible for the license under this Section: A. The applicant is under the age of 18 years. B. The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation of a Federal, State, or local law. Ordinance provision, or other regulation relating to tobacco or tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. C. The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices revoked or suspended on two (2) or more occasions within the preceding twelve months of the date of application. D. E. The applicant fails to provide any information required on the application, or provides false or misleading information. The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law. Ordinance, or other regulation, from holding such a license. Section 600. Prohibited Sales. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device: A. To any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. B. By means of any type of vending machine, except as may otherwise be provided in r this Ordinance. C. By means of self-service methods whereby the customer does not need to make a verbal or written request to an employee of the licensed premise in order to receive the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device and whereb’' there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related • between the licensee or the licensee's employee, and the customer. D. By means of loosies as defined in Section 200 of this Ordinance. E. F. Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled substances except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process. By any other means, to any other person, on in any other manner or form prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law. Ordinance provision, or other regulation. Section 700. Vending Machines. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this Ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by the means of a vending machine. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices at the time this Ordinance is adopted shall comply with this Section within 45 days. This Section does not apply to facilities that cannot be entered at any time by persons younger than 18 years of age. Section 800. Self-Service Sales. It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this Ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by any means whereby the customer may have access to such items, including, but not limited to individually packaged or multipack units of tobacco or tobacco products, without having to request the item from the licensee or the licensee's employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or the tobacco related device between the licensee or his or her clerk and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices shall either be stored behind a counter or other area not freely accessible to customers, or in a case or other storage unit not left open and accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices at the time this Ordinance is adopted shall comply with this Section within 45 days. This Section does not apply to retail stores which derive at least 90 percent of their revenue from tobacco and tobacco-related products and which cannot be entered at any time by persons younger than 18 years of age. Section 900. Responsibility. All licensees under this Ordinance shall be responsible for the actions of their employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices on the licensed premises, and the sale of such an item by an employee shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the City from also subjecting the clerk to whatever penalties are appropriate under this Ordinance, State or Federal law, or other applicable law or regulation. Section 1030. Conip.Uancc Checks and Inspections. All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by the city police or other authorized city official during regular business hours. From * le * > time, but at least once per year, the City shall conduct compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians, minors over the age of fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years, to enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. Minors used for the purpose of compliance checks shall be supervised by city designated iaw enforcement officers or other designated city personnel. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty oi unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices when such items are obtained as a part of the compliance check. No minor used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minor's age, and all minors lawdlilly engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the minor's age asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or Federal laws for educational, research, or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular State w Federal law. Section 1100. Billboards. Billboards advertising any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device shall be governed by the city of Orono Sign Ordinance. Section 1200. Other Illegal Acts. Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation of this Ordinance. Subd. 1. Illegal Sales. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to sell or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device to any minor. Subd. 2. Illegal Possession. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to have in his or her possession any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. This Subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check. Subd. 3. Illegal Use. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to smoke, chew, sniff, or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. Subd. 4. Illegal Procurement. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtam any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device, and it shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to purchase or otherwise obtain such items on behalf of a min ■ r. It shall further be a violation for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. This Subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check. Subd. 5. Use of False Identification. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to attempt to disguise his or her true age by the use of a false form of identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual age of the person. Section 1300. Violations. Subd. 1. Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation that sets forth th:, alleged violation and which shall inform the alleged violator of his or her right to be heard on the accusation. Subd. 2. Hearings. If a person accused of violating this Ordinance so requests, a hearing shall be scheduled, the time and place of which shall be published and provided to the accused violator. Subd. 3. Hearing Officer. The City Council shall serve as the hearing officer. Subd. 4. Decision. If the hearing officer determines that a violation of this Ordinance did occur, that decision, along with the hearing officers reasons for finding a violation and the penalty to be imposed under Section 1400 of this Ordinance, shall be recorded in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to the accused violator. Likewise, if the hearing officer finds that no violation occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, such findings shall be recorded and a copy provided to the acquitted accused violator. Subd. 5. Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed in the district court for the City in which the alleged violation occurred. Subd. 6. Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this Sec'.ion shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this Ordinance. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, no administrative penalty shall be imposed. Subd. 7. Continued Violation. Each violation, and every day in which a violation occurs or continues, shall constitute a separate offense. Section 1400. Penalties. Subd. 1. Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this Ordinance, or whose employee shall have violated this Ordinance, shall be charged an administrative fine pursuant to a penalty schedule determined from time to time by the City and published in the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. In addition, after the second offense, the license shall be suspended for not less than three days. After the third offense the license shall be suspended for not less than seven days. Subd. 2. Other Individuals. Individuals, other than minors, found to be in violation of this Ordinance shall be charged an administrative fine pursuant to a penalty schedule determined from time to time by the City and published in the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Subd. 3, Misdemeanor. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this Ordinance. Section 1500. Exceptions and Defenses. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the providing of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices to a minor as part of a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative defense to the violation or this Ordinance for a person to have reasonably relied on proof of age as described by State law. Section 1600. Severability and Savings Clause. If any section or portion of this Ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve as an invalidation or effect the validity and enforceability of any other section or provision of this Ordinance. Section 1700. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect the day following publication in the City's official newspaper. Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of December, 1997. ATTEST.Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers on the 13th day of December, 1997. 111897.1 8 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; December 8, 1997 ITEM NO.: i / / t Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Open Burning Policy Revisions There has been citizen concern about current burning policies in the City, which prohibit the burning of brush. The existing policy only allows recreational fires and log disposal fires. Based on public comments received, the Council directed City staff to research this issue and provide recommendations for possible policy changes to the Council. The first time this issue was presented to the Council, the staff recommendation was to retain the existing policy. The Council tabled this issue and directed staff to provide additional options for consideration. This issue was researched further and was presented to the Council for consideration a second time. The recommended changes included modifications to the permitting process to simplify the process, but did not include any major changes to the existing burning policy. After receiving public opinion on these proposed changes, the issue was referred to staff for further consideration. Staff was directed to draft proposed changes that would allow for brush disposal fires with criteria based on lot sizes. We have reviewed burning policies from the cities of Minnetrista and Independence. Both cities are located next to the western border of Orono. These cities are less developed than Orono with larger lots and agricultural land. These Cities are somewhat typical of our larger lot rural subdivisions. We have also reviewed the burning ordinance for the City of Shorewood. This City represents the moie densely developed urban areas around Lake Minnetonka. Recreational Fires Recreational fires up to a 3' diameter and 3’ high are allowed without a permit in Independence and Minnetrista. Shorewood allows recreational fires with an annual permit required. Orono currently allows recreational fires with a 30-day permit requirement. This permit is renewable for one additional 30-day period. Our recommendation is to continue to allo\v 3' diameter by 3' high recreational fires on all size lots with a no-cost annual permit in the City of Orono. This will provide for a minimum of one inspection of recreational fire sites on an annual basis. Requiring a permit for recreational fires will allow for more control of these sites, and provide the ability to control problem burning by revoking the permit. Based on the large number of smaller lots in Orono, we believe that the requirement of annual recreational fire permits is reasonable. This is the similar to the requirements in the City of Shorewood. Brush Disposal Fires The West Hennepin Public *^^fety Department issues permits and monitors burning for both the Cities of Independence and Minnetrista. Brush disposal fire are allowed by permit with a 30-day time period for permits Brush disposal fues that are larger than 25' x 25' x 10' high require the approval the fire department having jurisdiction. The permit guidelines contain a list of requirements '“'^r types of materials that can be burned, 50 foot setbacks from buildings, and safety etc. All burn sites are inspected by West Hennepin Public Safety before a burning permit is issued. The only discussion on size of brush piles is the requirement of fire department approval for piles over 25' x 25' x 10' high. Both Independence and Minnetrista are more rural than Orono, and these regulations have been deemed to be appropriate for this area. Orono is more densely developed than these two cities. Our recommendation is to change our ordinance to allow brush disposal fires in Orono, with size limitations that are appropriate to our development conditions. The proposed ordinance allows for 8' diameter by 4' high brush disposal fire with a minimum lot size of 2 acres. A 15' diameter by 6' high brush disposal fire woula be allowevi with a 5 acre minimum lot size. The west Hemiepin Public Safety Department has had very few problems with their burning regulations, and their director indicated that the proposed regulations for Orono are reasonable based on our more developed conditions. Permit Time Period and Fees The staff recommendation is to require a 30-day permit for brush disposal fires with no permit renewals allowed. We are not proposing any changes to the permit fee structure for brush disposal fire permits. There is no charge for permits until an applicant requests more than 3 permits in one year, then there will be a $100 annual fee. The intent is to have free permits to encourage people to get permits. The fee f'i numerous permits will encourage people to plan their burning to reduce the number of occurrences and permits required. Below is a summary of the open burning requirements for various lot sizes. Recreational Fires Minimum Lot Size: Allowed on any size lot if all other permit requirements are met. Maximum Fire Size: 3' diameter by 3' high Building Setback: Minimum 50’ setback from buildings Property Line Setback: 25' setback from property lines Permit Time Limit: Permits valid for 1 year Inspection Requirements: Inspection before permit issuance, inspections not required for each bum Notification Requirements: Notify Orono Police Department before each bum Small Brush Disposal Fires Minimum Lot Size: 2 acre minimum lot size Maximum Fire Size: 8' diameter by 4' high Building Setback: Minimum 75 ’ setback from buildings Property Line Setback: 50* setback from property lines Permit Time Limit: Permits valid for 30 days Inspection Requirements; Inspection of initial bum site before permit issuance, inspection of site before additional bums Notification Requirements: Notify both Orono Police Department and the Fire Department having jurisdiction before each bum. Large Brush Disposal Fires Minimum Lot Size: Maximum Fire Size: Building Setback: Property Line Setback: Permit Time Limit: Inspection Requirements; Notification Requirements: 5 acre minimum lot size 15' diameter by 6' high Minimum 150' setback from buildings 75' setback from property lines Permits valid for 30 days Inspection of initial bum site before permit issuance, inspection of site before additional bums Notify both Orono Police Department and the Fire Department having jurisdiction before each bum. Fire Warden The City will n^ to have a Fire Warden to administer the issuance of burning permits. The DNR is responsible for open burning within the state and delegates administration to local units of government though the appointment of fire wardens. Since this program will be administered through the Public Services Department, we are recommending that the Public Services Director be designated as the fire warden. The fire warden can then delegate the issuance of permits and site inspections to other staff members. Site inspections will be conducted by inspectors in the ^blic services Department. The Orono police will be notified of bums and can provide assistance in monitoring of bums in progress. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve the proposed revisions to the City of Orono Open Burning Requirements i ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE REGULATING OPEN BURNING WITHIN THE CITY OF ORONO *n*e City Council of Orono ordains as follows: L Section 1. Section 9.30 of the Orono City Code is hereby deleted. Section 2. The Orono Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 9.30 as follows: Open Laming. Subd. 1. Enrpg?e. The purpose of this section is to establish permitted categories of open turn events within the City of Orono and provide for a permitting process for burning. Subd. 2. p^llnilions- For the purposes of this section, the terms defined herein have the meanings given them. a. Qpgn gtrnine- Open burning means the burning of any matter if the resultant combustion p*-oducts are emitted directly to the atmosphere without passing through a stack, duct or chimney. Open burning includes Recreational Fires, Small Brush Disposal Fires, and Large Brush Disposal Fires, fires for fire department training purposes, and fires for maintenance of native prairie areas. Fir??. Recreational fires are allowed on any size lot provided that all other permit conditions can be met. Recreational fire means a fire set with approved starter fuel no more than three (3) feet in height and diameter, using dry, clean wood; producing little detectable smoke, odor or soot beyond the property line; conducted with an adult tending the fire a» all times; for recreational, ceremonial, food preparation or social purposes, extinguished completely before quitting the occasion; and respecting weather conditions, neighbors, burning bans, and air quality so that nuisance, health or safety hazards will not be created. Mobile cooking devices such as manufactured hibachis, charcoal grills, wood smokers and propane or natural gas devices are not defined as recreational fires. Recreational Fire Sites shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feel to any structure or twenty-five (25) feet from any lot line. An adequate water supply for fire suppression purposes must be provided. Small Brush Disposal Fire<s A minimum lot size of 2 acres is required for small bru.sh disposal fires. Small brush disposal means a fire set with approved starter fluid no more than 8 in diameter and 4* in height using any clean wood, producing minimal smoke, odor or soot beyond the property line; conducted with an adult tending the fire site at all times; extinguished completely before leaving the site; and respecting weather conditions, neighbors, burning bans, and air quality so that nuisance, health or safety hazards will not be created. An adequate water supply for fire suppression purposes must be provided. Lots? Brush Disposal Fires. A minimum lot size of 5 acres is required for large brush disposal fires. Large brush disposal fires means a fire set with approved starter fluid no more than 15 ’ in diameter and 6' in height using any clean wood, producing minimal smoke, odor or soot beyond the property line; conducted with an adult tending t* e fire site at all times; extinguished completely before leaving the site; and respecting weather conditions, neighbors, burning bans, and air quality so that nuisance, health or safety hazards will not be created. An stdequate water supply for fire suppression purposes must be provided. Firg Department Trainin2 Fires. A fire used for the purpose of fire department training under the conditions of a permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. F Nfltivg Prairie Restoration Fires. Fires used for the purposes of Native Prairie Maintenance conducted under the supervision of qualified individuals or firms specializing in this type of work. S' Slflrt?r Fu?ls - Starter Fuels means dry, untreated, unpainted kindling, branches or cardboard, or charcoal fire starter. Paraffin candles and alcohols are permitted as starter fuels and as aids to ignition only. Propane gas torches or other clean gas burning devices causing minimal pollution must be used to start an Open Burn. h. ^Qod- Wood means dry, clean fuel only as a twigs, branches, limbs, presto logs, charcoal, cordwvod or untreated dimensional lumber. "Wood" does not include wood that is green, with leaves or needles, ronen, wet, oil soaked, or treated with paint, glue or preservatives. Clean pallets may be used for recreational fires when cut into three (3) foot lengths. Subd. 3. Prohibited Mqtgnals . No person shall conduct, cause or permit open burning of oils, petro fuels, rubber, plastics, chemically treated materials, or other materials which produce e.xcessive or noxious smoke such as tires, railroad ties, treated, painted or glued wood, composite shingles, tar paper, insulation, composition board, sheetrock, wiring, paint ^r paint fillers. No person shall conduct, cause or permit open burning of hazardous waste or salvage operations, or open burning of solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing process or from a ser\’ice or commercial establishment or building material generated from demolition of commercial or institutional structures. No person shall conduct, cause or permit open burning of discarded material resulting from the handling, processing, storage, preparation, serving or consumption of food. Subd. 4. Permit Required for Open Burning. No person shall start or allow any open burning on any property in the City of Orono without first having obtained an Open Burning Permit. Subd. 5. Purposes Allowed for Open Burning. Open Bum Permits may be issued only for the following purposes: a. Elimination of fire or health hazard that cannot be abated by other practical means. b. Ground thawing for utility repair and construction. c. Disposal of vegetative matter for managing fore.st, prairie or wildlife habitat, and in the development and maintenance of land and rights-of-way where chipping, composting, landspreading or other alternative methods are not practical. d. Disposal of diseased trees generated Oi*. :itc, diseased or infected nursery stock, diseased bee hives. e. Recreational Fires for recreational, ceremonial, food preparation or social purposes. f Fires for the purpose of fire department training. Fires for training purposes require a pemiit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Subd. 6. Pemut Application for Open Burning and Permit Fees. Open Burning Pemiits shall be obtairied by making application on a form prescribed and adopted by the City of Orono. An Open Burning Permit may require a non-refundable application fee. Permit fees shall be set annually by City Council Resolution. However, the City Council may at other times amend its Resolution setting the fees as it deen.s necessary. The fees established by City Council Resolution shall continue to be the required fee until amended by a Resolution. Fees collected shall be retained by the City administrative costs of issuing permits. Subd. 7. Permit Process for Open Burning. Upon receipt of the completed Open Burning Permit application and permit fee. a City of Orono staff person shall determine that the requirements for open burning under this Code are satisfied. Thereafter, a Permit may be issued. a. Recreational Fire inspection requirements include an inspection of the bum site by City staff before a permit is issued. Reinspection of the site is not required before conducting each bum within the permit time limits. b. Small and Large Brush Disposal Fires, Fire Department Training Fires, and Native Prairie Restoration Fires inspection requirements include an inspection, of the initial bum site, by city staff before a permit is issued. Reinspection of the site is required before conducting any additional bums within the permit time limits. c. Notification requirements include notifying the Orono Police Department for any open bum including Recreational Fires. For Small and Large Brush Disposal Fires, Fire Department Training Fires, and Native Prairie Restoration Fires in addition to notifying the Orono Police Department, the fire department having •urisdiction must also be notified. Subd. 8. Time Period for Permits. Permits for Recreational Fires are valid for one year from the date of issuance. Permits for all other fires are valid for 30 days from the date of issuance and require the notification of both the Orono Police Department and fire department. Subd. 9. Permit Holder Responsibility. Prior to starting an Open Bum, the Permit holder shall be responsible for confirming that no burning ban or air quality alert is •n effect. Every Open Bum event shall be constantly attended by the Permit holder or his/her competent representative. The Open Bum fire shall be completely extinguished before the Permit holder or his/her representative leaves the site. It is the responsibility of the Permit holder to have a valid Permit, as required by this section, available for inspection on the site by the City staff, Orono Police Departnent, Minne.sota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), or Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Permit holder is responsible for compliance and implementation of all general conditions, special conditions and the bum event safety plan as established in the Permit issued. Subd. 10. Revocation of Open Burning Permit. The Open Burning Permit is subject to revocation at the discretion of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural Resources, the applicable Fire Chief, City staff or Orono Police Department. Reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to; a fire hazard e.xisting or developing during the course of the bum, any of the conditions of the Permit being violated during the course of the bum, pollution or nuisance conditions developing during the course of the bum, or a fire smoldering with no flame present. Subd. 11. Denial of Open Burning Permit. If established criteria for the issuance of an Open Burning Permit are not met or during review of said application, it is determined that a practical alternative method of disposal of the material exists, or a pollution or nuisance condition would result, or if a bum event safety plan cannot be drafted to the satisfaction of City staff, then the City of Orono staff person may deny the Open Burning Permit application. Subd. 12. Burning Ban or Air Quality Alert. No Recreational Fire or Open Bum will be permitted when the City's Fire Chief, Fire Marshall, City's Police Chief or DNR has officially declared a burning ban due to potential hazardous fire conditions or when the MPCA has declared an Air Quality Alert. Subd. 13. Rules Adopted bv Reference. Minnesota Statutes 88.16 to 88.17 and 88.171 and Minnesota Uniform Fire Code are hcitby adopted by reference and made a part of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. Subd. 14. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment. Subd. 15. Liability. In addition to any criminal liability, the person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City, and fire department, and any adjoining property owners, as a result of the bum, including, but not limited to, fire suppression costs, property damage, personal injury and administrative fees. Section 3. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this _____, 199__by a vote of ____ayes and_____nays. day of ATTEST: Dorothv M. Hailin, Citv Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor the Permit being violated during the course of the bum, pollution or nuisance conditions developing during the course of the bum. or a fire smoldering with no flame present. Subd. 11. Denial of Open Burning Permit. If established criteria for the issuance of an Open Burning Permit are not met or during review ol said application, it is determined that a practical alternative method of disposal of the material exists, or a pollution or nuisance condition would result, or if a bum event safety plan cannot be drafted to the satisfaction of City staff, then the City of Orono staff person may deny the Open Burning Permit application. Subd. 12. Burning Ban or Air Quality Alert. No Recreational Fire or Open Bum will be permitted when the City's Fire Chief, Fire Marshall, City's Police Chief or DNR has officiall; ■'.eclared a burning ban due to potential hazardous fire conditions or when the MPCA has declared an Air Quality Alert. Subd. 13. Rules Adopted bv Reference. Minnesota Statutes 88.16 to 88.17 and 88.171 and Minnesota Uniform Fire Code are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. Subd. 14. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment. Subd. 15. Liability. In addition to any criminal liability, the person violating any provision of this Chapter shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the City, and fire department, and any adjoining property owners, as a result of the bum, including, but not limited to, fire suppression costs, property damage, personal injury and administrative fees. Section 3. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this _____, 199_by a vote of____ayes and_____nays. day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor PROHIBITED MATERIALS ARE: brus ’-., oils, rubber, plastics, tires, building materials and chemically treated materials such as railroad ties, treated lumbei, composite shingles, tar paper, insulation, composition board, sheet rock, wiring, paint, hazardous and industrial solid waste. I AGREE: ' Norte bum brush or other prohibited materials. Not to bum if there is a practical alternative method for disposal of material such as chipping or composting. • To use a clean burning device to start the fire. Not to conduct burning during any air quality alert. - Not to bum paper or cardboard except as provided under Minnesota Statutes 17.135. - To have this permit available at the bum site for inspection. - That prevailing wind must be away from nearby occupied buildings and as far away from any highway or public road and controlled so as that a traffic hazard is not created. To keep this fire under control and to assume responsibility for all damages and costs that may result from burning done under this permit. That fires will not be allowed to smolder without flame. To provide a water supply and an adult to attend this fire until completely e.xtinguished. • To extinguish the fire immediately if this permit is revoked. That no material may be brought into be burned from another site. This permit mav be revoked should anv or all of the following conditions exist: 1. A fire hazard exists or develops during the course of the bum. 2. A public safety hazard exists or may exist if the bum is implemented or is allowed to continue. 3. Any conditions agreed to have been violated. Signature / ATTEST, BY MY SIGNATURE, THAT I HAVE READ AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF, AND ANY ATTACHMENTS TO THIS PERMIT; AND THAT I AM THE LANDOWNER OR HAVE PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER TO BURN AT THE ABOVE BURN SITE LOCATION. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDITIONS MAY SUBJECT ME TO CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL ACTIONS AND/OR REVOCATION OF BURN PERMIT PRIVILEGES IN THE FUTURE, MAP (Lot Size ) Approved by:Inspected by:Date: InspectorsComments:_______________________________________________________ Fire Department: ____Long Lake _____Maple Plain _____Mound _____Wayzata This permit is valid for open burning as allowed and specified in State Statute 88.01 to 88.22, 88.75, 88.76, Minn. Uniform Fire Code, and heal ordinances. The permittee is granted permission to bum the above described materials at the specified location during the dates listed above. \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION n, DATE: December ^ 1997 O ITEM NO: / V Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Fire, Burglary and Safety Alarm Regulations and Requirements - Ordinance Amendment Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Amending the City's Fire, Burglary and Safety Alarm Regulations and Requirements BacKgrowid Both the Orono Police Department and the Long Lake Fire Department respond to a large number of false alarm calls. Not only ;s this expensive in terms of staff time and \ ehicle usage, it also unnecessarily puts staff at risk in emergency response situations. The Police Department responds to 792 alarm calls per year. This is 10% of the total calls for the Police Department in a year. 99% of the alarm calls are false alarms caused by either by mechanical failure of the alarm system or by human error in improperly setting the alarm or accidentally tripping the alarm. This means that nearly all false alarms are easily avoidable. The city currently has an ordinance that authorizes a fee schedule for false police alarms. The purpose of the fee schedule is first to recover at least a portion ot the costs of responding to the false alarm, and second to provide an incentive for those with alarms to ensure they operate correctly. The current ordinance allows three false alarms per calendar year without a fee. This fee schedule does not accomplish either of the purposes indicated above. Therefore, it is recommended the ordinance be amended to enable an alarm user to be charged a user fee once the alarm system reports more than one false alarm in a single calendar year. The recommended ordinance amendment is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 9.35 Entitled "Fire, Burglary and Safety Alarm Regulations and Requirements" to enable a false alarm fee to be charged when a public safety alarm system reports more than one false alarm to the city in a single calendar year. ORDINANCE NO.2nd SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9.35 ADOPTED APR*^ 1, 1984 AND AMENDED WE 19, 1984, AND ENTITLED "FIRE, BURGLARY AND SAi^ETY ALARM REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS." The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance No. 9.35 adopted April 1, 1984 and amended June 19,1984, and entitled "Fire, Burglary and Safety Alarm Regulations and Requirements", Subd. 3. (A) User Fee and Subd. 4. (B) Payment of Fees are deleted and replaced with the following. Subd. 3. User Fee. A. Once a public safety alarm system reports more than one false alarm to the City in a single calendar year and the alarm user has received timely notice of the violation, the alarm user shall be charged a user fee as fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. Subd. 4. Payment of Fees. B. All delinquent charges for user fees shall be certified by the Clerk to the County Auditor who shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for assessment of the delinquent amounts against the respective properties served, which assessment roll shall be delivered to the Council for adoption on or before the deadline established by State Statute. This ordinance becomes effective after its passage and publication. Passed by the Council this 8th day of December, 1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor I I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk '^%7> ' ‘-''tG/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 4, 1997 ITEM NO = Department Approval:Administrator Re>iewed:Agenda Section: Name Dorothy Hallin /?/4 City Administrator’s Title City Clerk Report Item Description: Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule Attachment; A. Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule Ordinance B. Summary Ordinance The p.oposed 1998 Fee Schedule Ordinance and Summary reflecting the proposed changes are attached. The proposed changes include: Increases in some Zoning Application fees and the surcharge for staff time. All sanitary sewer and water connection charges. Building moving or lifting has been deleted because it is covered by building permits and demo permits. A reduction in standard sized water meters is reflected. This change is a result in a change of vendor. Increases in licenses and miscellaneous charges include cigarette licenses and audio tape duplication and the addition of video tape duplication and returned check charge. A 3.2 increase in sewer rates and a 2.9% increase in water rates are proposed. The charge for recycling replacement container has been increased to reflect cost to the city. Some golf course charges have also been increased. Increases in dogs at large - release fees and animals at large fees to reflect costs to the city. False Alarm Fees Both the Orono Police Department and the Long Lake Fire Department respond to a large number of false alarm calls. Not only is this e,xpensive in terms of staff time and vehicle usage, it also unnecessarily puts staff at risk in emergency response situations. The Police Department responds to 792 alarm calls per year. This is 10% of the total calls for the Police Department in a year. Ninety-nine per cent of the alarm calls are false alarms caused by either mechanical failure of the alarm system or by human error in improperly setting the alarm or accidentally tripping the alarm. This means nearly all false alarms are easily avoidable. The current fee schedule for false police alarms allows three false alarms in each calendar year before a false alarm fee is required. Staff recommends the fee schedule be amended to allow only one false alarm witliout a fee. This is reflected in the recommended fee schedule. Request for Council Action page 2 of 2 November 20, 1997 Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule Orono does not currently charge for false fire alarms. In 1996, the Long Lake Fire Department 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. A substantial number 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 exercise. Because of the high expense related to false fire alarms, staff is recommending initiating 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 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached ordinance amending the city’s fee schedule and summary ordinance for publication. Copy Charges PegeAdministration 22Accident Reports 25Audio Recording Duplication 22Building Plan Copies 22Copy Microfiche File - PD 25Copy Service - Police Dept 25 Driver's License Record 25 Reprint Oversized Documents On Microfilm 22 Tape Duplication (Police Dept.) Audio 26 Video 26 Connectiort Charges Sanitary Sewer 10 Municipal Water 16 Unit Adjustment 17 Documents Comprehensive Guide 21 Current Street Address Book 22 Listing Info • Realtors 22 Municipal Code/Ordinance 21 Special Assessment Searches 22 FtUse Alarm User Fees 25 Golf Course Charges 29 Inspections Contractual Inspection Service 20 Special Inspection Charges 19 Licenses & Miscellaneous DIRECTORY FOR 1998 FEE SCHEDULELicenses & Miscellaneous (Cont.) Page Garbage Haulers License 20Home Occupation License 20Joint Use Dock License 20Kennel License 23Returned Check Charge 22Solicitation License 22 Temporary Trailer/Building License 20 Tobacco License 22 Maps For Sale 22 Public Works Supplies & Services Driveway Culverts 30 Driveway/Curb Cut Permits 30 Permits After-The-Fact Fees 5 Building Permit Fees 8 Burning Permits 19 Cert, of Occupancy 8 Demolition Permit Fee 8 Docks: Commercial 8 Residential 8 Fire Protection 19 Firearms Discharge Permit 24 Firearms Permit To Carry 24 Fireworks Permit Fee 24 Grading Excavating, Filling 18 Large Assembly Permit 24 Lawn Sprinkler System 19 Limited Trapping Permit 24 Mechanical Permit Fees 9 Municipal Hook Up After-The-Fact Fees 5 (Sewer A/Vater)9 Amusement Devices 24 On-Site Systems (Septic)18 Animal Impound Fees 23 Outhouse Construction 18 Beer, Wine & Liquor License 24 (See On-Site Systems) Commercial Marina License 20 Parades & Special Events 25 Dog License 23 Plumbing Permit 9 Public Dance License 24 Retaining Walls 8 Gambling/Raffle License 22 Permits (Cont.) PageSprinkler Systems -Commercial 9Tree Removal 8Underground Tank Removal 9Water Meter Fees 9 Services Fingerprinting (Police) 25 Water Turn-Off Charge 28 Water Turn-On Charge 28 Signs Street Signs (Public Works) 30 Temporary & Permanent 18 Temp. "No Parking" (P.D.) 26 Temp. "No Parking" (P.W.) 30 Utility Rate & Miscellaneous Annual Service Charge • Septic 18 Municipal Sewer 27 Municipal Water 28 Recycling Charge 28 Recycling Replacement Bins 28 Zoning Applications After-The-Fact Fees 5 Amendments 3 Appeal of Admin. Decision 5 Commercial Site Plan 2 Comprehensive Plan Amend 3 Conditional Use Permit Fees 1 Industrial Revenue Bond Appl. 5 Park Dedication Fees 7 PUD Rezoning 3 Rezoning Application Fee 3 Rip Rap Application Fee 5 Special Improvements Appl. 4 Subdivision Application Fee 2 Surcharge for Staff Expense 5 Vacation Application Fees 3 Variance Application Fees 1 ORDINANCE NO.____, SECOND SERIESAN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1998 FEE SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 143, SECOND SERIESThe City Council of the City of Orono ordains Section 1. Ordinance Repealed. Ordinance No. 153 Second Series, entitled 1997 Fee Schedule Is hereby repealed. The City Council of Orono per Section 1.05 of the Municipal Code hereby ordains the following fees effective during the calendar year 1998:SECTION 1. Fees.ZONING APPl.lCATlONSAll fees are uppitmtinn f«»« and arc non-refundablc after staff work has begun on the application. Application Tvoe VARIANCE (Flexible applications involving more than one variance will require an additional $50.00 payment per each variance) Variance for Non*Conforming Structures RENEWAL VARIANCE (No change from original application) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (One charge per project) Residential Accessory Use (Animals, etc.) Institutional Use (School, Church, etc.) Duplex Credit (per building) Guest House/Guest Apartment Commercial/Industrial Use Non-Confoiraing Use E££ $250.00 $250.00 $150.00 $175.00 $250.00 $200.00 $225.00 $300.00 $250.00 Applicable Code Section 10.06, Subd 3 (D) 10.06, Subd 3 (D) 10.09, Subd 3 10.09, Subd 3 10.09, Subd 3 10.09, Subd 3 10.09, Subd 3 10.09, Subd 3 i- 1 ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.)^pealed.■m J Appitcation TvncCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Continued (One Charge per Project) Land Alteration:Grading, fllling, etc. (over 100 cubic yards)Sea walls, retaining walls within 0-75' lakeshore PRD Application with Subdivision PRD Application without Subdivision PID Applications Renewal Conditional Use Permit (no change from original application) Conditional Use Permit with Variance After-the-Fact Fees COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBDIVISION Sketch Plan (Class I, O, & 111) Subdivision Application (Class I & n Subdivisioas, Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) FUing Fees: a) Subdivision only b) Subdivision + Easements & Covenants Renewal of Subdivision Application (Class I & II, Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement) (No Change From Original Application) Applicable Code Section10.09, Subd 3$250.00 + permitSubdivision Fee plus $30.00 per dwelling unit $ 35.00 per dwelling unit (minimum $150.00) $150.00 per acre (minimum $350.00) $150.00 Add $ 75.00 for each variance Double Application Fee Res. Jfl306 & #1309 $250.00 + Consultant Fee $250.00 $350.00 11.10, Subd 7(A) 11.10, Subd 10(A) (B) $375.00 + $25/Iot 11.10, Subd 10(C) ($450/3 lots; $475/4 lots) $200.00 + Special Legal/Enginecring Charges 11.10, Subd 17(A) (9) $ 75.00 11.10, Subd 17 (A) (11) $200.00 Minimum plus any additional costs $200.00 7.0NINrt APPLICATIONS (CONT.)Annlkation Type SPECIAL IMPROVEMENTSNon-refundable charges Tor City Engineer's review for applications and d<»«t£n drawing, including construction inspection fees. If Improvements are proposed as part of a Subdivision, Review Charges are payable with Preliminary Plat application. Proposed Private Roads Proposed Public Roads Request bu CIt} tr ..wcpt existing private road Request for City to maintain unimproved public road Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension Proposed Watermain Extension Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) On-Site System - Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) Applicable Code SectionSection 11.12, Subd 4 $600.00 plus SOd/lineal foot $900.00 plus 50d/lineal foot $900.00 $200.00 $250.00 plus $25.00 per stub $250.00 plus $25.00 per stub $200.00 $ 50.00 per new lot proposed for on-site •fi APPl.lCATlONS fCONT.)ZQCAnplication Tv DC £££Applicable Code Section AFIRIP-RAPStair Review (normal rip-rap)Unusual Rip-Rap: a) New installationb) Repair previously approved No Charge$100.00 + CUP review Stair permit = $100.00APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION $100.00 10.65, Subd 3 (D)INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: $250,000.00 Application Fee:0.1% of project valuation ($250.00 minimum) plus $5,000.00 deposit for legal/ administrative expenses Aft( SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION FEES Per Fee Schedule set forth below: Professional Time Clerical Time Legal/Engineering Consultants Mileage/Copies/Postage/Etc. Section 10.11 $ 40.00/hour $ 20.00/hour Actual Billed Cost Actual Cost t AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306) (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, rip-rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, nil building permits and all general permits.) This permit fee may be waived by staff for resident property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work, have no previous history of work without a permit ano where such work does not entail any zoning violations. ZONING APPMCATIONS fCONT.)AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATI* >N INVESTIGATION FEES ContinuedWhenever any work, use or division of Ua6 for which a formal appUcation is required has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall l<' made during the appUcation proc^.Because of the extra administrative costs involved in the special investigation, the minimum appUcation fee for after-the-fact applications shall be twice the fee set forth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the appUcation is thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after-the-fact application fee shaU not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of land, and shall not consUtute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After-the-fact Investigation Fee Amount: Es£Applicable Code 5icction Equal to and in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount). Res. 1306 ZONING APPI.ICATIONS fCONT.)Applicable Code SectionPARK DEDICATION FEES I Municipal Code Section 11.62 J .and rw»dlrntinn Minimum Area - Subdividcrs shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area, or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council, as set forth below: (1) Residential/Agricultural/Multiple Residential Zoned Land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. (Exclusive of lot that includes an existing residence.) (2) Commercial/Industrial Zoned Land. Dedicated requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. Ctwh Contribution in I.icu of l.ands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider, in ”eu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. rnNSTRIimON permits and inspection feesPermit Type £££ApplicableCodc^ectfa BUILDING PERMIT (Ord. 216) Minimum Fee Normal Fee Plan Review Fee: Commercial Residential Building Valuation Standard $21.00 (per 1994 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) (per 1994 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) 65% of Building Permit Fee (per Current I.C.B.O. Building Standards/Building Valuation Data) ZONING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHOUT BUILDING PERMIT (change in use) $50.00 RETAINING WALLS (in excess of 42" also multiple tiered walls that exceed 42" and not located in iakeshore protected area) NOTE: Retaining walls in 0-75' iakeshore protected zone - see Cond. Use Permit section of fee schedule $21.00 minimum (per 1994 UBC Standard Schedule) 1 TREE REMOVAL WITHIN 0-75'$30.00 Ord. 10.22 Subd 3 ICKS - RESIDENTIAL (Permanent and Initial Seasonal) $30.00 1 CKS • COMMERCIAL Per 1994 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule DEMOLITION PERMIT Principal Structure Accessory Structure (Ord. 216) $ 50.00 Initial inspection $ 25.00 for each requested or required inspection beyond initial inspection $ 30.00 Initial inspection 8 roN5mtucnnN permits and inspection fees (CONT.)Permit Tvdc PLUMBING PERMIT Mail-in postage & handling charge MECHANICAL PERMIT Minimum Fee for any Mechanical Permit Mail-in postage & handling charge Rpjliidential. Single Family & Duplex bv Unit Tvpe Under Ground Tank Removal Commercial. Industrial and Multi-Familv Residential bv Unit Tvoe SPRINKLER SYSTEMS - COMMERCIAL -fire sprinkler systems -kitchen fire extinguishing system MUNICIPAL CONNECTION PERMIT (together with area connection charges) Sewer Water 5/8" meter including sales tax 3/4" meter including sales tax 1" meter including sales tax larger meter Mail-in postage & handling charge (sewer and water permits only) Applicable Code Section 1.25% of contract price or $ 35.00 minimum per project $ 1.50 1.25% of contract price or $ 35.00 per project $ 1.50 Per mechanical permit fees $ 35.00 minimum fee 1.25% of contract price $ 35.00 minimum fee 1.25% of contract price Surcharge based on valuation $ 35.00 per system $35.00 $35.00 $130.00 $180.00 $240.00 quote basis $ 1.50 ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement Is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections arc subject to City Council approval. SEWER PROJECTS rRF.niT TO ARKAi (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (2) 302-37691 1982 Improve & K6 By Pass (3) 310-37691 1985 Improve Crystal Bay (4) 406-37691 PIR Fund f7LS & Forcemain (5) 308-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 311-37691 1997 Improvements By District - Project Unit Charge +Area Or Acreage Charge Credit To Area 1963 ST-IA, LS-IA, ST-IB, LS-IB $5,000.00 (1) 1964 LS-IA or LS-IB $5,000.00 (1) 1965 LS I $5,000.00 (1) 1965 LS-IA $5,000.00 (1) 1967 LS-1 $5,000.00 (1) 1 1969 LS-1 Shore Hills $12,400.00 (1) 1969 LS-2 Chevy Chase $8,700.00 (1) 1970 LS-1 Saga Hill $8,700.00 (1) I 1971 LS-1 Dunwoody $8,700.00 (1) 1973-1 $12,400.00 (1) ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assesed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections arc subject to City Council approval. SKWFR PRO.IECTS CREDIT TO AREA! (1) 60^37691 Sewer Operating (2) 302-37691 1982 Improve & #6 By Pass (3) 310-37691 1985 Improve Crystal Bay 1980-1 Minnetonka Bluffs $10,765.00 (1) 1980-1 West Femdale/County Road 15 $25,000.00 (1) 1980-1 Orono Lane $20,000.00 (1) 1980-1 County Road 15/Marinas $ 8,390.00 (1) 1980-2 North Shore Drive/Scotch Pine Lane $25,000.00 (1) 1981-1 North Shore Drive/Highwood $12,875.00 (1) 1982-lA Navarre Utilities $ 2,740.00 Trunk Area $1,125.00 (2) 1982-lB Navarre Utilities Northern Avenue $450.00 (trunk unit acre/unit) $2,965.00 Per Acre (2) 1985-1 Crystal Bay $13,015.00 (3) (4) 406-37691 PIR Fund <7LS & Forcemain (5) 308-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 311-37691 1997 Improvements ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not |vevk>usly assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required In the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which arc located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections arc subject to City Council approval. 1983-1 Highway 12 Orono-Long Lake- Medina $ 1,225.00 — (1) 1989 Highway 12 - Phase I - North Side Brown Rd to Willow Dr $ 1,185.00 (1) 1989 Highway 12 - Phase II - Future Trunk Expansion $2,175.00 (1) 1992 Stubbs Bay Sewer I Stubbs Bay NE/NW - Bayside East n Bederwood in Bayside North IV Oxford V Cygnet and Leaf $14,655.00 $22,685.00 $19,205.00 $27,110.00 $21,905.00 (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) rRRDIT TO AREA: (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (2) 30^37691 1982 Improve & ^6 By Pass (3) 310-37691 1985 Improve Crystal Bay (4) 406-37691 PIR Fund jf7LS & Forcemain (5) 308-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 311-37691 1997 Improvements ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. 1997 SEWER f 97-1 North L.L./L.L.C.C $19,083.00 (6) 97-2 Bracketts Point $31,773.00 (6) 97-3 Bay Ridge $16,964.00 (6) CRKIMT TO AREA; (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (2) 302-37691 1982 Improve & fl6 By Pass (3) 310-37691 1985 Improve Crystal Bay (4) 406-37691 PIR Fund jf7LS & Forcemain (5) 308-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 311-37691 1997 Improvements ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which arc located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. 1984 Forcemain and Lift Station #7 upgrade: (An additional fee is charged for properties benefitting from the 1984 forcemain and lift station HI upgrade, as follows, see map for affected areas): All Charges Are Per Unit H6 By Pass +in Forcemain Credit To Area Existing Properties/Increase $ 497.00 (4) New Bldgs Replacing Existing Bldgs (If usage increases from existing) $ 494.00 (4) New Residential w/Existing Stub $1,440.00 (4) New Residential without Stub $ 450.00 (2)$1,440.00(4)(2) and (4) Freshwater Biological (Inch "Marsh at Lafayette' Lots) $ 450.00 (2)$ 560.00 (4) Per unit on connection (previously assessed $2,000/acre) (2) and (4) rnF.niT to arkai (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (2) 302-37691 1982 Improve & By Pass (3) 310-37691 1985 Improve Crystal Bay (4) 406-37691 PIR Fund tnVS & Forcemain (5) 308-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 311-37691 1997 Improvements equired’ca shall ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (K not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shaU be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. 1989 Gravity Line and Lift Station #10 By Pass: An additional fee is charged for properties benefitting from the 1989 gravity line and lift station #10 by-pass per Resolution #2671: CRKDIT TO AREA; (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (2) 302-37691 1982 Improve & #6 By Pass (3) 310-37691 1985 Improve Crystal Bay (4) 406-37691 PIR Fund #7LS & Forcemain (5) 308-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 311-37691 1997 Improvements .TV* ALLS, in the iTbecoi be chai ym By] 196 197' 197 198 198 Side Wil 198 Wal requiredarea shall ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES Gf not previously assessed or in an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.)The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for the area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval.WATER PROJECTS CREDIT TO AREA: (1) 601-37391 Water Operating (2) 302-37391 1982 Improve water By District - Project Unit Charge +Area Or Acreage Charge + Front Foot Charge Credit To Area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1967 LW-1 Highway 12/Crystal 1 Bay Road $ 4,230.00 $31.40 (1) 1 1969 LW-2 Chevy Chase $4,190.00 (1) 1970 LW-1 Navarre Residential $ 2,095.00 $ 20.90 (1) 1970 LW-1 Navarre Commercial $3,140.00 $ 31.40 (1) 1982-1A Navarro $ 2,230.00 (2) 1989 Highway 12 - Phase 1 - North Side Water Trunk - Brown Rd to Willow Dr $ 670.00 (1) 1989 Highway 12 - Phase II - Water Tower, Well, & Pumphouse $4,910.00 (1) CHAChar]prop€ CRE Cred: UNn Each Wast be requiredt area shall SEWER AND WATER UNIT ADJUSTMENT CHARGESCHARGES ., . ,Charges shall result from either an intensification of an existing non-residential use or a new non-residential use that replaces a former use on a property located within an area already assessed and served by municipal sewer and water.CREDIT Credit for previously assessed sewer or water units shall be applied against the total number of sewer and water units established for the new use. UNIX CHARGE Each sewer and each water unit adjustment charge shall be equal to the current Service Availability Charge established by the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services or its successor and shall be payable to the City of Orono upon application for a building permit. AND INSPECTION FEES Applicable Code Section(Ord. 210)Included with permit fees $ 50.00/per new lot$50.00$100.00 + $20,00 per each inspection over 3 (Includes outhouse on Big Island) $100.00 + $20.00 per each inspection over 4 $ 60.00 + $20.00 per each inspection over 2 Section 12.30, Subd 8(C)$ 50.00/systcm/year plus an additional $10.00 fee for late penalty plus 8% interest for unpaid charges certified -1>100 cubic yard (max. 10 loads) $ 50.00 (staff permit) + engineering fees if required ($100.00 if engineering fee necessary) $ 75.00 + Conditional Use Permit + $25.00 per each inspection over 1st CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES (CONT.)Permit Tym SPECIAL INSPECTION CHARGES Site Inspection without penoit (when called by owner) Inspection surcharge Tor work or application on Big Island or Deering Island Reinspection fee after failure to comply with Building, Septic or Zoning Code Correction Notice - 3rd trip FIRE PROTECTION Fire Prevention Inspection Fire Code Permits Commercial Fire Alarm Plan Review Fee LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM BURNING PERMITS Up to 5 times per year For Each Reinspcction More than 5 times per year (for all organizations and individuals regardless of tax status) F££Applicable Code Section $ 30.00 $30.00 per trip + boat rental if transportation is not provided by owner $ 30.00 per trip + $30.00 per hour after 1st hour (Ord. 223) No Charge $ 30.00 each Per UBC Schedule 65% of permit fee ■"1 $35.00 No Charge $20.00 $100.00 rONSTTRIJCnON PERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES fCONT.)Permit Type CONTRACTUAL INSPECTION SERVICE Monthly Retainer Fee (Includes clerical time) Inspection Charge Plan Review Charge Clerical Fee (Only charged if clerical use is excessive) Zoning Department Administered CIAL MARINA LICENSE Application Fee (initial) Renewal Application & Inspection Fee (annual) plus: -late fee JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE Application Fee (initial) Renewal Application Fee Plus each slip Late Fee GARBAGE HAULER LICENSE - flat rate - per hauler - transfer fee HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE TEMPORARY TRAILERS & BUILDINGS LICENSE ApplicableCode^Section Per Contract $ 25.00 per month $ 15.00 per inspection SBC/UBC Schedule $ 15.00 per hour $300.00 $200.00 $100.00 $50.00 $20.00 $ 2.00 $25.00 $30.00 $ 15.00/truck $30.00 $ 50.00 Initial Review Fee $ 30.00 (Annual Review Fee) $30.00 IJCENSES * MISrF.I.I.ANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.)Permit Type Applicable Code Section Zoning Department Administered ZONING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS Comprehensive Guide Plan -1980 (with amendments) Municipal Code Book - complete (Ch. 1-12 w/revisions) Municipal Code Book • Portions Ch 1 thru 9 (Book 1) w/revisions Ch 10 thru 12 (Book 2) w/revisions Ch H) only (Zoning Code) w/revisions Ch 11 only (Subdiv. Code) w/rcvisions Other Individual Chapters Binder Comp. Plan Amendment #2 (Hwy 12) $30.00 $ 60.00 w/binder $ 35.00 loose $ 35.00 loose $ 25.00 loose $ 15.00 loose $ .25/page $ 5.00 $ 5.00 ISRS St MlSrF.l.I.ANFmiS CHARGES (CONT.)Document TypeCity MapsTopographic Information Building & Planning Publications ZQjGeneral Administrative Licffl Tobacco Licenses Licensee or Employee Violations within 24 month period 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense & Over Gambling & Raffle License Solicitation License Up to 10 solicitors • $1.00 each additional solicitor in Orono. Applicant must list only persons that will solicit in Orono. General Administrative Documenls listing Information Assessment Search • Written (Verbal searches not given) Copy Service (for public City records only) 11 ” X 17" copies Individual copies of Ordinances (1 copy) Reprint of Oversized Documents that have been microfilmed Building Plan Copies Current Street Address Book Audio Recording Duplication Returned Check Charge Applicable Code Section$ 2.00 each$ 12.00 per acre + engineering consultant fee if computer diskette is required As Posted • Prices subject to change $100.00 5.24 $75.00 $200.00 $250.00 $10.00 $20.00 5.23 5.30 $10.00 $ 15.00/parcel $ .25 each $ 1.00 each No Charge Cost of copying service, Messenger service & Min. Clerical Fee of $5.00 Cost of Copying, Messenger Service & Min. Clerical Fee of $5.00 (entire amount to be paid upon request) $25.00 $ 10.00 per tape $20.00 1JCKNSES A MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.>Pgrmit Type K)G LICENSES Biannual License (issued in odd years) Annual License (issued in even years only) KENNEL LICENSES Commercial Application & Inspection Fee (Annual) Residential Application & Inspection Fee (Annual) NOTE: Dogs kept in residential kennels must be individually licensed. Residential kennel Tee Is in addition to dog license fees. IGS 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 Unce & Catch Animal Trailer Charge CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMAL Fee Applicable Code Section r i 9.12 $ 15.00 $ 7.50 5.36 $150.00 $25.00 . « 9.12 $55.00 $65.00 $75.00 $75.00 9.13 $55.00 $65.00 $75.00 $ 35.00/hour $ 55.00 plus .31 mile (total distance) Actual Cost LICENSES & MISCEI.I.ANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.) Permit TypePOikt Pfpartment AdministeredBEER, WINE & LIQUOR LICENSES Initial Investigation On-Sale/OfT-Sale Liquor In state investigation Out state investigation Initial Investigation - Beer/Wine Off*Sale Liquor License Bond Requirement On*Salc Liquor License On-Sale Wine License 3.2 Beer OfT-Sale (Annual) 3.2 Beer On-Sale (Annual) Sctup(Annual) Club Liquor License (weekday) (Sunday) Temporary Set-up Permit (one day) Temporary Beer Permit (one day) AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSES Per Establishment (Annual) Per Machine Fee PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE (annual) (Individual Permit) LARGE ASSEMBLY PERMIT FIREWORKS PERMIT FIREARMS DISCHARGE PERMIT Occasional (limited use) Game Animals Oimited use) Annual (Club Only) FIREARMS PERMIT TO CARRY LIMITED TRAPPING PERMIT Applicable Code Section $500.00 per License Collected at Application Actual cost up to $10,000 Actual cost $150.00/person Res. 1306 $150.00 4.30 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 4.30 $750.00 4.40 $25.00 4.20 $75.00 4.20 $100.00 4.60 $100.00 4.50 $200.00 4.50 $ 25.00/each 4.61 $ 15.00/each 421 5.20 $100.00 + machine fee $ 25.00 each $100.00 5.21 $ 10.00 5.21 $50.00 5.25 $50.00 9.10 9.10 $10.00 $25.00 $25.00 $ 10.00 $20.00 9.11, Ord :El •I.iriitNCT'Jg A MISCKIJ.ANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.lAppUcation TypePolke Denartment AdministeredPARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT FALSE POLICE ALARM USER FEES First false alartn/calendar year Second false alann/calendar year Third false alann/calendar year Fourth false alarm/calendar year Fifth and over false alarm/calendar year FALSE FIRE ALARM USER FEES First false alann/calendar year Second false alarm/calendar year Third false alarm/calendar year Fourth false alarm/calendar year Fifth St over false alarm/calendar year FINGERPRINTING SERVICE COPY SERVICE - Police Records First Two Copies Additional Copies COPY OF ACCIDENT REPORTS COPY OF DRIVER'S UCENSE RECORD COPY FROM MICROnCHE RLE First Two Copies Additional Copies Applicable Code Section$50.00 6.08 9.35 No Charge $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $250.00 9.35 No Charge $ 75.00 $250.00 $350.00 $500.00 each call $ 15.00/applicatlon - RESIDENT ONLY (Citizenship No Charge) $ 5.00 $ 0.25 each $ 5.00 each $ 5.00 each $ 10.00 $ .50 each .•J DICWpg Jt- MI.<M"F.I.I.ANF.OI}S CHARf.KS fCONT.)Application Type ApplicableCode_SectiQnPolice Department AdministeredPARKING ORDER OF POLICE"$ 0.50 each AUDIO TAPE DUPLICATION VIDEO TAPE DUPLICATION $ 10.00 each $ 50.00 each 1 A ' ^PllBl.lC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGESUtility Service Rates - Effective beginning First Quarter 1998MUNICIPAL SEWER RATE by unit: 1st2ndby flow:$ 76.85 per quarter $ 69.55 per quarter $ 2.88/1000 gallon plus$7.30 per quarter per connection « -’iMUNICIPAL SEWER RATE STUBBS BAY AREA PROJECTFor those properties unconnected between 16 months after service availabUity and up to 5 years after service availahilUy and meeting the criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 105, Second Series, allowing for huukup time extension, shall be charged only for the City portion of the sewer unit rate and not for the MWCC portion of the sewer unit rate. Stubbs Bay Area Un-Connected Properties (Expires 4/1/98) $ 34.85 per quarter r MU Fed PI mi .1C WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (COISTJlltnitv Sgrvieg Rates - Continued Area#lMUNICIPAL WATER RATES NavailS Area HI Hwv 12 Area fti Chew ChaseBilling & Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Unconnected Property Cb«^ (ready to serve/hydrant chg)$22.00/qtr $8.10/qtr $8.10/qtr$ 1.87/1000 gal $2.59/1000 gal $2.06/1000 gal $22.00/qtr -0- -0- £S£ $ 5.21 per year on second quarter billingFederally Mandated Safe Drinking Water Testing Program (Charged per service connection) Bulk sale to Minnetonka Beach for Lafayette Ridge Area - Area #1 Rate $22.40/qtr billing charge plus $1.87/1000 gaUon total flow at border meter. Bulk sale - AH Others - $25.00 per location plus area rate per/1,000 gallons. |.e. Fill svrimming pool or watering sod. Penalty for late payment of sewer/water bills - 15% after 45 days from billing date. Interest at 8% on unpaid water/sewer bills certified. Water Tum-On Water Turn-off $ 18.00 Minimum $ 18.00 Minimum Water System Repair/Replacemcnt if damage caused by property owner: Labor - Current Hourly Rate Parts - At Cost RECYCLING CHARGE Recycling Container - Initial Replacement Container (including sales tax) $ 22.60/year No Charge $ 9.00 each mGO 8.00 FAI.L RATES5.50 Will begin the Monday nearest the15th of September.10.00 - Weekend Rates: 7.50 1st Nine $ 8.00 5.50 2nd Nine $ 5.50 Sr. & Jr.$ 5.50 Riding Cart $ 7.00/per nine 8.75 - Weekday Rates: 1st Nine $ 6.00 2nd Nine $ 4.00 5.50 Sr. & Jr.$ 4.00 5.50 Riding Cart $ 5.00/per nine PUBUC WORKS SUPPLIES & SERVICESStreet or Traffic Signs (sale includes installation)Driveway Culverts (sale o^y, not installed)Water Meter Sales (See Building Permit Section) Temporary No Parking Signs (with lath)$ 7S.00/std. sign On Quote Basis$ 1.00 eachDrtveway/Curb-Cut PermitsIndividual Driveways S 30.00/permltNew Street Intersections (See zoning section - Special improvement fees) SECTION 2. TTiis ordinance establishing the 1998 Fee Schedule shall be published as a Summary Ordinance in the Laker and Pioneer Newspaper and shall be effecUve the week of January 1,19SW. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this_____________________________» ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. HaUin, City Clerk Summary ordinance published in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper the week of 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 tiirther determines that the publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. t OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER SECOND SERIES ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SCHEDULE, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 143, SECOND SERIES1998 FEE follow ing is the official summary of Ordinance Number approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on , Second Series , 1997. The following sections have changes, additions and/or deletions: DESCRIPTioiy 1997 £££ 1998 EEE ZONING APPLICATIONS VARIANCE $220.00(Flexible applications involving more than one $250.00 payment per each variance) Variance for Non-Conforming Structures RENEWAL VARIANCE (No change from original application) $220.00 $120.00 ^'’'■l-ICAT.ON FEES 5/8" Water meter including sales tax 3/4" Water meter including sales tax I" Water metar 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, j jicipal 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 $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) 1 r 11 nFSrRIPTlON LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Ggneral Administrative Licenses Tobacco Licenses Licensee or Employee violations within 24 month period 1st Offense 2nd Offense 3rd & Over Offense Audio Recording Duplication Returned Check Charge 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 POLICE ALARM USER FEES First false alarm/calendar year Second false alarm/calendar year Third false alarm/calendar year Fourth false alarm/calendar year Fifth & over false alarm/calendar year FALSE FIRE ALARM USER FEES First false alarm/calendar year Second false alarm/calendar year Third false alarm/calendar year Fourth false alarm/calendar year Fifth & over false alarm/calendar year 1997 £££ S 5,00/per qtr. Cost of copying service, messenger service & min. Clerical fee $ 25.00 S 35.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 S 25.00 S 40.00 S 55.00 $ 25.00/hour S 35.00 plus .25 mile (total distance) First 3 - No Charge 4-6 alarms S75.00 each 7-9 alarms $150.00 each 10 and over $250.00 each 1998 FEE $100.00 year $ 75.00 $200.00 $250.00 $ 10.00 per tape $ 20.00 $ 55.00 $ 65.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Added Holiday $ 55.00 $ 65.00 $ 75.00 $ 35.00/hour $ 55.00 plus .31 mile (total distance) No Charge $ 50.00 $25 ).00 $350.00 $500.00 each call No Charge $ 75.00 $250.00 $350.00 $500.00 r! »■ nFSrRIPTlON LICENSES & MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Continued Police Department Administered "NO PARKING ORDER OF POLICE" paper signs (no lath included) Video Tape Duplication MUNICIPAL SEWER RATES by unit: 1st 2nd by flow: Stubbs Bay Area Un-Connected Properties (Expires 4/1/98) MUNICIPAL WATER RATES Navarre Area Billing & Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Unconnected Property Chg Highway 12 Area Billing & Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Chevy Chase Area Billing Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Bulk sale - A’.l Others RECYCLING CHARGE Replacement Container (including sales tax) 1997 EEE S 0.25 each $ 74.50 per qtr. $ 67.40 per qtr. $ 2.80/1000 gallon plus $ 7.10 per quarter per connection $33.75 per quarter 1998 £££ $ 0.50 each S 50.00 each tape $ 76.85 per qtr. S 69.55 per qtr. $ 2.88/1000 gallon plus $ 7.30 per quarter per connection $ 34.85 per quarter $21.40/qtr $ 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 S 7.85/qtr $ 2.01/1000 gal $ 8.10/qtr $ 2.06/1000 gal m m S 25.00 per location plus area rate per 1000 gallons $ 6.50 each $ 9.00 each DESCRIPTION 1997 £££ 1998 £££ GOLF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 1998 Season Monday thru Friday (excluding Holidays) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon 1st Nine Holes $ 7.75 $ 8.00 After 12:00 Noon and Weekend Rates 1st Nine Holes Season Ticket (Senior Citizens Only) S 9 50 SI 30.00 $ 10.00 $140.00 GOLF CART RENTAL Pull Carts - Per Round Golf Clubs - Per Round S 2.00 S 2.50 $ 2.50 $ 3.00 FALL RATES Will begin the Monday nearest the 15th of September - Weekend Rates: 1st Nine Sr. & Jr. $ 7.75 $ 8.00 $ 5.50 A printed copy of the 1998 Fee Schedule Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours. This ordinance becomes effective the week of January 2, 1998. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 1997, by a vote of ___ayes and _____nays. day of December, ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1 r% REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 4, 1997 ITEM NO: 0 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse p/f City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Dorothy Hallin Retirement Dorothy Hallin has announced that she will be retiring from her position as City Clerk. Her last day will be January 16, 1998. Dorothy has provided 27 years of dedicated service to the city. A resolution of appreciation is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept Dorothy Hallin's resignation and to adopt a resolution of appreciation for Dorothy's 27 years of dedicated service to the city. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DOROTHY HALLIN FOR DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, Dorothy Hallin has ser\'ed this community in an exemplary manner for 27 years, and WHEREAS, her years of service have been marked by outstanding dedication to the best interests of the community, and WHEREAS, she has earned the admiration and high regard of those with whom she has come into contact, and WHEREAS, she is retiring from her position as City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby express its sincere appreciation and thanks to Doro*y Hallin for dedicaied service to the community and highly commend her for the manner in which she has cam duties and responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council extends to her best wishes for a happy, healthy, active and fulfilling retirement. Adopted by the Orono City Council this 8th day of December 1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, ’f ‘ ’ Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk November 25,1997 SUBJECT: Resignation It is with mixed emotions that I give my resignation. My last day of work will be Friday, January 16, after that date I will be using my accrued vacation time. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '% 3 ' ' o-.DATE: Deceml>€j;^, •^9/ ITEM NO: '^A'O Department Approval: . *16/ Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Resignation of Chris Miller, Assistant Finance Director/Ml S Coordinator Chris Miller, the city's Assistant Finance Director/MIS Coordinator, has accepted a position as Assistant Finance Director with the City of Savage and will be leaving the city on Thursday, December 18, 1997. Chris has been a very dedicated and unselfish member of the city staff for the past 3 1/2 years. Chris has made major contributions both in the financial area and in planning and implementing new information systems and technology. Chris was responsible for the City obtaining the Distinguished Budget Award from the Government Finance Officer's Association for the 1997 budget document. Orono is one of only 17 cities in Minnesota to receive this award, which is the only national form of recognition given to governmental bodies for their budgeting efforts. We will miss Chns very much and wish him the very best throughout his career. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the resignation of Chris Miller from his position as Assistant Finance Director/MIS Coordinator effective December 18, 1997. \ I i i C'O.’6:- • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <3 DATE: Novemfe?,55, 1997^'^'^h ITEM NO: QA o Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Council Liaison to Park Commission and Planning Commission Meetings in 1998 The following is a proposed schedule for CounciImember attendance at the monthly Park Commission and Planning Conunission meetings during 1998. PARK COMMISSION January S Richard Flint February 2 Charles Kelley March 2 J. Diann Goetten April 6 Barbara Peterson May 4 Mayor Jabbour June 1 Richard Flint July 6 Charles Kelley August 3 J. Diann Goetten September 8 Barbara Peterson (Tuesday) October 5 Mayor Jabbour November 2 Richard Flint December 7 Charles Kelley PLANNING COMMISSION January 20 Tuesday J. Diann Goetten February 17 Tuesday Barbara Peterson March 16 Mayor Jabbour April 20 Richard Flint May 18 Charles Kelley June 15 J. Diann Goetten July 20 Barbara Peterson August 17 Mayor Jabbour September 21 Richard Flint October 19 Charles Kelley November 16 J. Diann Goetten COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve schedule for Council attendance at the Park Commission and Planning Commission meetings during 1998. r I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <S o>/? DATE: December 5, l^Z) ITEM NO Department Approval: ^ Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: 1997 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Attachment: Schedule ofl997 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments At the end of each year the Comeil is requested to authorize transfer of monies between funds. These transactions fall into two categories: 1) Budgeted Transfers - Items designated in that year's budget when originally adopted for the purpose of providing support from one fund to another. 2 ) Fund ObligaUons - Loans and payments from one fund to another to reim­ burse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of transfers as indicated on the attached schedule PROPOSED MOTION: - Moved by --------- seconded by,-------, to approve Ae mter- Lnd operating transfers, loan payments and special assessment payments on City owned properly as presented, effective December 31,1997. Ayes-----, Nays-----. musm mini] riTATi] i»nn riTtfill] 111 riiiiiiicii iiiriiuiiwi % % REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION (9 CfN DATE: December 5,19^1^1^ ITEM NO:L ! Department Approval: ;/ Name Tom Kuehn ^ Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: . Authorization to disburse City funds for claims received This month we have only one Council meeting, scheduled for Monday, December 8tn. T^e second Council meeUng, which falls on or near the Christmas ^ celled in line with previous years practices. We will have the next scheduled Coimcl meeting on Monday, January 12,1998. We therefore are requesting authonzauon to do a normal claims processing for the canceled Council meeting. This ^ in December each year with the Council then formally approving the claims at the first meeting in iuy of the follov/ing year. Sr,'os s* .r received for the December 22nd Council meeting, which has been cycled, and that sue p?d cLms be presented for formal approval at the January 12,1998 Council meeting. Department Approval: Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director * Item Description: Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Year 1997 We have requested a cost estimate from the audit firm, of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Company for performing the 1997 fiscal year audits. They have submitted an estimate, including the Minnesota legal compliance audit, and assistance with the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program, of $18,650, excluding direct expenses. This compares with an actual cost for 1996 of $18,100 plus $665 for direct expenses. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council appointment of the audit firm of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. to perform the required audits for the 1997 fiscal year records at an estimated cost of $18,650, plus direct expenses. ) 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION sDATE; Pecemher 8, 19S ^ ^7'r Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: /? ITEM NO.: 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 tlie 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 revised canopy plan, tabulation of quotations and contractor recommendation will be presented at the Council meeting. I Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Item Description: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION T/.V DATE: 4, 199^^ ITEM NO: 1 , 'v-'.Vq AdministratorReviewed: / Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report 1998 Police Services Contract with the Cities of Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park The cities of Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park have each approved a renewal of the police services contract with the city of Orono for 1998. The final step in the contract renewal process is for the Council to approve the renewal and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the renewal of the Police Service Contracts with the cities of Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park for 1998 and to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <9 Ofi DATE: December 4, ITEM NO: ^ JSg 7 Q£3,-If ¥ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse >. /y City Administrator’s Title City Admin is., ator Report Item Descriptior:/ Reappointment of James White to the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission The city Council at its November 24 meeting authorized staff to contact James '^ite to determine his interest in serving an additional three year term on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. Mr, White has indicated his willingness to serve an additional term. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the appointment of James White to a three year term on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. The term will begin on January 1, 1998 and will end on December 31, 2000. i COi REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION a <^/Ty Date: December 1, 1^9^ Item No: ^ f Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Item Description: Donation Exhibits: none DISCUSSION Mr. Gib Reed who lives on Russell Lane in Long Lake has asked if he could donate a bullet resistant vest to one of our officers as means of showing his support for the safety of the officers on the street. Mr. Reed had donated a vest approx, five years ago and has been very supportive of our department throughout the years. Upon reviewing the rotation and replacement of uniforms for otficers, I am aware that there is a need for replacement of at least two vests in 1998 at approx, cost of $449.00 each. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Accept donation of bullet resistant vest from Mr. Reed. I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION % %Cv a -lij DATE: Decem?2?'lU997 ITEM NO: ^ 0 Department Approval: Name Dorothy Hallin Thle City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:m Agenda Section: Licences Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Jyland Development Spring Paradd^f Homes March @ 425 HunWl^s COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed license r Date:December 1,1997 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject:Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application fc" the special event permit (Spring Parade of Homes) at 425 Hunter Pass. I have no objection to the issuance of this permit providing parking is restricted to one side of the roadway on both Hunter Pass and Hunter Drive. » ■ , i ! < ■ PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit #: Fee: $50.00 Date Received: l\ /C/‘T'7 Phone Number: Name: Address: La 1:j> ______________ City.State,Zip: Wa -U|^ ^ k J I Location of Parade or Event:^*^^^l~|)l>uv,>^(^g;u^ ^A^< Insurance Company: __________________Amount: (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) Signature I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I understand sorne events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be required for these services. /Date Approved: □ Remarks: Denied: □ By: 01039S.3 .* • V :p i <9 ••'C? 0 ^9 4 i>ec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Check Kumber Check Number 55138 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55138 A a B AUTO ELECTRIC INC. 08-Dec-97 A a B AUTO ELECTRIC INC Totals Check Number 55i:j A a B AUTO ELECTRIC INC. Check Number 55139 55139 AMERICAN DOOR SERVICE 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number AMERICAN DOOR TERVICB 55139 AMERICAN DOOR SERVICE Check Number 55140 55140 ANCHOR PAPER 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number ANCHOR PAPER 55140 ANCHOR PAPER Check Number 55141 55141 55141 ASPLUNDH COFFEE 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number ASPLUNDH COFFEE ASPLUNDH COFFEE 55141 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 55142 55142 ATaT 08-Dec-97 ATaT Totals Check Number 55142 ATaT Check Number 55143 55143 55143 55143 ATaT WIRELESS SERVICES 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number ATaT WIRELESS SERVICES ATaT WIRELESS SERVICES ATaT WIRELESS SERVICES 55143 ATaT WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 55144 55144 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number BANYON DATA SYSTEMS 55144 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS Check Number 55145 55145 55145 BARBAROSSA a SONS 08-Dec-97 ll-Nov-97 Totals Check Number PARBAROSSA a SONS BARBAROSSA a SONS 55145 BARBAROSSA « SONS Oieck Number 55146 55146 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 08-Dec-97 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Transaction Amount 101.18 101.19 110.00 110.00 729.79 729.79 127.00 127.00 254.00 19.77 19.77 5.50 5.49 130.96 141.95 600.00 600.00 16,945.72 28,075.35 45,021.07 1,067.17 Page 1 Comr^ents ALTERNATOR FOR BOBCAT SERVICE ON TRANSMITTER COPY PAPER COFFEE COFFEE NOV LONG DISTANCE NOV CELL PHONE CHARGES NOV CELL PHONE CHARGES NOV CELL PHONE CHARGES SUPPL TRAINING-P.OLSON PAY N.L.L./L.L.C.C. PAY 85 N.L.L./LIGC DECEMBER r I 4 Dec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Check Humber Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Date Name Check Number 55146 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Totals Check Number 55145 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 55147 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC. 55147 08-Dec-97 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC Totals Check Number 55147 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC, Check Number 55148 BLACKOWIAK k SON 55148 08-Dec-97 BLACKOWIAK k SON Totals Check Number 55148 BLACKOWIAK k SON Check Number 55149 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON 55149 08-Dec-97 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Totals Check Number 55149 BLACKOWIAK 4 SON Check Number 55151 BORIS, SCOTT 55151 08-Dec-97 BORIS, SCOTT Totals Check Number 55151 BORIS, SCOTT Check Number 55152 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 55152 08-Dec-97 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC, Totals Check Number 5515'J DR'-AN ROCK PRODUCTS INC, Check Number 55153 BUDGET PRUniNG 55153 55153 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING 55153 BUDGET PRINTING Transaction Amount Comments 1,067.17 2.163.33 2.163.33 WINTER MIX 400.00 400.00 NOVEMBER SERVICE 168.58 168.58 NOVEMBER SERVICE Check Number 55150 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC. ^ 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.419.44 WELL #2 MAINT ADM SEPT 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE &ASSOC.1,198.39 BRKT PT/BYRDGE RFP #1 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.9,692.12 BRKT PT/BYRDGE ASSIST j 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.498.16 NLL/LLCC RFP 83 1 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.1,251.40 NLL/LLCC SEWER CO 86,7 t i1 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.3,635.23 NLL/LLCC SEWER jI 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.575.52 OCB RD TRAIL INSP-SEPT 55150 08-Dec-97 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.2,:47.B5 SEPT COUNCIL KTGS ^ Totals Check Number 55150 BONESTROO ROSENE 4 ASSOC.19,718.11 4.12 4.12 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 196.64 196.64 SCREENED LIMESTONE 71.38 231.07 302.45 COLOR COPIES POLICE REPORT FORMS 4 Dec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Check Number Check Number 55154 Check Register City of Orono Page 3 Date Name 55154 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. 08-Dec-97 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Totals Check Number 55154 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. Check Number 55155 BUSINESS FORMS & ACCOUNTING Check Number 55159 ESS BROTHERS & SONS 55159 08-Dec-97 ESS BROTHERS & SONS Totals Check Number 55159 ESS BROTHERS & SONS Check Number 55160 EXPRESS MESSENGER 55160 08-Dec-97 EXPRESS MESSENGER Totals Check Number 55160 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check Number 55161 FAEGRE & BENSON 55161 08-Dec-97 FAEGRE & BENSON Totals Check Number 55161 FAEGRE 6 BENSON Transaction Amount 42,964.31 42,964.31 Comments PAY REQUEST #3 55155 08-Dec-97 BUSINESS FORMS &ACCOUNTING 109.33 W2 FORMS Totals Check Number 55155 BUSINESS FORMS &ACCOLOTING 109.33 Check Number 55156 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 130.35 #170 STEERING COLUMN 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 275.13 #176 BRAKES, DIAG. 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 253.78 #175 PITMAN ARM, BATTERY 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 74.23 #174 THERMOSTAT 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 66.71 #178 OVERHEAD LIGHT 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 166.34 #177 BRAKES 55156 08-Dec-97 CHLTJKS LAKESHORE AUTO 142.76 #178 TRANSMISSION, OIL CH 55156 08-Dec-97 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 360.29 #167 BELT TENSIONER 55156 08-Dec- •CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 31.89 #177 OIL CHANGE Totals Check Number 55156 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 1,501.48 Check Number 55157 CRYSTEEL 55157 08-r JC-97 CRYSTEEL 37.39 #428 SNOW PLOW CONTROLS Totals Check Number 55157 CRYSTEEL 37.39 Check Number 55158 E-Z RECYCLING 55158 05-Dec-95 E-Z RECYCLING 5,422.92 NOVEMBER RECYCLING CHARGE Totals Check Number 55158 E-Z RECYCLING 5,422.92 91.59 91.59 ADJUSTMENT RING 75.05 75.05 DELIVERY CHARGES 3,000.00 3,000.00 LEGAL OPINION-BOND ISSUE V-,4 Dec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Nuinber Date Nane Check Humber 55162 55162 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. 08-Dec-97 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC Total* Check Number 55162 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. Check Number 55163 FROST. SHERRY R. 55163 05-Dec-95 FROST. SHERRY R. Totals Check Number 55163 FROST. SIffiRRY R. Check Number 55164 G Cl K SERVICES 55164 55164 55164 55164 55164 55164 O0-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 0 Cl K SERVICES G Cl K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES 0 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES Totals Check Number 55164 G 4 K SERVICES Check Number 55165 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 55165 08-Dec-97 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Total* Check Number 55165 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Check Number 55166 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF « 55166 05-Dec-95 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Totals Check Number 55166 HEN^JEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check Number 55167 HENNEPIN COUNTY-TAX 55167 O0-Dec-97 HENI^TPIN COUNTY-TAX Totals Check Number 55167 HENNEPIN COUNTY-TAX Check Number 55169 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON 55169 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW 4 CULBERTSON Transaction Amount 150.00 150.00 520.00 520.00 89.12 62.55 12.15 5.93 12.15 5.93 187.83 9.79 9.79 • 55.29 y.... .• 55.29 185.28 185.28 1.100.00 3.778.56 1.301.15 429.00 1.274.64 51.00 1.111.00 220.00 187.00 55.00 Page 4 Comments EAR MUFFS PARK COMMISSION MTG STREET EMPLOYEES STREET EMPLOYEES RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN RATHBUN STEFFENHAGEN LOCATE MARKERS OCTOBER BOOKING FEES POSTAL VERIFICATIONS SEP-OCT SERVICES APPLICATIONS GORDON NELSON WTR TOWER LEASE NLL/LLCC LEGAL SEP-OCT BIKE TRAIL EASEMENT PARK DEO FEE REVIEW WTR TOWER TELECOM LEASE NLL/LLCC LEGAL-SEPT APPLIC 82269 r 4 Dec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Checlc Number Check Number 55169 55169 55169 55169 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55169 HINSKAN & CULBERTSON 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON O0-Dec-97 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 08-Dec-97 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON Totals Check Number 55169 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON Check Number 55170 55170 HUBCAP WAREHOUSE 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number hubcap warehouse 55170 HUBCAP WAREHOUSE Check Number 55171 55171 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number INTERSTATE BATTERIES 55171 INTERSTATE BATTERIES Check Number 55172 55172 LOGIS 08-Dec-97 LOGIS Totals Check Number 55172 LOGIS Check Number 55173 55173 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 08-Dec-97 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 55173 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 55174 55174 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 08-Dec-97 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 55174 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Check Number 55175 55175 MICRO AGE 08-Dec-97 MICRO AGE Totals Check Number 55175 MICRO AGE Check Number 55176 55176 MILLER ENTERPRISES INC, 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number MILLER ENTERPRISES INC 55176 MILLER ENTERPRISES INC Check Number 55177 55177 MINNEGASCO 08-Dec-97 MINNEGASCO Transaction Amount 572.00 2.391.00 121.00 658.61 13.249.96 20.00 20.00 57.46 57.46 1.078.92 1.078.92 4.79 4.79 21.47 21.47 190.00 190.00 10.89 10.89 46.87 Page 5 Comments MPRS LAWSUIT WTR TOWER TELECOM LEASE NLL/LLCC LEGAL SEPT CORDON NELSON HUBCAP S428 BATTERY MARCH DATA PROCESSING TERMINALS #755 PARTS LAN TROUBLESHOOTING MISC PARTS NOV GAS CHARGES 4 Dec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Check Number Check Number 55177 55177 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55177 MINNEGASCO 08-Dec-97 MINNEGASCO 08-Dec-97 MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 55177 MINNEGASCO ! Check Number 55178 55178 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 08-Jan-96 Totals Check Number MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 55178 MN CHIEF OP POLICE ASSN Check Number 55179 55179 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 05-Dec-95 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OF REVENUE 55179 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55180 55180 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM 55180 MN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Check Number 55181 55181 MTI DIST CO. 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number MTI DIST CO 55181 MTI DIST CO Check Number 55182 55182 55182 55182 55182 55182 NSP 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP 55182 NSP Check Nuif^r 55183 55183 OFFICE DEPOT 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number OFFICE DEPOT 55183 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 55184 55184 ORONO COMMUNITY EDUCATION 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number ORONO CO^e^UNITY EDUCATION 55184 ORONO COfWUNITY EDUCATION Check Number 55185 55185 PIONEER 08-Dec-97 PIONEER Transaction Amount 345.72 1.674.90 2,067.49 150.00 150.00 33.00 33.00 320.07 320.07 140.36 140.36 41.96 1.092.87 1.841.04 1.710.37 141.68 4.827.92 453.07 453.07 2.220.87 2.220.87 22.75 Page 6 Comments NOV GAS CHARGES NOV GAS CHARGES 1996 DUES NOVaffiER SALES TAX 2ND, 3RD QTR 1997 MISC PARTS-TRACTOR NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES NSP CHARGES HVfy 12 6 WILL MISC SUPPLIES 1997 SUWER RECREATION PLAN COM4 WORK SESSION 4 Dec 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Chcclc Number Check Number Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Date 55185 PIONEER Name Totals Check Number 55185 PIONEEP Check Kumber 55186 POHERCLEAN COMPAKY INC. OS.Dec-97 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC Totals Check Ki«nber 55186 POMERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Check Number 55187 55187 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Humber TRACY TRIPP FUELS 55187 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Check Number 55189 TRUF VAi-UE HARDWARE 08-Dec-97 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE55188 Totals Check Number 55198 TRUE VALUE HARDWARE Check Number 55189 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 08-DCC-97 UNIV OF MINNESOTA55189 Totals Check Number 55189 UNIV OF Mir^NESOTA Check Number 55190 55190 55190 55190 55190 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 09-Jan-97 09-Jan-97 09-Jan-97 09-Jan-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE Totals Qieck Number 55190 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE Check Number 55191 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD 4 D 55191 55191 55191 55191 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE AD 4 D AD 4 D AD 4 D AD 4 D Totals Check Nunher 55191 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE • AD & D Check Number 55192 55192 55192 55192 55192 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 08-Dec-97 21-NCV-96 21-NOV-96 21-NOV-96 Totals Check Number US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 55192 US WEST COff^UNICATICNS Transaction Amount 22.75 1,693.35 1,693.35 2,357.51 2,357.51 274.78 274.78 170.00 170.00 0.70 2.97 1.27 357.99 362.93 0.15 0.64 0.27 76.71 77.77 292.93 68.69 68.18 691.48 1,121.28 Comments NOVEMBER SERVICrE UNLEADED GAS MISC SUPPLIES QAPPA-CITY ENG. ASSOC DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE DECEMBER INSURANCE US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES US WEST CHARGES I 4 D«c 1997 Thu 2:44 PM Check Number Check Number 55193 Check Register City of Orono Page 8 Date Name 55193 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 08-Dec-97 VILLAGE OffiVROLET Totals Check Number 55193 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Number 55194 55194 KESTONKA GLASS SERVICE 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE 55194 WESTONKA GLASS SERVICE Check Number 55195 55195 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 08-Dec-97 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 55195 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Check Number 55196 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 55196 55196 08-Dec-97 08-Dec-97 Totals Check Number YOCUM OIL CO INC. YOCUM OIL CO INC, 55196 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Grand Total Transaction Amount 0.97 0.97 48.50 48.50 15.99 15.S9 27.71 176.65 204.36 156,504.88 Comments MISC PARTS MISC SUPPLIES SECURITY LIGHT HEATING OIL KEATING OIL h i 4 Dec 1997 Thu 4 :07 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043601 043601 GOAR, JAMIE L. Totals Check Number 043601 Oieck Number 043602 043602 HALLIN. DOROTHY M. Totals Check Number 043602 Check Number 043603 043603 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 043603 Check Number C43604 043604 MOORSE, RONALD J, Totals Check Number 043604 Check Number 0436OS 043605 VEE. LINDA S Totals Check Number 043605 Check Number 043606 043606 KUEHK, THOMAS M. Totals Check Number 043606 Check Number 043607 043607 MILLER, CHRISTOPISR K, Totals Check Number 043607 Check Number 043608 043608 OLSON, RONALD J Totals Check Number 043608 Check Number 043609 043609 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043609 Check Date 03-Dec-97 03-DCC-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 Page 1 Check Amount 245.90 245.90 956.72 956.72 541.21 541.21 1,490.38 1,4^0.38 926.89 926.89 1,251.66 1,251.66 220.11 220.11 916.33 916.33 445.12 445.12 4 Dec 1997 Thu 4:07 PM Check Resister City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043610 043610 B0B2IEN. SUE A. Totals Check Number 043610 Check Number 043611 043611 BORIS. SCOTT W. Totals Check Number 043611 Check Number 043612 043612 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. Totals Check Number 043612 Check Number 043613 043613 CKESVriCK. GARY B. Totals Check Number 043613 Check Number 043614 043614 CORNICK. JAMES L. Totals Check Number 043614 Check Number 043615 043615 DEMBOOSKI. JAY C. Totals Check Number 043615 Check Number 043616 043616 ENGLISH III, IRVING H Totals Check Number 043616 Check Number 043617 043617 ERICKSON. KURT R Totals Check Number 043617 Check Number 043618 043618 FARNIOK. CCRREY L. Totals Check Number 043618 Check Number 043619 Check Date 0?-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 Page 2 Check Amount 621.90 621.90 885.06 885.08 275.22 275.22 1.503.09 1.503.09 1.313.88 1.313.88 1*050.14 1*050.14 18.63 18.63 1.113.63 1.113.63 784.66 784.66 4 D«e 1997 Thu 4:07 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Mufober Employee Name Check Number 043619 043619 FISCHENICH, DAN T. Totals Check Number 0436X9 Check Number 043620 043620 HANSINO, CAROL J. Totals Check Number 043620 Check Number 043621 043621 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 043621 Check Number 043622 043622 KNOLLENBERO. KRISTIN L. Totals Check Number 043622 Check Number 043623 043623 MCNALLY, STEVEN A Totals Check Number 043623 Check Number 043624 043624 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. Totals Check Number 043624 C^eck Number 04362S 043625 MOROWCZYNSKI, JA>ffiS Totals Check Number 043625 Check Number v043626 043626 PBRSELL. WILLIAM R, Totals Check Number 043626 Check Number 043627 043627 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B Totals Check Number 043627 Check Number 043628 Check Date 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec 97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 Page 3 Check Amount 1,089.61 1,089.61 361.72 361.72 1.0x7.52 1.017.52 628.26 628.26 521.28 521.28 373.23 373.23 1.430.07 1.430.07 94.27 94.27 1.115.81 1.115.81 4 Dec 1997 Thu 4:07 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043628 043628 THOMTON. MAkiv K Totals Check Number 043628 Check Number 043629 043629 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F Totals Check Number 043629 Check Number 043630 043630 TOMCZYK, MARK W Totals Check Number 043630 Check Number 043631 043631 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K ‘>t«ls ^'h'ck Number 043631 Check Number 043632 043632 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. Totals Check Number 043632 Check Number 043633 043633 BRESSLER. BRADLEY J. Totals Check Number 043633 Check Number 043634 043634 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P, Totals Check Number 043634 Check Number 043635 043635 GAPPA. GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 043635 Oieck N*imber 043636 043636 OMAN. LYLE E Totals Check Humber 043636 Check Number 043637 Check Date 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 Page 4 Check Amount 778.09 778.09 146.74 146.74 1,100.31 1,100.31 133.93 133.93 222.94 222.94 268.48 268.48 1,091.84 1,091.84 1,426.58 1,426.58 1,102.82 1,102.82 4 1 : 4 Dec 1997 Thu 4:07 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043637 043637 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 043637 Oieck Number 043636 043638 VANG, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043638 Check Number 043639 043639 HECKMAN, STEPHEN J, Totals Check Number 043639 Check Number 043640 043640 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F. Totals Check Number 043640 Check Number 043641 043641 DEBAERE, DONALD L, Totals Check Number 043641 Check Number 043642 043642 GREGORY, JAMES D Totals Check Number 043642 Check Number 043643 043643 HANSEN, STEVEN C, Totals Check Number 043643 Cneck Number 043644 043644 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT 0, Totals Check Number 043644 Check Number 043645 043645 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 043645 Check Number 043646 Check Date 03-Dec-97 03-DCC-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 03-Dec-97 Page 5 Check Amount 1,138.74 1,138.74 961.65 961.65 22.85 22.85 1,026.63 1,026.63 847.12 847.12 1,058.18 1,058.18 778.30 778.30 887.68 887.68 196.24 196.24 4 4 Dec 1997 Thu 4:07 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 6 Check Number Employee Name Check Date Check Amount Check Number 043646 043646 PALMER, GREGORY A.03-DCC-97 Totals Check Number 043646 Check Number 043647 730.36 730.36 043647 RATHBUN, BARRY J 03-Dec-97 Totals Check Number 01*^47 Check Number 043648 898.49 898.49 043648 SKR£EN« DALE S.03-Dec-97 Totals Check Number 043648 683.97 683.97 Check Number 043649 043649 STBPFENHAGEN, RONALD E.03-Dec-97 1,023.17 Totals Check Number 043649 1,023.17 Grand Total 37,717.43 1 4 Dec 1997 Thu 4:07 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Payroll User Initials RJO Thursday 4 December 1997 4:07 PM Start 4:07 PM Finish Buffer Name Check Reg Records Read Records Selected Number of Pages 49 49 7 Selected by Check Date And Check Date Greater Than 02-Dec-97 Less Than 04-Dec-97 Sorted by Check Number Totals No Page Breaks 4 i Dec 1997 3n 4:59 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name :heck Number 043586 043586 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043586 Check Number 043587 4 1. 043587 BORIS, SCOTT W Totals Check Number 043587 :heck Number 043568 043588 CORNICK, JAMBS L. Totals Check Number 043588 Check Number 043589 043589 DEMBOUSKI, JAV C. Totals Check Number 043589 Check Number 043590 043590 ENGLISH III, IRVING H. Totals Check Number 043590 Check Number 043591 043591 EPCCKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 043591 Check Number 043592 043592 PARNIOK, CORREY L, Totals Check Number 043592 Check Number 043593 043593 FISCHENICH. DAN T. Totals Check Number 043593 Check Number 043594 043594 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P Totals Check Number 043594 Check Date Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Page 1 Check Amount 1,721.80 1,721.80 1,413.97 1,413.97 1,544.17 1,544.17 1,359.99 1,359.99 1,601.05 1,601.05 442.31 442.31 994.53 994.53 1,317.89 1,317.89 1,439.94 1,439.94 i! 1 D«c 1997 Hon 4:59 FM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043595 043595 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L Totals Check Number 04 3595 Check Number 043596 043596 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAfffiS Totals Check Number 043596 Check Number 043597 043597 SCHOENHOFP, JOHN B. Totals Check Number 043597 Check Number 043598 04359B TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F Totals Check Number 043598 Check Number 043599 043599 TOMCZYK, MARK W Totals Check Number 043599 Grand Total Check Date Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-Dec-97 Ol-DcC-97 Page 2 Check Amount 1,519.23 1,519.23 1.021.14 1.821.14 1.398.97 1,398.97 1,384.57 1.384.57 1.635.85 1,635.85 19.595.41 E 1 I U Nov 1997 Tue 10:13 AM Check Number Oieck Number 55046 Check Register City of Orono Date Name S5046 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 18-Nov-97 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 55046 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION .r.eck Number 55047 55047 55047 55047 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 18-NOV-97 18-NOV-97 18-NOV-97 Totals Check Number FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 55047 FIRST NATIONAL BANK CF LAKES Jhtck Number 55048 55048 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 HQQIEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 18-Nov-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 55049 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL heck Number 55050 55050 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 18-NOV-97 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 55050 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55051 55051 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 18-NOV-97 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 55051 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 55052 55052 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 18-Nov-97 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 55052 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 55053 55053 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 18-Nov-97 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 55053 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55054 55054 MN MUTUAL LIFE 18-Nov-97 Totals Check Number MN MUTUAL LIFE 55054 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 8.078.00 8.078.00 3,202.35 3,202.35 7,809.63 14.214.33 981.46 981.46 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 125.00 125.00 709.50 709.50 3,358.74 3,358.74 464.00 464.00 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED PICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN #C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES W/H STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H 18 Hov 1997 Tue 10:13 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55055 55055 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 10-Nov-97 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COM? Totals Check Number 55055 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 55056 PEBSCO/OBRA 55056 18-NOV-97 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 55056 PEBSCO/OBRA Qieck Number 55057 PEBSCO/US CONF OP MAYORS 55057 18-Nov-97 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 55057 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 55058 PERA 55058 55058 18-Nov-97 18-NOV-97 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 55058 PERA Check Number 55059 UNITED WAY 55059 18-NOV-97 UNITED WAY Totals Check Number 55059 UNITED WAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 265.00 265.00 43.40 43.40 1,764.86 1,764.86 4,135 66 5,459,76 9,595.42 23.00 23.00 39,901.71 Page 2 Comments DEFERRED COMP W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP H/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H r (18 Nov 1997 Tue 10:13 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 3 User Initials Finance RJO Tuesday 18 November 1997 10:12 AM Start 10:13 AM Finish Buffer Name Records Read Records Selected Number of Pages History 1648 17 3 Selected by Check Number And Check NUffiber Sorted by Cheek Number Greater Than 055044 Less Than 055060 Totals No Page Breaks INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MeSTINQ DEC 8 1997 - r CHYOFORONO OF ! u TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator December 5,1997 SUBJECT: Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission Applications The City Council at its November 24 meeting, requested copies of the applications submitted by the Park Commission candidates in early 1997, for selection of a candidate to fill the current vacant term on the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission. The applications are attached for Council's review. Sm MtgPfndIflon Voict 472-6685 To Orono City Council at City of Orono Page 1 of 1 F*b 18 1897 J 4i> 58 p m i \ M Feb 17. 1997 City Council City of Orono 2700 Kelley Porkway Ciystal Bay. KIN 55323 Dear Council Members pmerMUion and iWth.r anhanc.manl »l lh< citrt pa*., recreation lacilit.o, and open .pace. Vi-hUc Ihavc not held any prevton. saiHEISE:rr=:= l«ic™e mo cSonttntty tor an tntcn ietv, or I ntay be contacted by telephone at 47.061.0 Thanl; you for your coasideration Sincerely. Jon M Pendleton I I ! ^ i i > i- I - : tf TaOHONE-lTJ-nSf . ECC--TM510 .O.SO.X co««.«4a# APPLICATIOS rOR ^ commission Applyinc Jot: parks Coianission Planning Cotrraission □ communitv Task Jot« Name ^ fy(^: Address post Office & Zip Telephone (H)*>r (W) Resident of Orono Va years work Experience: ^v/Ag, -------------------------------------------------------------- if.f /fi/ Civic and volunteer Activities ^ /p/ rU'.ltfnM Aoc(^/««in .A ffjT >£q/4i ,-F /CiVaOI^ / for wanting to serve on this Commission -Plehse state 3%‘^ossrble! Dse additional sheet if ' (Please be as specxtA'- r necessary-) ^ fa <'■>-« »■« '•'y ' .....V-.-. >...r What is your view of the role of the Coma.ission7 ^ • iv! ’jrUr'irt-^9. o^^Mcg. u^«f<egn ^<?mm v/« |^^^/ /ttg.r,>r< -------fjz-------------- —^ ^ • ■ ■ > >-,.....- ,. .^ tv ^ ^ fa/ / .7 A4„ '■/... ..„^i 7>e ^^r-< ta.r(r Jr,.j^ -h^lcCA ----- ' r,H«»V u.:>/ frfjrvfer o« f'rff V-MM^^+y* ^ (Vse this space to include anyOther Comments. (^Ose rn f consider, or. that information you ^^^be ^aopoindent you are seeking. Yoa ®ay riso*“ttilh'%\\«Va\e\\^?l%^“ consider.) . , / w / j, .... j-i ^ ad'‘>3 ’ZoS'^j ^ ^ a/(,v^n..r.^ur ^ ] ,! t. /«_ iA« * 'ji f /'^It /7(9C.*^ » /^w>/d^gr , 5~ ^ai^uI^^aA .r/ix.^<^ _L5----iM^t t Vy _ 'fXvt yo.' fir ^r co<r.Ver^l. '_ • I understand this appointment may be discussed at a P ^meeting. >/t»/f i Date Signature r 5 OWM V\^rt0ej c»/fr*v^ 4c«rk^ ,V •/o Cwfl f 44/ IM»V^ /»»i yprv^4.n/ u>trAi^ fc,<Vji Ac .^,^:lr^^ ktJ vH^ A f«•'•<*' /mcA.// A Pa>v^ -hi, U *r ^ APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION etc CITYof ORONO street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Ofnees Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Commission Applying For: S' Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)^___________________________ Name Address Q^'7Co ^<4^ Post Office & Zip Code ^-^6 /_ ________ Telephone (H) _ Resident of Orono i *^3-_____years Work Experience: (W) 4/2- ^. A’D t/fiTC-rt \c6*L. VU/tethM-. Education: DATCTvMx)^tf Cou^v . -----yii---------- A74-Tli45- Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): TurTo< Oru ifJlJfti. c ay c^mc-Vtte^ ~ 1 PSe.r\v€ PdttT»*i»/TH c^ctnff__P^rL- ~ C M ^ I - Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. [Pleas^t i'e as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) *>eC ATTi4c ___________________________________________________ What is your view of the role of the Commission? Other Comments: (Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you fee! is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. **NOTE: I 2-/) h signature ( Date Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. 040896 2 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. My grandfather was a recognized and well-known conservationist and outdoorsman in Pennsylvania. As such, 1 grew up with a strong appreciation for the powerful role that natural open spaces can play in a person’s physical, emotional and value system development. Having lived in the city of Chicago for years, and then in a typical suburban Chicago "collar" community, our move to Minneapolis in 1995 was spurred by a desire for a better quality of life for me and my family. In Orono, we found a home with incredible t'pen space and natural beauty-something we had always yearned for, yet was not acce.ssible in Chicago. My objectives in being on the commission are fourfold. First, I have a desire to ensure that Orono's park resources are pre.served for the future. My family and I are frequent users of Baker, the Luce Line trail, and Biederman park, and discover new natural resources regularly. 1 hope to foster the belief that our parks are an a.sset which help to build a stronger community and advantage all of the residents of Orono. Second, 1 want to ensure that the tremendous number of new residents to this area have an understanding of our Parks issues, and a commitment to the preservation of Orono's unique natural resources. As one living in an area with 14 new homes and additional construction nearby, 1 am uniquely able to solicit the participation of these residents and ensure that the Commission's initiatives are communicated and understood. Third, 1 have a desire to make a tangible, long lasting commitment to my community. The parks commission provides an opportunity to create a legacy which will benefit future residents. 1 wish to preserve the natural resources which have made life here so wonderful for me and my family in the hope that others may enjoy it as we have. What is your view of the role of the Com niission? Webster provides five definitions for the word "park", most of which assume that the land is privately owned and/or utilized for some commercial purpose. However, there is one definition which 1 believe should guide the decisions and actions of the Parks Commission: "an area maintained in it’s natural state as public property . /Webster’s New College Dictionary). My belief is that the Parks Commission must acknowledge and balance the concepts of demand, preservation, access, vision and accountability in carrying out its mLssion. ♦ Demand: The incredible growth of Orono and the western suburbs has put increasing demand and pressure on existing parks resources. This must be acknowledged, especially as it relates to future parks planning. ♦ Preservation: The need to preserve and protect the unique open space feeling and resources which attracted all of us to Orono in the first place. ♦ Access: The recognition that Parks resource must provide access to all Orono residents who fund the parks Commis.sion's ellorts through their tax dollars. « Vision: A vision for the future of Orono and a mandate to anticipate, rather than react to, future parks needs and opportunities. ♦ Accountability: A recognition that the commission must be fiscally accountable for it's actions. Other Comments As I pondered this application, I found inspiration in the words of Aldo Leopold: "In short, a land ethic chani^es the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow members, and also respect for the community as such." (Aldo Leopold, A Sand Countv Almanac) 1 hope to have the opportunity to bring my talents to bear on the Parks Commission, whose decisions will have a long lasting impact on the city and it's residents Thank you for your consideration. r ji i I i ■ !i ! APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION V - * .CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailini Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: B^arks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)^________________________— Name Address <z.y o- Post Office fie Zip Code Telephone (H) ^7^ T^ ^_______ Resident of Orono ________years. (W)Y?T Education: ^ ^ w Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): • /^/7— ^ ^ <Z C. Y Cc^^M^XlUh. /A^ c ^/S/t c/^_ 0 /j-c/yt^ //^ />/rAyyyy- c.dStM'c// x?'f Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) ^ ^ CP<^r/y p />f<rc'Arr c:cp*p>fdi^^ Y __________________________________________________________________________________________________ What is your view of the role of the Commission? I~ /^A -P f rf ^A^rs/e TV y4^ '^/*yf Cr^ Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) X {i'J C C— ^ A ^</9e^^77'ey ____________________ I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. X ~/f~ -fpr Signature Date **NOTE:Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. 040896.2 MurJc^ C2ccs Per. Oi=ct 30x60 •I Rav. MLineiota ii.-2j-W0 _--------------~-• Cr:«J Bir» T^KONE-4r-T2rf • EAJC-473^510MAY 1 2 1995 ^Trnrr^'I :^DVIS0R? COKHISSIOSS rt?PLlC-\TI01I FOR C-TI i-- in-iission Applying ror. 71 Parks Ccrjnission 2. Planning Comission Coo.T.ur.ity Task rotce Mane ■ -- - - - - - - 20 5<d £AS cO__£^X_S^^ Address ^- - --- - - - - - - i Post office & Zip ,H, jfHiisad (W) Telephone ) 3/M vears.Resident of Orono ----L_JJ —' work Exserience: _ ^ ^ - r^Aii^satl j^rfc^'h'^5 ~ /q;?^/■ssio - Pnrfr''*' ^ /-c- a^A GWTfy iMpL£ r - • hn serve on this Cocmission■" • .=-ate your reasons for gsg additional sheet ifEle-ase ,/ snecif ic as possible.(Please be as s,necessary-) X iHL {/»Cm- ^-iy/'c.. Kvn.jA iVe. /r/e Mlds= ___tM ^ 1_1-- rntnmission? ™., i. JM. •*•” "' '“ ”'• "'“' 1"'.!“° , (A\jgy&£b±-^‘^^(H f ^ 5 I ^ ^ J ord^^ m (a/^Tyy^oa t^riA c pp cii/afft/- <-«*.>«or ’ Coininents- . ♦.vio city Coancxi ro v-infr You may al®®^ ^ I consider-)-fiNg. d~^ <3gvr< <A>^’ i^Jl c/r rA^rocWvK idrr^c ^■^.4 0 I understand xaeeting- .3 a4- a publi*^•a. ™av be discussed at a «; . this appointment may. ,0 0\\ APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION A :fMrz >* \ -i' 'W »GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: p Parks Commission □ Planning Commission D Community Task Force (Name)_______________ Name Address m >»1 kyi g 5/ Post Office & Zip Code Vl^a \/ 21^ 7^ ' Telephone (H) 4^7 !- ^f 9 t Resident of Orono Q— S'S39/ m years Work Experience: ——./^ \ /Z-j r^r)ies *7^^ Education: -----/>?'/' , -W Si- -77.^/A,;.. C/ flj________________________ Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): Pp^eWcc. //pc-J^e ^Caac.L ^ U' Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. [Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) A a t/€. a 'fi -I ^re e.A/e /y //ke. Ine 7^<?- / What is your view of the role of the Commission? ; y2> ma Sure ^//y T jToLrk^ art uki J ia// ~the C/^itf/15'. Other Comments: [Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. A - //- 77 Date NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. 040SSSJ Municipal OScss Post OflEct Box « • Cnstal Bar, Minnesota £zjt23-0066 * • • * * CTYOP ORONO ] 1HJE?K0NX-473-73S7 • E\X-4^5-0510 JUBCSU’^ - V------ aPPLICATION FOR CITIZEN RDVISORE COMMISSIONS _ na 2'y 19S6 conmission Applying For X Parks Coininission community Tosk Force (Name) Planning ’ Conunission Name •RICHARD P. MEYERS Address 2195 Bayv»^« Place. Prong-------- post Office s Zip Code ------55391-95^ Telephone (H) Resident of Orono _years (W) 348-6589 work Experience: ...............five years a ^ a. cViaa-r-f f f * <; nonarLme nt io years hnonnrv sherif<^-«^nneDin County SherlLJ- - -E— 3 .ocicned Water Patrol. Lake MlnnetonV^ Education ■■ ^ nrhan UnlversUV of Mtnnaso »_JW^ ' • -H as 1990 -------------------------------------------- 4 iTn4versitv of St:-. Thoma s 3^ A Public Safety and InstructiotL ------------ ; T Civic and volunteer Activities (past and present) rhe r.iruens ■ vro^acc: Member of the planning coamlct^- - - - - - --- - - - - - -— m Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission r (Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) I_wanC to be of service to my community-.- I have a lifelong interest in conservation and want to help enhance and preserve Orono’s quality of life. Parle planning is my avocation and my legacy for future generations. I want to help develop an 5fi0JbgTa&dCHing and biking trail system for Orono. issues What is your view of the role of the Commission? t V- . FI farTllfacnr hffwrpn rHe c^lEJ^ens'. .nvprnnipnr 'S■ an -< r,r<var> .^perrr'f! InfiTeaL S-----^Iso. I bcHfVf n cnni iiilssloner nr, nart. <nn1 ><isi'ps . sn advIsor on rhp pfnlnflc aL . consider.) Although my wife Jan and I have been in our new home for only two years, I ha\^ a.n Intimate knowledge of Orono. 1 spent 5 years with the Wat6r Patrol so 1 ha^^^a rhorouvh knowledge of the lake, its islands, and surrounding communities. I_have • • • worked with the LMCD on safety and em-ironme ntal issues.—For the past five years ' T have hpen ’the Sheriff ’s Deputsr resp onsible for serving, anv arrest .warrant? _jp Wonnphin County. I am also well acquainted with ypur police fprcft j—Hy tJ^fp anH T roitid have moved elsewh ere, b^t wanted t\e Village ).ifP fhflf flrnn o provides. I am an avid hiker, biker, and boater, and I utilize your parks and parkways on-a daily basis. We hope to live and retire • I understand this appointment may.be discussed at P meeting. 01 Date APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION 11 o o ^ - -V,, „ RECEIVED ^ 6 1997/<K street Address: CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: ^Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)^_________________________ Name C\ cA rl 'ffJr Address N TInAKnlt/CPU^ Lr^O^ Post Office & Zip Code \1 jni\Ar Telephone (H) (Idn. ^53^. Resident of Orono irk Experience: years irti >1- Qi^( mvlHirni\-te-) )iniiimiiA-, M(T6fiyvh/ir/ Education: ^\frtnons lorli^AiffrO/fel nmflittPr^tTa'rll fniiT^ sSYn rb- ^errrtfirial lnur%f>:9—Ifii f ^•H'hrOUaHoi Civic and Volunteer Activities (p^and present): n ^ ^ . j/ , rr flTjpIc^ ihlnfk I KkK'OH- ■^WtrlAry'n 9il(rk Cll^r 4 i3230066 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. [Please be as specific as possibie. Use additional sheet if necessary.) \-)p. r> n rir4l\j4^ la in\. Sd^5iai ia4I^a (hpiubf/i [ff a ramiu^. beiYvtT|j d\’^nin tmnlMA hpUotrl^.^fiyl ^ n.rniM rq/^r/hrH 4n a.v i\rpli fxs- lhfi> .o^parnTL-Hwi'^ "4/ln iurridna rfnnui),_________________ What is your view of the role of the Commission? Idlx^ CcMM>(^rrl 'h Si ■arm' pnrrui? U)RTl:;Mra ~Hf5 Orosertrt 4/^q, oVr/<J 1 * fTAcl 74^ ^t4ovt . ^ Other Comments: [Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you fee! is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) --------—- I tlOw I understancKthis appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. [nature Date • **NOTE: VolunteeKcommission member's name, address and phone number win becor'e public information. 04089e.2 n.February 14,1997 City of Orono Council Members and Commissioners P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323-0066 J To Whom it many concern; ^ recommendation of Patricia Affeldt for her application to the Park mission. We have known Patricia through our work together in the Saga Hill Preseivati^ ^lety and through our common membership at Fairview Covenant Church. We find her to be a very honest person with great integrity and determination for completing tasks and projects. Her love of the community shows in the interest she hwo*i^m^^ ^ Commission would benefit greatly by her Patncia IS reliable, caring, dedicated and responsible. I support and recommend her desires to serve on the Park Commission. Sincerely, fV\pj\ TAI t-^ CV v ^ Brian and Mamie Peterson 1100 North Shore Drive West Orono, MN 55364 RECEIVED FEB 1 fl 1997 CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED FEB 1 91997 CITY OF ORONO Fcbniaiy 17,1997 The City of Orono Council Members and Commissioners P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Council Members and Commissioners; This letter is to offer Patty Affeldt as an excellent candidate for the position of Orono Park Commisioner. Ms. Afifeldt has been an active member of her community for 4 years. She combines her love for the Orono area with leadership skills, large group organization experience and the skill of being a good listener. Ms. Affeldt’s talents were most recently honed in dealing with the Saga Hills project. Surrounding neighborhoods were organized, fimds were gathered and difBcult objectives were completed. Her skills as a team player and a self motivated organizer gained her the respect of all involved. Please consider Ms. Affeldt as very worthy candidate and one who will be a great asset to the Orono Park Commission. Long Lake, MN 55356 475-1022 Orono Resident for 10 years APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION ^ ; ; - • . GITYof ORONO Municipal Ofnces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Commission Applying For: ^ Parks Commission □ Planning Commiss D Community Task Force (Name) ion Name //“(PAg S> Address (jOe^-V ^r^ooU Post Office & Zip Code Or oo o b'5'3^^ Telephone (H) S~TZ Resident of Orono '~7 (W) 6HZ ^ years. Work Experience: r<p<2Mj r ^ Clbrr^rr>un'\<cc.V\^r.*b^ Anr>V><cTSl- H> ^A><=-r^«=.<^c=»r \~\OQgv-|LOGl V____ Education: J XnoXe^x^nA.en'V StVAc^v-^ Px€ri iCg.«^o-s: CAn\\jg.f3Wc5>V Q oVygf^lfebwr^ ^ j ^<‘rV^<T\<^'V^r>"3 .\ov^vr»r^c-V\Scv^ ^ (3cv^lov^ j , V\-| q-T T’Polqcl.__________________ Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): CV^coVg./- M,; nf\<ssc)V*^ L<^rNcX AcX\i1^r UJ\[c^<zr Fores~V VAc-Ang SA. C rbW Mc^ofN ^rQC'^s Voo<^r<^s . ‘vcn ^-A v -^xi X v r>^ C.i'HVc? ^ny^V~cr5 y~^<.•V'c)Y^•=•V louc.<c:>\ Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. [Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) H c::!^g<pp (^^oo\x-V OfOAo *^r>cA \-V ( rf. -for- . JT per^(jyvi( -Tr>^ p^NoUC. 5p<=.c.gs Spor-Vs r r^pKb-o^ -Tor Cx-V-fecos o4~ <^-U ^ <C<>30n<lolg <rsnO'^r\‘\' p-f Ooeo '50=.‘ ^nc\O»peo X e g>loorr-enV -k) 0<^r>0 3 grpu^K . What is your view of the role of the Commission? "To Sgr\3g -H-g Ci-K-^ CO'^rNcW Vo> \-V$> <t:\o>c\^Tdo ^ re\^-Ve<rX -ho ~Wg <yC✓ V-Oi ^ Other Comments: [Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) ■ a m- amm m< I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. 'V, Date **NOTE:Volunteer commission member's namo, udiress and phone number will become public information. 040S9S.2 1202-96 0S:5S FAX 612 379 4679 TRI-TECH ELECTRO APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION \\ Vo •“•••V. A .V;X)/ \ '%*'• . * *v* .*\ */ CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. M.N 53356 Mailinf Address: P.O. 9cs 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 005S Commission Applying For: Q Parks Commission □ Planning Commission D Community Task Force (Name)___ Name Address Sh<3l1y 3490 Birch Lane Post Office & Zip Code Orono ^ MN 35391 Telephone (H) 612/471-7255 Resident of Orono ^ (W) 612/379*4407 years Work Experience: ____Eniployed as a bookkeeper for a commercial electrical contractor. Previously worked n years for a cotnmercial general contractor. Education: ____C3raduat<? of Pobhin gna l <=>-(7r)r)rvor ^ t gh <^i-Vinr»T . Pa rn-riic'i______ from the University of Minnesota/ continuing oducation courses in Accounting and computer software anc hardware. Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): none Telcphon* (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 12 02 96 09:5S FAX 612 379 4679 TRI-TECH ELECTRC © ••i'2 _<j6velosnsrt control relentless planned criro \t t h irTt-r> ^ o i ~ I* o ——Q,r n o 44-»^ create and maintainH^xistiL filtUr-T ^^ to see Orono someone who can liste-i to tii •"" e»tvi-onmen .t,. Tq dp thi?,jt- hakes stsna -!■- e -.no ano nore ln,portontly, reasonable strategy, ' ^cn. tern,^,onls o. the 01., er orono. tha the projected strain''on"L?'’naturf^“Le?.“^nLf" accommodate Oalance Oetween all sides is .ha What IS your view of the role of the Commission? uriigencS/The cSLisliorneeds ^trta^rinr "'' °‘ 21st Century growth strategy, chile remer,be°lnrgur%eso.i°2g 3®=” JorgIierationI ‘?o°«ne!‘'‘Thrcon^^“^^ ramification, Council provlaino ■ should worlc closely ^n'er, the Strategy tliat iqqks to the^future?^^ -hir.fcing, and guidance to formulate "into thrnI xt%enr,i?;.'ghg''£egrSSolitar"Ire2 =c^ll remands on ifs i.miLd ^ ^ -raordi,. now race one of the mocif r-'-,-,ii -aj.LJAiai_j__a.s_j—rp.,.. 11.—ina—as—a—conmunit choices must be made i^^^ve* century. The hard — ---------------------------- ^ and our metrS neal/*vy, stable and viable place to live ^o.-> ..The Cojges ce rny -roee-to n. unnon: . r?'°^, ^^^lies. -^ntury and heyond. Strong sense of conmunity^and havl^l ^trona'*'ri'^ huvo a right docis^ns not cm; for I understand this nppofmmern^m^y'b JI?scu4io5 ’lH • 2 December IQQfi Date ♦♦NOTE:Vo/unteer commission member's name, address and phone number Will become public tnfotmQtion. cases#.2 FROn : G PHOtiC tiO. : Gil' J71 0C7I'D«c. 02 199G 11:21An PI APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMIVIISSION Post»it" Fax Mote 7671 ) c. 0 4 7-» t. Co-'Oept Co Phor^. 9 » i.(-q ^ _ qS/O ft Parks Commission James C. Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 --------- 471-7462, residence and 934-0064, business Resident of Orono 17 years Work Experience; Investment/insurance advisor, sales manager, marketing executive and sales trainer over the past 20 years. Education: Graduate of North High School, Minneapolis and University of Nebraska (B.S. in Business Administration); attended Master ’s Program at St. Thomas (1 year); attained Chartered Life Underwriter Designation (CLU) through course work at the University of Minnesota. Graduated with honors from both high school and college; invited to join Beta Gamma Sigma, business honorary. Earned 100% of college expenses through part-time jobs. Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): Active member in my church; active in fund raising, welcome mi'^istries, and annual raffle (6 years). Currently, Board member of the following: Ridgedale Alternative Program (RAP), and Sales and Marketing Executives (SME). Member of Forty-Niners Business Development Group. Past Board Member of Network Professionals and Toastmasters International. Volunteer and speaker for various Job Transition Groups and churches. Please state your reasons for wanting to servo on this Commission. My parents grew up in the Wayzata area and gave me an appreciation of the beauty of our area, and a respect for our unique natural resources. In addition, I would like to be more involved in my community; and friends have suggested serving on the Parks Commission. FROM : G PHOME mo. : bl2 a71 SE72 Dec. 02 190G 11: 22Mt 1 P. What is your view of the role of the Commission? The Parks Commission is an advisory commission which researches issues and makes recommendations to the Orono City Council. Other Comments: I look forward to serving the residents of Orono. I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. ‘ p 1 November 20,1997 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Ororu). MN 55356 Mailing Address: p.O. ? «P Crystal 55323-0066 To: All Cigarette License Holder Establishments The purpose of this letter is to advise you of a new tobacco compliance law that went into effect on August 1,1997. This law deals with the sale of tobacco products to minors. The first part of the law deals with a compliance check where the licensing reqitired^o conduct an unannounced sting operation at least once per b‘Ue« H « where tobacco is sold. This would involve using a minor, over the age of 15 y ears but years, in an attempt to buy tobacco products. The second section of the law requires "no person shall sell tobacco establishment at all times.) The City Council will be considering adopting a new ordinance "'“'"S. “ Dosscssion and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices in the ci^ an Auction in the illegal sale, possession, and use of such items to and by minors at the Decern , 1997 Council meeting. In addition to the above changes. Council will consider the following. . The fee for cigarette/tobacco license will increase from $5.00 per quarter to $25.00 per . ?J^^es for license holders who violate the ordinance within a 24 month period will be; $25.00 for first offense $500.00 for second offense $650.00 for third offense (The second and third offenses will also include specified days the license will be suspended.) .. .• . A $100.00 fine for any individual, other than licensee, who violates this ordinance wi a 24 month period. Telepboue (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-9510 ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE SALE, POSSESSION, AND USE OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES IN THE CITY AND TO THE REDUCTION IN THE ILLEGAL SALE, POSSESSION, AND USE OF SUCH ITEMS TO AND BY MINORS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO DOES ORDAIN; Section 5.24 adopted April I, 1984 , eind entitled Tobacco and Ordinance No. 114, 2nd Series adopted April 12, 1993 entitled An Ordinance Amending Section 5.24 Adopted April 1,1984 and Amended March 26, 1990 and Entitled "Tobacco" are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: Section 100. Purpose. Because the City recognizes that many persons under the age of 18 years purchase or otherwise obtain, possess, and use tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices, and such sales, possession, and use are violations of both State and Federal laws; and because studies, which the City hereby accepts, adopts, and are on file at City Hall, have shown that most smokers begin smoking before they have reached the age of 18 years and that those persons who reach the age of 18 years without having started smoking are significantly less likely to begin smoking; and because smoking has been shown to be the cause of several serious health problems which sub.s«quently place a financial burden on all levels of government; this Ordinance shall be intended to regulate the sale, possession, and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices for the purpose of enforcing and furthering existing laws, to protect minors against the serious effects associated with the illegal use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices, and to further the official public policy of the State of Minnesota in regard to preventing young people from starting to smoke as stated in Minn. Stat. §144.391. Section 200. Detudtions and Interpretations. Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their commonly accepted definitions. The singular shall include the plural and the plural shall include the singular. The masculine shall include the feminine and neuter, and vice-versa. The term "shall" means mandatory and the terra "raay" means permissive. The following terms shall have the definitions given to them: Subd. 1. Tobacco or Tobacco Products. "Tobacco" or "Tobacco prodvets" shall mean any substance or item containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to, cigarettes; cigars; pipe tobacco; snuff, fine cut or other chewing tobacco; cheroots; stogies; perique; granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff flowers; cavendish; shorts; plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos; refuse scraps, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco leaf prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing, or smoking. 1 Subd. 2. Tobacco Related Devices. "Tobacco related devices" shall mean any tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers, or other device intentionally designed or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing, or smoking of tobacco or tobacco products. Subd. 3. Self-Service Merchandising. "Self-Service Merchandising" shall mean open displays of tobacco, lobacco products, or tobacco related devices in any manner where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's employee. The assist^ce or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee. Self-service merchandising shall not include vending machines. Subd 4 Vending Machine. "Vending Machine" shall mean any mechamcal, electnc or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form of payment directly in o the machine by any person. Subd. 5. Individually packaged. "Individually packaged" shall me^ the practice of sellmg any tobacco or tobacco product wxapped individually for sale. Individually wTapped tobacco and tobacco products shall include, but not be limited to, single cigarette packs, single bags or cans of loose tobacco in any form, and single cans or other packaging of snuff or chewmg tobacco. Cartons or other packaging containing more than a single pack or other container as described in this subdivision shall not be considered individually packaged. Subd. 6. Loosir . "Loosies" shall mean the common term used to refer to a single or individuallv packaged cigarette. Subd. 7. Minor. "Minor" shall mean any natural person who has not yet reached the age of eighteen (18) years. Subd. 8. Retail Establishment. "Retail Establishment" shall mean any place of business where tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices are available for sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include, but not be limited to, grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants. Subd. 9. Moveable Place of Business. "Moveable Place of Business" shall refer to any form of business operated out of a truck, van, automobile, or other type of vehicle or tn^porta e shelter and not a fi.\ed address store front or other permanent type of structure authonzed tor sales transactions. Subd. 10. Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade, barter, or other consideration. Subd. 11. Compliance Checks. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the system the city uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices are following and complying with the requirements of this Ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of minors as authorized by this Ordinance. Compliance Checks shall also mean the use of minors who attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices for educational, research and training purposes as authorized by State and Federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by other units of government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate Federal, State, or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices. Section 300. License. No person shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related device without first having obtained a license to do so from the city. Subd. 1. Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices shall be made on a form provided by the City. The application shall contain the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s residential and business addresses and telephone numbers, the name of the business for which the license is sought, and any additional information the City deems necessary. Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Administrator shail forward the application to the council for action at its next regularly scheduled council meeting. If the City Administrator shall determine that an application is incomplete, he or she shall return the application to the applicant with notice of the information necessary to make the application complete. Subd. 2. Action. The council may either approve or deny the license, or it may delay action for such reasonable period of time as necessar>* to complete any investigation of the application or the applicant it deems necessary. If the council shall approve the license, the City Administrator shall issue the license to the applicant. If the council denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the applicant along with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the council's decision. Subd. 3. Term. All licenses issued under this Ordinance shall be valid for one calendar year from tlie date of issue. Subd. 4. Revocation or Suspension. Any license issued under this Ordinance may be revoked or suspended as provided in the Violations and Penalties section of this Ordinance. Subd. 5. Transfers. All licenses issued under this Ordinance shall be valid only on the premises for which the license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was issued. No transfer of any license to another location or person shall be valid without the prior approval of the council. Subd. 6. Moveable Place of Business. No license shall be issued to a moveable place of business. Only fixed location businesses shall be eligible to be licensed under this Ordinance. Subd. 7. Display. All licenses shall Ki posted and displayed in plain view of the public on the licensed premise. Subd. 8. Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this Section shall be handled in the same manner as the original application. The request for a renewal shall be made at least thirty days but no more than sixiy days before the expiration of the current license. The issuance of a license issued under this Ordinance shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of th- applicant and shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license. Section 400. Fees. No license shall be issued under this Ordinance until the appropriate license fee shall be paid in full. The fee for a license under this Ordinance shall be determined from time to time by the City and published in a fee schedule adopted by the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Section 500. Basis for Denial of License. The following shall be grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license under this Ordinance; jwever, except as may otherwise be provided by law, the existence of any particular ground for denial does not mean that the City must deny the license. If a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a person, it shall be revoked upon the discovery that the person was ineligible for the license under this Section: A. The applicant is under the age of 18 years. B. E. The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any violation of a Federal, State, or local law. Ordinance provision, or other regulation relating to tobacco or tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices revoked or suspended on two (2) or more occasions within the preceding tweWe months of the date of application. The applicant fails to provide any information required on the application, or provides false or misleading information. The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law. Ordinance, or other regulation, from holding such a license. Section 600. Prohibited Sales. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device: A. To any person under the age of eighteen (18) years. B. By means of any type of vending machine, except as may otherwise be provided in this Ordinance. C. E. F. By means of self-service methods whereby the customer does not need to make a verbal or written request to an employee of the licensed premise in order to receive the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the licensee or the licensee's employee, and the customer. By means of loosies as defined in Section 200 of this Ordinance. Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled substances except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process. By any other means, to any other person, on in any other manner or form prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law. Ordinance provision, or other regulation. Section 700. Vending Machines. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this Ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by the means of a vending machine. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices at the time this Ordinance is adopted shall comply with this Section within 45 days. This Section does not apply to facilities that cannot be entered i.t any time by persons younger than 18 years of age. Section 800. Self-Service Sales. It shall be unlawful for a licensee under this Ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by any means whereby the customer may have access to such items, including, but not limited to individually packaged or multipack units of tobacco or mbacco products, without having to request the item from the licensee or the licensee's employee and whereby there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or the tobacco related device between the licensee or his or her clerk and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices shall either be stored behind a counter or other area not freely accessible to customers, or in a case or other storage unit not left open and accessible to the general public. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices at the time this Ordinance is adopted shall comply with this Section within 45 days. This Section does not apply to retail stores which derive at least 90 percent of their revenue from tobacco and tobacco-related products and which carmot be entered at any time by persons younger than 18 years of age. Section 900. Responsibility. All licensees under this Ordinance shall be responsible for the actions of their employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices on the licensed premises, and the sale of such an item by an employee shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the City from also s .ibjecting the clerk to whatever penalties are appropriate under this Ordinance, State or Federal law, or other applicable law or regulation. Section 1000. Compliance Checks and Inspections. All licensed premises shall be open to inspection by the city police or other authorized city official during regular business hours. From time to time, but at least once per year, the City shall conduct compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians, minors over the age of fifteen (15) years but less than eighteen (18) years, to enter the licensed premise to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. Minors used for the purpose of compliance checks shall be supervised by city designated law enforcement officers or other designated city personnel. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be guilty of unlawful possession of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices when such items are obtained as a part of the compliance check. No minor used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the minor s age, and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the minor s age asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or Federal laws for educational, research, or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a particular State or Federal law. Section 1100. Billboards. Billboards advertising any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device shall be governed by the city of Orono Sign Ordinance. Section 1200. Other Illegal Acts. Unless otherwise provided, the following acts shall be a violation of this Ordinance. Subd. 1. Illegal Sales. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to sell or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device to any minor. Subd. 2. Illegal Possession. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to have in his or her possession any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. This Subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check. Suou .. illegal Use. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to smoke, chew, sniff, or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. Subd. 4. Illegal Procurement. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor to purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device, and it shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any person to purchase or otherwise obtain such items on behalf of a minor. It shall further be a violation for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a minor to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device. This Subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check. Subd. 5. Use of False Identification. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for any minor O* to attempt to disguise his or her true age by the use of a false form of identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one on which the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual age of the person. Section 1300. Violations. Subd. 1, Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either personally or by mail, a citation that sets forth the alleged violation and which shall inform the alleged violator of his or her right to be heard on the accusation. Subd. 2. Hearings. If a person accused of violating this Ordinance so requests, a hearing shall be scheduled, the time and pla-^e of which shall be published and provided to the accused violator. Subd. 3. Hearing Officer. The City Council shall serve as the hearing officer. Subd. 4. Decision. If the hearing officer determines that a violation of this Ordinance did occur, that decision, along with the hearing officers reasons for finding a violation and the penalty to be imposed under Section 1400 of this Ordinance, shall be recorded in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to the accused violator. Likewise, if the hearing officer finds that no violation occurred or finds grounds for not imposing any penalty, such findings shall be recorded and a copy provided to the acquitted accused violator. Subd. 5. Appeals. Appeals of any decision made by the hearing officer shall be filed in the district court for the City in which the alleged violation occurred. Subd. 6. Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this Ordinance. If the City elects to seek misdemeanor prosecution, no administrative penalty shall be imposed. Subd. 7. Continued Violation. Each violation, and every day in which a violation occurs or continues, shall constitute a separate offense. Section 1400. Penalties. Subd. 1. Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated this Ordinance, or whose employee shall have violated this Ordinance, shall be charged an administrative fine pursuant to a penalty schedule determined from time to time by the City and published in a penalty schedule adopted by the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. In addition, after the second offense, the license shall be suspended for not less than three days. After the third offense the license shall be suspended for not less than seven days. Subd. 2. Other Individuals. Individuals, other than minors, found to be in violation of this r Ordinance shall be charged an administrative fme pursuant to a penalty schedule determh^ from time to time by the City and published in a penalty schedule adopted by the City Council at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Subd. 3. Misdemeanor. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit the City from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this Ordinance. Section 1500. Exceptions and Defenses. Nothing m this Ordinance stall .obacco;tX::o pro7u:;:or,:^^^^^^^ .0 a minor as part of a lawfdlly reco^«d religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative k law Ordinance for a person to have reasonably relied on proof of age as described by Section 1600. Severability and Savings Clause. If any section or portion of this Ordmance sMl ta found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a co^ that finding shall not serve as an invalidation or effect the validity and enfo.ceabi ity y section or provision of this Ordinance. Section 1700. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect the day following publication in the City’s official newspaper. Adopted by die City Council this 8th day of December, 1997. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Published in the Lv Pioneer newspapers on the 13th day of December, 1997. 111897.1 8 1 I GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Jim Grube Director of Public Works Hennepin County 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Dear Jim: The Orono City Council at its November 24 meeting discussed the issue of the agreement for the maintenance of the pedestrian tunnel for the Spring Hill Golf Course. The Coui:cil strongly supported the exclusion of the city from the agreement regarding the maintenance of the tunnel. The Council encourages the County to look favorably on an agreement directly between the County and the Spring Hill Golf Course. If you have any questions regarding the Council's action, please call me. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 17,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. Charles Schroeder and Sandra Smith were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Public Serv ices Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Bressler and Recorder Sherr>' Frost. Mayor Jabbour was present. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS (#1) NAVARRE HOUSING STUDY - BRAD BRESSLER Bressler reported that the Navarre Housing Study was conducted in two phases, one being a mailed out survey to the residents and the other a field survey conducted by Bressler. There are four sub-areas. The purpose of the study was to see if Lhere was any interest in housing rehabilitation and grant funding. Bressler reviewed the tables included in the information regarding home ownership, income groups, age and family unit, housing condition, and desirability of making home improvements through a grant process. Bressler said a large majority of the people would apply for a grant if it was provided. The majority of homes were found to be in good condition, but there were some homes needing improvement. During the field survey, Bressler per'-onally viewed the conditions of the homes and properties. The vast majority are single family with some multi-housing units towards the west end of Livingston Avenue. The housing was categorized according to visual inspection by Bressler. The majority were in good or excellent condition. The overall appearance of garages showed that detached garages have received less maintenance. There were a number of homes where brush, weeds, and outdoor storage took away from the appearance of the properties. Bressler provided a picture boara show ing a representative pictorial view of what he found in the neighborhood by study areas. Lindquist inquired about »he affordable housing level in Orono. Bressler said the housing valued at $115,000 or less is considered affordable housing for 1997. Information of housing in this category is available iVom Hennepin County but needs to be entered in a database. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#1 - Navarre Housing Study - Continued) Van Zomeren stated Lake Minnetonka area cities have met over the summer to discuss gathering information on housing in the revision of each community's Comprehensive Plan. Some of the cities lack affordable housing. The cities are attempting to work together on this issue and intend to hire a consultant to assist in this research. The Met Council has provided $17,000 towards the hiring of the consultant. The groundwork has been laid out in respect to review of affordable housing. Berg asked if a HR,\ block grant would be required, and if so, who would administer it. Van Zomeren said she did not know if this was necessary but noted that the programs use the same contact person and will investigate the matter. Lindquist asked Staff to keep the Planning Commission updated noting additional work is required. Dressier said additional work will be performed as review of the Comprehensive Plan continues. OLD BUSINESS - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2290 Ef -AINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:45-6:47 P.M. The Applicants were unable to attend the meeting. Hawn moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2290. Lindquist reported that the application would not be reviewed again until the January meeting of the Plamiing Commission. However, if the applicant agrees with the 5' minimum location of structure from the property line, the application will not require further review by the Planning Commission. Van Zomeren said she has spoken with Building Inspector Lyle Oman, who will issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for the applicants. Gravel will be placed on the driveway over the v> inter months. Van Zomeren will notify the neighbors of this situation. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 = , ■ i f (#3) #2305 ROGER AND ELIZABETH OLSEN, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - 6:47-7:03 P.M. The applicant and architect, Kathryn Alexander, were present. Bressler presented pictures of the propert>'. The applicant is proposing remodeling and expansion of the residence to include a 4-stall attached garage. The application requires variances for lakeshore setback and hardcover in the 0-75' setback. There is no problem with average lakeshore setback as noted in the topographical map. The residence currently has a 3-stall side loading garage. The driveway configuration is proposed to be changed. The existing residence encroaches the lakeshore setback. The allowable building space is limited by the property. Only a portion of the existing foundation will remain; further information is included in the packet. The total hardcover is proposed at 19%. The 1.02 acre property is located in the one acre zoning district with 2/3 acre in the 0-75 ’ setback. The street setback is also restricted. Bressler reported Staff recommended approval subject to maintaining a 34' lakeshore setback from the designated OHW where 75' is required. Encroachment on the lakeshore setback will not be increased by the improvements. Staff recommends hardcover be maintained at a maximum of 14 5% in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 20% is existing, 16% is proposed, and none is allowed. Bressler indicated that 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. Staff recommends all landscape underlain by plastic in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback be removed prior to commencement of new construction. The applicant has agreed to this provision. Staff also recommends that no further hardcover variances be granted to this property in the future. Mr. Olsen, in noting the difficult lot, said he preferred not to reduce the hardcover further than the proposed 16% to 14.5%. Ms. Alexander said the total hardcover is less than the 25% allowed. II.i‘ siiormed the applicant that trading hardcover for landscaping underlain with plastic is not the same and does not justify the additional hardcover. Lindquist said he agreed noting there is a large amount of structure on the property and is of the opinion that the applicant should maintain the 14.5% hardcover maximum. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#3 - #2305 Roger and Elizabeth Olsen - Continued) Stoddard asked Bressler to explain the suggestions for hardcover removal. Alexander noted that as suggested, the hardcover would still be over 14.5%. Bressler informed McMillan that he arrived at the 14.5% by subtracting the landscaping underlain with plastic from the hardcover. The balance of hardcover to be removed would come from eliminating a portion of the patio, dog run, decking, or decreasing the size of the addition. Olsen said that he would have to eliminate the existing patio or addition even if all of the decking was eliminated. Lindquist informed him that if the residence was new construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen acknowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to meet today's standards. Alexander noted that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pavers with drainage holes is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they were. Alexander said eliminating 1.5% of hardcover would consist of497 s.f. When asked by Hawn what items are necessary, it was noted that the dog kennel could be gravel and the patio could be reduced in size. This would amount to less than the decrease being required. The patio is 810 s.f. and could be reduced. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback, hardcover variance in 0-75' setback, subject to revised Staff recommendation including a 41’ lakeshore setback variance for structure to remain at 34' from the OHW, hardcover variance for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and plastic under landscaping removed in the 0-75' setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' setback will be decided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 P.M. Bill Gleason was present representing Brook Park Realty. Van Zomeren reported that the application was tabled at the last meeting to allow time for the applicant to meet with Staff, City Engineer, and landscape architect consultant from DSU. A revision was provided last week by the a^^plicant. Engineering comments have been received. Van Zomeren did not receive comments from the landscaping consultant. She did speak vvith a representative of the fire department. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) The revised plan includes construction of 30 townhomes on 9.93 acre site with access from Livingston Avenue. The units are connected with four per building. The northerly units will be served by a road. The southern units will be served by a driveway. The Mound Fire Department would like to see the 6" water main looped, which will increase the unit cost by $1.50-$2.00 per square foot, or the units sprinkled. The 22' road width was recommended by the landscape architect in order to maintain trees. The City Engineer has agreed to that width, while noting it does not meet City standards. The issue involved is fire safety versus saving trees. The City Engineer supports the sanitary sewer and water design, which conflicts with the opinion of the fire department. Details will be required for final plan. City Engineer Kellogg recommended Livingston Avenue be extended to the west and sanitary and water main stubs be extended as well. The drainage area map was thought to show high calculations at 20 minute concentration and recommendation is made for a maximum time of concentration of 15 minutes. Pipe grading or sizes may need to be revised. A paved swale or erosion control should be provided downstream from the piping. Details of the pond outlet control and weir should be provided for review. The timber weir may present a future maintenance problem and an alternate outlet structure may be desired. The 19 units served by temporary cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum of 10 allowed. Van Zomeren noted there is no history in Orono of similar townhouse development and questioned whether this should be maintained or changed. Livingston Avenue design is not built to a 30 mph speed and the radius should be increased to 275 ft. or reduced speed warning signs installed, which Staff recommends. The City Engineer also asks that a typical street section be provided to verify the proposed pavement design. Van Zomeren said the landscape consultant has indicated that the revised plan is an improvement and noted the identification has been provided for the larger stands of trees. The preservation level of trees is at about 50%. Van Zomeren said it was her opinion that the application be tabled to the January meeting in order for review of fire department and engineering recommendations. Since there is a two month span of time. Van Zomeren said a recommendation could be made by the Planning Commission based on the comments received by the City Engineer and landscape consultant. Mr. Gleason said he received a letter dated November 13 from the landscape architect. Van Zomeren reported that she had not received it. A copy was given to Van Zomeren for her immediate review. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gleason said the 6" water line will come to the property line and there had been concern over the amount of water flow. As far as looping the main or sprinkling the units, Gleason said he would do what is required and asked if there was a way that the system could be looped. Gappa said he was unfamiliar with it and would have to review the layout to see if enough water could get to the location. Lindquist asked for comments from the applicant regarding the road width. Gleason said the fire marshal thought a 20’ width was satisfactory and 22' is proposed. He thought there was no other option for the dead-end cul-de-sac. Gleason said the owner of the property’ to the west is currently not interested in selling. Van Zomeren said the road would not be e.xtended to the end of the property, only the sewer and water improvements would be located there. The driveway would dead-end at the cul-de-sac. Lindquist agreed that whatever occurs with the property to the west does not factor into this application. Hawn asked if the driveway could extend to CoRd 15. Gleason said no. Concern was voiced regarding the inability to turnaround at the dead-end. Lindquist questioned whether a cul-de-sac could be built there. Hawn was informed that the driveways would be two car lengths. No parking would be allowed along the side of the road. Guests would have to park in the driveway of the units or gain permission from other residents to park in their driveways. There were no public comments. Lindquist asked about the time schedule. Gleason said he was beginning to enter a time crunch due to having to redesign the subdivision. He noted that he was uninformed of any problem with the driveway until now. The fire department had not indicated that having to back into a driveway to turnaround would be a problem. Gleason said it is not a through street, only a private driveway, and access can be gained. Gleason did not believe there was room for a cul-de-sac and additional trees would be lost. Lindquist noted that three residences are allowed on private driveways for single family residences and in this proposal, there are 11 units. Gleason noted there were no guidelines for townhomes in Orono and as a result, new' issues are continually being raised. » I Stoddard indicated that the Commission was attempting to balance safety with tree preseiA’ntion. He supported having a turnaround. He did not envision a problem regarding the looped water main or sprinkler system since the applicant was willing to do what is necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gleason suggested the possibility of constructing a hammerhead at the end of the driveway instead of a turnaround. Gappa thought that was feasible noting it has been done elsewhere. Gleason said this would solve the problem of inadequate room for a complete turnaround. Gleason said he would mark the driveway as a private drive. Lindquist asked if there were any problems with the landscape report. Gleason indicated there were no problems as far as he was concerned. He said he is in favor of adding landscaping and reducing the setback for saving trees. He questioned the need for a buffer from the garages facing CoRd 15 as there is a considerable distance separating the two. He said landscaping is beneficial for marketing. Gleason thought the landscape plan could be appro t,d when the final plat is presented. McMillan noted the design for the front doors being in the middle of the units. She asked if this was advantageous for those in the middle units having to walk all around. She asked if this was a question of providing a common area versus losing privacy. Gleason thought the residents will^use their garage entries. Guests may walk around or possibly use the garage entry as well. Gleason feels the courtyards will be attractive and be private with the trees surrounding them. Any problem would be more for guests than for the residents. Gleason said there was the possibility of moving the two middle units forward and placing a service door on the side of the garage. Gleason did not believe this was an issue, however, with only four units per building. McMillan said some privacy would be lost by the middle units with walking traffic going back and forth. McMillan asked about snow' plowing. Gleason said the shoveling will be provided by the homeowners association. He added that the area would be v’ery w’ooded and walkways will wind around the treed areas. Gleason thought the courtyards will be used by the residents noting there are patios by the front doors as well. Lindquist noted the issues of the 6" loop or sprinkler, hammerhead, landscaping recommendations, and fire chief report have been reviewed. Van Zomeren said she would like to know what the applicant is required to do regarding the road. Lindquist indicated the 22' width and hammerhead would be a sufficient tradeoff for preserving trees and was satisfactory with the fire chief. Hawn asked if a 22' width w as the maximum that could be provided. Gleason did not know if any wider road could be provided and did not see any reason to expand that width. The length is more of a concern but is solved with the use of a hammerhead. Gappa noted the difference between single family and towTihome units and the ordinance applying to single family residences. He thought the shorter length was a trade-off. MINUTES OF TOE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Really - Continued) V m Zomeren said the preliminai>- plat and PRD will move forward to the Council for *er review. Conformity to subdivision regulations will be reviewed. A letter of credit nfi, installed. Lindquist thought a letter of credit would be salis.aclory. The ne,\t step after Council review will then be final plat. asked about the center island suggested by the landscape architect. Van Zomeren d the reasoning was to lessen the amount of pavement made by a cul-de-sac Gleason »id he thought the decision was made to eliminate an island, vin Zomerm ^id thX Engineer did not favor the island but the recommendation was made by the architect ^ ^ Gappa reported that an island is not desirable for effective snowplow in^ Lindquist moved. Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2308 for preliminary olat reti^ >•’« "'=“« loop or sprinkler system needs to be resolved. A revis^ plan vyith a hammerhead turnaround that addresses the landscape architect's and City Engineers comments wall need to be submited. The revised plan will not include a center island in the cul-de-sac. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS 7M5 P.M.* north shore DRIVE - VARIANCE - 7:7:39- The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Photos of the property were presented. exTsfiiv'reiir"* "’ti!'’' oppl'oont 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 wfil be located within the required rear setback but will not further ncroach the required yard than the e.xisting residence. tonn!'^' reviewed the issues 1 through 6 as reponed Jn the packet. The sloping 16.r from^thr^ "Tt existing deck, residence and proposed additions are 5 ’, 7, and Ft vv A ° respectively. A prior rear yard variance was granted in 1975 ^ retaining wall is located on the neighboring property to the closer to tL rold' ° considered a deterrent to locating the addition Staff recommended approval of the rear yard variance with the existing shed relocated to a location meeting the yard setback requirements or be removed. 8 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 (#5 - #2311 Loren Fritz - Continued) Lindquist recommended the applicant come to an agreement with the neighboring property owner regarding the wood retaining wall. Fritz said the wall is a replacement of what already existed to prevent erosion, and his neighbor supported the building of the wall. Fritz said the shed has been there for 30 yea-s and is in good repair. It is used for lawn equipment. Fritz said he would object to removing the shed as it does not create any problem for the neighbors and is overshadowed by the bam to the west. There were no public comments. Lindquist said he supported the proposed addition and maintaining the wood retaining wall. However, he recommended the shed be moved. Fritz said the relocation of the shed would create an eyesore if relocated. Fritz also indicated that he would have to dismantle the shed as it is bolted down. Mrs. Fritz said the area suggested for the shed location is marshland and unbuildable. McMillan asked if the shed would require rebuilding when it became deteriorated, if it could be built in the same location. Dressier said it would require a variance. Dressier said the shed is in good condition at this time. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the 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. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2313 TOM AND KARISTEINKE, 910 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - 7:45-7:49 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier presented photographs of the property. The proposal is for constmction of a second story addition over the existing residence. The existing residence currently encroaches the side setback. The variance would allow additional structure in the required setback but would not encroach further. Dressier reviewed the four issues as indicated in the packet. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Steinke had no further comments. MrNUTES OF THE ORONO PJ ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#6 - #2313 Tom and Kari Steinke - Continued) Mrs. Steinke indicated that the addition would be a bedroom over the dining room. The residence currently has a walk-up attic. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2313 for a side yard setback variance of 17.6' to allow the existing side yard setback of 12.4 to remain where 30 is required. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2314 JOHN BESSESEN, 2505-2507 KELLY AVENUE - ZONING AMENDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 7:49-9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported the applicant is requesting a zoning amendment to revise the duplex credit district. If that approval is received, a conditional use permit would be required. As the ordinance is currently written, a conditional use permit would only be possible if the zoning lot is adjacent to an industrial or commercial zone and built within 200' of that zone. Van Zomeren showed the location of the Highway 12 industrial area and the residential area within 200' that is not separated by a roadway. The area eligible is located to the south of the highway. Staff has historically required that adjacent lot lines be contiguous. If a more liberal viewpoint was taken and the road was not considered, that area could possibly cross the road. The other location is in Navarre. Van Zomeren displayed where the subject lot and commercial zoning is located. Van Zomeren said the terminology in the code needs clarification. The existing location where the fire station w^as located is not eligible for duplex credit as it is outside the commercial zone and the 200' limitation. Van Zomeren said she and Gaffron discussed modifying the duplex credit. The B-3 zoning is the only zoning that could be extended to capture that lot and eliminate the 200 requirement. The 200' eligibility could be changed to reflect 400 ’ from the B-3 district. The B-1 and B-6 zoning districts would be eliminated for duplex credit. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Van Zomeren said, if the City's intent is to allow duplex housing, it first needs to be determined where that housing should be located and then place it in the zoning. She does not feel it makes sense where the use is currently allocated. She says it is important to buffer the industrial and commercial areas with higher density but is not the best method to achieve this end. The zoning situation for the subject lot needs to be revised before the lot is eligible for a conditional use permit. Van Zomeren is concerned that the "duplex credit" is a moving target because it changes based on commercial or industrial zoning. Van Zomeren reported that there are alot of small lots where duplexes can currently be located under the duplex credit process. She feels this should not be encouraged. The church propert>‘ rezoning that occurred in 1996 changed the 200' eligibility and needs to be eliminated in her opinion. Van Zomeren asked if the non-conforming structure should be demolished and the area zoned for duplex. The presence of Outlot A at the lakeshore precludes single family development, according to the applicant. Research found that the reasoning behind the outlot had to do with a concern over multiple docks on the wetlands. Van Zomeren said the most restrictive way to change the ordinance to allow the property to have a duplex constructed on it would be through the B-3 district. This would not affect the existing duplexes. John Bessesen had no comments at this point. The hearing was opened for public comments. Todd Jones, 2501 and 2503 Kelly Avenue, reported that his property is adjacent to the subject property. Jones said he is unclear on what four lots are affected. Van Zomeren explained where the lots are located. The 400' limitation would add two single family lots to the south. Jones said he cannot see the single family lots being utilized for the duplex use. He agrees the site is blighted and understands the problem with setback. He believes the opportunity for duplexes would be good for the city. He believes the plan is reasonable and would clean up the property. Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, lives north of the subject property in a townhome, and cited the text amendment. He said the subject property has been on the market for five years and its current condition is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He understands the economical problems with providing a single family residence. He feels changing the zoning to accomplish the request is extreme. He feels changing the existing duplexes zoning allowing one dwelling unit on 1/2 acre is more feasible. Evans feels the only use of the property as it is now is to have the City condemn it and make it a park. Evans believes all the residents along Kelly Avenue would support the redevelopment to a duplex. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Cominued) Chuck and Candy Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue, live south of the subject property. Chuck Nadler said he is concerned with rezoning the area to the east to allow more duplexes. He is not sure this would be the right solution. Nadler wanted the applicant to answer whether he will do as he is proposing. If so, Nadler said he would support the application. He believes the proposal would result in a high quality duplex. Nadler indicated that Outlot A creates the problem for creating a single family residence. He is not convinced that the outlot could not be eliminated if the townhome residents and City work together. Evans said he would be willing to aid in elim.inating the outlot and get all docks in the same location. Jones thought this solution could be worked out but wanted to maintain the right to enjoy more lakeshore for walking. Bessesen said he Ind presumed the property was zoned for duplexes when the purchase agreement waa written. He found out differently when the property was surveyed. Bessesei. said the plans call for duplexes at a value of $350,000-$400,000 for each side. He did have a concern with the gas station nearby but had a Phase I EIS conducted, which showed no problems. He then found that the zoning is for single family site but the outlot is problematic. Bessesen said the Kelly Avenue Association owns the property around the townhomes. Outlot A is landlocked and causes problems for single family purposes. If the outlot was eliminated, he would prefer to build a single family residence. The existing four townhomes could establish docks in front of their own units. Bessesen said he represents the owner, Bradley Hoyt. He would like the opportunity to work out any problems if possible to improve Kelly Avenue. Stoddard said he appreciates Staffs initiative in e.xtending the zone to 400*. He believes it will affect four lots, two of which have sold for over $1,000,000. He does not believe it would be a good idea to change the zoning in order to change these lots. Stoddard said the outlot has presented a problem for perspective buyers of the property. He believes single family housing is preferable in the neighborhood. He said consideration could be given to change the zoning for the one lot. Bessesen responded that State law does not allow this to occur. Bessesen noted the rights of the tow nhome ow ners regarding the outlot and w ould like to be able to build another tow'nhome. He indicated that Hoyt has listed his home for sale and plans on living in one of the units. Stoddard suggested Bessesen speak with the neighbors regarding their feelings and obtain information on the background of Outlot A. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Van Zomeren said previous noted Staff concerns with impacts on the wetlands if more docks were established. She believes the outlot was established because of dock issues. Van Zomeren said other regulatory bodies will have to be contacted regarding establishing docks in front of townhomes. She noted the amount of w etlands is large. Steve Weckman had informed her that the wetland map is confusing and requires further delineation. Berg noted there were similar docks located on Carman Bay. Nadler said he had been informed that Outlot A had been negotiated with the City and dealt with where the townhomes were built and the desire of a property owner to have docks located in one area. Jabbour agreed that dock clustering was encouraged at that time. Nadler suggested working with the property ovmers to have docks located in front of the units if proven economical. Jabbour said the history behind the outlot needs to be determined and the Commission needs to either agree or disagree with whether economics is dictating the location Berg noted that the lot across the street is unbuildable. Lindquist indicated that the action to be taken at this time is for conceptual approval. Commission noted difficulty in changing the zoning. Commissioners all agreed that new development is desired but questioned whether it should be single family residence or a duplex. Hawn said she would be willing to look at eliminating Outlot A if it can be done and changing the zoning. She agrees with Van Zomeren that rewriting the zoning around one property is not a good solution and Commission should determine where duple.xes should be located in the City. Bessesen said he understands the reasoning behind Van Zomeren's suggestions and the need to determine what method can accomplish it. Hawn said the issue needs to be review ’ed comprehensively. Berg said research must be done on the history of Outlot A. Van Zomeren read the minutes of the 10/3/77 Planning Commission Meeting regarding Outlot A. She asked if the docks could be re-established for each duplex in order to eliminate Outlot A. Berg said the towTihomes first have to be reviewed. Lindquist said rezoning can then be done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Van Zomeren said the existing tovvnhomes and this site could be rezoned and the density changed by text amendment using 400’ or less. She noted she is not particularly m favor of using a distance measurement. She would prefer to eliminate the duplex credit as it currently exists. Jabbour informed the Commission he * the duplex credit was established with the Shoreland Ordinance in the early 1990’s. He noted there would be two PUDs for consideration in the near future. Jabbour thought the areas could be changed and the application done as a PUD. Van Zomeren said because the property does not quality for a conditional use permit, she does not believe it meets the acreage requirement for PUD. Van Zomeren indicated that the Planning Commission could consider reconunending that the legal non-conforming use be re-established as a use on a lot of record if it met dl other requirements; that would require amending a different section of the Zoning Code relating to non-conforming uses. The extend of the impact for this method is not known. Hawn asked what would take longer, the 400' text amendment or determining location for duplexes. Van Zomeren said the problem is textually amending the ordinance, which has the effect of a spot zoning. She is reluctant to do that at this time because the Comprehensive Plan is due to be revised before the end of 1998. Stoddard noted the neighbors comments that were made regarding the legal non- conforming use, zoning for the neighborhood, and the blighted site. He felt the outcome is dependent on the applicant. He suggested the applicant speak with the neighbors regarding changing the outlot and then construct a single family home, which he felt would be the best solution for both the City and the neighborhood. However, Stoddard said the issue before the Commission is to determine if a duplex would fit in with the neighborhood. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2314 approving a duplex at that address due to the existing legal non-conforming use and change the zoning to establish the legal use provided no other variances are required on the construction. Lindquist questioned whether this can be done. Van Zomeren said it would be an amendment to another section of the zoning code but there is no language to that effect. She indicated this cannot be drafted without renotifying the public. Van Zomeren s^nd a text amendment can be broadly done. This motion would require the application to be reviewed again in January. Van Zomeren cited the ordinance sections suggesting the text amendment be revised to apply only to the B3 District and the distance be reduced from 400’ to 250'. Stoddard withdrew his motion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Jabbour indicated that this would require a 4/5th majority vote by Council and could not be reviewed until December 8 when a full Council would be in attendance. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2314 for construction of a duplex amending this single lot zoning to include duplex credit approvals for construction within 250’ from B-3 building due to its legal non-conforming use. McMillan questioned whether the property was more than 250' from the B-3 zoning. The number of docks (3) and their length (25') were noted. They are located adjacent to the neighboring property and allows people to walk across the outlot. Stoddard noted that the motion would allow the applicant and Staff to see what can be done before review at the 12/8 Council meeting. McMillan noted that LMCD approval would be required for moving the docks. It was noted that the language as it currently exists in the ordinance needs to be narrowed and limited to the B-3. Stoddard said there may be no need for an amendment as he feels the distance is less than previously thought. Stoddard amended his motion to eliminate the existing language in the code regarding duplex credit. McMillan seconded the amendment to the motion. Lindquist questioned how the Commission could get duplex zoning back in place with this motion. It would require Comprehensive Plan review and changes made. Lindquist said the motion would allow this application to go forward but additional work would be required. Hawn questioned whether the motion could legally be done noting the current rights of the property owners. Van Zomeren said the public notice posted would serve as notice for this motion. The motion was separated into two motions. The motion read: to approve Application #2314 for construction of a duplex and amend the single lot zoning to include the duplex credit approval for construction ’vithin 250' of the B-3 zoning district due to its legal non-conforming use. Vote: Ayes 3 McMillan, Stoddard, Berg; Nays 2, Lindquist, Hawn. Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#7 - #2314 John Bessesen - Continued) Stoddard moved but received no second to eliminate the language to allow duplex credit to the zoning code. McMillan suggested the issue be further reviewed before sending the recommendation to the Council. Lindquist said he voted against the motion as he is against spot zoning but supports the plan itself. The applicant was asked to research the background of Outlot A prior to the Council Meeting on December 8. Bessesen will work with Van Zomeren to solve issues of concern. (#8) CITY OF ORONO - ZONING AMENDMENl - LAND ALTERATION REGULATIONS AND PERMIT CRITERIA - 9:10-9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were .noted. Gappa reported that the zoning amendment is a housekeeping matter to streamline the current code. The code currently requires a conditional use permit for any land alteration over 100 cubin yards. This creates a problem for what may be minor work. Staff has concluded that a Staff permit process should take place and change the ordinance to reflect the need for a CUP for land alteration over 500 cubic yards. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the Zoning Amending for Land Alteration Regulations and Permit Criteria. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 27,1997 AND NOVEMBER 10,1997 No report was given. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Planning Commission \vill meet on December 17, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. Items for discussion will include tree preservation, home occupation, and review research regarding prior variances. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 (#10 - Other Issues for Discussion - Continued) McMillan asked that Park Commission Chair Wilson be notified of the meeting. Jabbour indicated that the meeting may include information regarding the elimination of calculating landscaping underlain with plastic in the 0-75' setback. Landscaping with plastic underlayment will be allowed in the 75-250 ’ setback if the 25% hardcover allowance is met. Jabbour reported that the park dedication ordinance is being challenged, and the City Attorney will be drafting a new ordinance. He stated a direct nexus must be shown between the park services provided and any subdivision requiring park dedication fees. Jabbour asked the Planning Commission to further investigate any application where prior Councils placed future restrictions to determine the reasoning behind their decision. He cited an example where the Planning Commission listened to prior Council advice in a recommendation, but the current Council mistakenly did not, resulting in what he felt was a hastily drawn and incorrect conclusion. (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 20,1997 MEETING Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 24,1997 AND DECEMBER 8,1997 November 24 - Stoddard December 8 - Berg ADJOURNMENT Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailinf Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Decembers, 1997 John R. Maresh 2085 County Road 6 Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. Maresh: This letter is in response to your letter requesting an agreement with the city regarding the valuation of your property at 2085 County Road 6. As you indicate in your letter, the City Council in its role as the Board of Review does have the power to adjust property valuations. However, this authority is only to make adjustments if, in the opinion of the Board of Review, the Assessor's proposed valuation is incorrect. The City Council does not have the authority to enter into an agreement to keep a property's valuation lower than the market would indicate. I have discussed with the City Assessor the projected value of your property subsequent to the combination of the two lots. The Ai,sessor has indicated that in these types of situations the valuation of the new homestead lot generally increases somewhat. How ’ever, this increase is less than the original value of the adjacent undeveloped lot. This results in the overall valuation of the total property being reduced, although the valuation of the new homestead lot will be increased. To illustrate this, take the example of a homestead property with a value of $350,000, and an adjacent lot under the same ownership with a value of $ 100,000, for a total of $450,000. If the two lots are combined and made unsubdividable, the value of the new combined lot would generally be lower than the original combined value of $450,000. The value might be $400,000. This value is greater than the original value of the homestead lot because the homestead lot is now significantly larger. The value of the new homestead lot would continue to be lower than the two separate lots, unless the market began to put a premium on larger lots, in which case the value may increase significantly. To summarize, it appears that by combining the two lots the overall valuation of the total property will be reduced. However, it also appears that the valuation of the new combined homestead property will be higher than the value of the current homestead property. As indicated above, the city does not have the authority to set a value for a property that is less than the market value of the property. If you have further questions regarding your property's valuation, please call me at 473-7357, or Rolf Erickson the City Assessor at 473-1844. Sincerely, Ronald J.'Moorse City Administrator Tdepbone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 r City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minn. 55323 Dear City Officials, received NOV 2 I 1997 CITY OF ORONO Thank you for allowing me to join the sewer project recently completed on North Brown Road. Because of the requirement that this project be for lots that adjoin the project it is necessary for me to join my two properties back into one parcel. I do not know what the real existing value of this two acre lot Is, but I do know that it is a considerable amount of money and will escalate in value over the next 10 to 15 years. It is a large investment to give up even though we are pleased to have a sewer system we can count on not to fail as a new septic system would have. What I am very concerned about is the effect on my property tax evaluation that the addition of the new sewer and the two acre lot to my existing property will have over the years that I live here. My feeling is that I will see a very significant increase over what it would have been following the status quo. The cost to me for the new sewer, hook-up charges, and sac charge, Is over $25,000. While the benefit of sewer is appreciated, these costs for me at this time are still somewhat of a burden. Example; I will have 2 children In college at the same time continuously over the next nine years. My request is that the city of Orono enter into an agreement with me, such that the addition of the lot to my homestead property will not increase my property value’s. In other words, this parcel is ignored during the years that I live here. It will have no Influence on my real estate tax evaluation. I understand that you cannot dictate to the county assessor, but you do have the power to lower evaluations within a certain dollar amount of the total accessed value of the city. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please advise me as to the possibilities of this request. John R. Maresh 2085 county Rd. 6 Long Lake. Mn. 55356 COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ■mm- L •IM7 Mataood frotwHowd Svoiem, Ine. Preliminary Plat Submission Drawings for I Lake Minnetonka Woods Orono, Mn. prepared for; Brook Park Realty, LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 Contact: Bill Gleason Phone; 424-8525 prepared by;w Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 104 Warty Drive, Suite 3 Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Contoct: Fran Hagen, II Phone : 682-2587 PROJCCr so. #7571 VICINITY MAP Counol 7 MMX SHEET MO. 1 COVER 2 4 PRCLMNARY PLAT 5 PRCIJMMARY SITE PLAN e PRCLMINARY GRAOIHC PLAN 7 PRCLARNARV UTILITY PLAN HO.MTS aavNieH t 11/to/97 RE'^SED SITE PLAN 7 11/25/97 ADO hammer head Preliminary Plat Submission Dawings FOR Lake Minnetonka Woods Orono, Minnesota f L AI l r ..HI i I (^»/tg/>7 J Of T J - j '1 « *1M7 Wksfaraod Profesiioniii Swvicu. me. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 2 and J, Block 9, Tomnsits of Longdon Park, Pshnspin County, Uinneaoto. and most 6.3 foot Lot 4, Block 9, Tomnsita of Longdon Park, Hannapin County, Ulnnasota. ff&artng otb Das^a on oost/mod deta. O Donotet iron menumont sot # Oonofos iron monumont found • f ' Doffotos Bjnstin^ troo hr\s GRAPHIC SCALE ] :• /' 'v \ / / N/ / /n eomnr hwy. w (PI »T NO BB| [ATr'^t Krvi'VnN^ REVISIONS 11/10/97 REVISED SITE PLAN 11/25/97 added hammer HEAD yam w*ttwood ^ 1 N«r«», ^ plawjNM^yar.4 b* in* or Ututar m, 0«AM RRW ^ «W«tD K» '' ■ROOK RARK REALTY, LLR MIS m—HOOK CII04MI. LAKE MNNETONKA WOODS '' AtMaontf ProlWMOntf itntcm. krtc HV 104 Mortf onud Ml* }OCC»D SAC CCRTnCATE OF OURVEY Wy Ml.. M 5MI5 ’ 0I2 602-lMy J . oatTmo NO 23002 ,mOOU-TN *AM, MMMMTA M444 OMONO, ML t ot 7 J mm •l««7 W»ftt»ood Pfo^Msionol StrvteM, Inc. MTIMTA SITE AREA - CROSS EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING landuse plan PROPOSED TOWNHOME UNITS PROPOSED density - GROSS PROPOSED density - NET MTl ANCAI SITE AREA - GROSS mtTLANOS SITE AREA - NET LOT AMAO outlot a outlot e LIVINGSTON AVE. ROW HENN. CO. HWY 15 ROW AVERAGE LOT AREA AVERAGE BLDG. AREA / UNIT LOT ATI FRONT BLOG. SETBACK REAR BLDG. SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK SIDE Y\RO BETWfEN BUILDINGS LIVING AREAS GARAGES PARKING - REQUIRED/PROVIDEO PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) 452,666.1SF (9.9AC.1) LR-1C-1 LR-1C-1 LA-2 (RESIDENTIAL) 30 3.0 UNITS / AC. (3.0 ALLOWABLE) 3.9 UNITS / AC. (4 0 ALLOWABLE) 432,666 1SF (9 9AC.±) 98.970.0SF (2.2AC.±) 333.696.1 SF (7.7AC.±) 70.501SF (1.6AC.±) 272.368SF (6.2AC.±) 37,351SF (0.9AC.±) 3.741SF (0.1AC.±) 1.687SF 9972ST (0.3AC.±) ■rraMKO * REQUIRED 30FT 30FT 10FT 20FT TOTAL MINIMUM 20FT TOTAL MINIMUM PROVIDED 15FT 35FT 30FT 20FT TOTAL MIN. 20FT TOTAL M«N. 2.5 PER UNIT 4.0 PER UNIT 17-117- 23- 34-0005 17-117-23-34-0006 17-117-23-34-0007 17-117-23-34-0008 17-117-23- 34-0009 ♦ NOTE. MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS ARE MEASURED TO PUBLIC ROW AND EXTERIOR PROJECT BOUNDARY. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 2. 3 AND THE WEST 6.29 FEET OF LOT 4. BLOCK 9. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON HEIGHTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD THERE Of. HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA. these plans were prepared by or under the direct SUPERVISION Of; FRAN HAGEN II. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 17716FRAN HAGEN II. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 17716 SCOTT GYLLEN. REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 23002 ROB BOUTA. ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST (VCTLANDS) PROPERTY OWNER: TONKA VENTURE. L.L.C 200 COON RAPIDS BLVD. SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55433-5894 DEVELOPER BROOK PARK realty . UP 8525 EDINBROOK CROSSING BROOKLYN PARK, MN. 55443 A I bz 30 -4 X^’ REAR BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE BLOCK NUMBER LOT LINE LOT NUMBER LOT DIMENSION SIDEWALK FRONT BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE driveway TYPICAL LOT NOT Pon CONSTRUCTION REVISIONS 11/10/97 REVISED SITE PLAN 11/25/97 ADDED HAMMER HEAD A Wostwood » Drt«* i Voa X^2300; •NOOK NARK RtALTV, LLP MM WNMOOK CRMMM MOOKLTN PARK, MNNRSOTA SB44S LAKE MMNCTONKA WOODS ORONO, MN. 'PRELMINAY PLAT t •1997 Westwood P'-ofessiOT'oi Se«vice?». frc. HENN. CO. HWY. 15 .: !=J T 'S30 TYPICAL LOT REAR BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE BLOCK NUMBER LOT NUMBER LOT DIMENSION LOT UNE SIDEWALK FRONT BUILDING SETBACK TO LOT LINE DRIVEWAY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION n SO 100 ISO X REVISIONS n/10/97 REVISED SITE PLAN n 125/97 added hammer head Wsstwood * Mr«6( .mu*y i *«ct I I'tG. NO----- OAA^ WH/GO OCOCD HH L Arris RrviTii'iN"; : • /2s. MOOK PARK REALTY, UP ffff ■■■HOOK CKOOMW ■HOOKLVN KAir JMHiMTA SS44S LAKE MMNETONKA WOODS ONONO, MM. PRELMMAY SITE PLAN •1997 Westwood P/o(e*aional Stvices. Inc. 3 :l if'il lIlP REVISIONS 11/10/97 REVISED SITE PLAN 11/27/97 ADDED HAMMER HEAD A W«stwood «M«M« >rin^j Sm^km. Me 104 M«rty Oh* OuM* 9 Bwftcfc. Mi 9«»1J *•2 tn'M’ ' MRCMrsH Si.'ppo»r 5ttu 0» M* MlUM WA •-KX) «>osr inTW »A8<»IC attach sicyBUY TO JPS'BfAAi sot or PO^iT PWWSJl 3fe„. ap STAMDAWD DETAM. TTTN'M SA’-vf B*CKT.;-. Nl Cf ■i'iAR* 2 RfMOvfD aO»«NT »«A4l « DCPOSHIC TO Ah APIA That Mi. IIOT CONTPMiTf SHNM»N» Off SiTt ANO CAN 0C PCPMANI n TIT ALTEWNATE OTTM. •Wfldv'M imH CRA^l 9LT FBiCE LEGEND DBMons Bxjsrme emnouns aumns pnopoaED comtou* OEMons EnawK stokm swwem DMMOnS PKOPOSMO STOHM SKWMM OKMOTE8 Mjasrme mt uta OMMOnS PKOPOSMB T/OM UMM BKMons SILT nna NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION X tG NO 17716 Odom rOH. II BROOK BARK RBALTV, LLP MM ■■■■OBK CW0A4W MOOKLVN PARK, WHHiMTA M444 LAKE MBMETOiaCA WOODS ORONO. MR. LATENT At ,,|.;iy^-^' \ PACLMMAY t/*8/47 iik. J . 4 of T , •1997 ftestKoo! Pio<««onol Int LEGEND aMMons MasTwe SAamuir smwbk Damns moFoau aumuir aaaaa Damns aaonm anau saaaa Damns pmpoaaD arow sawas Damns aaunm WDnanam Damns pmmaaa WAmaum NOT FOR CONtTRUCnON LATEST REVISIONS n/tO/3'’ REVISED SITE ELAN 11/2S/9.’ added hammer HEAD I that ■n2HS BROOK PARK RCALTY, LLP asas HMNMIOOK cnoswm BROOKLYN RANK, MBMIBOTA BBAAB LAKE MNMETONKA WOODS ORONO, MM. PMEUMMAY imLITV PLAN DATE•mm JOB NO