The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-13-1998 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 13,1998,7:00 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. COUNCIL MEETINQ APR 13 1998 cmr OF ORONO ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Recognition of Bruce Anderson - Resolution 3. Area Fire Chiefs Presentation APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of March 9,1998 5. Regular Meeting of March 23,1998 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jan Berg, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 6. #2308 Brook Park Realty, 3760 Shoreline Drive - Class III Preliminary Subdivision Planned Residential Development 7. #2341 Daniel J. Anderson, 905 Old Cr>stal Bay Road South - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution 8. #2348 Mary Jane Hauser, 1 540 Bohns Point Road - Variances - Denial Resolution 9. #2350 Kevin & Lisa Olsen/James & June Touve, 4196 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Class I Subdivision 10. Park Dedication Amendment - Ordinance 11. Park Dedication Fees: Residential and Commercial/Industrial Land - Resolutions MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 12. Fcmdale Road Project Update CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 13. 1998 Insurance Award V 14. Approval of Le.-^ve of Absence for Mark Thornton V 1 5. Appointment of 1-ull-Time Community Service Officer V 16. Appointment of Part-Time Community Serv ice Officer 17. Approval of Voice/Data Comniunications Consultant 1 8. Approval of Voice Mail System Implementation 19. Reconsideration of Amendment to Industrial Zone Moratorium ^ 20. Citv Recorder Contract Termination (Information Only) AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 13,1998, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT * 21. LICENSES * 22.. BILLS UPCOD^G pSl^^ND EVENTS 1998 04/13 04/20 04/22 04/25 04/26 04/27 05/02 05/04 05/06 05/09 05/11 05/18 05/25 05/26 Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Board of Review, 7:00 p.m. Joint Orono/Long Lake Cleanup Day, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. March for Parks, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Goodwill Collection Day, 9:00 a.m. -1 :00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee, 5:30 p.m. Joint Orono/Long Lake Cleanup Day-Construction Debris Only, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Holiday - Observance of Memorial Day Council Meeting Public A ttendance Meeting D ate C ouncil Planning commission □ Park C ommission □ Other ___________ Please fill out the information requested below for our city records . i:. COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 10, 1998 CnYOFORONO ITEM NO: S Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Recognition of Bruce Anderson - Resolution The City has traditionally recognized police ofTicers as they reach the milestone of 20 years of service with the City. Bruce Andereon reached this milestone in March of 1998. A resolution recognizing Bruce Anderson for his 20 years of dedicated service to the City is attached for Council iJoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution recognizing Bruce Anderson for his 20 years of faithful service to the City and its citizens. I A RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation; WHEREAS, the City does take the opportunity to recognize employees; and WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson became a police officer with the Orono Police Department in March, 1978; and WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson was assigned the rank of corporal with the Orono Police Department on January 16, 1995; and WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson has demonstrated a responsiveness to the community; and WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson has received many commendations from the Department and letters of support from citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council recognizes the twenty years of faithful service to the City and its citizens by this resclution. Adopted by the Orono City '^'^uncil on this day of , 1998. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk r Maple Plain Fire Department 1997 Report Number of %cftrre Personnel Type of Calls Non* Ineident Related Time Trainina Ai' bags used or vehicieE Apparatus Fann I anzat on Base Pump Training CC Alams and Response Defensive Drivirg Errergercy Medical Tech Refresher ^Ire Behavor Fire Control Geneva Cire Preplan Hazmat Awa-eness anc Oserations Ladder Tram ng Proper use of SCBA Rail Cars Refresher - First Responcer Relay pumping Ropes and Knots SCBA Yearly Fit Test Strategic and Tactical Operat ons Vehicle extract on / Ca' f res liass 13 6 22 16 0 3 24 12 13 10 14 14 0 1 26 14 12 49 13 Sub Total ^2 Total Number of Hours Calls spent Hours Fire/Explosion 32 10%458 Good Intent Call 17 5%169 Hazardous Condition 46 15%346 Other False Call 30 10%245 Other Situation 12 4%364.5 Rescue Calls (Mec cal & Auto Accidents)168 54%1751 89 Service Call 5 2%50 Total Number of Calls 310 3384.39 Standby 21 97 Maintenance Work 57 135 Departmental Meeting/Project 100 255 Data Entry 23 67 5 Sub Total 201 554 5 Personnel Personnel Attended Hours 13 6 52 32 0 72 72 24 26 25 26 42 0 10 71.5 28 12 171 26 4649.4 Baker Park 4 1% Independence 107 35% Medina 2 1% Maple Plain 148 48% Minnetrista 17 5% Orono 20 6% Out of District (mutual Aid)12 4% for loot half of 1997 wlH bo paid on 4691.9 houra @ $1.04 Par hour Prepared by Troy Denneson COUNCIL MEETNQ APR 13 1998 cmroFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 10,1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Area Fire Chiefs Presentation At a recent meeting between the Orono Police Chief and the Fire Chiefs of the four Fire Departments that serve Orono, the Fire Chiefs indicated they would like to attend a Council meeting to have an opportunity to meet the Council and respond to any questions or concerns the Council had regarding fire service. The four Chiefs are as follows; Mike Brown, Fire Chief, Long Lake Fire Department Greg Pederson, Fire Chief, Mound Fire Department Dave Eisinger, Fire Chief, Maple Plain Fire Department Paul Klapprich, Fire Chief, Wayzata Fire Department COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 CrTYOWWDMO ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 9, 1998 The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members Present. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Sahara Peterson and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, Public Semces Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Shcrr>’ Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #12 and 17 were added to the Consent Agenda. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998 Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Cit> Council Meeting of February 23, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Park Commission Chair McDermott reported that Amelia Kroeger was presented with the Friend of the Parks Award at their last meeting Kroeger would like to see a recycling program started at Bcdei^vood Park McDermott said the OBA has requested to amend their contract regarding use of Bederwood for baseball to allow one extra night of play for the intermediate, or 13 year old, level. This would affect 28 Orono students if all played baseball. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 («) MARCH FOR PARKS PROPOSAL McDermoll distributed samples of the pledge form, which will P-irk Commissioner Use has investigated the national program, which involves obtaining p edges ™ walking or biking to raise fitnds for parks^ The --yM^d UnfL^ Lkiindav ADriPb from 10:00 a m to3:00p.m. The Ctties ot Mound, Long L^e, and M^euista w dl also be involved The ftrnds will be raised for Park Commission is recommending the funds be used for a short court basketball at ^minrPark or for landscaping of parks McDermott indiejt^ed of funds using park dedication funds was discusKt^ as well He asked support and assistance with this event. He noted that remote parktng mth shuttles "lay occur to Bederwood from the school and etty office areas due to hmtted parkmg at Bedetwood Park. Walkers will walk from the park towards Long Lake. Bikers bike from the park towards Minnetrista. Kelley noted there are only about 20 parking spaces at Bederwood Jabbour co^ that the area by McCulley Road could be used as an alternate site Gappa fell that site would be too muddy. Flint said he supported the activity but was also concerned with parking. Kelley suggested the option of using the Orono School s parking lot, and using ihe Old Crystal Bay Road trail from the school and city offices, where the btkers and walkers can travel to the Luce Line and split off from there. He noted that it would be impossible to shuttle the bikers if need be Jabbour suggested McDermott speak with school district representatives. Sherokee Use will be the contact person for the City of Orono. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Park Commission's proposal for a March for Parks event. Staft'vvill present Council with a proclamation at the next Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Chair Sandra Smith had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public conunents ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (Agenda item ^4 was moved to later in the agenda due to the absence of the applicant.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998(US) #2323 TIM NELSON ON BEHALF OF DAVID POMIJE, 3120 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2323 at the request of the applicant. Kelley asked how long the Council should contirme tabling the application. Moorse referenced the memo from City Planner Van Zomeren noting the need to obtain an agreement from the applicant for an extension of the 60 day period. Barrett suggested passing a motion for denial if the agreement for an extension is not received. He indicated that a majority of the 60 day period has passed. Barrett said Staff can determine if the applicant agrees to tabling the application and revisit it at the ne.xt meeting. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2323 upon receipt in writing of an agreement granting an additional 60 day time period. If the agreement is not received, the motion will revert to a denial of the application Peterson noted the conflicting application numbers between the packet information and the referenced memorandum. Moorse said he would correct the error. Kelley asked how much time would be allowed to receive the extension from the applicant. Jabbour amended the motion, Peterson seconded the amendment to the motion, that the agreement for a 60 day extension of the application process be received by the end of the business day on Wednesday, March 11, for tabling of the application or the application will be denied. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4043 Tom Dillon and John O'Sullivan were present. Gaffron reported that the application was presented to the Council at their February 23 meeting, where the commercial site plan was approved on a 3:1 vote. Staff was directed to draft a resolution for approval with findings for hardcover and front yard parking setback variances. The resolution includes 17 conditions on the development. Gaffron said there were some items still needing to be resolved, including the formal vacation of Navarre Lane before development commences and calculations regarding the number of sewer units to be charged prior to issuance of the building permit. Gaffron said the general issues have been addressed. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (Uft - U'>'S7f> Orono Development - Continned) Dillon indicated that he has received a copy of the resolution and was satisfied with its contents. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4043. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson. (#7) #2327 aaONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC - B-5 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Gaffron reported that the code amendment is in conjunction with the previous application but is a separate item. The applicants ha\ e requested that the B-5 district standards be amended to included coffee and bagel shops as conditional uses. The B-5 district has not previously included any restaurant uses. Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance for such an amendment Gaffron met with applicants regarding the possible conditions for such uses as listed on page one of the memo, #1-4. Gaffron indicated that the reasoning behind limiting the percentage of gross floor area of an individual building was to eliminate the possibility of the use being conducted in a free standing building. Gaffron reported that the discussions resulted in staft'concluding that the City's goals could be accomplished through the following conditions; 1 ) The use shall not exceed 50% of the building area This would eliminate the possibility of a free-standing restaurant and concerns surrounding its potential for reuse as another type ot restaurant not allowed by code, 2) the coffee or bagel store shall not exceed 2,000 s.f in gross floor area or 4000 s.f for the combined coffee/bagel use; and 3) the use must meet parking requirements for the total site. An ordinance is included in the information packet. The ordinance makes such use a conditional use, which must be reviewed and approved by Council each time the use is requested. Gaffron noted that the B-5 district is limited in area, while pointing the specific areas out on a map, and recommended approval. Jabbour asked if these uses were appropriate to all the B-5 district in Orono. Gaffron said he did not believe the use would present any problems in these areas that abut residential and noted that further conditions could be placed on the use as well. Jabbour said it was important that no precedent is being set. He does not believe the code should be changed to accommodate one application. He did note, however, that times have changed and the list of allowed uses needs revision Gaffron said he has noted that the code standards for each business district should be updated to fit today's needs. It was noted that the amendment is not specific to the applicant ’s property, and he will have to apply for a conditional use permit at the time a specific user is identified. Jabbour asked the applicant if this was what was understood. He added that an applicant cannot apply for a use that does not exist. Dillon said he had not understood it in this manner but would do what is necessary. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (U7 - U2327 Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Kelley commented that some bagel shops are actually restaurants. He asked if this use could be allowed in the B-5 district. GafFron said, while the bagel use will include some sit-down seating, it is not specifically defined as a Class I or 11 restaurant. Jabbour said his concern would be that the use would grow into something that does not fit their understanding. Gafifron said the placement of conditions can control that from occurring. Kelley tioted that many cf the bagel shops include full menus, while others only sell bagels. He would like to see a clear definition of what is being considered. He asked Council to consider how intense the use should be. Jabbour said if the Council feels the sit-down use is appropriate, it should not be confused with a full-fledged restaurant, which he views differently. Gafifron said his vision for this use is a 2000-4000 s.f shop similar to a Caribou Coffee. He said the Council should revisit the issue if they are not comfortable with it as presented. Jabbour said he was supportive of the requested uses with a limited space allotment. He noted that these restrictions are sometimes pushed to their limits and sees the need to document the Council's intent for amending the code. Gafifron commented that there was a relatively strong possibil'ty that someone could make an application that would stretch the limits of the amendment. He questioned where the City will draw the line when a slightly different type of use is requested. Jabbour supported applicant's right to request an amendment but would like to see controls in place that limit the use. Goetten agreed with Jabbour. Peterson questioned whether the use could be confined to only the coffee and bagel use. Jabbour felt the size of the establishment w ould limit the use. Goetten asked if more detail is required. Kelley said he would suppon the use with no seating. He felt adding seating would change the use. Goetten countered that coffee shops usually having some seating. Kelley asked if the use should be in the B-1 district. Jabbour said a full-fledged restaurant could be built in that district. Gafifron concurred that the B-1 allows for both Class I and II restaurants. Jabbour felt if the use wa^ a conditional use as proposed w ith documentation and history behind the amendment, the City would have more protection from misuse. Kelley said he would agree vs ith Goetten regarding the need for some seating but would like the seating limited in number Goetten felt this request was reasonable. Peterson agreed Gaflron noted when considering the square footage limitation and the likelihood that halt of the space would be for a work station, there would typically be about a 30'x30' section available for sealing for an individual bagel or coffee use. 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#7 - #2327 Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Peterson asked if there was adequate parking to support this use. Gaffron indicated that only two more spaces than for a retail store would be required for the use at the applicant's property, which is met by his proposed site plan. Kelley asked if the resolution as drafted would limit the conditional use for seating purposes. Gaftron indicated it did not, and recommended a limitation be placed on seating at this time. Barrett agreed. Gaffron said he was not sure what number of seating should apply. Jabbour informed the applicant to limit the use to distinguish it from the B-1 district uses and market it as such. Leisel Cox, owner of a coffee shop on CoRd 15, asked the Council to consider traffic. She indicated that she has one customer every minute. Jabbour noted that the ingress/egress was better on CoRd 19 than on CoRd 15. Dillon said he had not contemplated the amount of seating. He noted that he had requested outside seating be allowed as well. Jabbour suggested tabling the application to flmher review the issue of seating. Kelley suggested polling coffee shops to see how much seating is necessary. He did not feel it should be incumbent upon the applicant to provide these figures. Kelley asked that Staff determine the number of seats for inside and outside seating. Jabbour asked the applicant to submit any seating plans they may have to Staff Jabbour polled the Council for their support of the amendment to allow the coffee and bagel shop use. All Council supported adding the use. Council agreed to have Staff review seating and make a recommendation. Hint said he was unclear what a bagel or coffee shop would include. He asked if such a shop would sell orange juice and muffins. Gaffron said this has not been discussed. He noted that most listed uses in the B-5 do not go into such detail. He did feel that some definitions were necessary. Gaffron said he would speak with other cities and users. Dillon said he thought similar shops have coolers from which they sell bottled water, juice, and pop, and may have muffins as well. The primarj’ focus would be on bagels Jabbour noted that the two uses are compatible and sometimes overlap. Gaffron indicated that the code presents a problem with not setting very detailed performance standards for each district or use He felt the potential problems that have been noted suggest a need for setting such standards. 1 M e r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#7 - #2327 Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Flint said he did not object to the use but only wanted some clarification He does not bllieve everything can be listed but some guidelines are necessaiy for whatever is being envisioned. Jabbour reviewed for Staff that the Council supports the change to the ordinance and find baneUnd c”ke shops appropriate uses The use could include cold and warm dnnks Md a variety of muffins. The Council would like to see some limitations placed on use to limit expansion. Inside and outside seating will also require review. Goetten asked about a portable use. Barrett responded that the shop would still most Liy ha- e a kitchen. He suggested Council consider whether food can be order. Barrett suggested the possibility of adding another restaurant class. III, to limi Jabbour suggested Staff review the matter with Barrett. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2327. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. O-kullivan asked about the time frame of the review and whether the entire B-5 use list wll^be rerield noted that cellular phone sales was not Included on the list and Za nossffi"nt. Jabbour informed O'Sullivan that the Council has other prionty items that will take precedence before a full review is done of the ‘’'h/.'^he need said the City would like to do a comprehensive review. Gafiron concurred t ,0 review such matters is necessao', but it will not happen in „„ informed O'Sullivan that he can apply for any use, but approval wou ^ ^ be Council and their viewpoint. Gaffron said if the use was a similar use, » can appeal for a finding of similarity, if not similar, an applicant wou ave anZd the code JabbSur noted that any use needs to fit in with the vision of the B-5. m) #2326 BRUCE NEWTON, 3580 FREDERICK STREET - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4044 The Applicant was present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property The aPpli««o" “ ““ fact rear setback variance for a deck replacement that V Commission recommended unanimous approval of the vanance As a condi ion of the appTva the applicant has agreed to provide a portion of the roadway crossing the property and the area 5 behind the curP as no leg y SLribed easement has been recorded Bressler reported >ha his po^ of the road been used by the City for many years, and the easement will clarify MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 {US - #2326 Bruce Newton - Continued) Mr Newton said the deck has been in place for 23 years, and he just replaced it. He reported having read the resolution and is satisfied with it. It was noted that the one year stipulation for using the variance would not apply in this case as the deck replacement as already occurred. Barrett asked that the decision to grant the easement should be be a condition o^f the approval. He suggested this be removed, and the applicant asked separate y i e wo allow the easement to be granted over the portion of the property in question. The applicant agreed. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4044 for a rear setback variance. The motion dofs not include the easement as noted above. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would grant the easement tor the road. The applicant agreed to do so. 4045 The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for the next phase of the master plan for the Lakeview Golf Course The plan calls for grading for two project The expand the tees and creation of a pond for hole #18 near the northeaster v ^If course. The second is an expansion of teesand creation of a pond near the of*' course between the 4th green and 5th tee t his expansion would include grading within 26’of a wetland requiring a variance in addition to the conditional use permit for grading in excess of 500 cubic yards There will be no significant impact to the wetlands The City Engineer has asked for culvert invert elevation readings to ensure th« the culverts win handle the runotf. The fill will be balanced on site. Gaffron said Staff recommends approval of the application. Jabbour asked if the pond acreage being created is bankable. Gaffron said diis has not be^n investigated. He acknowledged that potential banking of wetland credits a top that needs to be resolved He suggested re%iewing with City Attorney. Kelley noted that Wenkstern has done a beautiful job with the golf course. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#9 - ~2338 Grant VVenkstem/Lakeview Golf - Continued) Peterson asked Kellogg to respond to the reference in the City Engineer's letter regarding a 10:1 bench, now shown at 3:1. She asked if this was an appropriate change Kellogg indicated that a 10:1 bench establishes an aquatic buffer as a safety factor but is not desirable on a golf course. He did not believe this was a big issue and would support the 3:1 bench. Gaffron concurred. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4045 granting a variance and conditional use permit to Lakeview Golf Course for land alterations involving expansion of the 5th and 18th tees and creation of two ponds Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The motion had been amended as it originally only included the variance without the CUP.) (#10) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY PLAT The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminary plat review of the 1.9 acre parcel proposed for three building sites. The property had been subdivided in the past as part of a larger subdivision and now consists of three lots which were legally combined. The property is located in the 1/2 acre zoning district, and the lots meet that requirement. The Planning Commission reviewed the application both as a sketch plan and preliminary plat. The main issue for discussion is access. A 3-lot subdivision typically calls for a private road. This was originally proposed as a backlot configuration. The Planning Commission and Staff have concluded that a 50' corridor should be established for a road to potentially connect Birdi Lane to Tonkawa. The Long Lake Fire Chief was present at the Planning Commission meeting and noted the difficulty with access for emergency vehicles when road systems are minimized. He cited a recent problem gaining access to a fire in a home. Staff recommended bringing a road to at least the west end of the property with a cul-de- sac. The applicant proposed a road that ends with a T that would be functional for the fire department to use as a turnaround. This is the fire department's least desired option; they would prefer a through road and cul-de-sac. The neighbors, however, find a number of problems with having a connecting road. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Conlinued) Gaffron indicated that Staff is today in receipt of a stormwater plan, but it has not yet been reviewed by Staff Gaffron said he would recommend that the application be tabled affer discussion of the proposal. Staff recommended a private road be platted with an underlying easement to the City. Gafifron asked Council to consider whether the 42' in width for the outlot added to the 8' of adjacent easement will satisfy the 50 ’ corridor. It will have to be confirmed by the City Attorney that the city has roadway rights over the 8'. The Council is asked to determine whether the corridor should serve as a link to connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa. Gaffron indicated that the applicant has asked for a 17' credit towards hardcover if he gives more than 25' for the road as he would lose area that could be considered in the hardcover calculations Gaffron said Staff reluctantly supports that request. He noted that larger homes could be built if there were only two lots instead of three. One lot includes the existing house but the garage is located over the proposed lot line requiring further review. Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion #1 through #5 as noted on page 4 of the memo. Mr. Render said he would like to create three lots with similar size homes to the neighborhood with about 4000 s.f of hardcover. Render said he is not in favor of the cul-de-sac option due to the public landing nearby. He agreed with the need for good planning indicating a possible need to connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa in the future. He reiterated his request for a hardcover variance to offset the property given for a road easement Render said the only other issue of concern is the requirement for a NURP pond. He said the proposed pond has been pulled back on the property to protect two large oak trees. He feels the rate of flow can be handled without requiring a NURP pond. He suggested the possibility of making a cash contribution to the Watershed for mitigation Jabbour informed the applicant that the City of Orono requires that all mitigation be on site. He would not support any cash contributions in lieu of ponding on site. Jabbour said, while he is not an advocate of the cul-de-sac requirement in the code, a cul- de-sac cannot be selectively chosen. Jabbour felt it is best to look at the issue comprehensively He felt it would be better not to have a cul-de-sac if the concerns of the fire department could be addressed He felt the road should be 28' wide. Gaftron said he is obligated to defend the code. He suggested the code be amended if the Council is not comfortable with it as written. Jabbour said he is also concerned with violating the Comprehensive Plan by having a private road in an urban area L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Kelley disagreed with Jabbour. He felt it was appropriate to have a cul-de-sac with a 28' wide road. Kelley said the lots will be restricted in hardcover and no parking will be available for these homes with a small narrow driveway. A 28' road with cul-de-sac would enable more cars to park and enable fire trucks to better access the properties if need be. Kelley noted that roads also become narrower in the winter months with snow storage. Jabbour did not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement as it would set a precedent. Goetten agreed. Jabbour asked if the NURP pond was considered hardcover. Gaflfron said it was not allowable towards the defined lot area, but he noted hardcover credit has normally been given for w’etlands in the past, and logic would support giving hardcover credit for a pond as it is similar to wetlands Goetten is concerned with having a snowball effect with a 28 ’ road, cul-de-sac, and a future connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She feels the connection is not necessary and would impact the neighbors. She felt the connection road would be used by drivers to by-pass major roads even if it is a private road. She reiterated she would not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement. Goetten felt a large cul-de-sac for three lots was more than necessary. She felt the T would be sufficient if it adequately provided for the fire department needs. Goetten indicated she also supports the need for the NURP pond. Jabbour polled the Council He noted that if the cul-de-sac w as eliminated, a reason would have to be established as the code calls for the cul-de-sac He noted this has been a concern in other small subdivisions in the last few' years. Gaffron indicated that there are many rural 3-lot subdivisions with cul-de-sacs. Gaffron cited e.xamples of where cul- de-sacs were and were not used. Goetten indicated that the need for cul-de-sacs has been reviewed case by case. Jabbour indicated that if the Council agrees with a hammerhead style, they would then be agreeing that it is a suitable substitute. Moorse noted that the requirement for a cul-de-sac is to enable a fire truck to turnaround He said that with smaller lots trucks do not have to go as far into the property, and this can be used as a reason for a T versus a cul-de-sac He noted the fire chief indicated that a f is adequate but not as easy for the trucks to maneuver. Moorse suggested reviewing the length of the road may be a consideration on whether a cul-de- sac should be required MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on march 9, 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) clariHed for Goe>,e„ ,ha. .here is an easement for .he sewer as well as an access ^Iley indicated that fires where no hydrants are available are fought by settinc un a uncil is charged with protecting the citizens' health, safety, and welfare. Goetten said she would support the han -head if no credit is allowed for hardcover detemune in advL"ce h^^hTwlw gZaccess ”VroSil'’'hfd^^^^^^^^ itnautltd ^:hhtrr„r^- Jabbour reported that there are four lire departments that work within the Citv Hp would norr^eive !reS'rrd “' =^'‘' -inre was given for public inpu.TtheS;' ^1"^. be used in order to use lake ivaier h • ^ He suggested a suction box lake is no. "se".o f'h. t? ' fe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Carlson indicated that the low portion of Birch Lane is in a flood plain. He asked how far the flood plain extends. Jabbour suuuested Carlson discuss the issue with staff' He noted that the Watershed District was redefining the flood plain, and this is a concern for the Comprehensive Plan update. Jabbour informed Carlson that the Council will be discussing stormwater at their work session. Carlson asked that an answ'er be given regarding the possible connection of Birch Lane as it w ill affect many homes. Mr. Lindner, 3440 North Shore Drive, reported that there are 4 homes serv’ed on his 10' driveway. He noted that the fire chief had indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that a fire truck must be within 500' of a pool to serve a property. Lindner said all of the homes located in the back of the area can be served from CoRd 51 so questioned why access needs to be provided elsewhere for the equipment. He felt a 28 ’ road was not aesthetically pleasing, noting there are smaller roads in the City. Lindner said he has experienced problems with having the Maxwell Bay access nearby. He felt the road would add to that problem, and he would be further affected if the road was connected. Lindner noted there is no room for children to play in front of the homes and the road would eliminate the ability for the children to play in the rear of the homes. Lindner reported that his home is 1500 s.f and others were about 2000-2500 s.f He questioned how the proposed 4000 s.f homes would fit in to the neighborhood. Render responded that the 4000 s.f includes all hardcover, including driveway. Lindner said he would like to see the property divided into two lots only and asked that no variances be allowed. Ed Engler, 3450 Birch Lane, reported that Birch Lane ends at his garage. He noted the large amount of traffic due to the public launch, the public access, and nearby marinas resulting in no shelter trom traltic tor many ot the neighDors. it the road was connected, it would increase this problem. He felt the road connection would be dangerous and create an unhealthy situation Debra Robertson, 3440 North Shore Drive, said the 10 ’ driveway has sensed the four homes for over 30 years with no problems. It baffled her to think that a 28' road was required to serve three homes Robertson reported that Birch Lane did run through the property 80 years ago and a trade for access to Crystal Bay w as made for CoRd 51 . The road connection would result in their losing their access to North Arm, and the properties would be surrounded by three roads causing increased traffic Jabbour reported that the reason a 28 ’ road w as recommended was due to the vision of it becoming a public road in the future He said the Council is obligated to recommend access that would accommodate fire trucks Jabbour said the council is aware that the area is congested and is attempting to control it as much as possible He said it is not the Council's vision to surround homes w ith roads. 13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (U\0 - U2329 Janies Render - Continued) Mark Gronberg commented that the hammerhead is an approved fire truck turnaround in many cities He noted that the uniform fire code calls for a 20' road. He also referenced the close proximity to Tonkawa. Gronberg added that the three lot subdivision would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Goeiten asked if Jabbour did not visualize the street going through, what width he felt the road should be and whether private or public. Jabbour responded that this is the best time to obtain an underlying easement. He asked the Council whether the City needs the easement and how wide it should be and how long the road should be. Peterson said she agreed with Kelley that the Council is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its community but noted that qualify of life is also important. She felt a narrower road was appropriate for the neighborhood. Jabbour said he agreed with Moorse in questioning if the intent of the code can be met without having to build a major road while providing fire protection for the homes. He does not feel the welfare of the people would be placed in Jeopardy but questioned where the new residents will park. Kelley commented that the first three homes access on CoRd 51 and that is the logical place for access for all of the homes Council members agreed. He noted that if all of the homes were being plotted today, all six lots could access from a 28' easement at the rear, but he understands that this is not possible. Jabbour concurred that the Council must work with what is there. Render suggested an alternative of a 25' road easement on the property at this time. In the ftiture if more roadway is needed, easements can be acquired from other properties. Jabbour agreed. Oatfron was asked to venty that there is lo‘ of easement now and the 1 7' additional feet would equal the 25'. Gaflron said he would have to confirm with City Attorney Barrett that the 8' easement could be used for a road. Gronberg indicated that information indicated it was a road easement and not a driveway easement. Jabbour asked Council if the easement is necessary'. Kelley said the minimum amount of easement should be 33'. Flint said he also favored the 33' easement but did not support the road going through. Peterson and Goetten agreed Goetten said she assumed this did not include any credit for hardcover. Jabbour confirmed that it did not. He noted the applicant would also be required to mitigate on site for ponding. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Jabbour reiterated that the plan should include a 25' easement for a total of 33'. There would be no hardcover credit for the road, and the applicant would have 16' for a driveway. A hammerhead style turnaround would be acceptable with parking at the end of it. Kelley said he would not support any proposal without a cul-de-sac and 28' road. Peterson asked what size cul-de-sac would be required. Gaffron said it would normally require an 80' paved surface to provide the necessary benefits. Jabbour suggested all properties likely would be served from Tonkawa for fire emergencies and the hammerhead would provide the needed parking space for the residences. Jabbour reiterated the outlot would be 25' plus 8' for a total of 33' for the easement. The road would be 16' wide with a hammerhead. No variances would be allowed for lot area, lot width, setback, or hardcover. Jabbour questioned whether credit would be given in area for the ponding. Gaffron indicated that the pond area could be credited towards hardcover in the 75 -250 setback The credit would not be for lot area, which has been done in sewered areas only with wetlands Gaffron indicated that the pond would only afiect the one lot in which it will be placed. Gronberg noted that the attempt was to accommodate the neighborhood drainage but suggested the pond may be built to only treat these 3 lots. Gaffron indicated that the City Attorney has suggested if there was any variances that a 60-day e.xtension be requested after the initial 60-day period Jabbour asked if any variances were anticipated. Gaftron said a road width variance would be necessary. Render was asked for approval of the 60 day extension Render asked if all of the 60 days were necessary. He was informed that it would probably not take the entire time period. Render indicated the property is to close on May 1 but w'ould give approval for the extension. Barrett indicated that consent is only necessary when the City goes beyond the 60 day time period. Kelley asked for clarification on the road easements. He was informed that there was 8' on the south side as part of the 33'. With the additional 17' to the 8' on both sides, the total would be jj'. Jabbour said the 8' easement requires verification. Kelley suggested that It be stipulated in the resolution that no hardcover variance would be allowed. Gaftron said a statement of intent could be included. Kelley asked that this be done. Jabbour agreed that the City should take a more aggressive stand on this issue Harold Gillette, 3470 North Shore Drive, said he has lived in the neighborhood for 50 years. He voiced concern for the children if the road were to go through to Tonkawa Jabbour informed him that this Council felt strongly that the road should not go through at this time. IS MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Mr. Carlson asked if the Council can add language stipulating that the road will not go through in the future. Jabbour informed him that this Council cannot bind future Councils but indicated that the minutes will reflect the Council's desires. Mrs. Robertson asked if all of the neighbors were contacted regarding the application. Jabbour said any review of the road will not occur without the neighbors being contacted, Mr. Regan asked about the pond. He was informed that the pond acreage will not count against the hardcover but only applies to the one lot unless the pond is built as part of two lots. Gronberg noted that the pond is bigger due to the runoff from Tonkawa. Gaffron recommended the application be tabled for preliminary plat review noting the conceptual direction given. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2339. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) (#4) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, 1082 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to obtain an e.xtension of the time period for review of the application. If the extension is not granted by the applicant by the end of the business day on March 11, 1998, the application will be denied V'ote Ayes 5, Nays 0. Staff was asked to explain to the applicant that State Statute mandates the extension be provided (#11) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH PRELIMINARY PLAT The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminar>’ plat approval of the 17.5 acre Carpenter property. The sketch plan included 8 lots. The plan has since been revised to 7 lots. The property is located outside of the MUSA boundary and will require septic and well. A 700' road with cul-de-sac is being proposed. Gaffron reviewed the house locations. The 7 lots will be served by a private road. The 7th lot w ill have a driveway that is an extension of the private road This ha., been approved by the County. The existing residence on Lot 1 wi!> remain and will meet all setbacks. Lots 1 and 2 are technically through lots Lot widtn variances are required for Lots 2 and 3 as they do not meet the 200* width requirement at the 50' setback. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#\ \ - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) The proposed radius of the road is requested at 125'. The 275' radius requirement would impact the property's topography, lot layout, and septic sites. Gaffron noted that Lots 4, 5, and 6 are riparian lots meeting the required setbacks but will require average lakeshore setback variances. The property is affected by the bluff impact zone. Grading is being proposed for a walk out building pad for Lot 6. Gaffron reported that no grading is allowed in the bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission has asked for a 15' easement for a trail along the eastern boundary of the property. The Planning Commission has asked to keep options open regarding the trail location along Old Crystal Bay Road. It is currently proposed for the east side of the road If the trail were to be placed along the boundary' of the subject property, there are a couple of locations where the septic sites would be encroached. Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission has requested a tree, woodland, and vegetation preservation easement be placed on the property, especially in the bluff area 1 he applicant has e.xpressed his desire to maintain the naturalness of the lakeshore area The concern is with future property owners wanting a view corridor to the lake. A draft ordinance is included in the packet for an easement. Gaffron indicated that Hennepin County has asked for an additional T of right-of-way. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that a scenic parkway only requires 66' of right-of- way, and Stafl'recommended that no additional right-of-way be required The current right-of-way is 66'. Gaffron reported that no stormwater ponding has been proposed. Conceptual direction should include the stormwater pond and address the drainage issues noted by the City Engineer Gaffron indicated that if the layout is changed, the Council may want to send the application back to the Planning Commission for further review. He said the preliminary plat should be revised to eliminate any grading of the bluft'impact zone. Gaffron noted that final septic designs are needed The testing has taken place. Gaffron felt there were suitable sites for septic and may include some trench systems. Gaffron reported that an extension up to 120 days is a result of the request for a lot width variance. Jabbour questioned how the application got this far in the process without any mention of a stormwater pond Gaffron indicated that the applicant has known all along that stormwater ponding was part of the review process Jabbour asked that Staff sera letter to the Watershed District notifying them that the City of Orono will not allow cash contributions towards ponding but mitigation must take place on site. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#1 1 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Daniel Anderson indicated to the Council that if the property is walked, they would note that the land teepees up to where the existing residence is located. He said he reviewed the topography with the Watershed District and asked for their opinion. From the preliminary discussions, Anderson felt it would be somewhat of no use to have a pond. He noted that the foliage by the lakeshore catches runoft'from entering the lake. Jabbour asked Anderson how he has addressed street runoff Anderson said a concrete gutter will border the road with catch basins. The water will then run under Old Crystal Bay Road to the swamp. Jabbour said the intent of the City is not to divert water across Old Crystal Bay Road but keep runoff on the property. Gaffron noted that the City has the authority to require stormwater ponding. Jabbour reiterated his disfavor with cash contributions to the Watershed. Anderson said his plans were made from feedback received from his engineers. All Council members agreed on the need for stormwater management on the property. Jabbour informed Anderson that he will need to develop stormwater management plans. Goetten inquired of the lot sizes. Anderson said the lots are a minimum of 2 acres, some are larger. Goetten asked for clarification on what the property included. Jabbour noted that misinformation was given to Mr. Dayton regarding neighbors who are landlocked and want dock privileges. Jabbour said these properties can have two boats but be licensed to anyone. He would like Mr. Dayton to be informed of this information. The substantial vegetation of the lagoon was noted. It was emphasized that this vegetation cannot be harvested Gaffron responded that while the LMCD may feel one way about docks, City code says that dock space cannot be provided to anyone but the occupant of the property except in the B2 zoning. Gaffron said he would argue that the City has in place through the code the right to limit dockage. Anderson asked if a dock can be part of a homeowners association Gaflfon said that w ould require a joint use license, w hich does not allow dockage for lots that do not abut the lake Kelley asked if an association dock can be done through a PRD. Gaffron said under the Shoreland Ordinance, the amount of shoreline would determine the docks The shoreline amount w ould be divided by 200' to determine w hat number of docks would be allowed. He noted that this has only been done at Landmark Drive MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Kelley said he is in favor of maintaining the vegetation to the extent that the City design the access of the individual homes on Lots 5 and 6 for obtaining access down to the iake. He would like to see the bluff impact zone roped off. Goetten noted an example of where vegetation has been cut down entirely by a resident. Jabbour indicated that erosion of 2' per year has been encountered in areas where clear cutting has occurred. Anderson said he believed the property owners have the right to get to the lakeshore but agreed that this issue requires monitoring. Jabbour asked what agency gets involved with dredging. Gatfron said the DNR, Corp of Engineers, and Watershed District are notified. He indicated the City has little say in matters of historic dredging. Jabbour asked if the City had the power to locate docks. Gaffron said there are no standards in the code but the City has the ability through an easement to limit cutting through trees. Barrett said the City has the power to do as Jabbour noted but may not have done so in the past. He indicated the City has the right to control the land to the shoreline and the dock must touch the shoreline. Anderson noted that there is 60' of wetlands on Lot 6 requiring the dock to be placed closer to Lot 5. Goetten w as informed by Flint that if the trail easement was taken on the property and the trail not developed on that side of the road, the City could not go back and ask for a cash contribution to park dedication. Flint reported that the Park Commission has reviewed the trail extensively for location on the east side to an area north of the Luce Line. The trail south of the Luce Line is difficuU due to houses being so close to the road. Goetten said she thought the trail location has already been reviewed and determined. Park Commission Chair Andrew McDermott reported that the trail was reviewed recently on the site. He indicated there are problem areas on both sides of the road. It was already agreed that the trail would be located on the east side with a dedicated trail except for one piece of property on the southwest corner across from French Creek where the regional park can be accessed. There are difficult topographical areas for grading on the west side of the road requiring major retaining walls. McDermott noted where the trail location and crossing was being considered. Jabbour questioned why the road crossing does not occur where the site lines are best. Anderson indicated that cars drive fast around the road where it corners and would be an unsafe area for the trail to cross. Jabbour suggested the trail crossing be at the stop sign MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#11- #2341 Daniel J Anderson - Continued) The question of using Countv land was discussed. Jabbour noted that the County land had restrictions placed on it. The specific restrictions were unknown. Kelley suggested the trail crossing occur at Fox Street. There would then only be four properties that are of concern past that point, all of which have homes that are located back on the lots from the road. On the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road, Kelley indicated there were alot of homes close to the road that would have to be dealt with. He felt a four way stop would happen in the near future at Fox Street. Kelley indicated that with the school bus traffic and the southern portion of Orono traveling to the schools and accelerating speeds, the stop sign is inevitable. McD«,rmott suggested the road not be crossed. Kelley said it must be crossed at some point Flint agreed with the location for crossing as noted by Kelley. McDermott indicated that the costs associated with the retaining walls and vegetation would be high. Jabbour said consideration also has to be given to the difficulty in having an off-trail shoulder with the wetlands in the area Bridget Hust of Minneapolis, whose parents live at 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, noted there are restrictions on the County land in Noerenberg Park. She said her parents property is a problem with its close proximity to the road. She felt there would be a problem with acquiring an easement from the property with the pond. She questioned why the trail should be located on the east side if the developer was willing to grant an easement on their property and the neighbors desired the trail to be on the west side as well. She felt her parents property has historic value and the trail would destroy it and affect the qualify of life w ith the additional noise. Hust asked that the Council not force her parents to have to move. Jabbour clarified for Hust that the Council has not made the decision on the trail location and it would be irresponsible for the City not to keep their options open. Goetten noted that open discussion is part of the process and needs to be allowed to happen. Yves Roux, who lives on the southeast comer of Fox Street and Old Crystal Bay Road, said he has lived in the home for 10 years. He said representatives of Flennepin Parks have said that the extension of the bike path south of the Luce Line is a secondary consideration He does not believe there is a need for a scenic bike route and considers the current bike path to be an aberration. He believes the trails are not in keeping with the mral character of the City. Roux felt the City was becoming a roadway of fences and had no concern for the watershed. Roux said trees would also be affected by the trail. He would like to see detailed plans of the trail before it is built. Rue said he would not allow' any trees to be cut on his property or allow any easement to be granted. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 I (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Roux indicated that bikers do not use the bike path Rue does not allow his children to use the trail and considers it a fancy whim of the City. He does not believe Noerenberg Park is a destination for children or bikers Rue feels the thoroughfare invites additional traflRc. Jabbour explained that the road is considered a scenic road. The City's priority is for smaller roads, not larger roads. Galfron elaborated that the Comprehensive Plan labels roads for consideration as a scenic parkway to eliminate them from becoming freeways. Jabbour reported that the City took a proactive approach to CoRd 6 with a bike path. There are locations where the bike path is an extension of the road. It is not the desire of the City to have trails in ever>’one's yards. Flint said engineering will also determine trail location as well as acquisition of easements. Flint suggested the Engineer review where the right-of-way is located and the possible trail locations for engineering problems and utilities, which are located on the west side of the road north of Fox Street. It was noted that moving utility poles is an expensive venture. Rich Wysocki, 2770 Rainy Road, said his property abuts Old Crystal Bay Road on the east side. He felt consideration should be given to the fact that the builder is in favor of donating land for a trail and location of wetlands and old timbers. Hust added that alot of retaining walls would be required on both sides of the road for trails. Jabbour asked if the Park Commission's recommendation contradicted that of the Planning Commission Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission felt the City should keep their options open by taking an easement when it can and determining the location at a later date. Jabb -ur said he would agree with Flint that an easement should not be taken if it is not necessar>'. He also informed the audience that the Council does not easily condemn any property. Hust countered that her neighbor, Mr. Ellis, had land taken in the past. Jabbour indicated that the condemnation was a resulting of sewering. Flint said he was aware of the problems for a trail on the Hust property. He noted both sides of the road include problem areas. He felt the City has to make the best decision for the public. Jabbour asked whether the four neighbors on the west side have been contacted to discuss the trail. They have not been contacted. Anderson noted that if the trail easement w as taken on the property, an alternate drainage site on Lot 2 would be affected He suggested a solution of allowing an 8% slope. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#11- #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Jabbour clarified that the Council does not support taking additional right-of-way. Stormwater ponding must occur on the site. He asked Staff to review the trail i,ituation from CoRd 51 and 84 to Fox Street for options and give Council advice regarding easements. McDermott suggested that the best crossing for the trail is at the Luce Line. Flint agreed but noted that this was only one factor to consider. Peterson asked Staff to review' the Hoppe endowment at Noerenberg Park to see what restrictions are on the property noting they may affect the outcome. She felt there were too many bike trails in the City. Flint related some history of the bike trails. He said the adverse impact that was expected from the trails never occurred. He has only received praise for the trails that the City has developed. The trail where easements were not acquired is less satisfactory than it would have been if the easement had been acquired. Mr. Roux asked that the City consider demographics. He reiterated his concern with destruction of the rural character of the City. He would like the City to communicate better with the people on issues. Rue asked that engineering comments be made known to the public. Jabbour reported that the bike path is being discussed for input purposes. The final decision will be made by the Council. The only notification received by the public is for the public hearing held at the Planning Commission. Jabbour said the City makes all attempts to keep the residents informed. Hust said the decision to place the trail behind French Park was changed by the Council from the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Flint said it had been determined that the best location was along the road as it would least impact the neighborhood. Kelley said the Council needed to discuss the lot width variance, the cul-de-sac, and the tree, woodland, and vegetation preservation easement. Goetten said she supported the cul-de-sac variance and the easement. Kelley asked how large an easement should be requested for Lots 5 and 6 to create a corridor to the lake. Jabbour said the ordinance allows the residents the right to walk to the lake. He felt the width should be relative to the width of il.e steps allowed at 4' and defined that no clearing allowed beyond that limit. Anderson clarified that no clearing would be allowed beyond a 5' width. rawn for Lot 6. (^11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) from the lakeside. s on t e lot. His main concern is the view FSHSHiHHEr3rbasms would monitor the flow and the gutter will control the amount of flow satdt Anderson sr^wtr ^rai^et:;::, i?:k^ rdaS"^ - Celd'»«•■ would be posted for “o mnh He is ' n c"'' ■'“d like to see foe road placed in th! area fo'TiT'^ “'f damaging the rolling hills and would original driveway will be moved Jabbour c'n* Tn "°l®d that the eliminated. "®®"'°''®d Jabbour concluded that one of the two curb cuts will be Council agreed with the 125' radius Galfron said speed is the onlv standard and supports the 1 25' radius proposal. ^ fpp“^^^^ “ - —■y Por the time period of the 60 days is at the option of the Citv'and'hr^"'u^.i, A"d®rson agreed Barrett said the next approval Galfron s^d dt fo foWinu foe Zf ' t“ this time Anderson agreed to the extension '>® at reason for the radius MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2341 to the March 23 Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Kellogg informed Jabbour that he understood the request regarding the trail in determining the best location. Anderson will place markers along the protected vegetation areas for review by Council. Kelley suggested the applicant give information regarding hardcover to the homeowners. Jabbour suggested the use of an architectural committee. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT • DISCUSSION REGARDING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Jabbour indicated that the City did not receive any new applications for the open position on the Park Commission Moorse will provide the Council with the current applications to enable the Council to appoint a new member at the next Council meeting. Kelley asked about procedures for the time frame limitations on application processing. Jabbour said the topic will be discussed at the next work session. It was noted that the length of review time prior to Council review is resulting in applications being extended beyond the 60-day period. Goetten said a report is being prepared to send to Mn/DOT regarding the Hwy 12/CoRd 6 intersection. She asked for Council comments. Kelley said his main concern is with the evening traffic traveling westbound on CoRd 6. He would like to see an acceleration lane dedicated to the traffic coming off of Hwy 12 onto CoRd 6 to eliminate the need for these cars to stop. Goetten said that issue has not been discussed. Jabbour noted that metering may occur in the future. Goetten said she would discuss the matter with Tom O’Keefe. Kelley said he would also argue that the castbound traffic is Just as critical if trav'eling east on CoRd 6 to the interchange and needing to make a right turn onto a ramp. He suggested the lane angle off to provide for stacking. Goetten said the plans were to make the interchange as safe as possible with the least e.xpense. Kelley felt it would be short sighted of Mn/DOT to build a substandard road. He believes there will be a need for four lanes in the next 20 years. Goetten said \1n/DOT believes they are responding to the future needs. She suggested l orn O’Keefe meet with Council on this issue Jabbour agreed this would be a good idea. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Kelley said the design of Hvvy 12 and CoRd 15 is an excellent example of design and should be used in considering the Rwy 12 and CoRd 6 area. He feels development will increase towards Minnetrista. Goetten indicated that information was presented at the east and west neighborhood meetings. The preliminary design will be completed in the next few months. She indicated that the needs of Long Lake are being seen. Information is being sought on noise abatement. Jabbour noted that credit should be received from the railroad for closure of crossings. Jabbour reported that the CoRd 6 bids have been awarded and construction should occur this year. He reported that 30-40% of the right-of-way has been acquired. The CoRd 15 construction will resume shortly as well. Jabbour reported that Brook Park Realty would like to meet with the Council regarding development plans for the property in Navarre. A resolution was passed at the last work session endorsing findings on the need for a park in the Casco Point/Navarre area. A recommendation was made to acquire homes adjacent to the Navarre Park. The Council had been polled regarding a Joint venture with the developer in accomplishing these goals. The developer is in favoi of working with the Council. Flint felt this would be an excellent way to proceed to gain a win-win development for the City and applicant. He asked that the property to the west be considered as well. Jabbour said the applicant would like to have access from CoRd 15 instead of through the neighborhood. Kelley said he was in favor to working with the developer to reduce the density and create a park in the area. He felt the park was necessary for the children who live on the small lots. Jabbour asked that the meeting be scheduled for ne.xt month. ENGINEER REPORT (*#12) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #8 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Request for Payment #8, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of S26, 746.30. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4 23 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 cm' ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT (#13) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE 'TRAIL AGREEMENT Moorse reported that the agreement involves the construction of the remainder of the trail to Baker Park and on-going maintenance by Hennepin Parks. The trail will become part of the Hennepin Parks Regional Park System. Flint expressed concern with paragraph 11 regarding hazardous materials calling for the City to indemnify Hennepin Parks. Barrett said the County views the trail as the City s property and wants to be held harmless. Flint noted that the City does not own the property but has an easement. Barrett said technically the person responsible for any hazardous material would be the person who deposited the material on the property. Barrett did not believe the indemnification created any new liability. Barrett felt it was a problem of practicality noting the expense is in proving who did what. Flint agreed with Barrett. Barrett suggested paragraph 5 include the additional statement, "unless mutually agreeable substitute is developed". Jabbour was informed by Barrett that the City would have to be reimbursed if the Highway Department takes the property. Kelley asked what happens if Hennepin Parks' standards change. Flint referenced 6a regarding the scope of the license He feels this would override any change in standards. Flint said 6b indicates the City will have to be notified. Kelley asked what happens if the policy of no plowing changes. Jabbour said Hennepin Parks does not want to change what is occurring in a City. Jabbour said the intent is for the City to learn how to improve trails and encouraged continued dialogue. Barrett felt the County has the discretion to remove snow if they deemed it necessary. Moorse noted the trail connects to the Luce Line which is not plowed Jabbour said the Council has to make a decision and identify goals and objectives. He said he is an advocate for partnerships and all scenarios cannot be projected. Jabbour noted that the Council asked for a minimum document. Kelley said the Council needs to be aware that the City is giving up its rights and giving the County the power. Jabbour indicated that the County has listened to issues of concern Goetten noted that these same issues were discussed in the beginning of the process Jabbour said the issue boils down to whether the Council wants to move forward with the agreement. He noted that Hennepin Parks has made major contributions to the City. Flint commented that major concessions have also been made by the County from the first document, and he favored adopting the agreement. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#13 - Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail Agreement - Continued) Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the agreement with Hennepin Parks for the construction and maintenance of the Old Crystal Bay Road bike/hike trail. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTING A MORATORIUM SUSPENDING CERTAIN USES IN THE CITY’S INDUSTRIAL ZONE - ORDINANCE NO. 169 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve interim Ordinance No. 169 enacting a moratorium suspending certain uses as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone, effective March 9, 1998 and terminating September 15, 1998. Flint questioned whether a 6-month moratorium was adequate. Moorse said it was. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#15) APPOINTMENT OF PAYROLL/UTILITY BILLING SPECIALIST Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the appointment of Sandra Pettit to the position of Payroll/Utility Billing Specialist effective March 16, 1998 at a starting pay rate of$ 13.51 per hour. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) PAY INCREASE FOR PLANNING INTERN Jabbour moved, Goe;ten set.onded, to increase the pay rate of the Planning Intern jx>sition to $9.00 per hour effective March 9, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Appreciation was extend-’P to Bressler for the excellent job he has been doing for the City. (»#17) APPROVE CDBG GRANT APPLICATION - RESOLUTION NO. 4046 Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4046. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) SCHEDULE HRA MEETING TO APPROVE REFUNDING BOND SALE Moorse reported that the meeting is to enable the City to take action on refinancing the City Facilities bonds. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to schedule a meeting of the City's HRA for 7:05 p.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#18 - Schedule HRA Meeting - Continued) Kelley asked Moorse about the leaking roofs of the city buildings. Moorse reported that leaking has been on-going at the Public Works Building. More recently, similar problems have arisen in the valley and soffit areas of the other two buildings. Bonestroo has identified the problems and letters have been sent to the construction manager, sub contractors, and architect asking for their response to these problems to aid in determining the course of action to remedy the problems. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. (*#19) LICENSES Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Residential Kennel License Special Event License: D. Brian Fulmer 3505 Wayzata Boulevard Tony Eiden Company Spring Preview of Homes 2425 Thoroughbred Lane February 28, 1998 - March 18, 1998 3:00-7:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday Noon-6;00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday (*#20) BILLS Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. COUNCILMEETINQ APR 13 1998 CTTYiegpncr ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 2.T 1998 c The Council met on the abo\e mentioned date with the following members present: Mavor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten. Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint, who arrived shortly after the meeting begun. Charles Kell^^ was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barr^, Semor Planning Coordinator Michael Uattron, Pianner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Assistant Brad Bressler, Public Services Director Greg Gappa. City Engineer Glenn Cook, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meet'me to order at 7.00 o.m. (»#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved. Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. THE CITY FACILITIES - RESOLUTION NO. 4047 Moorse reported that the resolution would authorbe f» - C-tv to amend the lease purchase contract with the HRA for the City facilities, i. Drude was present to provide the results of the bond sale which took place on this date Moorse said the Council will need to take action on the lease purchase agreement and adjourn to an HKA meeting. Jabbour informed the public that the City is attempting to take advantage of the current low interest rates and refinance the City facilities. Carolyn Drude presented the tabulation of the bids received. The best bid was from Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. Painewebber. Inc. and Everen Secunties. Inc^ These rates will replace the rates shown for the years 2004-2008 at 4.10% to 4 5%^ The costs include the discount rate similar to points for a true interest rate of 4.5362/o. Six bids were received. Drude noted that the rates have tluctuated somewhat and recently came back down. Moody ’s Investors Service has given the City a Aa2 rating. The City has an Aal rating for its general obligation bonds When a lease revenue bond is done it does not pledge the City’s general obligation Drude noted that the Aa2 rating is higher than ratings eenerallv seen on lease revenue bonds. Drude reviewed the schedules included in the information provided to Council. r (#2) Amendment to Lease Purchase Contract - Continueo) The .able on page 4 shows .he prior ^4^'" Ih" J";htra.«' oXoVed lha. SdS.OOO was added .o .he prtaciH -0-. .0 cover the costs of the issuance. The savings indicated are net . ^ shows the comparison between the ^qqq^ informed the 4.33%. The savings had been proiected at $120.0W ^ ^ advancing Council that State law requires a savings of at least 3 /o tor a crosso refunding. The costs, discount, and cost °f^“j^nvX lnrCPA"Xc\ttonfor an for Ehlers and Associates, attorney fees, s InyesW^^^^^ objective review and for the escrow amount utilized until the call d issued in $5,000 increments. Jabbour expressed his appreciation to Dnide f cliXX. that informed of the possibility of saving in this manner. He ‘"^orm financial msidentstypicallymeawareo^^ resoonsibihtv for the Citv. He noted that ^Wvthe size ofOrono. He noted that I.r„ 01... interest rates on the sewer assessments. There were no questions from the public. firramen?^^^^^^^^^ between^ City and the City's HRA. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Goet.en moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn a. public hearing held from 7:05 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#3) HRA MEETING - 7:05 P.M. HRA Chairman Jabbour called the HRA meeting to order a. 7:05 p m and noted the presence of all liRA Members except Charles Kelley. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON Anr|| ioq« (#4) AUTHORIZATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND AWARDING OF THE SALE OF PIIRI ir FAril.lTIFS RFVFNITF RFFIINDINC ROND<i. !«FRIFS IQQX? AND AUTHORIZATION OF A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE AND A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE-PURCHASE CONTRACT - RESOLUTION NO. 4048 Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4048 authorizing the issuance and awarding of the sale of Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 to Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Paine Webber, Everen Securities; and authorizing a First Supplemental Indenture and a First Amendment to Lease-Purchase Contract. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn the HRA meeting at 7:15 p.m.. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Jabbour reconvened the Council meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (#5) REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 9,1998 No action was required. The draft was included for Council's information. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Park Commissioner Jim White noted that the trail agreement would be presented to the Hennepin Parks Board this week for approval. He reported that the OBA has requested an additional night of use for baseball at Bederwood Park. The Park Commission recommended denial of this request. The inventory of parks and improvements is completed. Trails have been discussed as well. Jabbour informed White that the Council is working on a potential park in the Navarre area. He reported having spoken with Commissioner Erickson, who indicated he met with the City of Long Lake to discuss trails Jabbour suggested the Park Commission review this issue with the Hw>' 12 Design Committee as the design committee has recommended no trail in some areas. Jabbour asked that the Commission ensure they are on a parallel with City philosophy. Jabbour also indicated that he felt a recent article in the Laker Newspaper reporting on a meeting discussing 'rails did not accurately reflect what occurred at the meeting. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Flint said past Mayor Callahan asked him to inform the Park Commission that Mn/DOT would be willins to establish a trail over the Hwv 1 2/CoRd 6 intersection. The Park Commission needs to determine whether this is desirable. Flint indicated there may be a trail along CoRd 6, and the Commission should determine whether it would work to have a trail cross Highway 12 as part of the interchange design. The trail would run along the shoulder. White informed Flint that the Commission just recently completed categorizing the trails. (#6) WEST HENNEPIN RECY CLING COMMISSION REPORT - AMELIA KROEGER-7:15 P.M. Amelia Kroeger, the West Hennepin County Recycling Coordinator referenced an article in the Pioneer. She reviewed the highlights of the past year noting that 30% of the waste was recycled in the group cities. The group is also below the average on cost of household and total tonnage for recycling and shows an increase in participation. A goal of the commission w'as to reduce the budget by 15% by the year 2000. This was attained in 1997. Another goal was to continue grant funding for Hennepin County. A meeting of the Hennepin County Recycling Commission was held on February 11 . A good indication was given that grant money would be eliminated by 1999 as they are joining in with other counties and orgamzations regarding a solid waste. An unforeseen problem was the dramatic increase in waste tonnage and tonnage recycled. The market for recycled materials has not kept up with the volume of recycled materials. Kroeger asked for Council feedback and whether the City would like to continue with the joint powers agreement. She reviewed the cost to the City with or without the grant funding. Kroeger questioned whether the City would like to conduct the recycling program themselves. Jabbour asked for Kroeger's recommendation. Kroeger said she had originally thought that recycling programs would stand on their own merit. She noted that the market is poor for recycling of paper and plastic, though strong for aluminum. She did believe that the position provides the City with alot of services for a small amount of money. Moorse commented in looking at the duties performed and what is being done on a shared basis, it would make sense to continue with the program instead of starting a City program. Jabbour said the City also has some obligation to those cities who cannot run such a program on their own. L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#6 - West Hennepin Recycling Commission Report - Continued) Kroeger said the cities she has spoken with thus far have all voiced their recommendation to continue with the program. Jabbour agreed with continuing the program. All Council members agreed. Kroeger reported that since the joint powers agreement in 1988 and 1989, a reserve fund has grown. The Commission would like to distribute the excess to the group cities. ^ Based on the number of household accounts since 1989 in the City of Orono, Orono's share of the reserves equals $8,113. Kroeger presented City Administrator Moorse with the check for that amount and asked that the fiinds be used for recycling. Jabbour recognized the recent award given to Kroeger as a Friend of the Park for her efforts in maintaining Bederwood Park. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commissioner Stoddard had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Dalbec, 1565 Orono Oaks Drive, asked the Council to review the housing of horses on the Smith property. He feels this use does not meet the standards of the City. Jabbour referenced a letter sent regarding this issue from Dalbec. He asked what prcKess Dalbec would be required to follow for a future review of this issue. Moorse indicated this may be similar to an administrative appeal of a staff decision. Moorse will review the matter and inform Dalbec of the process. (Item #7 follows Item #11.) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#8) #2292 TOM OKERSTROM, 770 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 4050 The applicant was present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The request is for variances for hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback, structural coverage, and street setback to build a detached garage The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval with changes to the oiiginal proposal as noted in the memo. Bressler noted that the drainage issue resolution was part of the certificate of occupancy. Bressler reviewed the findings, #1-3, as indicated in the resolution draft. The garage has been moved back to 20 from the street lot line and the footprint reduced to 22'x24'. The root will be a 10; 12 pitch. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#8 - #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Okerstrom indicated he has spent alot of time in an attempt to comply with City requirements. He feels the plan will come near to meeting the City standards. Goetten commented that the garage is not in compliance due to the large hou^ built only two years ago. Goetten said she would not support the proposal except for the need for a garage in Minnesota. She has found it discouraging that the applicant is here asfang for this variance. Okerstrom responded that the house on the property was built on the same foundation as the previous home. There had been a two car garage on the property m the past. He had not been aware of the issues. It was his assumption that the ^ to be removed prior to the house being built. Okerstrom said the house would have been made smaller if he had known the issues involved. Bressler said Builder Inspector Bruce Vang had informed the builder that zomng ‘s^ues would arise if the garage was not taken into consideration when the house was built, builder evidently did not pass this information on to the applicant. Goetten noted t building permit is required for building any structure.IsISsiilIss- Okerstrom added that the pitch is in keeping with the style of the home. Jabbour commented that the garage would impose upon the area around the road and would not be in keeping with other garages along the road. Okerstrom s^d the gar^e was smaller Jabbour voiced concern with a garage located within 8 of the road adding that the Council must protect the neighborhood. Goetten agreed that the Council s efforts are towards improving the situation. Peterson asked if the garage should be moved back further than 20’ on the lot^ Goetten reminded her that this would mcrease hardcover. Jabbour noted that the neighbonng garage is within 20' of the right-of-way. Goetten said the Council also needs to consider the driveway and tb* 'bility to get out onto the roadway Peterson noted that the applicant would not be to dnv^ out onto Tonkawa. She preferred that the garage was pushed back as far af >i v ..^ Peterson asked how much space was available. Bressler indicated there is CuiT/rl;y 20 proposed between the edge of the bituminous and the front slab of the garage. Peterson asked if a one-car garage was considered. Goetten felt it would be unreasonable to scale it back to that degree. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 (#8 - #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Jabbour moved, Rint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4050 per the •’•“""'"S Commission recommendation. Vote. Ayes 3, Nays 1, Peterson. Goetten «ked that the Solution renect that no further hardcover would be allowed on the property m the future. (#9) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, I0S2 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARUNCES The Applicant was not present. Bressler indicated Daivari did si^ the extension for the applicaL. Goetten asked how many times the Council b to “»Ie an apptotmn due » the absence of the applicant, noting this has occurred in this instance already SleS asked to inform the applicant that action must be taken on the application due <o Hre aUowed, and action will take place M the next meeting The Council voiced frustrati with the applicant’s absence. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application «23 17. Vote; Ayes 4. Nays 0. (#11) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATHER AND LINDA SALLEE, 32*5 CARMAN ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4052 The applicants were present. Dressier distributed pictures of the property. The proposal is to existing deck on the lakeside requiring variances for piannina 0-75 ’ 4eshore setback, lakeshore setback, and average teshore ^ ® Commission recommended approval with the condition that all be removed and the flagstone walkway eliminated prior to issuance of a building permit and no future variances would be granted for the property. Bressler reviewed the survey and findings as indicated in the resolution draft. He indicated the deck location, the roof line, and elevations. Molsather indicated that the house was built in the early 1960's. required due to the home being built prior to current zomng regulations. Molsather said they made all attempts to meet the recommendation. Jabbour pointed out that the hardcover calculations did not include ™"' conforming hardcover and no credit was allowed for that hardcover. Sallee said they understood this would not be included in the calculations. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NURCH 23, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Goetten agreed that a 2-1/2' wide deck was unusable. She asked for verification of the proposed width Bressler said the farthest point of the deck from the house is at 10', extending approximately 6' from the overhang. The remaining portion of the deck extends negligibly beyond the overhang. Peterson supported the proposal. Jabbour noted the request would be an improvement to the property, though the calculations do not reflect exactly what has occurred. The applicant accepted the resolution as drafted. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4052. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) SHORT LIN E/HERITAGE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:05 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Moorse reported that the public hearing relates to the proposed sanitary sewer project. The City Engineer will present the project and allow for residents to grve their input. City Engineer Cook reported that the existing sanitary sewer system constructed over Crystal Bay would tie into this system east of Spates Avenue and extend the line through easements along North Shore Drive and Heritage Lane and Heritage Drive. On the north end of the project the sewer line will be extended by use of a small force main and individual grinder pumps. Cook noted that the property owners of Lots 21 and 22 are not interested in hooking up to sewer at this time as well as several others, who were pointed out on the map. The project cost for the 22 units is $42,200 or $19,100 per unit. Jabbour informed the audience that the City desires to be pro-active regarding sewering identified "hot spots", or those in the most need of sewering. In areas that are not a top priority, the property owners have to petition for sewer and bear the total cost. Jabbour said the areas where the properties were left with no alternatives were sewered first. Jabbour referenced the earlier bond refinancing. He indicated that the City attempts to take advantage of the bond rate by financing such projects as this one along with others to reduce costs for the property owners. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#7 Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project - Continued) Jabbour noted that the property owners at 1100, 1135, and 1950 are not interested in hooking up to sewer at this time. The Council has made the policy that when neighbors who have fully conforming septic systems do not wish to hook up to a project, they will not be required to do so. However, when they eventually hook up, these property owners will pay the cost in full, including annual cost of living increases. This allows the project to move forward. Jabbour emphasized that the cost is contingent on the ability to obtain easements from the property owners or the cost will be increased. Cook indicated there were comment cards available for the property owners to fill out if they so desired. The public hearing was opened. Jim Snyder, 1085 Heritage Lane, Lot 16, asked about hook-up to his property on the north end. Cook said the gravity line can only serve to where it was pointed out. The other properties will be connected through the use of a grinder pump and force main at the same cost. Steven Larson, Lot 19, asked about the cost of the grinder pump and whether the cost can be paid over time. Jabbour explained how a grinder pump works. The pump holds the residue, shreds it, and pushes it by force down the street to the main line. The property owners requiring the grinder pump will be responsible to hook up to it. Cook reported that a grinder pump package is about $3,000. The City has taken bids for the pumps in the past. He was unsure whether this would be done for this project, but the City would give an allowance for the property owners to purchase the grinder pump if need be. Jabbour elaborated that the project cost includes that system being there but the City just does not know at this time if it will be provided or money given back to pay for the pumps. The bond will be assessed to the property owners. The assessment can be paid in flill or over a 15 year time period. There are •'ome administrative costs beyond the 4.5% interest on the bonds, and Jabbour estimated the interest rate on the sewer assessment would be about 6%. Larson asked if the road would be improved. Cook said there is no intent to replace the road to the north at this time. A trench will run along the boulevard and driveways will be patched, or the lines vrill be directionally bored. The other portion of the road will be replaced. Lou Block asked if the City anticipated any problems with getting easements. Cook said the property owners need to give their permission Otherwise, the easements would be obtained througli a condemnation process, which would add time to the project. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (U7 Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project - Continued) Bob Sternum, 1 920 North Shore Drive, Lot 1 , said most of the properties along North Shore Drive have non-conforming septic systems, and he supports the project. He would like the project to be hurried along and is concerned with fall frost or a delay extending the project into next year. Jabbour said it was not the City's desire to extend the project into two years. The best scenario for the time line is to award bids in June, start in July, and complete the project in October. If the City has problems with gaining easements, it may extend the process two months. Easement negotiations will be held in May. It was indicated that the sewer line along North Shore Drive would be done first. Goetten said it would behoove the public to encourage their neighbors to grant the easements as all will need to hook-up to sewer at some time in the future. Jabbour also noted that along with saving costs by hooking up at this time, the lawns will only have to be dug up once. Nancy Bjerke, Lot 17, asked the Council to clarify whether the City is going ahead with the area requiring grinder pumps. Jabbour said they were; the only question was regarding whether the City will provide the pump. He reiterated that the property owners will not be forced to hook up to sewer system now but the cost will increase for hook up at a later date. The public hearing was closed. Goetten asked if there were enough property owners wanting the system to move ahead with the project. Cook felt at least the majority of the property owners wanted sewer at this time. Some further inspections are required to determine system conformity. Jabbour asked for caution concerning the inspections, noting it would appear the City was forcing sewer. He was told by Moorse that the City can afford to finance a small number of units, allowing the people to be given the prerogative of hooking up at this time. Peterson asked how long it will take to get the necessary additional information. Gappa said it would be done as soon as possible and the inspections will be completed within two weeks. Gappa indicated there were two other projects that will be included with this project, noting the Edgewood Hills Neighborhood, and the Head property. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 (^7A) ORDER PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SHORELINE/HERITAGE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION NO. 4049 Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to spprove Resolution No. 4049 ordering prep^dtion of plans and specifications for the project. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Moorse informed the residents that the motion allows for the City to order the plans and spec’ii «»ions. Bids will be taken after this is completed. Final costs will be determined at thdi liiViQ ai;d an assessment hearing held. Jabbour noted that there is a 30-day waiting penod after ihe assessment hearing. The residents are allowed to waive the assessment hearing through sigmng a waiver to accelerate the process. (#9) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, 1082 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4051 The applicant arrived at the meeting. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to reconsider the motion to table the application. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Dressier reported that the application is for after-the-fact variances to allow the retention and completion of a screen porch constructed over an existing deck. It was built without a permit and requires after-the-fact variances for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request. Dressier reviewed the findings as noted in the resolution draft. Mr. Daivari felt the issue was taken personally by the City, and he felt he has been treated poorly. Daivari said he did not think of the porch as a structure as there was screening only. He did not think he needed a building permit and applied for the variance once he was notified of the fact. He said he made a mistake but was not informed by the City what should have been done. Daivari said he made the decision to remove the porch. He misunderstood when the last Council meeting was and found out at the Council had made their decision. Jabbour informed Daivari that the Council has not made any decision. He said the State Statute requires action to be taken within a 60 day time period and time was lapsing. The Council could not wait until this date and required his permission to extend the time line. Dressier explained that Daivari was referring to the resolution draft. Jabbour explained that the resolutions are drafted based on (he Planning Commission recommendations and are not approved until the Council does so. Daivari referenced another porch on Loma Linda that received approval. He said he had asked what could be done to make everything right but was told that nothing could be done. Jabbour told Daivari that the Council cannot override what the building inspector determines. The porch must be constructed to universal building code. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#9 - #2317 Khasrow Daivari - Continued) Daivari was asked if he would like to table the application. Daivari asked if it would make a difference. Daivari said he would like to see which part was wrong and why he \-as treated so p' iy Jabbour informed Daivari that State Statute requires that a hardship be shown. Daivari said he feels he has a hardship. Jabbour noted if the structure is not built to code, it cannot remain. Daivari asked for a meeting with the building inspector. Jabbour explained that there were two problems, one being the zoning issue and the other being the building's integrity. If the building inspector finds that the porch does not have the proper foundation, it must be removed. The Council is obligated to answer to the zoning issue. Dressier said he had spoken with the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, who informed him that his concern was with the foundation and whether frost footings were nece^ary. ,\nother issue was the need for a solid roof The applicant had only screened the roof in. Jabbour asked Peterson to comment from the Planning Commission meeting. Peterson said, as she recalled, the Commission looked at both the issue of hardship and the building integrity. Daivari felt it was a matter of how it was handled. He said Van Zomeren was very helpful He said he spoke three times with the city and issues came forward with the foundation and structure. Daivari said he asked to see the pictures presented at the Planning Commission but was not shown them. ‘ eterson said she recalled that the encroachment issue was the main concern and the structural integrity was secondary. Daivari said he was not informed of this and believe the simple issue was made into a large one. Jabbour suggested Daivari direct concerns regarding staff to the City Administrator. Peterson felt Daivari should be able to speak with the building inspector if he sc desired. Jabbour asked about the zoning issue. Flint felt less time should be spent at the Council level regarding such issues and listen to the recommendation ofthe Planning Commission. Discussion would only be a rediscussion of what occurred at the Planning Commission. He suggeste d listemng to the Commission's recommendation for denial. Peterson said she would not support the encroachment when the porch could b'* designed to be less intrusive for the neighbors. Daivari said the neighbors thought the porch was a good idea. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 {U9 - #2317 Khasrow Daivari - Continued) Goetten said she was more concerned with the structure's worthiness than with the averaee lakeshore setback. If the oorch cannot oass the buildinc insoection and it was unsafe, she would r.ot 'jupport it. jabhour noted that if the request does not receive support, no building permit would be given, and the porch would have to be torn down. Jabbour agreed with, the Planning Commission's recommendation. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4051 to deny Application #2317. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2327 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC - B-5 DISTRICT - AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE ADOPTION NO. 170, 2ND SERIES John O'Sullivan and Tom Dillon were present. Gaffron reported that the request is to amend the B-5 zoning district to allow coffee and bagel shops as conditional uses. The application was tabled at the request of the Council to allow for additional information to be gathered. Gaffron reviewed the number of issues that had been identified reuarding specific uses, such as limiting the tvpe of foods allowed or accepting the use at face value. Other issues included how food was prepared, the kitchen facilities, and seating. Both uses function as a convenience type for take out or eat in services. Gaffron indicated that there was enough parking on the applicant's specific site for the use. Gaffron reviewed types of restaurants and the amount of seating and parking required. Based on the information. Staff reviewed whether it was practical to regulate products and uses within the zoning district. He felt the City's goal should be to regulate the impact and not the product. Based on the information, Gaffron added to the amendment a condition "d" stating that an individual use would be limited to 45 seats, or 60 seat maximum for a combined use. Dillon said they have worked well with staff and feel the conditions are satisfactory. There were no public comments. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 170, 2nd Series.\ ote. Ayes 4, . NaysO. 13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, I99« (MI2) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4053 The applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application was tabled at the last Council meeting for plan revision after applicant was provided conceptual direction. The 1.9 acre parcel is proposed to oe aiviaea into tnree Duiiamg sites Access nas oeen tne main issue of concern Whether the 8' easement can be combined with the 25' private road for a 33' total has not yet been confirmed by the City Attorney. Gaffron reviewed the directions given by Council. He noted that the shared driveway to access the outlot road would reduce the amount of hardcover needed for Lots 1 and 2. The stormwater plan has been reviewed. Tom Kellogg had determined that the elevation of the houses would not affect the layout of the plat. The existing house on Lot 1 will be lived in for a time before it is sold by the applicant. Two options were given for the encroachment of the detached garage and portions of the house onto Lot 2. The resolution as drafted requires that the encroachments be removed within one year as well as requires a Special Lot Combination. Staff recommended approval ot the application subject to the conditions as noted in the resolution. Render said he saw no conflict with the recommendations made by Staff. Jabbour noted that the stormwater pond has been moved from the front to the rear yard. Gaffron said there wer» ^ estions on meeting the standards and impact on the lot. Mark Gronberg said the NUf^"' pond is larger than what would be required for a regular pond. He would like to be allowed to have a regular pond and make a contribution to the Watershed District Jabbour emphasized that the Council does not support contributions made to the Watershed District for ponding and believe all ponding should be conducted on the property. Jabbour asked Staff to inform the Watershed District not to suggest to residents of Orono that cash contributions be made for ponding as it will not be approved. Gaffron e.xplained that there were difterent standards for a stormwater quantity pond and a NURP pond. The NURP pond standards were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that more discission is necessary on this issue as the pond will have more of an impact on smaller subdivisions than it would on larger ones. Jabbour questioned W'hether staff is suggesting wc do no! need stormwater ponding, and noted we should require ponding if it's beneficial to the lake, not just because we were mandated by other agencies to require it. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#12 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Cook said the ponding is being done because it is required and is important but does not necessarily have to be done in this manner. There are other ways to treat the water but they are more expensive. While this is not as aesthetically pleasing as it would be in a rural setting, it is the kind of system necessary’ to protect the lake for the long term. Jabbour said the ponding is then necessary. He suggested the pond be made as minimum as possible to meet the code. Flint and Peterson agreed. Gaffron said he was not recommending a change in the code but the need to realize the impacts of ponding. Goetten said she would not support the easement for the connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She approved the subdivision itself but is concerned with what might happen in the future if the easement was taken. Jabbour agreed that the connection should not be made but felt the easement should still be taken. Render suggested the easement terminate 5' from the property line. Peterson said she agreed w'ith Goetten's comments. Flint said he felt this was the opportunity to get the easement. Mr. Putnam said it was upsetting that the Council may vote for an easement when they do not desire the road to go through. Jabbour said he supported the proposal and Staff and Planning Commission recommendations. Gerald Ray, 3442 North Shore Drive, opposed the Birch Lane connection. He liked what the Council was saying regarding no connection, yet noted that the Council will change in the future and so might the feeling regarding the connection. Dave Lindberg. 3440 North Shore Drive, agreed with Ray. He does not want to see the easement widened. He would like to maintain the current look of the neighborhood. Jabbour suggested stopping the ea.sement as mentioned by the applicant 5' from the property line. Flint asked what the current use is for the easement. Jabbour said there is a private road and easement on the road. There are fences and garages located on it as well. Flint asked if the e.xisting easement is used for any purpose. He w as informed that it was a utility easement but may not provide complete vehicular access to the sewer. Flint said he would support the recommendation to stop the easement 5' from the property line. Jabbour asked Staff to amend the resolution to reflect the 5' change as noted. 15 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 {#\2- #2339 James Render - Continued) Jabbour asked Barrett's opinion regarding Staffs recommendation on the house encroach nent. Barrett agreed the recommendation was satisfactory' as long as the specia lot combination was completed as a condition of the preliminary subdivision. Render asked if the special lot combin'-don requires further Council review. He was informed that it can disappear after one year. Render asked if it was necessary for the subdivision. Gaffron said it was not. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4053 for preliminary plat approval with the addition that the easement will stop 5' from the property line and a special lot combination agreement is signed a' drafted by the City with the house remaining for a time period not to exceed 12 months. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) (#13) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL The applicant was present along with Ed Otto, Kevin Prohasso and Marty Campion. Gaffron reviewed the general direction previously given to the applicant by the Councd. The stormwater plan has been submitted. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed it and had some question .‘elating to the grading plan. '' stormwater pond is proposed at east end of Lot 7. It ha, )een conl'rmed that Lot 7 meets the two acre minimun after adjusting for the pond. Cook was asked to comment. Cook said the amount of runoff that will reach the pond will be an improvement over the current situation. Lots 4, 5, and 6 will drain runoff toward the lake. Jabbour noted that by preserving the shoreline vegetation, there should be no problem. Gaffron indicated that an option would be to create a second pond by the lake but that would result in much damage to the shoreline. Cook agreed. Marty said about 1/3 of the site will drain to the pond. The remainder will drain to the north through a ditch system along the county road or to the lake directly. There will also be less runoff on the north lot with the expected decrease of hard surface from the existing situation. Anderson said the goal for runoff from Lot 3 is to bring it to the front by the cul-de-sac. Gaftron noted that the layout for Lot 7 technically makes the front lot line 50' in len^h as opposed to the 200' standard He questioned whether it siiould be considered a back lot. Lot 7 will now accommodate stormwater while still having septic sites and building pad. He asked if Council was satisfied with the layout of Lot 7 noting it appears to be functional. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23.1998 (#13 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Jabbour said the applicant is aware that the property could be sewered and is proceeding with a proposal that works whether sewer occurs or not. Gaffron said in order to provide sewer, the City would need a MUSA amendment approval. The mechanics of how the sewer system would be designed, built, and paid for have not been worked out. The layout of the lots will remain the same whether with or without sewer. It will likely require three months for the MUSA amendment procedure. Jabbour volunteered to get involved in the process if need be. Goetten said she would also assist as she has spoken with the Met Council regarding sewering around Lake Minnetonka. Gaffron said Tom Kellogg has lecommended the easement for the trail be taken on the property. A question to consider is whether the applicant should be required to build the trail if approved and whether the value of the trail easement should be subtracted from the park dedication fee. Gaffron noted that the draft resolution presented at the last meeting has not been changed to include updated information. The applicant said he understood the Council's philosophy regarding the MUSA amendment. The Council would not want to see the sewering used as a vehicle to obtain additional density, yet Met Council would like denser development. The City would like to see 2 acre and 5 acre dry buildable. Gaffron noted that the sewer has not yet reached Stubbs Bay but 36 miles of the Orono's Lake Minnetonka shoreline out of a total of 40 miles has been sewered. Jabbour reiterated that it is the City's goal to sewer around the entire lake, except for Big Island. Anderson said he was in agreement but questioned the cost, the installation, the design, and the assessment for the sewer. He asked whether he would be charged for it or if it would be assessed to the lots. Jabbour said the sewer would be assessed 100% to the land and when a house is built, it would have to be hooked up to it. He reiterated the excellent pond rating received Py tne Lity and the aPiiity tor the assessment to Pe paid over a 15 time period. Goetten informed the applicant that the assessment must be paid in full and cannot be assumed when the property is developed. Gaffron said it is rare that the City has a new development where sewer is being installed. The mechanics of how this will be done will be discussed with the City Engineer and the information put together for the Council. Gaffron said the timing becomes an issue for the developer in relation to road construction Marty said he would be opposed to building the road until the sewer issue is resolved, and the road could be held off until June to receive the MUSA approval. He would like to get to final plat approved in order to allow the applicant to sell lots. Council agreed. Jabbour noted that the lots will meet the standards w hether sewering happens or not. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23. 1998 (#13 - Daniel Anderson - Contimied) Goetten asked Gaffron whether he had any idea regarding Met Council's position resardinu develooinc with 2 acre density on the lake She asked Council if the extent o any proposed MUSA change should be expanded. Jabbour said yes, noting if more was added to the amendment request, it would take the emphasis from this development. Gaffron warned that Met Council might view this differently if it is expanded from a minor to a maicr change. Gaffron asked for Council’s comments regarding the granting of a lot width vanancc for Lot 7. Jabbour said he would support it with the lot area being met and using the reasoning of stormwater ponding. Jabbour noted the developer's cooperation regarding the conservation easement. Discussion has been held on where the easement should end. Jabbour preferred it end m the naturally mowed area, but Anderson would like to see it stop at the field road w ere it creates a natural boundan^ on Lot 6. This area is heavilv bushed and contains alot of scruff Anderson believes trees 6" and larger should remain. Anderson said the conservation easement could be below the road about 8' from the crest of the bluff. Anderson would like to protect the area coming up from the lake but the ability to clean up the area around the road. Flint voiced concern with runoff and erosion from the road area if no protection. Lots 4 and 5 are fairly groomed and the applicant would like to be able to mow around that area. Jabbour said the area is beyond the 75 ’ setback and the code does not provide for any protection of the trees. Gaffron said it would be helpful to stake out the 75 setback. Jabbour asked if conceptual approval can be done without this issue worked out. Gaffron said Mav 23 is the deadline for preliminary plat approval. Otto said he felt there was a good compromise with keeping the lakeside area along the bluff as conservation easement with the area above the road being outside of the restricted area. Flint said he agreed as far as the strict conservation easement but thought nothing was going to be touched in the area. He is concerned that runoff would re^lt from the mowing. He questioned ho\v to protect the low level plantings on the bluff without total restriction. Jabbour said that issue could be resolved as a ftinctional p^ of the building permit. Flint said this afiecto the developer and not the homeowner The conservation easement would atfect the homeowner. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#13 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Otto asked what manner can be used to protect this additional area from the road to where the land rises. Gafifron said a condition can be constructed to stipulate such protection He noted the area where it would not require protection. Jabbour indicated if the building pads were overlaid, some will encroach into the area. Flint felt Lot 5 w"is more problematic than Lot 6. He would like some protection. Gaffron said he would work with the developer to accomplish what Flint is requesting. Anderson said he has some ideas that might answer Flint's concerns. Jabbour asked if criteria can be developed that will bind future property owners that would require the property owners to address the Council regarding any changes. Goetten suggested, if the rertricted area is extended beyond the 75' setback, the issue of runoff be the consideration. Jabbour expressed his appreciation for the applicant's willingness to work on this issue, concurring that it is important to protect the area directly above the proposed easement area. Flint said he would support the applicant working with staff on protecting the area beyond the road, especially at Lot 5. Anderson asked for clarification as to what Flint was looking to do. Flint suggested a secondary conservation easement dealing with ground cover but not with original woods. Flint informed Otto that the existing ordinances would not cover the area beyond the conservation easement or out of the 0- 75' zone. The Council asked that a warning mechanism be in place. Jabbour noted it is difficult to get people to add more ground cover. Jaubnur reiterated that a conservation easement will be placed on the area from the lake up to the roped area defined by the lake and the mowed area. Regulations will be established for the area around Lot 5. Flint asked hovv the conservation easement will work on Lot 4. Anderson said the lot is presently open and plans to groom and mow it as it is. Jabbour indicated there is also a cluster of trees on that lot. Anderson said he w ould not 'ouch the pine trees and had thought they were in the 0-75' setback. Jabbour iiiquired about the trail. Gaffron said Moorse spoke with Doug Bryant of Hennepin Parks. They are interested in a trail into Noerenberg Park and would allow it on into Noerenberg. Jabbour questioned who would build it and if the park dedication fee would be reduced. He noted the problem with having a trail on both sides of the road He felt it would be in poor judgment to cut the hill down yet questioned riding bikes on top of the hill. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#13 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Flint said he and Kellogg had come to opposite conclusions, noting the wetlands beyond the Carpenter property and the utility poles. The trail can run behind the poles on the Carpenter property. Cook said both sides would be affected. What turned his viewpoint is the park property and easement acquisition potential. Including the park property and the easement ^rom this plat, 1/2 of the distance between the Luce Line and CoRd 51 is accounted for. Jabbour noted the dangerous intersection at Fox Street. He felt it would be best to cross Fox Street on the west side instead of on the east side. Jabbour said he w ould also not support taking any right-of-way from the yards of property owners to expand the trail. He does not see this as a "must have" trail project. He concurred with Flint regarding not taking the easement from the Anderson property. Jabbour felt it would be distasteful to cut the hill down and build retaining walls. He noted the City already has a trail on the other side of the road. Jabbour said if the trail is developed, it should be built on the right-of-way. Jabbour indicated the park dedication fee cap is $5,000 per lot. Bridget Hust referenced a letter sent on behalf of her parents who own 820 Old Crystal Bay Road. I ler letter concurs with Tom Kellogg's comments regarding the trail being dangerous. She said she is baffled by the Council's comments and thought they would listen to the Planning Commission recommendation for the casement. Gafffon indicated that a resolution for preliminary plat approval will be presc"*ed at the April 13 meeting. Flint questioned granting conceptual approval without specific detail. Jabbour reiterated for Flint that the lot configuration will be as proposed. The septic sites will be protected. The difference is in regards to the road and additional protection of Lot 5. Jabbour informed the applicant that the Council supported the plan as presented with the additional protection on Lot 5. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2341. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Bridget Hust requested that someone meet with her parents to inform them how the French Creek trail occurred Jabbour said he would be happy to do so and asked that the Host's contact him MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23. 1998 (*#14) #2343 TIMOTHY AND BONNIE JOHNSON, 627 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH . VAR! VNCF - RFSO! UTTON NO Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4054. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#15) #2344 DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4055 The applicants were present. Dressier reported that the request is for variances for 0-75' and 75-250' hardcover in the lakeshore setback, average lakeshorc setback, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage to rebuilt a main level deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose the area below for a porch. A new stairway, deck, and steps are proposed to provide access to the yard. A new second level deck is also proposed. Dressier noted that the downward slope of the property away from the porch creates a problem with topography. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the illegally constructed lower level deck built by a previous owner be removed. Dressier reviewed the findings, #1-4, as noted on page 3 of the resolution draft Holcombe had no additional comments and was satisfied with the resolution. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4055. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#16) #2346 MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4056 The applicants were present. Van Zomeren distributed photographs of the property. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence located in the LR-1D, one acre zoning district. Forest Lane has not been vacated by this property or an acknowledgment attached to it. She encouraged the applicant to do so in order to increase their amount of acreage. The residence exists 3.4' from the property line where 10' is required. The second story will not encroach any further. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Van Zomeren showed the changes and floor plan to the property. The applicant had no comments at this time. Jabbour asked if Forest Lane has been vacated. He noted the problem with title w ork and suggested it be done as soon as possible. Jabbour supported the proposal. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#16- #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm - Continued) Goetten was informed that the building envelope and the applicant's plan to build up in order to not add any structural coverage. Goetten questioned how close the neighboring house is to the residence. Van Zomeren said the neighboring home is not as close as the pictures make it seem. The neighbors have signed the acknowledgment. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4056. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#17) #2348 MARY JANE HAUSER, 1540 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES Mr. Hauser was present. Dressier presented pictures of the property and distributed full sized surveys. The proposal is to fonstruct a new residence requiring a hardcover variance in the 75-250' lakeshore setback. The previously proposed stormwater detention pond has been deleted from the plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval for 25.9% of hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 29.8% hardcover was proposed by the applicant. The deck had been larger and the loop driveway was reduced. Dressier noted the plan of the applicant if the variance is denied. The driveway would come straight in through a treed area. The Hardships noted by the applicant involved cuting trees and effect on grading, relocation of utility poles, and headlights shining into neighboring homes. The proposed driveway would reuse the existing driveway and grades. Goetten asked for the hardcover calc . •» is for the driveway. Dressier indicated the driveway was initially proposed at 3 . _ Hut has been reduced approximately 800 s.f to 2390 s.t. The driveway is included in i ut would not adversely affect the 250-500' setback. Hauser related the history behind the property and the application. The hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback has been reduced from 32% to 25.9%. He indicated the problem is with the existing grades. Hauser said the house as proposed could be built wit lout a variance if the driveway were to come straight out from the garage. This would require 5 retaining walls on beth sides of the driv'ew'ay. The garage would affect sight lines I le reiterated the headlight problem as well. Jabbour suggested reducing the size of the house. Hauser said he has already done that indicating that he felt some of the rooms were now substandard. Jabbour informed Hauser that the Council's nbhgation is to *he ordinance and not to the neighborhood. He stated that it this proposal was approved, ,i would set a precedent. Jabbour said he needs ^'dse his decision on hardships and hew the land was made. \ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 (#17 - #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Bressler informed Goetten that the driveway as revised would result in 25.9% hardcover in the 75-250' setback or 25% if the driveway came straight out. Jabbour was informed that the 0.9% of hardcover constitutes 283.7 s.f Hauser voiced his objection with reducing the home or driveway any further. Goetten commented that the house had been removed and policy is for no variances for new construction. Hauser reiterated the problems that would be caused if the driveway was changed. Jabbour noted that a new curb cut would require approval, Hauser said that is the hardship. Jabbour acknowledged that the .pplicanl had a hardship but said it does not address the need for a large residence. Jabbour did not believe the driveway could be relocated and suggested the house be reduced in size. Hauser asked what rules a^e used for relocation of a driveway. Jabbour said sight lines are considered. Hauser asked to see the rules. Peterson asked if the house was redesigned and garage was located on the south side, whether this would rec.uce the hardcover to accommodate ihe concerns. Hauser set that plan was reviewed. It would require a large amount of fill. Hiuser said he felt he has a legitimate land use issue noting other hardcover variances have been granted. Peterson noted the size of the south deck, 429 s.f, and spa deck, 280 s.f. Bressler indicated the amount of hardcover over the allowed amount is 287 s.f Jabbour also suggested rounding the corners or the driveway. Jabbour asked if the applicant would liKe the application tabled or moved. Hauser asked for the Council to take action as he would not require a variance if he removed the deck as suggested. Peterson moved, Jabbour seconded, to deny Application #2248 because of new construction, and the proposal could meet all setbacks and hardcover requirements stipulated within the code. She would support the application if hardcover was met. Goetten suggested the deck be removed. Hauser said he felt he has shown hardship. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. 23 r MINin KS OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL iviEE rirSG HELD ON MARCH 23. i9v8 (^18) #2351 LAUR/\ ZAUNER, 3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - AFTER-THE FACT VAR! ANCFR - RFRO! IITION NO The applicant was present. Bresslcr reported that the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variances for hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback to allow the retention of a rebuilt deck on the lake side of the residence The Planning Commission recommended approval. Bressler reviewed the findings. Jabbour was informed by the applicant that she gradually rebuilt the deck and apologized for the misunderstanding. Zauner said she did reduce the size of the deck by removal of posts and eliminating planters. Zauner said her hardship was her being transferred to another state and the house is under contract. Jabbour noted that the property is substandard and there is no additional land to purchase. The residence was built prior to zoning and to utilize the residence, a variance is necessary. Nothing would exist on the lot without a variance. Goetten asked that the resolution include the condition that no more hardcover would be allowed on the property in the future. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No 4057 with the added condition that no more hardcover be allowed on the property. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour asked Van Zomeren to include in resolutions boilerplate language stipulating that no additional hardcover w'ould be allowed on these smaller lots. (#19) PARK DEDICATION AMENDMENT - ZONING/SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Gaffron reported that the amendment to the ordinance addresses the issue of rough proportionality, providing a basis for determining the amount of park tees in relation to the impact of both residential and commercial subdivisions on the City's parks. The ordinance establishes that there will be maximum and minimum "per dwelling " park fees established each year Language has been added regarding how park funds can be used. Other language has been eliminated regarding minimum contributions per lot. The ordinance does not e.stablish park dedication requirements tor the development of properties absent a subdivision/PRD/PUD process. Additional discussion is required on this topic Goetten asked where there is a problem with that issue. Barrett said the City has no authority to take park dedication in the absence of a subdivision Goetten asked about development noting the impact of such development as Spring Hill Golf Course on parks and rough proportionality. k hr >. ,r .Sii -L>^^ -W -nrwj. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 {H\9 - Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Jabbour said he felt if a new industrial development brings in employees, they may have lunch breaks in the parks and impact them but there is no method by which to obtain a contribution toward the park system. He asked if this could be considered a subdivision. Moorse said it would be included if was a PRD or PUD. He agreed that this needs to be reviewed. Goetten asked what can be done to change this fact. Moorse said the City needs to determine if there is any other legal trigger or authority in the Statutes He thought a CUP may be a trigger for it. Jabbour said he visualizes some comprehensive developmem without subdivision on some of the larger parcels, and they would add a burden on the trail system. Flint said he had a problem with adopting the amendment without adopting a minimum and maximum. He feels this needs to be in tandem. He also noted errors in the draft. On Page 2, A and B, he asked it say "periodically" instead of each year. Under Subdivision 4, the underlined sentence regarding debt retirement Flint said this would be used with land acquisition and not for development and improvements of trails. He asked that the language be amended to add "and debt retirement related to the foregoing . Barrett agreed. Flint reiterated the need for minimum and maximums Jabbour felt the numbers were available. Gaffron said they are available but the resolution was not drafted. Barrett said there could be a problem without a resolution adopted at the time of the amendment. Jabbour suggested it be placed as the first item on the next meeting’s agenda. Flint said that would present a problem if an application is submitted before that time. Jabbour said an applicant can be informed of the change being adopted. (*«0) LAND ALTERATIONS AMENDMENT - ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 171, 2ND SERIES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Ordinance No. 171, 2nd Series. Vote. Ayes 3, Nays 0. (Mayor/Council follows Item #26 ) I1 25 r MINUTES OF THF REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 Moorse reported that the DNR grant relates to a proposal by people in the Saga Hill area to submit a grant application for an additional 8.3 acres ofland to be preserved as a natural area This area would be added to the 11 acre natural area The grant requires a 50% matching amount through private fiind raising. There would be no expense to the City, out tne City must suomit tne application. Jabbour reported that Flint sponsored a meeting with the Saga Hill people who have a common interest in the land If the grant is obtained and funds niatched the residents will secure a purchase agreement and obtain the land to give to the Land Trus w owi deed it to the City. The City would then accept it with the DNR restrictions. The DNR restrictions are more liberal than those of the Land Trust. The natural preserve area will be passive in nature. The tax forfeit area will be more active. Jabbour noted that access must be provided, through the church property or otherw ise. Flint asked to reinforce the positive nature of the meeting noting the need for a common vision. He indicated there were two methods for access, one using Garden Lane from the south, and one from the west using an easement through the church property. Flint proposed it be acquired through the church property with appropriate easements^ The consensus was that this would be a less obtrusive access and eliminate the .need for a parking lot. Flint said the grant should be contingent on staff reviewing the application for compatibility with the City’s parks and open space plan.and the City obtaining the easement access across the church property. There was no representative at the meeting from the church Moorse indicated there were a number of conditions proposed to be placed on the easement by the church, resulting in no agreement regarding the easement. Jabbour noted that the City cannot acquire an easement if there are conditions through which the easement could be taken back. Irene Silber, West Branch Road, said she spoke with the DNR manager. There is a question of the grant monies going to metro or out state areas. She would still like to proceed with the application. Jabbour asked that the Saga Hill people be open regarding the plan and the approach. Gary Welsh, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, said he does not belong to the church and questioned what benefit it is to the church to grant the easement. He noted there were other alternatives adding that the land would not be landlocked. Jabbour said the City is not putting the burden on the Saga Hill people to obiain the easement but felt it best to state all the objectives. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23, 1998 I i ! : ! (#26 - DNR Grant Application - Continued) Flint noted the perception is the City is not paying for the land but indicated that the City contributes by removing the land from the tax roll. He said there is no plan for a major ballfield but something more like Bederwood Park. He emphasized the need tor access. The Saga Hill people and Council agreed that they were of the same understanding. Steve Bell, West Branch Road, asked if the City will engage in negotiations with the church for the easement if the land is purchased. Jabbour said the City would do so if the group is behind this effort. The group supported the City's effort in approaching the church. Jabbour suggested the City submit a letter with the grant that follows their comprehensive view of how the land is to be used. He felt it was important to establish an understanding that the land would not be used in an active manner. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the City's sponsorship of the Natural and Scenic Grant Application and Resolution No. 4059, subject to staff review and moving forward with obtaining access through the church property. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (*#21) MARCH FOR PARKS PROCLAMATION Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4058 proclaiming April 25-26 as March for Parks Weekend. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#22) PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Jabbour reported that the appointment was opened for new applications; one new application was received. Flint moved, Peterson seconded. *o appoint Irene Silber to the term on the Park Commission expiring December 51, 1998. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Flint suggested the remaining applications be maintained for future openings. ENGINEER REPORT (*#23) AWARD BID FOR PARK MOWING Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to accept the bid of $18,200 from William's Lawn Service, Maple Grove, Minnesota, for park mowing for the 1998 and 1999 seasons. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH ii, ivv8 (*#24) SEASONAL EMPLOYEES FOR ORONO GOLF COURSE Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve a seasonal employee pay range of S6.50 to S7 25 oer hour for the 1998 season. Vote: Aves 3. Navs 0. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded to hire the employees listed at the proposed wage rates and under the applicable provisions of the PERA rules. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#25) PRELIMINARY DESIGN - HIGHWAY 12 AND COUNTY ROAD 6 INTERCHANGE Moorse summarized the consensus of the Council concerning the interchange at Hwy 12 and CoRd 6. Areas were identified for more in-deprti review prior to approval of the preliminary design. These five main items were reviewed as noted in the memo. Jabbour emphasized the need to make a decision in the near future. He feels some of the needs and wants are in direct conflict with the size of the project and the amount of land available. He asked Moorse to address the concerns as soon as possible for preliminary approval He noted these same issues occur elsewhere in the road system. Moorse said he reviewed the items with Denny Eiler. He said it is important that the design speed of the ”S" curve matches the design speed of the roadway at each end. It is designed at 40 mph, which matches the design speed of the planned reconstruction of CoRd 6 to the west. Mn/DOT is looking at a 4 lane bridge and could possibly include in their plans the free right turn at the top of the loop from westbound new' Highway 12 to westbound County Road 6. Regarding the free right turn to eastbound new Hwy 12, Eile" said a right turn structure could be added. Moorse said Eiler is reviewing the traffic projection The current traffic counts will be conducted ne.Kt week. Goetten said the main concerns were voiced by Kelley. She did not believe any were so important that they would result in changing the basic configuration. She emphasized the need to move quickly to get on board with what is occurring. Goetten said the interchange will be refined further. The design review committee would like to show Mn/DU 1 w here the City is at regarding the plan. 1 he timeline tor tne preliminary approval is moving forward faster than decisions are being made She would like to see the information at the next meeting. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 (^"5 - Hwy 12 and CoRd 6 Interchange Design - Continued) Flint questioned whether the preliminary design could be approved at this time or if further discussion is required. Jabbour was concerned with wanting a perfect plan and felt some of the needs and wants might be unattainable. Flint said the information provided satisfied him noting it can be refined further at a later tirne. It would also basically be a conceptual approval. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to instruct the committee to take this preh'minary design forward for the interchange of CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 granting conceptual approval. labbour suggested that any Council member, who wishes to work on the plan, meet with Mn/DOT, Eiler, and Goetten tv keep the process moving forward. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#27) RESIGNATION OF PLANNING INTERN Jabbour expressed his appreciation for the excellent job performed by Dressier during his employment with the City extending his best wishes for the future. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the resignation of Brad Dressier from the Planning Intern position, effective April 2, 1998. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#28) PROPOSAL TO HIRE FULL-TIME STAFF PERSON IN BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the addition of a full-time Zoning Administration Assistant position to be placed into the City's pay schedule at Level 6, and to amend the 1998 G' lal Fund budget to increase expenditures and revenues by $6,000. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#29) AUTHORIZATION TO REFUND PARK DEDICATION FEES ON THE WITHDRAWN SUBDIVISION APPLICATION AT 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve a refund in the amount of $6,200 to Dennis L. Platteter. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#30) AMENDMENT TO INDUSTRIAL MORATORIUM ORDINANCE - ORDINANCE NO. 172,2ND SERIES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the adoption of an amendment to the moratorium ordinance providing for exemptions from the moratorium. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MLNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 23,1998 <*#31) INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1997 (INFORMATION ONLY) No action required. (•#32) RECEIPT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHTEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORT - 1996 FINANCING REPORT ONFORMATION ONLY) No action required. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. (*#33) LICENSES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Special Event Permit Gear West 5 Kilometer Running Race Route: Start at comer of Brown Road North and Orchard Lane and end at same location. April 4, 1998 from 8:00 a.m.-9;00 am. (•#34) BILLS Norwest Bank Minnesota, N. A. 18th Annual Norwest Half Marathon Route: Lake Street to Femdale Road to CoRd 15 to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Ciystal Bay Road to CoRd 51 to CoRd 19 to Northview Road to Lake Road to CoRd 15 to Old Beach Road to CoRd 19 to George Street to Water Street May 3, 1998 from 8.00 a.m. to 1 1:00 a.m. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. COUNCILMEETINQ APR 13 1998 crrYOPORONO Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Reviewed: DATE: April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: #2308 Brook Park Realty, 3760 Shoreline Drive - Class III Preliminary Subdivision Planned Residential Development i ’ The attorney for the applicant has indicated that if an agreement is not reached between the applicant and the City regarding the subdivision and PRD proposal, the applicant will proceed with efforts to require City action to enable the development to move forward. Attached is the initial site plan submitted by the applicant and minutes of the December 8,1997 and January 26, 1998 Council meetings, at which the application was considered. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the Brook Park Realty application for preliminary subdivision and Planned Residential Subdivision at 3760 Shoreline Drive. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (U7) #2279 G. MARC AND TRACY WHITEHEAD, 1220 LYMAN AVENUE - FINAL PLAT - RESOLUTION NO. 4012 Gaffron reported that the applicant has substantially completed the conditions required in the final plat and Staff is in receipt of the mylars and documents listed as required for the final approval. The park dedication fee issue has also been resolved. Staff recommends approval of the resolution of the final plat. The applicant had no additional comments. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4012. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Goetten. (*#8) #2306 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH - FINAL PLAT CLASS III SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 4013 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4013. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. I (#9) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - PRD AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Bill Gleason of Brook Park Realty was present. Van Zomeren referenced the plans for the Class III Subdivision and PRD. The property is located on CoRd 15. Van Zomeren reviewed the discussions held on the application at two Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Van Zomeren indicated that before final plat approval, the issue of a water loop or sprinkler system needs to be decided. Van Zomeren reviewed the concerns and resolution draft. Van Zomeren said the property is heavily wooded. The applicant has attempted to maximize tree preserv'ation. Access will be from Livingston Avenue with a private driveway to access the townhomes to the south. A hammerhead will be added for a turnaround for cars cind emergency vehicles. She noted that the individual townhomes will be privately owned and the other areas will be left in common ownership. Van Zomeren reviewed the conditions of the resolution. Under #16, Van Zomeren said the landscape plan will be done prior to final plat approval and will need to be changed if Council agrees. Jabbour asked if there was any hazardous materials found on the property. Van Zomeren said she is not sure what is there noting the property is a 1 0 acre site. minutes of the regular orono city councilMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (#9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) noted the typical submittals being required. The park dedication fee is 519,464 Sewer and water fees were noted. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat and PRD. The applicant, Bill Glea.son, had no commer.'s at this time. Flint questioned the T easement of right-of-way dedication to Shoreline Drive. He noted he Hermepin County bike trail plan and questioned whether this easement is the place for a iKe trail It is currently noted for use by utilities only. He questioned whether there is room for a bike trail on the southern edge of the property. Van Zomeren said it can be reviewed by the City Engineer and resolution can be amended for a trail if requested. She indicated the Hennepin County right-of-way agent is requesting the same amount of easement as utilities companies have. Jabbour asked if the City wants a T or 10 ’ trail. He noted the park dedication fee would have to be adjusted if that was the case. He asked if Gleason understood. Gleason said he w^ working through it. Flint noted the trail would have to be 10 ’ or 12 ’ questioning whether the location was feasible for a trail without getting into wetlands. Gleason said he did not believe there was adequate room for a trail in that location. Flint questioned the determination of 30 units in the zoning district. Van Zomeren said LR-lCl District and the applicant is able to increase the density by 0 interns A-F are met on pages 1 and 2 of the resolution. Barrett suggested the resolution be amended to note the addition of the proposed plat meeting those requirements. ®5ked i f the application meets those requirements, if the City has to allow the 50 /o increase in density’. Barrett said he would review the matter but believed it is mandatory. Kelley felt too much structure was being squeezed in but would comply if required. Kelley asked how many townhomes were located to the east of this subdivision. Van omeren did not have that number. Kelley said he would like to know as the subdivision would add traffic through a lower density neighborhood. He suspected the property to the east has more dry buildable and has only 24-26 duplex units. Jabbour noted that a credit is received for the wetland. Kelley said he understood that, noting that was the reason for asking Barrett the question on allowing an increased density. Jabbour noted that sewered areas are reviewed differently from non-sewered areas. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (#9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Kelley questioned the use of a hammerhead noting he has never seen this done in the City. He asked if the City was taking the position that this is to be allowed. Jabbour said he feels the use of a hammerhead instead of a cul-de-sac is in conflict with the ordinance. Barrett reported that the language provided within the LR-lCl, one family lakeshore, Zoning District allows for a 50% density increase. The language says this "may" be provided which appears to provide some discretion to the Council, but since there are no sL.rfdards by which this is to be judged, he feels the applicant would have the right to the de -.sity increase. Flint questioned whether there is the discretion to round up in calculating the number of units allowed. Kelley asked if the number can be rounded down. Barrett said, by policy, what has been done in the past should be applied in order to be consistent. Jabbour noted that they w'ere talking about one unit only. He sees the main issues as that of a hammerhead versus a cul-de-sac, and the guideline of certain agencies to say whether a sprinkler system is required. Van Zomeren reported that the resolution was not drafted to require the sprinkler system. Gleason said if the water main could not be looped, the alternative would be to install a sprinkler system, but he has not done an analysis of it as yet. Gleason said he is attempting to save trees. Gleason said the system can be looped but tree loss is a consideration. It was noted that water pressure could be affected if all townhome residents were draw ing water at the same time. Jabbour asked Gappa about the water pressure. Gappa said he did not believe water pressure was a problem as there w'as capacity to pull from two different directions. Gappa thought it would be nice to have a loop. Jabbour asked if it was nice or if it was required. Gappa indicated it was not required. Jabbour noted the code does not say the plan must be approved by a landscape architect. Gleason said he w'as going to submit a landscape plan. If it is found there would be a loss of more trees, a plan could be provided to show the addition of more trees. Jabbour agreed noting the applicant should not be forced to have a landscape architect produce a plan. Gleason informed Kelley that tuck-under garages will be provided for the residents. Kelley asked where the front door is for the dwellings located in the middle. Gleason referred to page 5 of the plans noting the doors are on the walkways facing toward the woods. Kelley claiified that the door is not on the same side of the building as the garage. Kelley asked where guests park. Gleason said they could park in the driveway but would have to walk all the wav around to access the door. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (#9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Jabbour asked if the project meets the Livable Community Act. Gleason said he was unsure what that limit is but noted he was required to eliminate some umts. The current market price is $134,000. Moorse reported that under the act, the maximum limit is $120,000 for 1997. Flint voiced interest in knowing how traffic will be affected in the neighborhood and if there were any requirements pertaining to this issue. Van Zomeren said there was not but could be added as a condition. Flint questioned whether it is fair to add that much traffic to a lower density housing area. Gleason said a water tower is located in the area where the road comes out. The number of units is low on that road and traffic would not affect many units. He said the goal is to extend the road to the west if he can acquire the land. The owner is not interested at this time, however. Kelley said a point that the Council should be made aware of is the subdivision may facilitate the need for a traffic light to be installed at Casco Point Road and Shoreline Drive. He noted the difficulty that would result in making left turns to go east during the morning rush hour. Kelley said the CoRd 19 and Livingston intersection will be used more and is a bad intersection to begin with. Moorse said the Council may want to ask the applicant to provide traffic information since this is the only way out of the subdivision and is of majoi concern. Jabbour said the majority of the application meets the code, though, he would like to have seen the project meeting the affordable housing criteria. He indicated the cul-de- sac requirement would not be met but noted the plan is for saving trees. Jabbour said the applicant must demonstrate the hardship to deviate from the cul-de-sac requirement. Gleason said the drive is meant to be a private drive, will be marked and made to appear as such. The hammerhead was considered to provide room for a turnaround. Jabbour noted that most of the roads in the City are private roads. Jabbour said he sees no hardship demonstrated. Gleason asked if trees were considered a hardship. Jabbour said the problem could be satisfied by eliminating two homes and installing a cul-de-sac noting the requirement is law'. Kelley said he had questioned whether the Council w’as considering not requiring the applicant to adhere to the law. Peterson said she also was concerned with the issue of the cul-de-sac. She asked Bairett to look into the use of the word, "may". Barrett said he would do so. He feels reason for plausible discretion by the applicant with the language, may obtain . Jabbour asked for Council direction. ■ •.-tff-.h-,**. A r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (U9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Goetten asked Barrett if it was fairly conclusive that approval should be granted as meeting conditions. Barrett said that was true as far as density is concerned. Gleason noted that the goal was for affordability and cost would increase if two buildings were eliminated and a cul-de-sac added. He felt the private driveway aids affordability. He noted the encumbrance of trees as well noting he was trying to meet a lot of criteria with the plan. Jabbour said the code is specific in its regard to cul-de-sacs. He noted the market price is already over the limit of affordable housing. Jabbour indicated no hardship was shown. Jabbour said either the code should be adhered to or the code changed. Jabbour concluded that because of the density allowed by code and with the cul-de-sac, it would result in a loss of trees. Kelley noted the cul-de-sac would be located at the end of the private driveway. If unit #7 was eliminated, there would be room for a cul-de-sac. Gleason said he understood that but was trying to accommodate several trees but would support the cul-de-sac. Flint asked how the traffic flow w'orked. The r;ad and paved walkways w'ere noted. Gleason said if the units were staggered, a service door could be provided. He said he normally builds courtyards into the project. Gleason said two separated walkways are being provided where one w'ould normally be shown. This is being done in order to save trees. Kelley was informed that there w'ould be a homeowners association. He asked about outdoor storage. Gleason said no outdoor storage w'ould be allowed. No boats could be placed in the drivew'ay and cars would be allowed in the drivew'ays only temporarily. Van Zomeren referenced the restrictive covenant document noted under #7 on page 6 of the resolution. Kelley questioned whether the Council should review that document. Gleason said the homeowners association document would be submitted with the final plat. Kelley said he w'ould not want to wait until that point and have the Council deny it. Jabbour said it would be more appropriate to give direction now on what is expected. Jabbour informed Goetten that the Council can make conditions on a homeowners association. Gleason said he would submit the document to staff. It was questioned how that would assist enforcement since the document can be modified. Jabbour said modifications would have to be part of the resolution. Gleason said a modification would also require 100% approval, one denial would totally deny it, and would require Council approval. WTiile there is a time limit to the document, it is for 30 years. Jabbour noted the document can be renewed for an additions! six years. Jabbour noted that there was a very limited street side to the units. He would like to ensure that there is adequate parking. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (U9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Kelley asked if this was a PRD. Barrett said the increase is pursuant to the zoning district and not a PRD. Kelley asked if there was no parking on the street. Gleason said no parking would be allowed on the 22' wide street. Kelley asked what occurs when there is a party. Gleason said residents can ask their neighbors for permission to park in their driveways. Flint said he was not prepared to vote on the preliminary plat at this time as he would like an answer on traffic flow. He is less concerned with the issue of the cul-de-sac. Flint thought the use of a hammerhead made sense. Flint would like to see the impact of the density and is bothered by the use of the word "may". Van Zomeren said it is listed under additional permitted uses. Barrett suggested the Council under Subdivision III ask the applicant to be required to meet these provisions, A through F in the resolution but others as well that give Council discretion. Under E, for building size and location, and F, vehicle egress and ingress, Council approval could be required. This may need further discussion. Jabbour said he was not concerned with the cul-de-sac itself but with randomly ignoring the need for demonstrating hardship. He noted the Planning Commission unanimously rejected the need for the cul-de-sac and should not continue to make decisions in this manner. He said if the Council wants to make changes on egress and ingress it should do so or the application should be moved forward. The application would be discussed at the January 12 Council Meeting and January 19 Plaiming Commission Meeting. Jabbour said once the preliminary plat is passed, the City is committing to the project but some members of the Council are not comfortable with the plan as currently proposed. Gleason said he can ascertain the traffic impacts. He noted the subdivision is not designed for families but for singles and couples. He is unsure w'hat can be done as far as CoRd 15 is concerned. Flint said he would like the applicant to present the information and have staff review it. He feels staff needs to be more proactive and look at development of the property to the west. Kelley said he would not like to see only one way out of the subdivision. Jabbour asked that guidelines be given to the applicant. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (#9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Kelley asked the applicant to determine how this subdivision would correspond to the neighborhood to the east as far as density; what is proposed to the west, and roadway to CoRd 15. He suggested the use of a cul-de-sac. He wants to see the 22' private road meet the standards for private roads and review the homeowners agreement. Gappa noted the standard width for private roads is 28'. Van Zomeren said the reduction in width is to save trees. Kelley said if the issue is trees or safety, safety* is more important as additional trees can be planted. As far as traffic impact, Kelley suggested that Livingston and Lyric could possibly be one way streets. Goetten said she had considered that as well noting residents will find other alternatives when they see a problem using CoRd 15. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2308 to the January 12 Council Meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2314 JOHN BESSESEN, HOYT DEVELOPMENT, 2505-2507 KELLY AVENUE - ZONING AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE - RESOLUTIONS NO. 4014 Van Zomeren explained how the existing duplex credit works. She noted it is a moving target as it is tied to the commercial and industrial zones. The properties within 200' of the industrial zone are not eligible as they are not adjacent but separated by roadways and the railroad. In the commercial zoning district along Highway 12 areas within 200' and adjacent were shown. Van Zomeren said in practice, the duplex credit would not be used in this area. She showed the Navarre area wiiere eligibility for duplex credit could occur noting its haphazard application based on "adjacent". Van Zomeren indicated that the purpose of locating higher density residential next to commercial uses is to buffer low density housing. It is her opinion that the duplex credit is not an appropriate technique or method to attain buffering. The proposed property could become eligible by using the B3 District and establishing additional eligibility within 250'. This would add the property in question only. Van Zomeren reviewed the application. She reported there is an existing structure on the property that is a legal non-conforming use. In the LR-IB Zoning District one acre per dwelling unit is the minimum. A PRD is not allowed as the property does not meet the density requirement. The applicant is proposing removal of the existing structure and building a twinhome on the property. There is an Outlot A along the lakeshore and created and recommended by the City to provide docks for the nearby townhomes. The one acre property with the outlot grants rights to the neighbors next door. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 (#10 - #2314 Hoyt Development - Continued) Van Zomeren reviewed the options as laid out in the packet. She reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 3/2 vote to amend the zoning code by changing the eligible area within the B3 Zoning District. One alternative was to table the application to allow the Council to review where townhomes should be allowed and amend the Comprehensive Plan. A variance would be required to locate the duplex further away than the duplex credit currently allows. Bradley Hoyt and John Bessesen were present. Kelley indicated another option would be to combine the property with the adjacent townhomes into a PRD, eliminating individual lots, and working together to have a common dock. Van Zomeren said the problem would be that the property would not meet the requirements of the PRD. She indicated the wetlands also need to be delineated. Hoyt said he only has an option on the ownership of the subject property. His goal is to remove an unsightly structure and improve the property. Hoyt felt the Planning Commission recommendation is commendable as it only affects this property. He noted that Outlot A inhibits the lot from being a single family development. Hoyt said he is contractually closing on the property at the end of the week. He noted the history behind the common dock. He said he was willing to work with the neighbors to find a solution. Jabbour indicated that ever>’one is motivated to improve this property, but he wants to ensure that the right decision is made and not one of spot zoning. Jabbour said he asked Staff to review why the dock was planned as it is and whether the reason still applies today. He noted the removal of the dock would change the values of the property. Goetten said she was not in favor of spot zoning and would like to know the reasoning behind the docks. Hoyt said his understanding was one of clustering noting a past Council member lived nearby and did not wish to view the docks. Hoyt indicated that the townhome owners next door do not own the property underneath their homes but is owned by the association. Van Zomeren said the outlot is owned in common with all homeowners having an interest in it. Bessesen noted there were two homeowner associations. Ho>l suggested the docks straddling the property line by both properties and Outlot A being eliminated. Bessesen said Outlot A requires annual licensing. PUBLIC COMMENTS ------- is installing rip rap on feTtofeUne a^dTsVfh’””*'*''' °" *“'*’*’* Casey approval of the Watershed Distdct HesZtlZZJ f ^ penmt m order to move 2 cubic yards of dirt at ''' "aaded a conditional use hired, and the need to go through the Cim^ ^ iakeshore. The contractors have been for approval now to move the dirt an^oMaii;rar.:'h:t‘t ™T“ri"S ^htfploc^^^^ f°a riprapping; yet he finds it hard to believe pernuts .e not required, the Council sho^d^tr^^ grsuct^'rll:! ^'^g ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT mS f ZST s?dS.on - Conley Brooks was present. given October 13 fo1'a'^or11gTgaraye'''Th^^^^ reconsideration of a variance approval The 12'x 15' garage received fpprovfl for^ocf3"1b- °n'“f‘‘ *^®ed, limited to I2'xl5'. The reside^L is lorataHB l!k fer<i. but was the 26' wetland setback and be located ™e« proposed a 24’x24’ garace and thp PI applicant originally 18'x24' garage. The^apDlicaml Commission recommended approval of a structure was provided. '^S approval of a 16'x22'garage. A diagram of the Gaffron said the applicant believes a l^’vi ♦ indicated it would require a 4/5th vniP • ^ be functional. He Barrett said the Council - ''®<^o"sideration of the anniin,M«e,-a., til adiu me t^ouncil can discuss the mentc ration of the application, the application back to the Planning Commission^^^ initiaUcdoMs^equ^^ member, who voted with the •on, is required to open the application for reconsideration.majority on the MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCl MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26,1998 Flmt moved, to reconsider the application. The motion failed for lack of a second to the rMondderi''' disrespectful and not reasonable in failing to “IT’’''"""' •“ previously for variance approval was paswd after difficult discussion on the issue. He expressed his thought process'^regardine rJ’H Jabbour felt the beach users should not have to go all the way to the residence in order to obtain equipment for the beach. He did not view the structure as being storage or a location for trailers. He feels a 12'xl5’ structure is adequate for beach wasgivt^dufcoSr''leant Brooks said he felt too many issues were before the Council for discussion when the vanance approval was granted and late on the agenda. Jabbour noted that the issue was the first for review at this meeting. wasGaffi-on indicated the applicant can reapply in 6 months. Brooks said he disappointed in the Council's decision not to reconsider the application. Gaflfron clarified that since the application itself was approved in October, it would not require a 6 month wait but another application could be submitted by Brooks. Brooks noted new information was submitted. Jabbour acknowledged receipt of the information. He asked Brooks if the facts fairly represent his view. Brooks said they did. (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELLNE DRIVE - PRD & CLASS HI PRELIMINARY SUBDIMSION Bill Gleason represented Brook Park Realty. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the property and reviewed the proposal. The 9.93 acre parcel is located in the LR-IC-1 Zoning District and includes 2.2 acres of wetlands and 7.7 acres of dry buildable. The proposal is for 30 townhome units requiring a Class III Subdivision and PRD approval. The density allowed for this property is 2 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a density credit to allow 3 units per acre. Van Zomeren reviewed the purpose of the PRD, #1 through #5, as noted in the information packet. She explained the PRD, noting variances to subdivision requirements can be allowed if the goals of the PRD are met. There were outstanding issues when the application was last discussed and are listed in the packet as "a-l" on page 2 and forward. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on JANUARY 26, 1998 " >^2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) proposed that shifts four easteriy units to the nmth^ hammerhead, a cul-de-sac is some trees including 34" and 24^ oaks Van 7n^^' requires removal of direction on the cul de-sac or hammeL^'" Zomeren said the appUcant is asking for from the property line and is being proposed at'sO' The an’f to the subdivision requirements. ^ applicant is asking for a change Density was previously discussed. Van Zomeren referenced a letter from Cilv Attomev Barrett regard.ng this issue. With the PRD. there should be no need for aSe oS acrTs wh^no we".landT" ^ ^ Van Zonieren reviewed sprinklers versus looping. It was indicated that water pressure is ot the issue but capacity is a concern. Looping destroys more trees. There are two plans proposed for road width; a 22' private drive with hammerhead ora pnvate dnve with cul-de-sac. The subdivision ordinance does not recognize right-of- \w^y or nunimum paved road width standards for tovvnhome developments. Van Zomeren noted City's concern with the design of the individual units. Guests would have to enter the units through the garage or walk around to the courtyard side for entry. 1 he City s consultant planner expressed concern with the functionality of the units, including the inability for a temporarily disabled person to climb the deck stairs. The maintenance concern for the deck and staircase, especially during the winter months, was noted. The narrowness of the garage for additional storage i.s also a concern. development. The question has been raised regarding the fieed for gaming permission from other residents for guest parking if parking needs excee that allowed in the driveway. No parking is allowed on the private roads. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on JANUARY 26,1998 ■ «305 liiook Park Really - Continued) woulfc^reVS^ and couu“bT h"“‘ ha ‘"''"P*development No study has been doTe. h„ “vt =‘"<‘ivingston and Casco. agreement for Inothtr deSpmem thTt'^'‘*M ’’“"’“"'"er’s association cutrently being reviewed by the City X^ey ‘‘''’''"P™"' *' d'l^rcLTX^Io^ ^Counci. to give follows their directive. 'cation, the Staff would draft a resolution that :ir owncompany and the other'throu^BRW*'w 5'“dies, one through theii unit. BRW monitor resulted hfw"^ monitoring indicated 3.2 trips per day per garbage pickup, and mail delivery. '"''“ded deliveries, n°atrro“5TnTno recommended a with a hamn,.*.,u “rl!^ ’’“‘I: Commission asked for a narrow road "'^""d a wider road with a cul-de-sac. The road as no e , however, that it would be unavoidable to take additionaltrees. «ceSed™vhm h!ffl''' h™!'* "'il'' He felt the design met or adHce was sougrHeUrcrnr;:^:^^^^^^^^^^^ r a^dTnir^io r ‘Y" “"'‘“p-"'*Gleason saJH th^. *f ® ^ rather than one which is typical in other developments have similar nrnhi.'!,!;c? >'®"d'«P accessibility and other homes would to that found in other °"f" ''Pl«P«'a"cy than wood. The parking is similar minutes OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COU\rn _____________ MEETL NG held on JANUARY 26, 1998 ^ crook Fark Realty - Continued) pe" worbng than families. Gleason also noted the imo^anr generate fewer trips redesign. Ilfasted for CouS^^ SeT°" Viewpoinis of Council. Planning Conunition and'^Xap: the case due lo the need for the cul-de-sac Mdlil^cnfanrrell'harSr'^’ the site can reasonably accommodate™''^"' fore density than S"." S SirttSlSS was informed that the propertv to^tl ^ ® m u"* "" >5- She order for access to CoL ?r nit ^ ‘° ="<' developed in property was develted 9. ? P'"" 'h' toad if the other be a PROt'a Stt^^dteLtet 'neX'"' f moving to the east Kellev cited ihp Ar i "Ot want to see the added traffic development and asked ffie attan^^^ ' T “ ‘’'“"S " "'"-P'^nned of the proposed units and thXt c“ P'“" questioned the height the 30' height requirement KelL ™T"n ' Gleason noted the units meet support 3 levels located on the h'n ® ®ttuctures are massive, and he would not dwellings to the east and 30 unit! '"dicated there were single family not hav® any direct^ "egardtaa He did 12 units being located off the drivp rf r° Kelley is concerned with noted the updated ^ caH^for a' "Sold Xhe"n«d fo! afuwet c "qh'VT V"' ^hc also agrees development to the east in mind. ^ subdisis.on should be designed svith the MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26,1998 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gleason said the density is the same as the development to the east. Kelley countered that it is different due to the amount of dry buildable land. Gleason said the development to the east is not what is being purchased in today’s market. It is also a non-association development, which would be cost prohibitive. Gleason feels an association is vital for control in this type of development. Jabbour indicated that covenants are placed on most developments. Gleason said he feels there are benefits for this type of development. He does not believe the density level is too high and needs are shown for this type of housing and affordability. Gleason said he was confused in that he thought the zoning requirements were being met, yet the Council is asking for more. Jabbour said the code provides the City's prerogative regarding how the subdivision should be designed. He noted that people purchase properties with the understanding that the code will protect their properties. Flint said he favors saving more trees and would prefer a smaller cul-de-sac and road width. He does have a problem with the proposed density. Regarding egress to the east off of Livingston, Flint said the project could be further reviewed if the property to the west is developed. During public comments, Park Commissioner McDermott said the additional amount of 66 people for the area would equal that of development of 150 acres in the City's rural area. He noted the park in Navarre is in poor shape. As a resident, McDermott said he feels the visibility from the height of the townhomes would be an issue of concern. Gleason countered that the homeowners would most likely be singles with no children and would have little use of a park. He indicated a park land atmosphere would be created within the project area. Jabbour informed Gleason that the Council is reviewing different criteria. He suggested a plan using zero lot line, less density, less height, different design, and if the ordinance was changed, a narrower roadway. Gleason asked if the Council had any advice regarding the number of units. Jabbour suggested he review the neighboring development for ideas and indicated that massing and height are problems with the current plan. Gleason e.xprcssed his confusion over the differing guidelines He thought the design was what was desired and now hearing that the Council does not like the look of the development. Jabbour responded that this was only one concern, but there were others as well. He noted the desire of access from CoRd 15 and differing concerns amongst the Council members. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26,1998 (#4 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Flint asked how the cost of the units would differ if there were only two to a group He noted the land cost was less than other land in the area. Gleason said the buildings to the east ^e generally split entrys and not one level Uving. The units in the proposed evelopment are similar to walkouts. Gleason said the land is not economical and 75% of the project cost is for the infrastructure. He noted other cities would allow more density. Fhnt responded that the plan is incompatible with the philosophy of Orono and land use efficiency is not a consideration but best use of land is a consideration. He su^ested single level units be considered. Gleason said single level units require more land and would not be feasible for this project. Goetten said she was not against the project but is concerned with CoRd 15. She a^aduation in the type of units from twinhomes to townhoraes. Jabbour added that the plan should not require sprinkling and include only one cul-de-;sac. John Gleason, the builder for the development company, questioned what alternatives would be favored. He asked if the product as proposed would be totally unacceptable wit the projected height. Kelley said he did not beb'eve so. John Gleason felt the mixed use of single level \yith units as proposed would make sense. Goetten noted the need to create a good transition in the housing but admitted not being aware of the cost effects. Jabbour asked that the applicant present sketches for submission to Council without requinng a full design and laying out several options for Council to give direction on. Other Council members agreed with this proposition. Bill Gleason said he would explore this possibibiy. Density was still creating a problem ° formula for density in the City. Jabbour noted that the code allows for leeway in its interpretation. Tom Barrett said the landowner has the right to build on 1/2 acre lots on the property without a density credit. The density credit is more of a legislative judgment. The appear^cc of the development can be considered, as well as height, design, and recreational needs. Jabbour felt these comments were relevant. Kelley said the plan would be that of sketch plan given the discussion at this meeting. He pre erred a preliminary sketch plan be presented to Council and options given for consideration before further development. Goetten moved. Peterson seconded, to table Application #2308. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. C'#5) #2310 DICK BURY, CLASSIC CAR SALES, 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, lo accept withdrawal of the application Vote Aves 5, Nays 0. ^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 26, 1998 (*#6) #2315 C. DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1040 AND 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES • RESOLUTION NO. 4021 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4021. Vote; Ayes 5 Nays 0. (^#7) #2316 MIKE HILBELINK, 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CLASS HI SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 4022 Goetten moved. Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4022. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays (*#8) #2318 C.N. OSTROM & SONS, FOR JEANNE MITHUN, 755 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4023 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4023. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2319 RON LAUER, 1040 TONKAWA ROAD - VARLVNCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4024 Ron Lauer was present along with architect, Bruce Schmidt, and prospective homeowners, Mr. & Mrs. Buxton. Gaffron reported that the property is located in the LR-IB, one acre Zoning District. The 120 wide property meets S0% of the width standard for an existing lot. There is an existing house on the properly with a total of 39.5% hardcover in the 75-250' setback, excluding plastic removed from landscaping, approved within the last ten years. The original proposal was for new construction with hardcover of 35%. The majority of the driveway and house »s located in the 75-250' setback. The average lakeshore setback is met by the plan. The house will be located 120' from the lakeshore. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 3 to 2 subject to 75-250’ zone hardcover not to exceed 30%. The applicant has revised his plan with more of the driveway located in the 250-500* setback and reduction in «idewalk and patio to result in 75-250’ hardcover at 29.78%. The packet includes information regarding the new plan and hardcover calculations. Gaffron indicated that the m’nority vote in the Planning Commission recommendation stipulated that there was no hardship shown for hardcover to exceed the 25% maximum. Gaffron said Staff acknowledges the difficulty in meeting the 25% hardcover limitation on smaller lots. This lot is larger, however, and Staff finds it difficult to justify exceeding the limitation. The applicant is asking for approval of a 30% limitation and d . receive some support for this request by the Planning Commission. n m D o > rl Pi ill :o tp hi »inP zo 5 OI ei r-2 0I1 f » mz ^11 os > Ir*izz o I5 3fiL s s > v7 r- 5 17 lA •0 o > ?i I' o H T± roo t? 10’1-U MIhJ.i 1^ ^ -f roo I 12* iMIN U 9 I ? S’ p r 1 JMCSP.LMKM ROOEirrL HOffUAM aOMDK Ffneocu EOMMIOJ ORtSCOU GCfCN-FULlXP X»«4a RJUMCJI rpAMCi. HMrycv CHMIESS MOOEU OWTOPICR J 0«T7EN UKMKFISHCR THOMAS P STOI.TUAN M0M£LC JAdOMAN J0M4£ oe«. JON & 8MKR2E>MSIU THONMSJ aVM4 JAMES P OU»M TOGO I. FPEEMAN QCRALOL 8ECK JOFMB. LUNOQUI8T QAVU NOLAN* JO»«4A. COTTER* PAIXB. n.tP«ETT ALANL KSOOMf KATH^N lA. PtCOTTE NEUMAN MCHAQ. B. LEBMION QREOORVE^ KORtTAO OARYA. VANCUVE* QAMELL BOMU8 TRiOTHYJ KEANE ALANM. AM3ER8CN OOM4AL ROa^ MCHACLW. SOCCV R0IMai9«EPS TERRENCE C. BIMP UBAA GRAY QAfrrA.RO««KE OWrrOP»CR JL IMBWUBTT^ KENDO. J. OA4ROOQ6 VmttJOOUQLAS Larkin , Hoffman , D aly & Lindgren , Ltd . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 FAX (612) 896-3333 April 13,1998 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Members of the City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 Re: Lake Minnetonka Woods lMUIAMC.GR*mK Jt JO»«4R mi PETER J COYLE LARRY O MARTM JVC E BRCJyCR JOmj STEFFErAMOCN UlCHACL J SMITH AfCREWF PERRtI frecerx :kw . mebumt ACllAMG THORNTON QAMELW VOSS VSJSR PCX AFMM MEYER RETCEL MCHSOH CmiSTOPtCRK. lARUB MARCY R. FROST DOUGLAS M. RAACER 8TEPICNJ. KMMN6KI THOMAS F. VEXAICER OAMaT KADLEC 9WtmA VAVCGRCN JOmF KLOS C ERKHAMCS IV««C MK>€U£ MOORE C SPENT ROBBPM JHFPAE- YOMCR KRtSTM S. INE8TGARO * JOLC S. FREDERfCKSON JAAC8M. 8U6AO ANORCWO. RYAN ** LISA s. nOBtCION or COUNSEL JACKF ON.Y D KEMCTHUKX3REN ALLAN E. MULLIGAN VCNOCU R. VCERSON JOSEPH OTIS * ALSO ADMITTED M WISCONSIN - OM.V AOMITTEO M MASSACHUSETTS Dear Mayor Jabbour and Members of the Council; This letter is offered on behalf of our client Tonka Venture, LLC and the developer/applicant of the above-referenced project. Brook Park Realty, LLP (the Applicant) relating to the application for a planned residential development (PRD) approval and preliminary plat subdivision approval for construction of a 30 unit townhome project (the Project) located west of Livingston Avenue and north of County Road 15 in the City of Orono (the City). This application was filed with the City on September 26,1997, as Application No. 2308 and processed for review through city staff, city planning consultants and the city planning commission. It is our opinion that by virtue the provisions of Minnesota Statutes § 15.99 the City has forfeited its right to further review of this application and the application is deemed approved as an operation of state law. Minnesota Statute § 15.99 provides in relevant part: 15.99 Time Deadline for Agency Action. Subd. 2. Deadline for response. E.xcept as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency r 1 Larkin , H offman , D aly & Lindgren , Ltd. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Members of the City Council April 13, 1998 Page 2 ______ denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. Subd. 3. Application; extensions, (a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency ’s receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the 60-day limit starts over only if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. The City failed to give notice to the Applicant within the 60 day deadline. Moreover, it is over 6 months since the application was filed and the City stm has not made a decision. The intent of this statute is unambiguous- applicants for certain permits and approvals are entitled to timely decisions. The Minnesota Legislature, in response to expressions of concerns and frustration of representatives of vanoi^ property owners and property rights groups, enacted a statute in 1995 directing cities, counties, to^^ and other agencies of government to undertake certain types of land use decisions in a timely fashion. The deadline for action by state agencies and political subdivisions is 60 days. The 60 day deadline may be extended an additional 60 days if written notification with reasons for the extension is provided to the applicant prior to the end of the initial 60 day period. An argument may be made that this statue applies to zoning decisions and not subdivision decisions. While we do not believe that is the case, the preliminary plat application would have long been deemed approved pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subr- 3b. In the event the City Council fails to recognize by motion or resolution the operation of Minn. Stat. § 15.99, the Applicant will immediately seek a court order establishing that the original plan as submitted on September 26,1997, is deemed approved as a matter of state law. If forced to pursue this remedy, the Applicant will aggressively seek to recover all fees and costs associated with the City necessitating court action to force its compliance with state law. r Larkin , Hoffman , D aly & Lindgren , Ltd . Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Members of the City Council April 13,1998 Page 3_______________ Representatives of the Applicant will be in attendance at tonight’s City Council meeting. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203. Sincerely, Timothy J. I^ane, for LARKIN, HUFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Tom Barrett, City Attorney Bill Gleason, Brook Park Realty, LLC Joel ButtenhofF, Minnetonka Ventures, LLC 0389081.01 r p- COUNCU-MEEtlNQ 13 envoFOROto REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Date: April 9, 1998 Item No.: ^ Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution Zoning District: Site Area: Proposal: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered 17.5 Acres ± 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Resolution for Preliminar>' Plat Approval B - City Engineer Comments re: Stormwater Quality and Quantity 4/U98 C - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Showing the Corrected 75' Setback Line D - Revised 'Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement w/Map E - Notice of Council Action 3/31/98 F - Staff Letter to Met Council 4/7/98 G - Memo and Exhibits of 3/20/98 On March 23 Council revierved this preliminary plat application for a second time and tabled it on a vote of 4-0, providing the following direction to staff and applicant: Applicant and staff to work out stormwater management issues. Applicant and staff to work out tree/woodland preservation easement nuances, - added protection for Lot 5, including some type of groundcover - strict limits on activity on lake side of ribbon marker - consider fertilizer limitations in protected area including: No trail easement will be required. r #2341 - Dan Anderson April 9, 1998 Page 2 Lot 7 road adjacency layout as proposed is acceptable as long as 2.0 acre min. area requirement is met. - Staff to proceed with MUSA amendment process to allow this property (and potentially others) to be sewered. On March 30 staff requested that the 929.4 Lake Minnetonka OHWL be used to show the 75' setback correctly on the preliminary plat drawings since it was discovered that the shoreline shown on the drawings was taken from the City topographic maps which do not accurately show the 929.4' contour. The surveyor has staked the 75 ’ setback line on the site and shown it on the revised preliminary plat (Exhibit C). Stormwatcr/Drainage/Grading Plan Applicant submitted a preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan on March 18 which was reviewed by the City Engineer on March 19. Applicants provided additional information to the City Engineer on March 23 which was reviewed by Heather 0!>on of Bonestroo in her April 1 memo regarding stormwater quality and quantity (See Exhibit B). Staff met on the site with the applicant on April 6 and reviewed aspects of the drainage plan. Based on our review and the comments from City consultants, staff has concluded the following: As much drainage from the site as possible is planned to be directed to the stormwater pond on Lot 7. It is not feasible to divert all runoff from all 7 building sites to the pond. The stormwater pond should discharge to the south, along the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road and eventually to Maxwell Bay. There are no existing culverts across Old Crystal Bay Road to handle these flows, and the topography and drainage system within the plat of French Creek Woods was not intended to accept these additional flows. - Runoff from the west-sloping portions of Lots 4-5-6 will be sufficiently handled via the natural vegetated buffer provided for and retained via the Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement. However, any runoff from the homes to be constructed on Lots 4-5-6 that could be readily diverted to drain to the private road (and hence to the pond), should be so diverted. - Likewise, any runoff from the existing house and from new houses to be constructed on Lots 2 and 3 that can easily be diverted to the road, should be. It appears that the new home locations will be on elevations that will allow a portion of their hardsurfaccs to drain toward the road. Further, the developer has agreed that a ^2341 - Dan Anderson April 9, 1998 Page 3 to the north. ‘‘■■'''"age from Lois 6-7 gets to the pond, berming will likely be needed.some sw'aling and or Temporary sedimentation ponds and silt fencing will be established d,. • construehon of each residence to reduce the in.pacttf runoff realtg the laL ® q’ilriity'ald qlTiff fythcciTltter Lot 7 Layout hn“e“tm':^gr^:at;r: ^e^hi’aitter ■?: r■-»standard is 260' lechmcally the front lot hne, with defined width of 50’ >Standard is 200'. Municipal Sewer where the p'oTernialirrh^rtmlw nZtost::n2o^^f'’M'' construction could be held off un U I't , ^ ''P'’'*'*'"' has noted the road coordinated, and that the current subdivicin i sew'er and road construction be is provided. He would prefer that sewer be as^ ^ i? ^^^8^ regardless of whether sewer Staff has initiated fomfal contact with Mef r benefitting lot over some time period. Exhibit I-,. It is iihely that a MUSA antendm^rMlu^'I roriVthi^bTelXd'^' Tree and Woodland Impacts " »d'thm t;'’ ifm“r^ - h- lakcward of the yellow ribbon marker Staff i<; to the preser\-ation easement area (and mainly upslope from) the nrimarv e ^“^Sesting a sccondaiy protection area adjacent to mJ .1.;.». »■ ..b..,™ „ extent of each easement area is cT^lv ^ , i ’’f*he, so that the Lot 5’s slopes are within the 0-75' area th-m n.lv ”'*' t' ‘h=“ »f75 area than previously thought (see Exhibit C), which automatically r #2341 - Dan Anderson April 9, 1998 Page 4 subjects that area to existing tree protection regulations. Please review the revised easement document drafted by staff (Exhibit D) and the map defining the two protection zones (the 'Preservation Easement Area' and the 'Protected Area'). Language has been added regarding establishment of groundcover for erosion control purposes, and each of the two defined protection zones will have limitations on the extent of vegetation removal allowed. The developer has indicated he is in agreement with the language and restrictions of this easement document. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution granting Preliminary Plat Approval, subject to resolving any additional questions Council may have regarding stormwater management, sewer, tree/woodland preservation or any other pertinent topics. Please advise staff of any revisions you wish made to the resolution or to the tree preserv ation easement language. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval. J r A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS 111 SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FILE NO. 2341 WHEREAS, Dan Anderson (hereinafter ihc "subdivider") on January 23,1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a seven lot residential plat of property legally described as; Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 7, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7 to shore of Lake; thence Southeasterly along said lake shore to East line of said Lot 7; thence North on said East line of Lot 7 to point of beginning; except that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on East line of said Lot 7, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7, 20 feet, thence East at right angles to said last mentioned line 28 rods to East line of said Lot; thence North 20 feet to point of beginning. AND Commenci;. ,n the Southwest comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section V, l ownship 117, Range 23; thence North 6.57 chains to the center line of the Crystal Bay ^oad (so called), thence Southeasterly along the center line of said road 11.89 chains < »he South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 9, thence West along said South line 10 chains to the place of beginning, all according to the United States Government survey thereof. AND All that part of Government Lot Seven (7). Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117) North, Range Twenty-three (23) West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), Which said point is three hundred two and eighty-one hundreds (302.81) feet South of the North line of said Government Lot Seven (7); thence Southwesterly along a line which makes an angle of twelve degrees, fiffy-four minutes, and forty seconds with said line which is parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), a distance of seven hundred sixty-six and seventy-six hundreds (766.76) feet; thence Southerly parallel with the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7) to the Page 1 of 10 r shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southeasterly along said shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point in a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7); thence North along said line parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7) to the point of beginning. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (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 February 17, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on March 9, 1998; March 23, 1998; and April 13, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividcr noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. 3. The property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakesh »‘e Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of tw'o acres of contiguous dr>' buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 17.5 acres of land. The only wetlands located on the property include two wetlands adjacent to and within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, comprising less than 0.1 acre in total area. All portions of such wetlands located above the 929.4 OHWL shall be subject to a Flowage and Conservation Easement. The proposed plat consists of seven residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, except as follows: A. Lots 2 and 3 front on the proposed cul-de-sac and do not meet the defined minimum 200’ lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the defined front yard. Lot 2 has a defined width of 11 O' and Lot 3 has a defined width of 170 ’. However, the granting of a lot width variance for these lots is justified by the fact that each of Lots 2 and 3 Page 2 of 10 f 4. 5. 6. 7. contains a suitable building site meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances. B. Lot 7 is a comer lot abutting Old Crystal Bay Road and the private road outlet. By definition, the boundary abutting the private road is the front lot line, and the defined lot width at the rear of the defined front yard of Lot 7 is approximately 60' where 200' is required. A variance to lot width is justified based on the configuration of Lot 7, because it has far in excess of 200' of frontage on Old Crystal Bay Road; because the location of septic sites and the stormwater pond still allow for a suitable buildable envelope; and because of the unique shape of the property. Lots 1 and 2 are 'through' lots subject to a conditional use permit requirement for placement of any accessory structures. Lots 4, 5 and 6 have very restrictive building envelopes due to topography, bluff impact zones, and drainfield sites, which in combination leave little flexibility for the location of the homes to be constmeted. Each of these three Lots contains sufficient width, and each is oriented in a manner in relation to the shoreline such that application of the average lakeshore setback ordinance to these Lots will not serve its intended purpose of preserving adjacent Lots' views. Therefore it is appropriate to exempt said three Lots from having to meet 'average lakeshore setback’ standards. The property contains approximately 800' of relatively undisturbed, heavily wooded Lake Minnetonka bluff shoreline abutting Maxwell Bay, located across said Bay from Norenberg Park. As one of the relatively few such undisturbed areas left on Lake Minnetonka, this unique natural feature is of such value to the public, especially as viewed from the lake, that special protection measures are warranted in order to preserve such features in as natural a state as possible. All lots have been found ' . ve adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providiri^, .oth a primary and alternate site for each of the seven lots. Final septic system designs are required for each lot. While the City is pursuing the possibility of providing municipal sewer to this I i Page 3 of 10 '^1 8. 9. development, the property can be developed as proposed with septic systems and without the need for municipal sewer. Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which meets all required setbacks for the LR-lA district. However, said residence is served by a septic system which has not been located and which is likely non-conforming and which is likely to be located outside the boundaries of Lot 1. All seven Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the plat as Outlot A. 10. I i ' 4 13. The private road proposed to be constructed in Outlot A is proposed with a horizontal curve radius of 125' where City code standards require a 275 ’ radius. The 125' radius will be approved based on the short length of the road (700') and because the 125' radius allows a design speed 20-25 mph which is not inappropriate for this length road. The v?- v ’ce in further justified in order to protect drainfield sites which would 0Uiv; <*i.'k* oe eliminated if the road was designed to meet the 275' radius standard. The applicant has proposed a stormwater management plan which will include stormwater ponding, storm sewers where appropriate, and vegetated buffer areas, to provide for stormwater quality and quantity management. Thomas D. Jolmson, Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his letter of Febniary 12, 1998, approved the proposed curb cut location to Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84). The City will m require that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way as requested by Hennepin County be granted for Old Crystal Bay Road, because the Orono Comprehensive Plan categorizes County Road 84 as a 'scenic parkway’ requiring only a 66' right-of-way width. The Hennepin County Bicycle Trail System Plan dated September 1996 does not include a trail at this location along County Road 84. The City Council has reviewed the City's trail corridor needs along Old Crystal Bay Road and has concluded that no trail easements will be required from this plat. Page 4 of 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVFH thof u a •he findings noted above, the City Council of L aty If Orono Tl ss pf.-X" I. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. meet the^ 2. 3 and 7 which do not200 width requirement of the LR-IA District. A variance will be granted to allow a horizontal cur\'e radius of 125' for the pnvate road in order to preserve identified drainfield sites. " o^^lL'Mul^ttteTo^sS Utf ^ P--- pS,;";,:;'dZiir^ c!istT efv'LT'K I? il'’" n"'’"® “““ '» Old CrLa Bay Road sha b '« Old The private road in Outlot A shall be constructed to City private road and*'^h"’'^H’’ Agreement to be executed behveen the City and the developer. Private road construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road as well as stormwater management plans have been approved by the City and the Developers Agreement hL be^n lecuted of Pr^Hvort' in by >he Hennepin County Departmentluoiic works in their required access permit. Driveway to serve Lot 7 shall extend from the private road in Outlot A within Page 5 of 10 the portion of said Outlot extending along Old Cr>'stal Bay Road. Subdivider shall confirm that the area of Lot 7 excluding the stormwater pond easement is at least 2.0 acres. 10. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the developer. The developer shall create a homeowners association for such ownership and maintenance. 11. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work and all stormwater management improvements have been completed by the developer and approved by the City. 12. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for Outlot A. 13. 'fhe proposed grading plan for creation of a building pad within Lot 6 shall be designed to result in no encroachment of the bluff impact zone. Subdivider shall plant boulevard trees along the private road per the requirements of Section 11.60 Sub. 2. 15. Subdivider shall construct stormwater management improvements generally as shown on the Preliminar>' Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated March 15, 1998 subject to any revisions of said plan as may be required by the City Engineer. A final Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. Subdivider shall gi^t drainage easements over all drainageways and stormwater ponds within the plat. 16. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. 17. All identified primary and alternate sewage system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off prior to any land alterations, and such fencing remain in place until such time that each Lot is developed. 14. Page 6 of 10 r 18. SuMivider shall develop covenants for each lot for protection of drainfield sites within each Lot. Covenants shall include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternative sites. Applicant shall include language alerting future property owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. 19. Applicant shall submit complete and acceptable septic system designs for each lot prior to final plat approval. 20. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing a new conforming septic system to serve e.xisting residence on Lot 1 within 1 year of the date of final plat approval. 21. Subdivider shall grant a Flowage and Conservation over those portions of wetland located above the 929.4 OHWL. 22. Subdivider shall grant a Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation easement over the shoreline and bluff impact areas within Lots 4, 5 and 6. 23. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee per City ordinance. 24. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminaiyf subdivision approval will e.xpire one year from the date of Council preliminary plat approval. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminarv subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator mo weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: ^ 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy Page 7 of 10 reduced to 1" - 200'. Drawing to include: a.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Edward J. Otto of Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. dated January 23, 1998 most recent revision April 8, 1998. b.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. c.Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 at 33'. d.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainage ways as showTi on preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan. e.Designation of Outlot A to serve as a private roadway. f. The 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. c.Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A) stormwater and drainage facilities, etc. d.Signed and e.xecuted Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preserv’ation Easement. e.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. Page 8 of 10 f.Signed and executed Flovvage and Conservation Easement over wetlands located above the 929.4' OHWL. I i g. Signed and executed Road and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. h. 1. J Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". Completed private covenant for all Lots regarding protection of drainfield sites. Covenants to include protective language for primary and alternate drainfield sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future ovvTiers of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. Subdivider may wish copies and should notify City. Completed "Application for Private Road Name". 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. Final plat fee = $200.00 b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 c. *Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider lall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed with Cit>. r’.?rk dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value r • a-vithin Lots 2 through 7. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of April, 1998. Page 9 of 10 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of April, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 10 of 10 Memo ^ i Bonestnoo Rosene AndeHik & |\j| Associates CAg«n«*n 4 A/cfilt*<ti Project Name: Andersen Subdivision To: Tom Kellogg From: Heather A. Olson Re: Storm water quantity and quality review Client: City of Orono File No: 139-2321 Date: April 1,1998 Remarks: General in the plans prepared by Otto Associates, Inc and dated 3/15/98. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (Co. Rd. 84) in the northwest quarter of section 9. The site consists of approximately 17 acres of 2.0 acre Rural Residential lots The site will drain under Old Crystal Bay Road South into a moderately susceptible wetland area. Water Quality The proximity of this development to Lake Minnetonka (Maxweli Bay), increases the importance of erosion control and treatment for the runoff from this site. We offer the following recommendations: bllffeX «t=hi' ^ "'s recommended that a vegetatedbuffer be established to provide some treatment before leaving the site. vegetated 5. A wet volume of 0.37Acre-Feet should be provided for the adequate efficiency of phosphorous removal. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ Phone: 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 ------------------ r Memo l/]l Boncstfoo Rosene vS Andeiiik & |\j| Associates lAgrwrt 4 Ar«fwi #<t i Water Quantity The topography of this site prevents the entire site to drain to a single ponding area. We offer the following recommendations; 1 It is recommended that impervious surfaces, (house, driveway, and yard) and any land d's^rbed during construction be routed to drain into the street and into the proposed ponding area. This will reduce the amount of untreated runoff draining directly to the lake. 2 The installation of an Emergency Over Flow (E.O.F.) is recommended at the intersection of Outlot A and Old Crystal Bay Road. The E.O.F shall direct the runoff not captured during large storm events to flow overland to the pond instead of out onto Old Crystal Bay Road South. A swale should be graded along the proposed 15-inch RCP pipe system into the proposed pond. 3 A stilling basin lined with rip-rap should be installed between the outlet and the pond to prevent erosion from the high velocities discharging from the 15-inch pipe. A 1-2 ft berm should separate the stilling basin from the pond. The stilling basin should be 15 feet in length with 4:1 side slopes. The stilling basin may not be required if outlet velocities are reduced to 5 fps using some other method. A design in detail should be submitted. 4. Our calculations show a 100-yr HWL of 942.0’, which includes the overland drainage litm V and VI. This HWL seems to provide sufficient freeboard even though the buiiding elevation on Lot 7 is not shown on the plan. 5. The ponding calculations for pre- and post-development for the 5.10. and 100-year storm events should be submitted. 6. The outlet from the pond should be directed easterly under Old Crystal Bay Road to the existing ponding area. A design detail should be submitted. 7 A berm at an elevation of 943.5’ should be installed around the pond. An E.O.F. set at 942.5 ’ ■ should be located on the south east corner of the pond, to allow outflow during storm events larger than the 100-year storm event. The pond E.O.F. should direct the *f>>e;gejhto the west ditch^^^^^ along Old Crystal Bay Road South. The 15-ft. wide E.O.F should be lined either with np-rap or well established vegetation. 8. It is difficult to determine from the grading plan whether a maintenance hen^=hjs being provided above the pond NWL. At a minimum, there should be one provided around the inlet and outlet well as any point where dredging operations might occur. 9 The ponding area should have a 10:1 aquatic bench at the ponds NWL. The ponding area illustrated on the plans submitted on March 15“’ does not appear to have this bench. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates------------------------------------------- 2335 West Highway 36 ■ SI Paul. MN 55113 ■ Phone. 612-636-4600 ■ Fax:612-636-1311 r > ■ ! D TREE, WOODLAND AND VEGETATION PRESERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAMAGES THIS rNfl /ENTIRE, made and entered into this and between day of .19 ___,by , and its heirs, assigns, and successors [hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor(s)] and the City of Orono, its successors and assigns, 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, gran*, gift, quit claim and convey to grantee the right to restrict and grantor(s) agree to limit and preclude the use, improvement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: A)The 'Preservation Easement Area* (the area located lakeward of the yellow tape, Grantor(s) hereby covcnant(s) and agree(s): B. No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land except the following: 1) One lakeshore access stairway per Lot, such stairway being no more than 4 feet in width, subject to City approval; 2) One dock structure extending from the shoreline; if such structure includes a canopy-covered slip, such canopy to be dark green or brown in color; 3) One lockbox limited to 20 s.f. footprint area and 4 feet maximum height, finished in natural earthtones; and 4) One mechanized lift device for transporting persons up and down the bluff All such structures or devices shall be designed, located and finished to be consistent v^di the natural state of the land and screened from view as viewed from the lake to the greatest extent possible. Where feasible, stairways and lifts may be designed to nin diagonally across the slope in order to maximize natural vegetative screening and avoid vertical cuts in the shore landscape. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the 'Preserv ation Easement Area' except as authorized by written eonsent of Grantee. Such consent may be granted under the following guidelines: 1) Removal of trees and understory shall not be allowed except to the minimal extent necessar>' to accomplish one of the improvements allowed in (A) above. 2) Trimming of trees and understory shall be allowed, but shall be limited to merelj’ the minimal extent necessary to gain a partially obstructed lake view, and such trimming shall not be so extensive as to jeopardize the vitality of the plant materials. 3) To pp in g of trees to gain an unobstructed view of the lake shall not be allowed. Natural vegetative groundcover shall be maintained to minimize erosion of the steep slopes within the 'Preservation Easement Area'. Page 2 of 3 c. D. E. F. V.g.,a.io„ maintenance, trimming or removal within the ’Proteetea Area’ shall be subject to the following. 1) No tree of diameter 6" or greater shall be removed except by Specific approval of Grantee. 2) Trimming or lopping of trees ‘rimrrting of^^ sto" ^ be allowed without requiring approval of Grantee. Natural vegetative groundcover shall be maintained to m.nimize erosion of the Sleep slopes within the 'Protected Area. There shall be no change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. There shall be no fences, play temporary or permanent structures placed on the Land. Exeept for the improvements provided for in (A) above, no hardcover shall be allowed within 75 feet of the shoreline. Except as herein provided,and no r’^l^l'dToTh^ge natural visual characteristics shall be made of the Land.. iho I ^nd for the purposes of inspection and H. Grantee may enter upon the Land tor tn p ip enforcement of the covenants con aine gtructures, uses, materials, from the Land without any la i» covenants contained substances, or unnatural matter inconsisten herein and the natural state of the Land. addition to any other remedy the grantee may have, the eovenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. d. „ ,...1 sof this indenture or otherNvise, except as hereinabove set forth. Page 3 of 3 G. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except; All 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this 19___, by_________________ day of NOTARY PUBLIC STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON; This instrument is drafted by; City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Page 4 of 3 •.V >v ‘:V V.-v.••.V »*.*.*^*,T^ '■ V • •*•*,*• •'.*!*«. • .^ •*.’.*^j'.‘ • •*-*y*.*.v>*v'< \ -fv >r>:;* •*#* .V.*vVi •*•* •ivjvv^v.^^ ^i*.*,**‘ •« ^vX- y.- *a- ' •* * y^v •V* .•'•••v:;‘v. A.^ riN .••••.V •’•* • .*.• •*.*'. »v V/ *.**•* :S>e •••.y>.'fv • •*.* •x's;... •.*. <m.A* ^v:vy>; /.V. % \ ■>, ■' '• ' \ \ V ' ^ 'W \1. • \\ «I • \ ^v'^yy v'y;*.*•' ■/\* 9: fn r.-ry-iar y‘jF>*-*.v ^'A•y•;ryyy‘ *•* ■ V. •‘'-fy / * v.-/■-*.• %• mmm: y^^ y-:y.».• I*** •*/ • ***** V. v:y \V**’v:y\:*--v/yv •:. ; :y>v:M / ■M yN;/// / nV .V • • • • • ♦. •K • \ ....................... .*.• I*** * i •Vj X ..V V •y. •/V / 324 .•// ^LHfi// //( ■ ,' J: ■. / / X a .•/ <? ef» r-VVO>?- ..'W: /V EaseTnen ■v^ oter CeVef)>.K>« .f rtJ/ < ;/ 298 V .H ’V'.-'VT' E L.Mf' ^ T i/ /-'UA<'’ y " yt-x I o io f"'' tr. h. r>AJ' {^ ritLC^ ('A<‘r-<’-C'V.^ !•p^?ftTT CH'U AaCA )" - /no • t- CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2341 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 31, 1998 \ \ \ \ M \ i ' ■' \ \ \' ;■ \ \« \ • \ \ : \ TO: Dan Anderson 3540 Montgomerie Avenue Deephaven, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 3/23/98 COPIES: Ed Otto, Surveyor 9 West Division Street Buffalo, MN 55313 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST I N. V Motion: To table, giving applicant conceptual direction regarding the plat, follows: Applicant and staff to work out stormwater issues. Applicant and staff to work out tree/woodland preservation easement nuances, including: - added protection for Lot 5, including some type of groundcover - strict limits on activity on lake side of ribbon marker - consider fertilizer limitations in protected 2irea No trail easement will be required. Lot 7 load adjacency layout as proposed is acceptable as long as 2.0 acre min. area is met. Staff to proceed with MUSA amendment process to allow this property (and potentially others) to be sewered. On March 30 staff requested that surveyor show the 929.4 Lake Minnetonka OHWL contour on the preliminary plat drawings, since this contour is critical for measuring lot areas and setbacks. J This item will be brought to the Council for preliminary plat approval on Monday, April 13, 1998. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. - mo S6 Tom Caswell April 7,1998 Page 2 Please discuss this with tho » i'zS"ZT 1-. not change the Citv ’«5 n outlined on map B is feasible Th whether -M .cnaa. .e p:--3 "r re atzrrr Michael P. Gaffron Semor Planning Coordinator end. Ron Moorse. Cily Adminislralor reg Gappa, Public Services Director Mayor and City Council : 1 m!»* j •^\• • I 'y I >.-»-ri ' rr^ 11 lT T•Is^Fi^ii i; l( Jii IIJI^ i;? L^k ^K^ihi i?!!^• 1__I ©iOl^iiy iL I t I I^:*> • 6:0 FEET VARCh, ;c9? I SS?r Se;V*r«ATA ^ fr 'S^S5 K fCf /XIST7AJ6 MWS/\ r_w,B \ ^•’' X- m% c^./" ,* •i •^tMC, ^a A«c r»vi/XJvi J 1^ N.M.'ral rnvifonrnfn! (NH takes OHWl Lake Classen 974.5' Dickey Lake 985.5' French Lake 930.3' Lydlard lake 970.9' Lake Katrina — Wolsfeld lake (Medina)- Recreational Develonment fRD) Lakes CHWt Long Lake 944J' Mooney Lake 988.0' Tanagerlake 929.4' Hadley Lake (Plymouth)961.4' ‘•neral Develonment (CD) Lakes OHWL I ^rest Lake lake Minnetonka 929.4' 929.!' r~'*x "T^ Painters Creek Stubbs Ba| Creek Long Lake Creek Wolsfeld Creek Dickey Lake Creek / SIIOUELAND OVEIOAV DlSTiUCT MUSA - MEmOPOLlTAN URBAN SERVICE AREA S.ee 6WMi2.c>^iw€AJ'r'E^-3:: -/ST/' -3o e -fVicw' ■Mjevt ZPhilt^ bit>>str» 11 \ n «II ! \ LlXl KIZNETOCTA t<<MK »>• It ) ^JT-<i^"===^ \ —i I ! / ' . .'I • • I A . : /7“A:<cc fi^-ceZ. CxAttasf^T^^ Be//o6» PMTT^Et^ /ajt-o'‘7 ^ors SrU&fei BA/ m mm amwm mmw^* W ^ w W W 4 li^ •?\ >■ .X \ / J J A ^ - • jyi ;* ■ 1 1 »f • 4 1 • 1 IT \r^ • t f : I ! I I 9 • 4 >=r /!i M • -■rH^ ■ «'^•• \ v'.-v \■*V m^'m Vi -. C0WTt»v»rtAr^'C^ ZI /^t2CA ^ ;musA im Vltr^ETOKCA 7^’ . imiKO l-.i, \ V- 1 u/oirs e;cpMjSlD/^ -/55'/»c<2<rs -3o ^nsrtt^L^ PuJeu./AJ<:»s —fbiw^TfAu 26? uA^bete. c.uA3DA/r ZOhilti^, M* A ^ii JAL ^MtrV OF y P<vif,'»rA2.^>^<-« MAXUit'LL- RAV /Joer.e^)B•enG. X n P^^K. f. - iw .✓c- OOv \' !ur\ I. •T-f I L r f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Date: Maich 20, 1998 Item No.; /3 Agenda Section: Zoning c? } k Hem Description: #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road - Preliminary Plat Approval - Second Review Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area: 17.5 Acres+ Proposal:7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing B - Prelimin^ Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan C - City Engineer Comments re; Grading & Drainage 3/19/98 D - City Engineer Comments & Map re: Trail 3/18/98 E - Notice of Council Action 3/20/98 F - Memo and Exhibits of 3/o/98 ^ Tu "rprcliminaiy plat application and tabled it on a vote of 5-0, providing applicant with the following general direction: * Applicant must develop a stormwater plan for the property that is acceptable to the Applicant to define the proposed area for tree/woodland protection by roping it off for staff and Council to review on the site. A legal description will be required for the easement once the boundaries of the protected area have been accepted. Stall to revievy the trail situation on Old Crystal Bay Road from North Shore Drive I^rk V ^ including possibilities for a trail adjacent to or in the Noerenberg #2341 - Dan Anderson March 20,1998 Page 2 Lot width variances req Private road horizontal cun-.; radius variance 60-day review period extension. uired for Lots 2 & 3 on the cul-de-sac are acceptable. from 275' to 125' is acceptable. by the applicant ’s engineer. Lot Layout Issues - Lot 7 M noted in the March 6 memo, the City does nm credit St— provided a revised plan (E^ibit A) ^ than the road outlot extending p • . 1- at the n-iva*-- oad but needing a lot width the as yet easement.this layout contains 2.0 acres exclusive r . , v cites and 1. ‘ • -y inflexible) house site meeting iS“d docs not e^rge'i'n shape or s..c Trail Easement Discussion e March 1 8 regarding trail location and Please review City Engineer Tom taken from the construction issues, he is Read. .Mignment of such a trail will be #2341 - Dan Anderson March 20, 1998 Page 3 Potential for Municipal Sewer .!». I. C-..„ sr.r;it Err Tree dnd Woodidnd Impacts alone the lake side nffViPr>ir4 r i^ j *. • boundary was located andlaiew^^onh:^^^^ the fence line west of the field road. boundary along U ^ “"''-ion whoto iCge, and L^'^ff^dTsc^Lr "'' “o “™m Staff Recommendation are outstanding:Conned should topics listed below, and any other issues you feel 2. Layout/variances for Lot 7 3. Trail location and construction 4. Sewer possibility 5. Tree preservation boundary approtaTLTrrtTm^ 'ha applies be given eonccptual direetion, and that no preliminaiy plat COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Give appheant eoneeptual direction on issues of note, tind table the appi ication. PRELIMINARY PLAT LITTLE PRESENTED-BV., ANCO LANDiPE¥ELOPMENT I KntLilVmMAnY vanMUxnva, unrvxiM/-v\;*i_,& EROSION CONTROL PLANPRBSERC0 LAND|]pEVELOPMENT # TC' -T*-*-*" , • *. ' '"'ID' f » /VC O :: . Skimmer •Outlet Structure :: I , Q ‘ t Qa-< L :’• I D L-' ' ■> j • • — ^ *>v \/( ;.j * 341.S N Sk'ffnmer -Outlet Structure Bonearoo, Botene Andcrl k jmd Associ.nel Me is an Alfirrr.ivve Action equ.tl Jpportumty employer rnncip.ili Otto G Boncitroo. PE • Josepfi C Anderlik. PE • Vrtfvin L SorvJlJ PE • Richurd E Turner. PJ • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Sfhunicm, PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • - Robert * Roscnc. PE and Susan M Ebeilin. C PA Senior Consultants ^ AssociMe PrnopKis Howard A Sanford. PE • Ke.th A Gordon PE • Robert R Plefferic. PE • 2^ - I U Richard W Foster PE • David O Loskota PE • Robert C Russek. .M A • Mark A Hanson PE Mictiacl T Rautmann. PE • Eed K Field. PE • Kennetn P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Stdney P Wilhc^mson. PC . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St ®aui. Rochester Wiiimar and St Cloud, VN • Milwaukee. Wl i -'’ * ' evt^ oc 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects March 19, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Andersen Subdivision File No. 139-2321 Dear Mike; Yesterday we received a mailing from Otto and Associates that included a preliminary a grading plan for the proposed seven lot Andersen subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of Section 9. We have reviewed the submittal and observed that the plans an calculations contained some errors and omissions. The grading plan shows a storm w.ater pond in the eastern corner of Lot 7. It appears that the pond ^ a wetland on the east end of Maxwell Bay. The draft version of the City s Surface Water Management Plan ( ) classifies this wedand as being moderately susceptible to nutrient and .sediment loading. We recommend that pond cakulatioiis be submitted that i-kntif> both pre and post development peak flows and nutrient loadings. In with the SWMP .tr. .l to protect tlie downstream wetland, post development flows and nutrient loadings shou u no pre development conditions. We also recommend that the following information be submitted or corrected; • A detailed drainage area map clearly showing pre and post development drainage arexs. size of areas, runoff coefficients used and any assumptions used in the calculations. . Calculations showing pond sizing to meet NURP standards for the drainage area reaching the pond should be provided The calculations submitted show that the pond is sized to treat the entire site (17.5 acres). . Corrected pool volume calculations. The contour areas provided in the calculations do not match the pond contour areas as measured on the drawing. • Tf: pond should have ;> 10;1 bench at the por.d NWL to provide a barrier of safety. . 1 he storm sekver design should be clarified. Do flows from CBMH1 go to CBMH2 and then to MH1 ? Plans should show pipe sizes, pipe length and grade. • Storm sewer calculations should be provided to verify the proposed design. • Outlet struciu'c details and design should be provided. . A revised plan set should be submitted that shows specifically where the downstream drainage from the pond goes. If tlie City chooses to construct the trail south of the Luce Line on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road, it is our recommendation that the trail be graded along the ca.-t edge of the Andersen property as pan of this project. Please contact me ni ((n»4 4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. r^i: 1 • C. LJ ' r. Yours ver, iFu'y. BONIESIKOO. ROSENF, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg •r# tJOTiltlcHi [•TuiKi] MiTiVUi •rtiiTtrivct] WilRi nrctre r#ii«ra ilCt]i [IMI] Ha r< wmmYm^ '/I •' / v; <• • !\V\ ' ■■■T v''' 'Vi'.'i ' - - '/ V ' J, \ *v i-1 * \, •••*^-11 •.' X I - .K '^ •^'t-Cs '‘•/•'tt,'\V-r.-;>. \<l •. /a —i .n3s.^J /'/A, tV /' ^ «X'“v ,/A 1 f/-;^ . ' ' U^/!> -\ r- •i^>f:; \S i ;s •?b:! *•>.rv.x.c .'N «\ I ^iV / •*IV«. \ J <P:i0r:-.V v\N \ \U' ✓ .. \ -4V; iw tTKy m M ; -■ I ;i. .ii^piv^ V, ' A/ / ^.r'>;i?>'^'-'-.::X 1 r ,W^^=a; \ » X'' \\\'vi \/;' A1 TrrY 0 ^0 .'V---- •y. , “f='0'\ioA .V N ty // y ^:Uo ! ! •--ry 4 m <.'.>/?^ •.r /s'U!/r//'Vi / y. .> V \'* *% X \^,/ \S r .V •'X' I V '.'■) iiV'A. \u\v.■'\ V 1 '.' x\\\l \ X-* X N V'v:*; f <* r i / /'f 1. - ■ ^ h ; 1 .y ’♦. • r^«*« V • •' J X ^ /■ ■ "i ' *^./•*•*• • • •••'. ■< '• ....... »'v V X-<*7 '^.■sP¥ mmr>' r’ kA .X--:*'!'.'/-'' \ • t#A ,v% ,. / ! \» N \’ /iv.i v^V\ /■>., ^ 1-M / » H '\Nt N if >SS;X •w y / -'i.i./,*/.V'::| ' ^ y .'T/il/ c// !lfc( Jy/y xj) ------------^ tin 4/, 4t- -l^-l___'V ■“? •' '^ J ■y f?’ AN h 4'.-L- A ' y' :xy**./^v/;A ^^^XWELL ,. ^rr.X 1: : X V ^ 'iSV.'w .'!: A:>\'|\ »2^' •'Wi# •^•v>“ -r..< //. .A >?, ,«■ ■ •'•« ’" il’''/mX: /-jXgllk .i( v.<?1 --SJ # • V\ \ j ------------ -h‘N>////// '•'•VA ' • V —S'. % W R1BS5T SSR MUM niBiSSh rnMim •Ml iKI \%wm •IfSiiJ RiliST m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 6, 1998 Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval; Name: Michael P. Gaffron ' Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsevvered Site Area:17.5 Acres + Proposal:7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Draft Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3/2/98 C - Comments from Hennepin County Public Works 2/12/98 D - Draft Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement E - Memo and Exhibits of 2/12/98 Overview This is a preliminary plat for the 17.5 acre Carpenter property located just north ofNorenberg Park on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Seven single family lots will be created, three of which will abut Maxwell Bay. This property is outside the MUSA and will be served by septic systems and wells. Applicant proposes to provide access to all lots via a 700' cul-de-sac private road. The property contains some woodland, and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline which will impact lake setbacks. Please review the memo and exhibits of February 12! Major Aspects of Proposal Important aspects of the proposal as reviewed by the Planning Commission include: - Lot width variances required for Lots 2 & 3 which are on the cul-de-sac #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6,1998 Page 2 Private road horizontal curve radius variance from 275' to 125' requested, based on protection of drainfield sites, especially in Lot 1 Existing residence on Lot 1 will remain, meets all setback requirements but needs a new' septic system Lots 1 and 2 technically are 'tlirough' lots, any future accessory structures need CUP Lots 4 5 and 6 are the only riparian lots, and have buildable envelopes very restricted by septic sites, lake setbacks and bluffimpact zone setbacks. Staff |s reeommCTdltie ,L, these three lots he exempt from awrinie lakeshnre setback requiremenu w ic would have little or no positive protective impacts gtven the size, onentat.on. and restrictions inherent in these lots. Grading is proposed in Lot 6 to create a walkout building pad about 150' from lake Neighborhood comments at Public Hearing resulted in PC recommendation to require a 15* trail easement along east property boundary abutting Old Cn-stal ^ * leave this as a potential trail corridor option even though it could negatively impact septic sites and requiie significant retaining walls Planning Commission recommended that a Tree. Woodland and Vegemtion Preservation Easemcn be required to protect the unique wooden shoreline, ^pplic™ has conceptually agreeed to grant such an easement. Such an drafted by staff for Council and applicant review and comment (Exhibit D) Hennepin County has requested additional T of right-of-way for Old Costal Bay Road, fhe official Hennepin County Bike Trail Plan does not ^how »jrari here.^d the Orono Comp Plan only calls out the need for the existing 66 of R.O.W. S recommends no added R.O.W. be required. ]Mn <;tnrmwater ponding has b>-<-n proposed. This ls th? giggle criticnl f>hPrtCQm m& nf |ht;> current proposal- in staff s OpiniQUi Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission first reviewed this in January as an 8-lot sketch plan with two private mads SrriX av Applicant w as advised to make a number of revisions to that plan prior to formal pfat applicatimi submittal, fhe plan was revised to 7 lots served by a single private road. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6,1998 Page 3 reviewed by Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 17. Planning Commission recommended as follows: 1 . Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. 2. Acceptance of proposed access for Lot 7; all existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Pxoad shall be eliminated. 3. Approve private road radius of 125' as proposed due to septic site impacts if a conforming radius is required. 4. Applicant to grant a 15' trail easement along easterly boundary of property. 5. Applicant to develop stomtwater ponding or provide a letter from MCWD re: ponding. 6. No bluff impact variances will be granted; revise grading, etc. for Lots 5 & 61 conforming. 7. Applicant to grant a trec/woodland/natura, vegetation preservation easement specifically for the areas abutting Ma.xwell Bay. 8. Adherence to normal development requirements. Stormwatcr/Drainage/Grading Plan At this time, applicant has not MCWD review, recommended that stormwater pondmg be pr magnitude of residentialrstr c:; rx-; - needed for this site. u appears to staff that drainage trom >h= ^ a portion wLTotlra;onLrigh'result in lot areas being somewhat smaller, since the City does not credit stormwater ponding casements toward dry buildable lot ,irea. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 4 Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weckman has confirmed that all lots have viable primary and alternate sites, and that future testing would be needed to confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where^mounds are now acceptable. Actual system designs for each lot have not been submitted, and they will be required prior to final plat approval. Bluff Impacts fs very near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the Sheet setback and top of bluff setback requirements. This lot appears to “ the lots in regards to house placement. The (op of bluff needs to be aecurately depleted for Lot 5 on a revised version of the final plat drawings, for future reference. Tree and Woodland Impacts: Easement Proposed m^voods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such ctoges in the landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtualiy untouched arm of Ma-xwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6 or Imger diimeter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing \vi in shoreline, on sleep slopes and in tlie bluff impact zone. Durin*’ the sketch plan review. Planning Commission agreed that it would be appropriate to Lt some tvpe of rrce conservation easement; be specifically developed for this site^ Tins wouW appear to bri possible under the provisions of Section 11 .60, Subd. 1. The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requiremen s. A draft Tree. Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement is attached lor council review and comment. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 5 Issues for Discussion 1. Will Council approve lot width variances for the two cul-de-sac lots? 2. Will Council approve a variance for the 125' road radius? 3. 4. 5. Does Council concur with Planning Commission in requiring granting of the 15' tratl easement along Old Crystal Bay Road? Should the value of such easement be subtracted from the park dedication fee? Does Council see any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? Does Council have any specific concerns, comments or suggestions regarding the tree/woodland/vegetation preseiv'ation easement? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends conceptual approval of this preliminary plat, subject to. 1. 2. Applicant to develop a stormwater management plan for the site to include water quantity and quality ponding (this may have an impact on lot layout). Applicant to address other street and storm sewer design and site drainage issues raised by City Engineer in letter of 2/12/98. If changes to the road design, grading plan or stonnwater pond development signillcant changes to the lot layout. Council may wish to refer this back to t lanning Commission for further review. Applicant to revise preliminar>- plat drawings and grading plans to correctly depict the lop of bluff and bluff impact zones and eliminate any grading encroachments of same. Applicant advised that final septic system designs for each lot will be required prior to final plat approval. Extension of the 60-day statutory review period to 120 days (to 5/23/98). The allachcd Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval is presented for review ptir^ses will likelv require revision based on Council's action. Staff recommends that the applicant be gl% en conceptii'al direction as noted above, and -he application tabled until the remaining issues are addressed. 4. 5. 6. COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 CrTYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 13, 1998 ITEM NO.: 0 Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2248 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:57,200 s.f. (1.13 acres) Application: The applicant had proposed the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot that would not meet hardcover requirements. A variance for hardcover was required in the 75 ’ to 250’ lakeshore setback. The City Council directed staff by a 4 to 0 vote at the March 23, 1998 Council meeting to draft a denial resolution for this application based on the following findings of fact: • The percentage of hardcover proposed for the residence and driveway in the 75 ’ to 250 lakeshore setback is 25.9% where 25% is allowed. • The property meets area and width requirements. Allowing the requested hardcover variance would set a negative precedent in allowing a hardcover variance for new construction on a vacant lot of record that meets all zoning requirements and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s Community Management Plan and Zoning Ordinance. • A residence of reasonable proportions can be constructed on the lot without the granting of a ‘• •■^'•dcover variance. The residence as proposed includes a substantial driveway and two decks. The hardcover requirement can be met with minor adjustments to these amenities. . The plight of the applicant is not due to a hardship unique to the property, but rather the desire to create decks and a driveway that increase the hardcover amount over what is allowed by code. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, FILE NO. #2348 , / WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota. WHEREAS, pursuant to state statutes 412 et, seq., the City Council of ihe Ci^ of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Mary Jane Hauser (hereinafter "the applicanO is the otroer of the property located at 1540 Bohns Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City ) and legally described as follows; See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property ); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit “ "^jsTllesUe a vacL lot that would exceed the 25% hardcover requirement in the 75 to 250 lakeshore setback. WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March If, 1998 and recommended approval by a 4 to 0 vote based on a revised proposal of 25.9/. hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback where 29.8% was proposed by the apphean . WHEREAS, the Orono City Council on March 23, 1998 moved on a 4 to 0 vote to deny the variance request and directed staff to draft a demal resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the variance application based on or more of the following findings of fact concerning the property: Page 1 of 3 ^TiTIK h ^0 FSlCtlHtJ Rinnj kUri^Will [tViTlME imi FSllMlIVW RIICC 0 •KHlKlClMtJ RuiWtJ ^m\ KTItlHC iO, gs Rinn ititjiwj mm mm 8. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. , I CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies a variance to Municipal Zoning Code SecUon 10.22, Subdivision 2 to deny a hardcover variance of .9% in the 75* to 250* lakeshore setback to allow 25.9% hardcover where 25% is allowed for the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, MayorLinda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of April, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, N!ayor and City Cicrk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 Legal Description That part of Lot 1 in Section 9. Township 117, Range 23. described as follows: Commencing at a point on West line of said Section 9. 22S feet No^ of Southwest oorner of said Section 9, thence North along said West line of Section 9.175 feet thence East on a line parallel to the South line of said Section 9 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence In a Southerly direction along the shore of Lake Mirwtetwka 181.64 feet nnore or less to a point where the said shore is intersected by a line drawn through the point of beginning and parallel to the South line of said Section 9; thence West on a line parallel to the South line of said Section 9 to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder. Hennepin County. Minnesota. COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1M8 CtlYOFOBOMO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; April 9, 1998 0ITEM NO.: Department Approval Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed:Agend.'' Section: Zoning Item Description: #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen and Jim and June Toiive, 4196 North Shore Drive Proposed Subdivision - Denial Recommendation Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre, sewered. Application: Detach Lot 57 from Lots 55 and 56, to allow combination of Lot 57 with Lots 58 through 61. List of Exhibits A - Planning Commission Action Notice of 3/24/98 B - Planning Commission Minutes of 3/16/98 C - Memo and Exhibits of 3/11/98 Summary of Request Please review the memo and exhibits of March 11. Briefly, Lots 57 through 61 were owned in common from 1946 through 1986. A house has existed on Lots 55 and 56 for a number of years. At some date prior to the midi960s, Lots 55-56-57 were legally combined. In 1986, Touve sold Olsen only Lots 55 and 56 without Lot 57, which constituted an illegal subdivision. When the City was notified by the County of this subdivision, the City disapproved it, and notified the seller and buyer that a subdivision application would be required, and that given the zoning requirements of the LR-IB District, staff would likely not support the separation of Lot 57 from 55 and 56. Applicants have now proceeded to make a formal subdivision application. Planning Commission Recommendation Again, please review the staff memo of March 11 regarding the buildability and lot area issues surrounding this proposed division. At the March 16 meeting. Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend denial of the request, citing the substandard lot area i.ssue as a major factor in the recommendation to deny. Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 4 April 9, 1998 Zoning File #2350 ___ This issue is somewhat complex, in that the buildability of Lots 58 through 61 is extremely limited due to the existence of a wetland in those lots. The buildability of 58-61 would be enhanced by adding Lot 57, at the expense of making the current homestead parcel even more substandard. Discussion While applicants feel that the legal combination of Lots 55-56-57 must have been "a clerical error made by some City staff person", there is no documentation or basis for such a claim, be cause there is no documentation in City or County records as to how or when the combination occurred; except that County records indicate it must have occurred prior to the mid 1960s. Whether the City had any involvement in that combination is unknown. However, the City has relied on the legal combination for issuance of permits and in relation to a 1979 variance application. All cities rely on the legal combination for defining lot sizes and determining whether lots meet zoning code standards. It is also a fact that a single legally combined tax parcel may consist of multiple deeds, as well as a combination of torrens and abstract properties. The primary issue for consideration is whether Lot 57 should be separated from Lots 55 and 56. Such a separation can only be approved in the context of Lot 57 being legally combined with adjacent properties, since Orono's subdivision code does not allow the creation of substandard lots. The impacts that this subdivision would create include: The homestead parcel would be reduced from 0.81 acre to 0.58 acre in a 1 acre zone. 2. The combination of Lots 58 through 61 (0.92 acre, of which 0.48 acres is dry) would increase to 1.15 acres (0.69 dry). 3.Access to the rear of Lots 57 through 61 could potentially be through Lot 57, avoiding direct impacts to the wetland. Buildability of Lots 58-61 vs. 57-61 Lots 58-61 if combined will contain slightly less than 1/2 acre of dry buildable and would need a lot area variance in this 1 acre zone. However, by adding Lot 57, a number of potential "credits" come into play per the Flood Plain and Wetlands ordinance. Section 10.55, Subd. 15. Specifically, since the dry land tirea to the front and rear of the property would become contiguous and would constitute at least 1/2 acre of contiguous dry land, the entire 0.46 acre of wetland could be credited for purposes of complying with the zoning code provisions, if the property ’ is considered as "seived by municipal sanitary sewer". This credit might be applicable since this property could be sewered (see below) if Council agreed to allow ing a connection, provided that applicant would grant a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland and could build the driveway without encroaching the 26' MlHiJIlHUMIlVtialLij •iMliiRltJ ItKtlt matiifiriHit] miiwj Rmicc MlKIYIIW [tliTt]rti^orf] MAiii i[tniT^ MiiiijiimiwiKtJSiinlMOiUMjlg rtriKtit] •11 tXOSt^ riixnmrtHit] been valued at $100 each since the mid 1980s, and the 1997 taxes on Lots 58 through 61 are $2.26 each, or a grand total of $9.04. As noted in the March 11 memo, applicants created a dilemma when only a portion of the 55-56-57 tax parcel was sold in 1986. Applicants will have to work out some solution between them if the subdivision is denied. The Olsens are currently attempting to sell Lots 55 and 56 without Lot 57, and would like this matter resolved in their favor. iiniwfnfl [•TiiltJ Ris^Tii^nra MOIlUC ^Tmliwuirc nnrii^^ininisxssEi^ FrniiP.T^il •I^iLtKJ Sira lira k iriv^Mirc RRmUiMiTll^•xiiniTlMOlK OTItilWi] raro MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMTvUSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 i 1 SCHEDULED PUBUC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (#5) KEVIN AND LISA OLSEN/JIM AND JUNE TOUVE, 4196 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:49- 8:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gafiron reported that the request is for a metes and bounds simple subdivision to separate a platted lot that was legally combined in the past. Lots 55, 56, and 57 were legally combined. Mr. Touve sold lots 55 and 56 to the Olsens without lot 57. They were advised that this constituted an illegal subdivision and would require a formal subdivision with the City, but the City staff would not recommend approval due to the sub-standard lot situation and given history of ownership of the property. Gafffon noted there are wetlands located on lots 57-61. Gaffi-on said he did not recommend separating lot 57 from lots 55 and 56 due to the lot sizes and "lot of record" status. The zoning is one acre. Lots 55-57 have a total acreage of .81 and meet the 80% requirement for buildability. Any reduction would make the size more substandard and give Touve increased potential for building within the remaining lots. Gaffi-on noted that Touve has not made any application to date regarding future building and that would be a separate application. Gaffron reviewed the issues for consideration as noted on page 2 of the memo. Lots 58- 61 when combined would be under the one acre requirement, and contain only .48 acre of dry buildable, which would not meet the standard. A driveway would also have to cross over the wetlands. Gaffron indicated that the request to add Lot 57 to 58-61 would result in making a substandard group of three lots into a smaller group requiring variances. He feels consideration also has to be given to lots 58-61 if combined on their own merit. The deeds were created over 10 years ago, and the Olsen's have paid taxes on the 3 lots without having a deed to all three lots. Olsen ’s now have the property up for sale, and Gaffron believes the intent is only to sell the two lots. This needs to be resolved. If the lots are not separated, lot 57 would have to be sold with the other two lots. Gaffron said neither City or County records document the history- behind the combination, and he recommends denial of the application. MfsiimUfilKC ifirat r*Kma]rtiirti [tllfltJIlMIM mm MOIWJ RTTiniMUilil^ nmirtiiit] nirat] Mfiihlim MM •JCtlt originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lets 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and 56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot 56, and owner’s duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56. Olsen said she has never owned lot 57 and never legally combined the lots. The only place where this combination is shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaffron asked if this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaffron said that was a key point because lots 55 and 56 were on one title. Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. Olsen said she was informed "hat the most expedient way to handle this issue is through subdivision. She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that created the illegal subdivision. She asked that the combination be reversed and reflected in the tax records. Gaffron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the lots were legally combined. Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. Gaffron said in 1977 and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. Gaffron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps. He concluded that unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Olsen asked that the lots not be referred to as a legal combination, since there are no documents to substantiate that it occurred. Mabusth informed her that it was a phrase used for combination of lots for tax purposes. Mabusth asked when the error was made. GaSron referenced a County letter indicated it occurred prior to the 1960's. Mabusth said she would find it hard to imagine that this occurred at the City at that time and probably occurred at the County. Berg asked if the property has always been Torrens property. Olsen said yes. Olsen added that the Hennepin County letter said it occurred prior to 1960’s but the revised plat of 1963 did not show the combination, and the next revision to the plat map occurred in 1976. Olsen indicated that a set of maps from the 1960’s showing the lots separately, and the combination likely occurred in the 1960's. Gaffron informed her that regardless of this information, it is the City's position that a subdivision is required to separate lots and asked the Planning Commission if they would allow this to occur. He asked that the Commission consider what impacts the subdivision w'ould have with building on the property. Mr. Touve referenced the plat map where lots 55 and 56 are combined and where the three lots are shown combined. The deed shows lot 55 being a separate lot since 1953. Touve said his property show’ 4 lots taxed individually but two were combined at one time and then a third added. Gaffron referenced map H-6 showing two lots combined, lots 56 and 57. He concluded that this map was prepared by the County in 1987 without City approval, and the property owner was informed that a subdivision was required The current County maps show all 3 lots combined. Touve felt Gaffron was being highly speculative. There were no public comments. Smith noted that Staff recommended denial. Stoddard asked if the property owmer had any desire to purchase lot 57, understanding that there was no access and the property included DNR protected wetlands. Touve said tie had no desire to change the lots. He said the substandard lot is similar to others in the neighborhood. He said this was not brought forward as an issue when he sold the lots to his daughter. Touve asked that the record show that he did not try to deceive the City when he applied for a variance in the 1970's. He had no idea that this was an issue. All seven lots w’ere indicated as they were all under one ownership. There was no question regarding lot combination at that time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MMICH 16, 1998 I s (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Stoddard said it was his opinion that it would be best if lot 57 was combined with lots 55 and 56 with a driveway easement granted to the other lots. Mabusth asked whether he was requesting this of the applicant of if the buildability of the other lots were a consideration. Olsen informed the Commission that they are a large family, and it is not an option for her to purchase the additional lot. She asked that the lots be addressed by those that she owns. Lots 55 and 56. She would like to move forward. She asked if any other information is necessary or questions regarding legal ow nership. She asked if the issue was due to the substandard size of the property. Mabusth clarified that Olsen w ould like the Commission to act on lots 55 and 56 only. Smith agreed that the substandard size was an issue. Olsen said she did address this with Gaffron, and had told her he w ould not give his opinion on this, and Olsen thought the lot size was satisfactory. Gaffron was asked if additional information was needed to assist in changing his opinion. Gaffron said he has read through the historic file and reviewed the 1987 file, and Staff will not support the subdivision request made by the applicant. Olsen said she made a rough calculation of other lots in the neighborhood with exception of the lakeshore property. Of 18 lots, only 5 met the standard or were .88 acre or larger. The remainder were substandard and similar in size to her property at .58 acres (Lots 55 and 56). The hardcover of the property is at 11%. Touve responded to Mabusth questions regarding the development of the 7 lots. He said he w'ould be w illing to negotiate with the City, County and DNR regarding the building size and wetlands. He informed Stoddard that the w'etlands have been delineated. He noted the wetland area has changed over the years due to manmade efforts on the east end with the building of a dam. A hill was pushed in by the road that changed the w etlhiids resulting in it becoming larger than it had been originally. Touve felt he had an adequate footprint with 25' to build w'ithout any variance with room for the 26' buffer from the wetlands. The prol’'...i has arisen because the wetlands w'ere enlarged. Touve said he would accept having a driveway to the east. He said it w'as his understanding that the City was using the pond in the past, and the City implied that he would get this land back when the sewer was installed. Touve said he was concerned that the substandardness of the lot is a result of someone else's doing. The 7' drop from the culvert to his home has been blocked off. He plans on adding cattails and dredging out the pond for ducks. If his plans were approved, he then would be willing to give a portion of lot 57 to lots 55 and 56. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa OlsenTim and June Touve - Continued) Mr. Touve's other daughter noted that lots 55 and 56 are similar to others in the neighborhood and asked for approval as presented. Smith informed her that the Commission can only act on what is included in the application. She indicated that the application can be tabled to allow the choices to be evaluated. Commissioners agreed that the application would likely be denied as proposed. Ms. Touve noted that the neighborhood was not perfect. Berg informed Ms. Touve that this is the time for the Commission to make improvements. Olsen said it was also time to correct an error made by the City in the past. She would like to have the ability to sell her property if she so chose. She disagreed that the property was ever legally combined as there is no documentation to substantiate it. Smith indicated that the Commission does not always accept Staffs recommendation but based on the information before her, she suggested the applicant work with staff to explore options. Olsen said she has worked with staff for 10 years to no avail and does not believe any additional time will help. Stoddard noted that many properties are substandard. The Commission's role is to make property conform to the zoning. He indicated that further discussion should be held regarding the wetland and driveway, and the applicant should include the Corp of Engineers, MCWD, and DNR in the process as they are the approving agencies for areas that include wetlands. He would like to see this issue resolved before any further recommendations are made. Mabusth concurred. Touve said the Corp of Engineers informed him he could fill areas less than 1/2 acre. Stoddard said the other two entities must also be involved. Olsen noted that the home on Lot 55 was built in the 1920’s and became substandard when the zoning was changed to one acre. Olsen said the non-conformity was not created by her. Stoddard was of the opinion that the application as presented would be denied and suggested further discussion include the wetlands and drivew'ay issue. Olsen asked if the problem was with the buildability of the property or substandard size of lots 55 and 56. Berg said these were all issues of concern. Smith informed Olsen that tabling the application would allow her to keep options open. Denial would result in that recommendation made to Council for their action. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Touve asked if the Commission could mandate Staff to work with them. He indicated it is difficult to work with the other agencies prior to City approval. Berg informed Touve that the process called for the other agencies review before City action can be taken. Smith said the City would help him work through the process. Gaffion said an application would be required for building on lots 58-61 and advised that this be a separate application. Stoddard reiterated that the DNR protected wetlands required approval from the entities noted prior to review by City. He suggested this be done now or an easement would be required and the lot could not be sold. Stoddard moved to table Application #2350. Olsen asked that the Commission act on the application at this time. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2350. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CONTEVUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATHER AND LINDA SALLEE, 3285 CARMEN ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:49-8:56 P.M. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The applicant proposes to rebuild and e.xpand an upper level deck located on the lakeside of the property requiring variances for structural coverage, hardcover within the 0-75' lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, and lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission was previously concerned wath the hardcover in the 0-75' setback and asked to submit revised plans limiting the increase to 1 -2%, which would still enable the applicant to have a more functional deck. A new plan was submitted. The original plan showed the deck extending 6'7" beyond the overhang. The extension is the same in the new plan but in a smaller area. The remainder extends 2-1/2' beyond the overhang. Gravel was reported to be located under the deck and by the lakeshore, which Staff had been previously unaware of and hardcover calculations w'ere redone to reflect this. Bressler reviewed the issues 1 -6 as noted in the memo and reviewed the recommendation for approval. Molsather and Sallee were in agreement with Staffs recommendation. Mabusth asked if the hardcover calculations included the stairway and 25 s.f of pavers. Bressler said the calculations include all hardcover after removal of plastic. Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron. Senior Planning Coordinator Subject: March 11,1998 #2350 - Kevin & Lisa Olsen and James Touve, 4196 North Shore Drive - Class 1 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing i I 1 Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. Sewered Application: Detach Lot 57 from Lots 55 & 56, to allow combination of Lot 57 with Lots 58-61. List of Exhibits: A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Concept Plan for Lots 57-61 F - Sketch with existing/proposed lot areas G - Hardcover Review H - Applicant Letter of Request/Comments/Deeds I - Memo from Raymond F. Hirte, Hennepin County Property Descriptions Dept. J - Materials Related to Buildability of Lots 57-61. 1. March 22, 1994 Letter to Jim Touve 2. August 4, 1987 Letter to Jim Touve 3. July 13, 1987 Letter to Kevin & Lisa Olsen 4. Wetland Delineation Report Excerpts 5. Tax valuation comparisons 1974-1997 6. Sewer Assessment Documentation K - Zoning Code Sections 10.03 Subd. 6 and 10.55 Subd. 15A Summary of Request Lot 5^ was purchased by the Stenbergs (ancestors of the applicants) in 1923. Lots 56 thru 61 were purchased by the Stenbergs in 1946. A residence has existed on the site for many years mostly on Lot 55 but partly on Lot 56. At some past date, probably prior to the 1960's, Lots 55-56-57 were Icuallv combined. Nobody is sure how, when, or why the combination occurred, but the City has relied for decades on the 55-56-57 combination as defining the 4196 North Shore Drive property, for granting variances and issuing building permits (reference a 1979 side setback variance application by Touve). Lots 58, 59. 60 and 61 have always remained as 4 separate vacant tax parcels. Jim Touve took over the entire property in the 1970's and sold just Lots 55-56 to Kevin & Lisa Olson in 1986. When City staff became aware of this transaction in 1987, stafl advised Touve and Olson r #2350 - 4196 North Shore Drive March 12, 1998 Page 2 that legally 'uncombining' Lot 57 from Lots 55-56 would require City subdivision approval. Staff further advised that this division would not be supported by staff because it would reduce the homestead parcel to less than 0.80 acres, which is the zoning code minimum for construction on existing lots of record in the 1 acre zone; and because it would potentially result in making an unbuildable lot buildable at the expense of an existing already substandard lot. Issues for Consideration 1 . The subdivision code generally does not allow the creation of tracts or parcels that will be substandard in size. When completing a lot line rearrangement such as this, the code does require that the remnant parcels must be combined with adjacent lots. If Lot 57 is allowed to be separated from 55-56, it will have to be legally combined with Lots 58 thru 61. Applicants appear to have no problem with this. 2. Under the current proposal, the house at 4196 will remain on a tax parcel that is reduced from 0.81 acre down to 0.58 acres in a 1 acre zone. The 5 remaining lots (57 thru 61) would then be combined to create a lot containg 1.16 acre, of which 0.46 acre is a wetland dominating the center of the lot. This becomes a 0.7 acre vacant lot with questionable functonal buildability due to the location of the wetland, which impacts the house location as w'ell as access to North Shore Drive. 3. Would a combination of Lots 58-59-60-61 be granted variances for buildability without adding Lot 57? Variances likely required would include 1) wetland setback, 2) filling of wetland for driveway, 3) rear setback, and 4) lot area variance, since the dr>' area of the 4 lots is likely less than 0.5 acre and encroachment of the wetland eliminates credit for the wetland in a sewered area (see 10.55 Subd. 15 A 3). 4. If such variances would not be granted, would adding Lot 57 to 58-59-60-61 suddenly make them more buildable, eliminating the need to fill wetland for driveway? Would this be in essence making an already substandard lot even more substandard in order to make an adjacent substandard lot buildable? 5. fhe 'common ownership' standards dictate that the City must consider Lots 58-59-60-61 on their ow n merits as a buildable group if a building perniit/variance is requested (not part of the current application), fhe common ownership standards do nQt suggest that the City must approve a lot line rearrangement to make them more buildable. Kfgarding Buildability of Lots 58-59-60-61 Anv discussion of the proposed lot line rearrangement must to some extent eonsider the buildability of the remnant parcels: #2350 - 4196 North Shore Drive March 12, 1998 Page 3 tots 55-55 contain a house, and their bui.dabi.ity is no, ^ regardless whether 57 is included, to the extent no changes are made to that house. Lots 58 thru 60 have not been considered as buildable by the assessor (see Exhibit J-5), and the taxes paid on them have been minimal. . NoneofLo,s55-51w^asassessedorprov« allowed to connect to the nearby sew . .. possible from either the 1970 Sewer eonnection lor the vacant ®Highwood project ($12,875 Saga Hill project ($8,700 connection charge) or the fc connection charge). . tots 58.59.50.51 are not -ssi^^ portion of the wetland. Applicant Touve s“88es‘® . house at 4140 existing, but results from damming o i s ' addresses this topic, noting was built many years ago. 1 he , 950 and then became a Type that this was a Type 3 wetland prior to le . ,y j^pad 51 reconstruction 5. The basin was also partially filled as a « always there, but in the 1960s. Staff interprets all this^ Ending that it isn’t Staff Recommendation StalTreeommends denial of the proposed of the existing substandard homestead • P ^ ^1 subdivision because it did not part of the legal property was sold in 198^ .» lot lines when have Citv approval. This is not a problem t contrary to the code because it such a move would be contrary to substandard lot. while potentially creating -S'ilVn" : rS :f ;ue‘stionable buildability to star, with. Denial of the subdivision will have to make to some agreement for transferri ^ ____ rmnlication.to some a case for the Sbmw of 58:59-50.61 as a separate variance application. Options for Action Recommend approval. Recommend denial. Table for further information (specify) OQ »‘ Application it ______ Date Received_^^25^^ Amount Paid -^3JSO CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address rS'rto.-^^ ^ Property Identification Number (PID)_________________ Please check one - Property____abstract or ^ torrens? Attach legal description to application. ^^t</yc'/^./APPLICANT /n . / Name Kt A'N ^ L ts,a LJ l ,\f______ Address 3 VS ,■ __________ City __________________ OWNER (if different than applicant) _ Name 'J'tM .^/VJ Zipj3b^jl^Phone (work) Address F.^Tc .< ____Phone (home) 2AlzA£y-^ City ____________Zip£M Phone (work)-------------- (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District / o3 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__[_ Other (specify) _________ PROPOSAL ____Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ______f_ Existing Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) O New Units _ . / Total Units ^<>r Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dr>' Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) ________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Pa>'ment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zoning OfTicial's Signature_______________________________________ Date—____------------------------------------ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature_________________________________________Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: ______ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1,11 & 111) $250.00 ______ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 ______ Subdivision Application (Class 1 & 11) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & all non-residential) Final Plat Application (Class 111) $200.00 ______Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be detemiined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ______Renewal of Class 1 and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class 111, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Totals lin. ft. X .50 = $ lin. ft. x.50 = $ B. Special Improvement Fees: ______ Proposed Private Roads S600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; ______ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 ______ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ______ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ______ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) S50.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fecs/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision SI00.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and^rther agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. o ^ lA'jApplicant's Signature V^-<r Date ^-----7— Owner’s Signature A ^ Date i Applicant must haveCtt lubminals into the City Office 25 da^^ before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Comrnission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your nlace and to advise the Buildine Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting 03 mcy. d by rtmgs ssion 1 your jo^ono \ % \i!'^ \ 14 "-"a r r. XO « \ ^x:'\‘\( '?)\x"^v{ -:< y'^^ \a v \^'6 'X V XU' V V'# \ \'rJp 1 N, : 'v (!tv.\ t“'6)\ ■' yrS KU[|Xs\ ^ X^UrX.^ '. y •^\ ^■ \ \ -' I' \ ^ ^ ‘vVX-X ^ i ,'f i;v \ \ / I V »A. / ( 70) ^ \ (^ ^ AK. \ \V; ^ (14) \ \ ^ \,m ■oj-;' JOo \ (*^ 1 i 'V" /'• ‘ ^'**' 7 ^ / i / ,X-'■’X <!?:•''1^/ ■ / ..J..^'';'^U i U m' \7 X 7'-X/' ■fi/4 / X*/ vx t** ' ^ . vr< f., /, . / *•' V/' v'- X(90V''XX\! *'5 r 7?rr7 ^74).d \\ /rA^.'iS'7 V ............. X'O —^ "7T7 4042V5^ / X /20V. PARI OF / of /- S aoa hiM PAR\ / ^ ■ - '■ ' I Pi fa '3U^' '.-ri ‘*^^-9 . XA<5. 'J'* > .<^f ^ X»x.X24T)f^j ^,> >4l. ft !f Ir^«4 4 a J o I'O) ^ « ..^r A-V-- j (i3) '•' (14) ^nV=" ( I) ----- //' / / f C5 I > ?i COAI'.VJ I -t j- ~l ( -y^) 1 O ':.5* I V / I 'n < o (g 7 y I ' A"' / N' A ^''>9 XX, X X' X".? « x'-X-A '»>/.« X- Xr X X 4i:> / X "'’'■?> / ^ \ <. ,\ / >: (2) T3) 3 j / ‘P 4J/.y (•:/> jA74) w'. ' V r s ^ / ^vav' X>?A, ty N .'A^}/ fo . ) *?‘ X-«x.>-■ X / -.'j / / ( 5) / /■:*< ' (4)( ’i2;-' im / ->*'/ ■X' .. ArX: pph fprWm c K. ^ 'oA'/*7- (46)/^/v 4 / '?/ 5! K?£x:?l pfevFl^vl'4 4i''.X'45'-'' ''^~' . ^T, i:- fi:- 'I -'a-r •*?■:.• ' ■ ■VC—?;•“ ,V ’ / 4>- X'’7.A„ / h^UJ^' / A^'‘»/,_,/ 'A/-’v/X / .' /-^ / / S'/y V J.- - f .'■ A^5>(-.6y 'X^§’// / ' U/ "7 - .V A- 7 / 1 Js-/ / A27)/ X7«a>.4y !■y*-/KT\ //X7uv.h3iv \ 4> w\ ! 1 "t V. ^ \,. ■ ■V ■ % . ' '■'■■4 \ :’A:'Vi ^ i^ ' )*'^ ''^■1 I / / .-'■ I i 77,C>/ ;7 / ; / ; ; :s /,-.;• ■‘.,' i.'it-Xi,^ A ^4. i I r ^ 1-•. ' -/‘^X Xr„f« '/. a X •^ / / rT/ ; ."5 ;v) ;.^ '.. AV cJ-v^r^=r'f' ■37 ) \ O' \ '^-V. »oV. \MAiTV \ RUN DATE 02/19/98 BATCH 508 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-H7-23 41 0003 00038 ADDRESS UMSSII^ED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY ORONO MN 55323 38 07-117-23 42 0015 01462 PARK DR LUCILLE O KUTZ LUCILLE 0 KUTZ 1462 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0003 01530 ORCHARD BEACH PL L A DONNAY L A D(»«4AY 9687 63R0 AVE N MAPLE GROVE MN 55369 38 07-117-23 43 0006 04215 NORTH SHORE DR DOUGLAS E HALDOCH DOUGLAS E HALDOCH 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE hound MN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFOP.MATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST 30 07-117-23 41 0074 01400 PARK DR RICHARD 0 NORUM RICHARD 0 NORUM 1400 PARK OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGt^EO F J HARDIN III ETAL FRANKLIN J HARDIN 1496 PARK DR RT 1 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0004 04205 NORTH SHORE DR MARY JO PETERSON MARY JO PETERSON 4205 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0007 04201 NORTH SHORE DR B M HEITZEL-HARTNETT BETTY M HEITZEL-HARTNETT north shore dr r?OUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24 38 07-117-23 42 0014 01442 PARK DR 6 L SCHULTZ ETAL GEORGE L SCHULTZ WiZ PARK DR MOUND NN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0002 04198 NOP.TH SHORE DR C J S S M JORDAN CHARLES J a SUSAN M JORDAN 4198 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0005 04209 NORTH SHORE DR DAVID L VERVILLE ETAL DAVID L VERVILLE RT 1 BOX 370 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0008 04203 NORTH SHORE DR F G HAHTERA « C L HAHTERA FREDERICK HAHTERA 4203 N SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 1 . ; ^ cJ PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 43 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVIEH HOSP ASSN 2312 6TH ST S MPLS MN 55454 30 07-117-23 43 0010 04199 NORTH SHORE DR UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVIEH HOSP ASSN 2312 6TH ST S MPLS MN 55454 38 07-117-23 43 0012 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 43 0013 01496 PARK DR F J HARDIN III t C A HARDIN F J HARDIN III C C A HARDIN 1496 PARK DR mound MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0014 04240 NORTH SHORE DR DEBRA N SMITH DEBRA H SMITH 4240 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND ttN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0015 04210 NORTH SHORE DR SARA E BROEKER SARA E BROEKER 4210 NORTH MOUND 55364 SHORE DR /^y% X( o6 j \ ^?4A • ' 'V(!C.V. '^ ■• '\ --AK^ ^0 '■'N *0* ' \- \ \ Al|, 1 ;-C\ \-. 3 \^> ( ! 7)\. >X/. ’-t,, v' \ Xvr i A.^ \AvXA, •'\',1 ,•,'■<•■ A11''v-^ /f90)/\i>'|. / V 13 s .*^^ ^ ''■vC* ./ 4-. 1A 'v \ ;’rA7Z'.' ;v' ‘> '' ^«A -/ < •>: • V. y / y> "4iA • s.-' j: ■r?AVA' ^ '^■ A A> /%•■'«■'■' .zC.»r- / / •vV .IS- ;A / ^7WA^'A"'*’ ■' ' ';b// / /^/>^ ■ 'v<.A ri tea 1^7:^* X:->.^5' ■■;' . „v,, mVV'A byl‘n (46)7^; o/ / —•■ 4 51 o' y... / /'f/-, // mM'XMi im^jm#si ;' .>.■ ' i --r-A '^■^’54- 7- ./ /'^'i^, 7-^V s, /'59?'''4 A. Ay m'.y:,/ / -:X% <•<. ^.. fA::7rf 'liS;^yfey--' f. A' j?.^. r>.'AAAliiti ’ A ' , : ■<:■" •.'Hb'"'•■-vs . . ‘ *r- - r - - ^ . o/. 7 '^v/, / / ^- / ^ 7'- .V ^/ /79y3oy(3.y ,' / ! ' / /■%, A/.r. - A5? • /n'v?/A7 ^ I i ! AA^v, 4. ,^/ /* 'AljA-I, >5.' ■ *“ \ / A To-(VI - r>| / t/ / / ^^; /rc}' /(I9,^i?.!i fp,4i; r^*z\ . •£> •V f-o — idu-» •fsi .n bh&7~r |9|^W ■ '' .;v: ■“* , A- RUN DATE 02/19/98 BATCH 508 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 ^1 0003 00038 ADDRESS Ur4ASSIGN£D CITY OF OROtJO CITY OF ORONO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY ORONO MN 55323 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY Ol*:rJERS LIST 38 07-117-23 A1 007^ OlAOO PARK OR RICHARD 0 NORUM RICHARD 0 NORUM lAOO PARK DR MOUND MN 5536^ REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 24 38 07-117-23 42 0014 01442 PARK DR G L SCHULTZ ETAL GEORGE L SCHULTZ 1442 PARK OR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR ON^jER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 42 0015 01462 PARK DR LUCILLE 0 KUTZ LUCILLE 0 KUTZ 1462 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0003 01530 ORCHARD BEACH PL L A DONNAY L A DONNAY 9687 63RD AVE N MAPLE GROVE MN 55369 38 07-117-23 43 0006 04215 NORTH SHORE DR DOUGLAS E NALDOCH DOUGLAS E NALDOCH 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED F J HARDIN III ETAL FRANKLIN J HARDIN 1496 PARK DR RT 1 MOUND Mf4 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0004 04205 NORTH SHORE DR MARY JO PETERSON MARY JO PETERSON 4205 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0007 04201 NORTH SHORE OR B M NEITZEL-IIARTtJETT BETTY M NEIT2EL-HARTNETT NORTH SHORE OR t.DLrND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0002 04198 NORTH SHORE DR C J & S M JORDAN CHARLES J & SUSAN M JORDAN 4198 NORTH SHORE DR MOUriD m 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0005 04209 NORTH SHORE DR DAVID L VERVILLE ETAL DAVID L VERVILLE RT 1 BOX 370 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0008 04203 NORTH SHORE OR F G HAHTERA ACL WAHTERA FREDERICK HAHTERA 4203 N SHORE OR MOUND MN 55364 o •M ^ ' J PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 43 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVIEH HOSP ASSN 2312 6TH ST S MPLS MN 55454 38 07-117-23 43 0010 04199 NORTH SHORE DR UNITED CH HOSP ASSN FAIRVIEH HOSP ASSN 2312 6TH ST S MPLS MT4 55454 38 07-117-23 43 0012 00038 ADDRESS Ut4ASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MfJ 55323 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 43 0013 01496 PARK DR F J HARDIN III S F J HARDIN III A 1496 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 C A HARDIN C A HARDIN 38 07-117-23 43 0014 04240 NORTH SHORE DR DEBRA H SMITH DEBRA H SMITH 424D NORTH MOUND rtN SHORE OR 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0015 04210 NORTH SHORE DR SARA E BROEKER SARA E BROEKER 4210 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND m 55364 0 RUN DATE 02/19/98 BATCH 508 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 58 07-117-25 95 0016 04200 NORTH SHORE DR 0 T RYAN A M J A RYAN DANIEL A MARY JO RYAN 4200 rWRTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55564 HEfWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 58 07-117-25 44 0025 00058 ADDRESS Uh4ASSI6NED JULIUS C HALLUM FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL ASSN 2512 S 6TH ST MPLS MN 55454 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 25 58 07-117-25 44 0024 04190 HIGHWOOO RO T A A 0 M ROOKE TODO A DONtJA ROOKE 4190 HIGHWOOO RO MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAIiE/AODR 58 07-117-25 44 0025 04182 HIGHWOOO RO S A A J W RICHARDS II SARAH A A JOHN W RICHARDS II 4182 HIGHWOOO RO HOUND MN 55364 58 07-117-25 44 0026 04174 HIGHI'KXJO RO H B DEVAAN ALE OEVAAN HERBERT A LORETTA DEVAAN 17605 SUSAN DR MINNETONKA 55345 58 07-117-23 44 0027 04166 HIGHknOD RO R D A A L RUMSCH ROBERT A AMY RUMSCH 4166 HIGIIHOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 % PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NM1E/AD0R PROP ADOR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 07-117-23 44 0039 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES M CLEARY JAMES CLEARY 4109 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0045 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO AfM MARIE MAXFIELD ANN H MAXFIELD 4175 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 58 07-117-23 44 0048 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RO EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55546 38 07-117-23 44 0043 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ANN MARIE MAXFIELD ANN M MAXFIELD 4175 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 58 07-117-23 44 0046 04191 NORTH SHORE DR LILIAN ANjERSON LILIAN ANDERSON 4191 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0049 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES I TOUVE JUt^E TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 38 07-117-23 44 0044 04175 hK)RTH SHORE DR ANN MARIE MAXFIELD ANN M MAXFIELD 4175 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-25 44 0047 04196 NORTH SHORE DR JUNE TOUVE ET AL KEVIN R S LISA TOUVE OLSEN 4196 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-25 44 0050 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17216 PETERBORG RO EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 •\ »• ■fl^ PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3D 07-117-23 0051 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO JAMES I TOUVE JUNE TOUVE 17215 ft^ETERDORG RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 38 07-117-23 44 0052 04140 NORTH SHORE DR RANDY H ALBRECHT RANDY ALBRECHT 4140 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0053 00038 ADDRESS U!IASSIGNED HEr^riEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 'N /'■ i ■■■. r. J f.* '^'h: if i' V. .<• n ■ • ^ • /. /' . \ r '- j'4 •• V • »• *» 4' U-*. . ;) l! ,*;•>?;, H' -j Z r •% t «ir UliM.KU'l ION:1 .-• I.tjls '>/, SB. 59, OU an-l 6l, lll(JllW(^Opj IvMJt i' MINNEIONKA, City ol Otoiio. IUMim'[iin Comity. Mifiiioaotvi . • I 'jCAiX l*--50 NO'IK: ^ ‘1 hi3 manholo ^ used dh U.M. / ii\lu. ft oil! City ol 11 n Oruno till. • c V VAfwU^^Ot.C o \A CM J Up V • S •■ 1 i 1 S'® m Silt / / 1, . V / I licieUy certify that ttiis aiiivey uas jireiiavecl by ino or Luuier my direct r»u;iei- via ion and tliul I am a duly Hut>>!>t<?t:ed Pi ____I 111< I C11 »* 11 .//II* iiiiiiii r t 11. > 1 IJ Q I. ^im 3(y%0 & cAiiotlakti^ 0* p«Or ,55iOf<AL land S urveyors AND LAND OEVCLOr>MCNT CONSULTANTS (612) 421-9126 \^2\ ViNEWOOD LANg DAYTON, MN 55327 “Sca(e.^ PflOPOSEO TOP rOUNOATlON ELEVATION PNOP06EO GAflACE FLOOA ELEVATION Pfl0P0$£0 LOWCn FLOOfl ILEVATION 9^ l» NOTE: VtHfy «n propoi«d grad«t M<th th* • OtuAl hguid pUng, Oifiolti ExUttng " OtnotPi PropQtAd Plntl ,<o<K' / DESCRIPTION: Tots S7, 58, 59, 60 and 61, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, City of Orono, Hennepin County, /linnesota. \p fi < I lir«; tiftiflf Uit tk<i luryjy tti Kmni kf n a/ yniir »r diritt lupirvlilaa in< tint i » , aitutina mfiiiiaAal iiAd turytjfsr yndir tki 1u) of U» Sttli of yi*MioH. a - M . I . A__til__m C’ ,_______I,___________________JL _______________________________________—__r\ Pf^OFCSSlONAU LAWO SURVevOAS AND LAND OCVti.OI»MCNT CONSULTANTS (612) 421-9126 1362t VINEWOOOUANE OAVTON. MN 55327 -Scrafe; ("^ PAOPOSCD TOP Foundation elevation ^Ip0> PROPOSED OARAOE FLOOR ELEVATION 9^4^ PROWKO COWER ftOOn EUEVATION NOTE; v»rUy *11 pror*>a*d grtd** with th« tolual ftoutd plant. Otnotti EiUting C»t^»frs Otnotti Propottd Final 4 / A'^ / <^^ DESCRIPTION; Lots 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61, HIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Iiinnesota. :v «m 7 ' H.^---------/ ,,A { IP • r Mfiiy cirtify tlit tbii imiy ill ifiiifitf ly ii or ynur if dificl lupiryiiioa intf tlit I ii i duly Riitstind Profiiiloftil Ufld lyfviyor latfir tbi iiii c( thi stiti cf KlftMIOtl. A . enitf tk{it£^(nof ___, 115^. ___ly______I - IS-fs_____________ :z o \o z - X HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 0-75 ’250-500 ’500-1000' • A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 2- 2-■3- O 2- 2-2- 2- / 3. a r 7 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 7-i f B X 100 = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE S'A'^cl aj A. House______________X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A hUl___ ^ B X 100 =S.F. S.F. • =:S.F. =:S.F. S.F.f \ =S.F.• rr S.F.#•« S.F. % ^ 1 =-t r S.F. S.F.r"-.. as S.F.H ss S.F.""’A i V. l JasS.F. =S.F.Vd '4, S.F. S.F.A S.F.B ¥% S.F. ss S.F. ra S.F. as S.F. S.F. S.F. S3 S.F. S.F. as S.F. S.F. rr S.F. S.F. ^ •S.F. a-S.F. as S.F. S.F.A S.F.B ssr n % SEPTIC SYSTEM INFORMATION SHEET ON-STTE INSTALLATION OR ADDITION RF.OTJIRF.D: - For all new construction outside districts served by municipal sewer. - Any time the existing system is classified non-conforming or when the addition of bedrooms, installation of mechanical or plumbing equipment, or other factors are likely to affect the system. PROCEDURE FOR ON-SITF INSTAT.LATION OR REPAIR 1.A City licensed site evaluator must perform soil testing and system design (MPCA certification required). Septic report must be submitted to the City Offices for review. Once system design is approved, distribute report to contractors for bidding. A City licensed septic contractor may then apply for permit. GENERAL INFORMATION When planning new home construction or additions to an existing home, both primary or existing and future drainfield sites must be presened for the long term use of the property. All setbacks and property lines must be verified prior to the issuance of a septic system permit. Once drainfield sites have been identified, snow fencing must be placed surrounding sites to prevent them from damage. Vehicular traffic such as cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc. could compact drainfield sites rendering them unusable, prohibiting the timely completion of the project and or limit the long term use of the property. Snow fencing must be in place prior to the issuance of a building permit. I Mike Gaffron, Projects Coordinator City of Orono P.O.. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 re. 4196 North Shore Dnve; conforming the tax record to reflect the legal records. Dear Mike; was"t historical data regarding a lot that os™. The°fXsIgilT""h"' the recorded documents. * ^ *'"'=' ”23. and ™XX?uXaXU our Great Uncle and Aunt, of record have always shU only lofdd t-tfthe h";: X analedr''^- record^lcMe >'>« P™perty legal According to plat book records, sometime between 1963 and 1976 lots 55 5fi «nri S7 combination. ^ of owner permission granted for this Thles officefn^ H ^ subdivision. The Registrar of subdfv^^n "^ "^ulred i" trr^s'T '"T" vehemently argL that a wt «;[c,rhaXhrpXX “x 7 s-hoX Xh^^p^^rstTut® Yours Sincerely, evin and Lisa Olsen Afat/e </tu...........-Vlfj ..........day of........vflI.UiJ/. in the year of our Lord one ihouennd nine hundred and -Th r 9^ .(I S3? ) ................... ........./li*red .Jchr.30n, vr.r2rrl.o4« ......between of the County of........xind State of...X'lT.X.A^Zta........parl'JL..........of the firtt part, and ..............9nt.2r£..and J. ...‘I'.t ?nl.'!.^•i:*^.]U3C.ar.d .s.:. ..... of the County of...V.?XRmXT>............and State of. :...X\XLr..\y.<jX?.................partUsofthe eecond part. IDifnroartijt Thut the taid party..........of the fint part, for and in consideration of the sum of Thrga I!undrsd T'.v3r.ty-fiv* f:'3“".CC) __ «• to----hin....................in hand paid by the taid parties of the second port, the receipt whereof is hereby ucknowledfed, do.?.), hereby Grant. Bargain. Sell and Convey unto the taid parlies of the second part as Joint tenants and not at tenants in common, or their assiint. and to the survivor of taid parties and the heirs and asd/ns of the survivor Forever, all .......thait........tract .......or parcel .......of land lyinf and beuij in the County of..................................................and State of... .V.*riD.)H<).M............................. described at follows, to-wit:....................................................................... ...k9.t .Fif.Urr.flv.?.according tc tt ?..... cf..r.M?.r.d. in..tb.? .omc-j..c':..j:ba. Fagiatrar .cf.. ..}}. ? ?.. T:..f.. f.9 f.. .9.-. x r. •! "r-T-.r/ ^ County. /^2S> Pet^ m Co Hour anh to »oI& tljr »omr. Tofether with all the heredUamenlt and appurtenances there^ unto belonfinj or UianywUe appertaining tojhe taid parties of the second part or their assiint and to the survivor of said parties and the heirs and assigns of the survivor. Forever, the taid parties of the second pari taking as Joint tenants and not as tenants in common: And the said __ ................ . ............—J partof the first part, fornb.A}Xf..?.Z.XM\.)...........heirs. e.recutors and adminUtra^^doZ covenant with the taid partUs of the second part or their assigns and the survivor of said parties and the heirs and assigns of the survivor ....h ?. J.D...............u.ell seized in fee of the lands a,id premises aforesaid, and ho y..l.. good right to tell and convey the same in manner and form aforesaid, and that the same art fret from all encumbrances. .• the above bargained and granted lands and premues in the i,uUt an t pea.-e^Ue t,*session of the said .. ties of the second part, and their assigns .md the survivor of taid parti., arc :ne heirs and assigns of V e survivor against all persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any srirt thereof, and the t^iid ........ of the first part uill II AlihAft')' AAD DEFEJfD. In CrsUiiiony I0l|er»of. The taid parry....... . of the first part^. hereunto set..t.X.3 and seal ........the day and year first above written. ^ a..a tsM hand... v-.it.*. ... (BEAL) • • 1 i I FermNe.S-M-WARRAN^v ijeeO Ind)vidjtl(i) to Joint Ttnanti Minntiou Uniform Convry«nrini BUnkiU978)*4 No delinquent taxes and transfer ent^^COTtificate of Real Estate Value ( ^) Viled/^y^^ Certlficateof Real Estate Value, / PRIOR TAXES PAID Henn Co. Directo^l P^erty Taiatiu. JIEC 3 0 l«S By- i>y ___ MaDErUlj County Auditor STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ naf- So_ _ Deputy .19^^ Co M<on#apoi«k H 1. \ (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Jangs I, Touve and June E, Touve. husband and wife , Grantor (s), (mvital statuU hereby convey (si and warrant (id to Kpvin R. Olsen and T4<;a Touve Olsgri , Grantees as joint tenants, real property in Hpnnpnin County, MinnesoU, described as follows: Lots 55 and 56, Highwood, Lake Minnetonka K iCNNEPlN COKTV PRDPERTV TftX DEP HN DEED TAX PAID 12/30/86 1S46PM PAID $88.00 (if mort spaci it nttded. continut on bK^O together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: reservations, restrictions and easements of record, if any,and that certain first mortgage in favor of Minnetonka State Bank registered as Doc. No. 1335033, Files of the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota \diich the Grantees hereby assume and agree to pay according to its terms and conditions. \flix l)i-«-«l l.ix .iuiiip James I. Touve STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPm C^i^'^^Touve ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this________ , by ______Jangs I. Touve and Juno E, T(juve. husband and wife u .day .19: NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD ^ NOTARY PUSLIC - MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commiition Ei|>lr«$ fib SI. IHOI ; I I , Grantor (s). "sToNATURE or PE^ON taiunoai ?^ Ti* Stitfmtnti for ih# rtti proptriy d#»ei1b*d la ihl4 UutnUBMl iRould ba tant to (Include nemt and «ddr«M of Or«nt««): i ^THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED lY (NAME AND ADDRESS): ! Thomas F. Uhderwood 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis W 55402 Tiuvfc Ot-ifeii o.rrj<y HC 1030 Statc of Minnesota . COOHIY of H eNNEPBL This is to certify that State of Minnesota CERTIFICATE TITLE N? 692855 No 692855 DISTRICT COURT No.(i) 129 Transfer from Nos. 269397 & 692854 Originally registered the 17th day of December A. D. Volume 1 Page 241 REGISTRATION Kevin R. Olsen and Lisa Touve Olsen as joint tenants, 4196 North Shore Drive, City of Orono, County of Hennepin, are now the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple of -^nd in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: Lots 55 and 56, Hig^tvood, Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles In and for said County. • if W Vrrcru 1’ - .iii iov \\ u...,U - r ”••• ......-^{Vu i ^ ' ’r\\ ; T ' i :. / h:: . w ^ Subject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the T\ S r 1^ Jr ^> s <£fV.L_J.^67 5^/(MT„S"yT2 (641-5^ 4y Tf^ i»y(6$) .j4,rr / J^ /...* O^RRt »Vt TT* ■cr:g^ " gSsai'*’ " M M) tt J Qt' J'*M» 14 \i ' I'u.fa^ToHW^ 12 8 8 ''8 >62.'ir GOVT LOT 5 GOVT LOT • _ _ _ _ _ STORM SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY _ _ _ _ SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY . . . . . WATERSHED DISTRICT BOUNDARY iincrement boundary I ** * * * • ^ ■ «• *• ^ ^ % L Ot S’ ^ A<^':> 5* % T/\ d {-t-fc-i) ^ ^ S Hi o i. o ,\j T^ L£.dtAU fS^C ’tvAi />5 , • A . CT ( i c ir€L^ . T“/ -r c ^ • # • : A >nl D CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Mr. James Touve 1440 Sumter Avenue North Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Re: Property on North Shore Drive Dear Mr. Touve: After our discussion on February 25th I again reviewed the background on lx.ts 55 through 61. Highwood Lake Minnetonka. The issue of your sale of Lots 55 and 56 to the Olsens without including Lot 57. p^rn^rper. cannot be issued for the Olsen property until the matter is resolved. Your two choices for resolving the matter are: A. Sale of Lot 57 to the Olsens; or B. Successfully complete subdivision to legally separate Lot 57 from Lots 55 and 56. From our discussion, it is clearly your intent to not sell I^t 57 Jo with Lots 58-59-60-61 and build a house to the rear of the wetland. This presents issues: 1. 2. A Class I "metes and bounds" subdivision is required to separate Lot 57 from Lots 55-56. This would lea- s the remaining Olsen parcel as a subsmdard lot. acres in a 1 acre zone, whereas the existing 0.80 acres meeting the "80% of 1 acre" rule for buildabihty m the LR-IB zone. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. James Touve March 22, 1994 Page 2 -0066 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Further, the fact that Lots 58 through 61 yield a parcel with less than 1/2 acre dry biiildable contiguous area which can ’t be readily accessed without encroaching on the wetland, suggests that Lots 58 through 61 are not buildable. It can, however, be argued that while adding Lot 57 makes 58 through 61 potentially buildable, that reduces the Olsen property to a less conforming or nonconforming status. Under the Wetland Conservation Act, any filling or draining of wetland requires approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and perhaps the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is likely that in order to confirm your dry buildable area you will have to hire a consultant to perform a wetland boundary delineation under the State mandated methods. Note that the City code allows no filling, grading, etc. within this wetland or within 26’ of its boundary. Even with Lot 57, it may be impossible to create a driveway to the rear of the property without encroaching into the wetland setback. You must gain approval from Hennepin County Department of Transportation for a new driveway location entering on the county road. The Orono I^blic Works Department would have jurisdiction over use of the alley for access. The 30’ setback from the rear lot line and 26’ wetland setback yield a building envelope barely wide enough for constmction of a house. A rear setback variance for new construction may .. ; difficult for the Planning Commission and Council to justify, given all the other factors involved with this property, as well as the fact that a City natural park area exists directly north of the property. Filling of the w land to create a better driveway or building envelope simation, even with 2 to mitigation of wetlands, might be viable only if the wetland is determined to have merely storm water quantity/quality values which might be enhanced by such work without destroying other vi lues. As of this writing, the City has not determined whether a downstream storm water pond (east of 4064 North Shore Drive) is viable, necessary or appropriate as a tradeoff to your contemplated filling of the wetland. Lots 58 through 61 have been valued and taxed as nonbuildable since at least 1974 according to City tax records. For example, in 1977, Lots 55-56-57 were assessed at a total valuation of $3,388.00 for 0.81 acre or $4,180.00 per acre; Lots 58 through 61 had a total combined value of $880.00 for 0.92 acre or $960.00 per acre, i.e. less than 1/4 of the value of the homestead lots. In 1993, Lots 55-56-57 were valued at $31,600.00 or $39,000.00 per acre, while Lots 58- 59-60-61 were taxed ac a valuation of $100.00 each or $435.00 per acre, i.e. •liia0OltIt»4<Btimrti ^nraiWtivt] •HiJil IflHIIIlItJ smiii Mlliil MiiiMtifrc [tlVJi mill wiTimfrifcj Ofliil •I^fi ^riniriyi^Cf ^m9i [tJiVi] iW^i Kmiwmii mww mmsnvm muifsi •MUlliJ I >L iiiMin»!Tira •nucinF Miirti MliliJIiMi K1HtlHirip.1i lHOll|!4fA!^ imt^»ij KiUroJ KHrtKTiHtP.^ KHItm mmmumws] ifihiaiUQR»imBllMiiliM«OfltM KititJiwifwivwfiiHn^iMityi^ Mr. James Touve March 22, 1994 Page 4 As I noted to you previously, I do not expect that staff will lend any support for your proposal. However, if you do proceed, your application for a subdivision should include a clear representation of what you propose to do with the remaining Lots 57 through 61, including a detailed site plan noting exact proposed location of all improvements and a written statement defining reasons and hardships supporting your variance requests. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/ch Enc. J\j ‘ • . ‘ .r .. .1 -L**> i •» »'.V*Vl**-*^* *'•'*’; * ; ■* • ^» • *'\’. / AV*/. jCl* ^1^“’/.** >**'a^L**. .. ;.'^7^. :*r- :v -- •*s^ >-^.;yv .y ; v“ ^ FMtOttot r* • t On thelforih Short cf Ltkt JtiMHomkm ; Au9ust 4« 1987 >V • ■' • A •« : .*.'■•/ I- t ■ • »S'-;'^;-'l^ “i; ^ .'•5'V --. .-v- •> ^ v-. - ^ §'r- •• ■: .-v.,.r> ' ..••Jim Touve ' ; ^ • • . , ./-'■ • ■••'•;■ ’v- ; - • . ■ 114b'Suflit«r Avenua North •'■’.■ ■ ^<. .1440 Sumter Avenue North Golden Valley; MN 55427 Ret North Shore Drive Property Dear Mr. Touve: v; ti* 'a* • -vf • V'.' :-‘v!^'.V* ■ . *iv •• -t ■• ..V.v; ■ -.-miM •'■ . ■ f' ■■ - ■••;■■. -wA.*- • ’. * * • ^ f *• ' ’ • : r '*■ ‘ * Per our recent discussion* the City haa taken the position that your sale of Lots 55 and 56* Highvcod Lake Minnetonka, to Kevin end Lite Oleon constitutes an unapproved subdivision by City ordinancea* This is because Lots 55, 56, and S7 exist as one combined parcel for tax purpoaeSf and to separate them requires subdivision app^’oval by the City Council. As VO have previously noted to you, the combination of Lota 55, 56, and 57 constitutes the 601 of 1 acre that ia required for a building site in the LR-IB zoning district. With Lots 55 and 56 only, the property containing the existing residence at 4196 North Shore Drive is substandard in area. You have also indicated an intent to create a second building site*on the remaining lots, to the rear of the pond. Your procedural options appear to be as follovsi A) Convey Lot 57 to the Olsons. Apply for a lot area variance for the remaining lots 58 through 61. You will have to provide a 2' contour topographical survey of the property in order for the City Engineer to verify the extent of th designated wetland on the property if you wish to apply for the lot area variance; B) Convey Parcels 57 through 61 to the Olsons for combination with their Lots 55 and 56, to create one large lot with the existing house: • CtLOINCa ZONtNC - 4TJ 7M7 ASSESSING I* ^ • ^ %r> ,* ! V • ■»•..% •• ■• :•• ■*'Ai 1,1 ,1 '. > . ,> iv J *• i V . ^U^A;.V.tV . /'• n . * • ♦ . ' >1 ».» 'I-m ■ Jf t ^ y*i% . f.1.1 •c.% 1 • ■ -.■■ •■■ •■V. ■■v'l;^;'^>^.;•■>^'^’V ■ op^rty. . • . * \ . .r*' .** p'\ •' ■ . >■ • a* ..*• \: .^ 41i:>* • • ^ . • ; .• . »■ ♦«. i Jin Jouve - Korth Shore Drive Property August 4, 1987 ,'V. ’ • . ;• - Page-a of • 2 _ ,•> • ■'■•■■.;•■ -■.•'>'>'5-V- •■' C) Apply for a Class I Subdivision to split Lot *7 fros'^a 5^«n« ^ 56* This subdivision application would be *f*^i*''*^'^" ^***^?^*. *.?2' • the variances it would necessitate for Lots 55 and 56 ‘ ’ ' potentUl for creating * nw building alt. out of lot* /i 1 If as a result of the City Rngineer's detereination of the wet land. boundary, that the area of Lots 57 through 61 exceeds 0.6 ,dry contiguous acres, and if the subdivision is approved, you would not * need to apply for a lot area var.^ance to build on that parcel, on the other hand, if 57 through 61 is less than 0.8 acre dry contiguous land, you would need to apply for a lot area variance even if tne subdivision is approved. If you convey Lot 57 to the Olsons, the issue of the buildabllity of Lots 58 through 61 does not have to be resolved now. As I have previously stated, you should not count on staff support of a subdivision application. Staff feels that Options A or B would be appropriate, but Option C does not follow the Intent of the Municipal Zoning Code. I am enclosing both the subdivision and variance application forms. Please contact me if I can be of aasiatance. * Sincerely,r^/ Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning t Zoning Administrator MPG/tln Enclosure - Letter Prom Glenn Cook cci Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building t Zoning Adminiatrator Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adminiatrator Kathleen Blatr, City Attorney , Lisa fc Kevin Olson, 4196 North Shore Drive, Mound, MN 55364 V *7. o fflCM ion t«x (a) as as I as nly ded lly era men > ir.c .S€d the not tax tax tti: lly ill ion ,c t v €tCf t 61 ;? I ' I i'I f. Ii f I i im * * - • 4 'W ' J 1 if t 5 '•'1' II r'» y. vd)''i\-v\ P},rl V r ■ Page 2 of 3 July 13, 1987 *! ® aubatandard unbulldablo lot unless variances aro pri^erty !• application on file, thell P y represented to the City as being one lot including Lots 55 thru at 0 5^“VrrV.®”i *5®? !•«''« yo«f homestead parcel 0 85 *drv •"** would give Lots 57 thru 61 a total of aubatan^iit 1^o*!l' the 60% area requirement and becoming a 4 ^ conforming lot at the expense of your propertvi however ?h.^nt.nro7 .VctlonTo!o3 U r.Sbit.nd.td conflnln, tot. 55- und.r*thVrSiiiloV.fc!lt‘i fVl'* *“ Pf»vlou» building parattj woe. i.aucd V Ptopafty in total contained 1.4 3 acres drv 0 80 acre reoulrad*^.!* beta 55-56-57 contained in oxceaa of the • buildable lot, that it would be contrary to the is Lot. •M®'' 57 to be detached fr2m[Ste SS Ind buIldUe aUe?^Lit. 5a\^hru*«"\*^" •• • eubitantially conforming 0.80 acre pioeVaa if theri^SS. Jnt ‘='® « varianc! wlthln^thl haeed on the location of the designated wetland dnniiS * portion of Lota 5t vhru 61, that this would likely bo rnnn^i*! buUding site, although that question ultimately ie e Cltv 61 will «eole that Inclusion of Lot 57 with Lots 58 thru Sito^ ♦•K* «; «PP*^«cieble effect on their usability for a bulldin-j beet* would still be an extremely marginal building aivie y'.- from ^0^57!“^ therefore, t ^ t a proposal to divide Lots 55 and 56 The following are your option* a> them: 1) Apply for a Class I Subdivision to split Lot 57 from 55 and 56, bot 57 from Mr. Touve. Note that in addition, JJoporty."®'""'’''^* 55 thru 61 be combined .a oni diniJd”JJ^^h5?/iJ4®J'^^”“®.'^® pay taxes on land you do not own, and b« denied any building permits you may apply for. ^^**** contact me as to how you wish to proceed. Sincerely Michael p. Gaffr^, As. '-•nt Planning *onlng Administrator -V- p i^-> •.*!' nsvV- ‘t * r % : V » V ^ . 1\ Jr- i ,,>r/- vV \ : ,v „. •’ I-*'- V* • ^ VVv.-#.,xv j?%im I Ct: ‘ iBSS '-V eag iVr^ • m. : cc -^i .‘.^2 M ■• , ■• , A-,. ,v.,. ‘ ; -5,^^ .• *.v . . .. ixl-yi-v r -v-/' > > •'rfv. V-.;'. i '’^4 M ft P«g« 3 of 3 July 13, 1987 cci Joanno h» Habutth, Building t Zoning AdninistrAtor ThoMt J. JAOoba* Building Official Mark B. Barnhardaon, City Adainiatrator Xathlaan Blats, City Attorney Jaaaa Touva, 1440 Suatar Ava* Ko., Golden Valley, MN 5S427 and I 1) Plat Map 2) Hatlanda overlay 3) 1974, 1987 tan racorda 4) Lot area calculation workaheat 5) Municipal Zoning Coda Bactiona - 11.03.66 (a) - 10.03 Bubd. 6(AH1) - 10.24 6) Burvey on file P#3 r.h?l 0, SB Sf; tzj'. - -r-v* V' . 'i •» r ♦ a • a^ * • v‘ rr< > .**. * »* ; * ■ ;;g 3 S^-mm *. ‘K :i f j * « The Uuildinq 4 Zoning 'Deportment i« in receipt oC your opplicotion let a building permit* which woo received by this office on June lo* 1907. A review of your survey ond our files indicotes thot your worronty deed on file includes only Lots 55 ond 56, wheroos tne Hennepin CountyiTax Records indicate that Lots 55, ond 57 hove bconi combinod for tax purposes. If you have also purchased Lot 57, please submit documentation that you own It. If you do not own Lot 57 then your properly was i 1 leqa 1 ly subdivided by a sole to you of only a portion of a tax parcel without City approval., ; i * Pleose contact me os soon as possible. A permit for your pool cannot be issued until this is suitably resolved. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning fc Zoning Administrator M?G/tIn :»roNwe - 47j-7 jst AtfcniNC AMINBTttATtON 0 PlNANCt - 471 7)S«Pt'iLIC WORKS - 47i 7U9 «• • •. f'Jl' f-V''is*. t'ii. h V iv-r' ■ <•>. ■7 . *• • • *-v; • . i - • f.-.- V-y.I *^7.- I I V' i-iA •'.5'i f, EnviroData John C. Anderson 5831 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis.MN 55416 612.544.1761 Fax: 612.525.2021 e-mail: hydr',@aol.com Web site: www.expert-markci.com/Envirodata/ WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR: JIM TOUVE PROJECT IN ORONO, MN WETLANDS DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION FOR JIM TOUVE PROJECT IN ORONO. MN John Anderson, EnviroData, Minneapolis, MN delineated and documented wetlands boundaries on the subject property on April 23rd, 1997 at the request of Jim Touve. This report provides information as to the dominant wetland characteristics at the site as result of the Investigation. The parameters of the wetland/upland boundaries are provided in each delineation report form as this information is redundant below. Please review documentation of these findings (referenced in report and site plan). A sketch of the staked wetland boundaries is included In the report. LOCATION Lots 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61 Highwood Lake of Minnetonka Orono, Minnesota METHODOLOGY Wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987) Revisions to the former method have been proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are currently under review. Pending the adoption of these revisions, the U.S. army Corps of Engineers is applying the 1987 Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual. The wetland and/or deep water habitat were classified according to the methodologies set forth In Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39. Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Classification of Wetlands and Deep water Habitats of the United States fFWS/OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et. al.1979). CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS INVESTIGATED Transect A.#l This is a Type Five (PABF) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Duckweed (OBL). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology evidence is met, as site is ponded. Transect A.#ll This Is a Type Six (PSS1A) wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Green Ash (FACW). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is met. Site is saturated and in a wetland drainage pattern. Transect A.#l 11 This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant specie is Green Ash (FACW). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology Is not met. Site Is not flooded, ponded or saturated, or in a wetland drainage pattern. result of TWs!s a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Gteen Ash American Elm (FACW-). Soils are Eslherville, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not met, Site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated, or in a wetland drainage pattern. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS One wetland boundary was delineated In the field. The interior is dominated by Duckweed and open water. The area of standing water has Increased over time due to obstruction of natural drainaqe by filling for construction of a house on the south side of the wetland. Sultion ^ debris in the backyard of the house is part of the way This portion of the historic drainage way also no accumulation of yard debris (leaves etc.) which prohibits overflow periods of high water. The duration of standing water also has increased as fill placed in the wetland during realignment of Highway 19. included in this report are ground level photos of the area obstructed by 9®^® laser copies of aerial photos showing changes to the wetland ^et *™e_ ,94! “9^ level photos were taken in May, 1997. Aerial photos taken in 1937.1940, 1945.19W. 1956 1960. 1971. and 1991 were examined. A natural outlet was filled for the construction ?hfwltland ™cral\rd1rC riTpu h"dingUr at Smes during the growing season prior to the tilling of it's in 1987 and 198a Available aerial photography shows the fill was placed at the t between 1945 and 1953. bed. The additional fill has displaced water and increased the duration a flooding in other portions of the basin. 2S- s sr,: These chanoes are visible on aerial photography. Prior to ^ged l^ppearance, which is typical of wetlands that have been partially filled r The southeast, eastern, and northern periphery of the basin were not wetland historically. Incremental filling has increased the extent of ponding in these areas. The wetland’s center also holds standing water for longer periods of time during the growing season than it did historically. LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT My opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on information I obtained and evaluated from current sources including state and federal agencies, verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted and is not included In the scope of my services. Wetlands delineated under winter conditions may not be accurate and should be reinvestigated during the growing season. I appreciate this opportunity to present this analysis. Sincerely, I.(John Anderson PWS & CMS - RS A r /17^ I'J’r /17C. n.77 )<t7? . /?.««> . ;?W mz i-HH- n't Hii*® •C'Jti' l^rs' sssh-^t I _ ;Wj£?o /7,7^0 S]zco U L 2c,<>oq hf<ioo_ 1‘HH • Mfr *11500-ruoo yro /X© ino I ^ 2-2,0 !^00 S^O Ut ^fs-o !st> fs-o )U0 )7d /$2> 5^70 •>-‘#‘/-y^ 4-r ^)SO _/rp /n> / 7<D j^O •22^ 50* JT50 ... 7.^i/-y© 4e>r 300. ^00 . yoo H^q _ £Tdi> _ 3'3>P. .... T-5 dvi 2|,0dd ......5T0 .............xre* . ........ s2;o ___ mi 600 ____ .. /i»f -Cp.Sfit)ZO^ pop /^<?/dO lo^ _ . /?«-S*l,aoo 2-lj0OO /ftO /4«______________ mv)^00 ./e^r ^ _ _... . ;»w /o? ............ . .. .mt iS^OOO_..(^ i 1&-0 /<>o ............. ^,M>C>1^0 ICrO l^Jor> _______ /♦V.lo{^f3f>o !ct>jo^Jo^_________ IVir f%y>o joo l9t:>foo J^P........—. nf5 [D S, it>o Zl^iyOO joo joc>fOO m_____ m 30^^00 loo jOo fOO ipp_________ '^r^ooo loo ioo IOO /QO . .... >7^000 loo 1 L/O fCO ICO . _. _. 100 loo joO./UO ------- '. * • • ^/OO /^r'-/2.24. \//hWfnotJ CO)^jp(nZ{S.ot^ 7 4^037 sr^(yr>to ^noo 51 S^C=>oo / CSVOO'>J7 S%7X ^ (sp^c?i>"^S4. ^ (^Csr!!)5r " Vaio< Q-WJf^ (riill■if *1 !;? i !i!•4 k i.:ni ‘.v; ti !: -| ; M i rcol:!!jijp.ooo': -n12100''- •52200-' ^2300 ■ t\l.2kZ5< il’2700-’ 2800*' 2900 OOOO ■ 3100< il.3200-' l33oor ?x3400 • 3550^ I • !;.‘370o !l • n h I ^ 'V3800 •i 3900 r'^OOG ;: !; ^4100 [ii 4200 !>' 4350 ii‘45oo 4600 I I I , : .1;'''4700 = i,. j;';:*4ooo : , • 4900-" ■■' Ml .rsooo-^ 5110" . W^T7?Z5'';i ... !. : li Vi' 8000-^; J ' J I • * # • ‘ I I • . Z '•,;V I•!.*;!,! 8350 8510-', 18710^^: 9050 Aii: M:?250'‘ ?:||510‘^.1^ f 1: •!-4! ) • i!i.;{! I.» l!I ! ill? !^l ;:i r |4244q! !Hr «\V i,' .1 1 M ;T if'fr • I ••(j; i 1iii II; I ’ ■ 1! ^ •r 9 ■f lifti 1 I !•* t.V ’ I •* “ • AooossableFootage'I: 50.0 . 50.0 ' 50.050.00 152,3445.68 50.0 50.0 50.0 50., 0 50.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 50„0 50c 0 96.62 50.0 50.0 100,0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 25.0 103.36 131.45 93.95 50.0 100.0 lOOoO 75.0 125.0 100.0 57c0; 50.0 67.2 * \ •, Wo, of Conn, 1 ABoesement Assesament for Units ‘IforjFootaw■ » .1270c001-3TOtOO«7o.1270.001270.002540.00 0 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270,00 1270,00 1270.00 1270.00 635.00 635.00 0 635.00 1270.00 635.00 0 635.00 635.00 0 1270.00 0 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270/00 1270.00 1270-wa 1270 1270, 390J00 090;00 390J00, „ 390:00, f 1188,26' •356:311 390.00 390’00; 390.00 390:00. 39o.;oo., 390.00. 390:00' '•k i \ :i • 780.00 390,;ooi 390,00; 390.00. .., 753«64.i!: 390.00 390.00 780.00. ., 390.00|ii; 390,00|! 390.00;;i 390.00, 390,00’ 390.00, 195.00 806,21 1025.’31 732.81 390.00 780.00, 780.00 ' 585.00' 975.00 1! 78o,;oo - lihli Af\ 390.00 524.16 i ... ‘1 » •K i| I 225, 0.0 ,22 s:oo18225;0Oj..■tjqssif 11111235.00 jif|225i00. 'I'i;:225.00, ■!i225;00' .■.;:225;'oo' i?225; AM ii • J-M'’ ! k: '^1 • * . ? I' I. l ci I. i: ,.00 .. ' ii225.‘00 V' [:ii225.00 11225:00 225.00 '0, .. f'oj .225.00, I 1 I i • * ii'iHi: m !!i' • r I h'*' * I :- 4; I ! :k* l P »| I i/iHiini V.A^r^: : 1! :H!?i , »■1; i •' •' I • i|{!lj;:..ri;;' r-., ?:225'v00M i \m 225 225.00 225.00 .i 225.00 ,,.225,oo| l'^225;00^wm., r* »• '! I : J t -• III <•.1* 3l'»! 'o!^:^Atpo t; oo;i i • 1*5;- Jh * , * • * ‘H‘r I I. f I) : k* 1 I M M •'•■'1 1 ’.;; « ’ t f f i c' j • i! I: t K ■ :1R‘1 It iJii) *lfr • 3i ' i }• ! 1 * ' \ ^ i* ‘ -I. » • k#r !l:'"^pii! m w ! V#' ■ fj ■};!< .•liifViL* r; ;,»H t-, l; :»l,;i;,‘. i •,,, i? I ..• » \ ••• ** •\ *✓.•• • . 1 .J • ^ ,. ' '**' ’ • \ ' • . •■ ■ ”•** <•»*-{ . '■ V- 'CD ©0 “S® ci> O ’Q / / • -v~ - 7’ --------------ri..^__C.. ^----< 396'-8''f " -2a;:: replaced fv OWNE* and -2 STEaCA! ^—^ttmmma i 59 52 1 1 'J I 1 » J*.i § 10.03 I. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 J. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, such a situated existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section 10.08. Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source; Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-14-67 A. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are me t; Source; City Code Effective Date; 4-1-84 1. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall no’- be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC 253 (4-1-84) combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter, Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 2. In ”R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre and Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter to area or width only, may be utilized "or single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council findsi (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average width c: the lot is at least 100 feet; (b) It is served by public sanitary sewer; (c) It otherwise meets the requirements of this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer, A lot of record in any ”R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning dis trict, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non- conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Source; City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) 1 i^-Z- I ! 1 J 1 I I 1 J I l1/ I 1 f I 1 § 10.55 Subd. 13. City Determination. Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, and based upon the factors listed abov^ the City shall determine wl^ther the proposed use is in the floodw^ay or flood fringe and tire regulatory flood protection elevation a^the site. Subd. 14. Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon considerat^n of the factors listed above and the purposes of this Sect ion,^^he City may^ attach such conditions to the granting of a condition^ use pe/miit as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this S^tioji. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the foil^ing: y A. Modifica^oh ofN^ste disposal and water supply B. Limitations on pVriod of use, occupancy and facilities. operation. C. Imposition of operat'lonal controls, sureties, and deed restrictions'. \ D. /Requ i r e men t s for construction of channel modifications, 4i1<es, levees, and other protective measures. pE. Flood proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building'^ Code. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood/proofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. Subd. 15. Land Development and Platting. No part of any lot within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area shall be platted for residential occupancy or for other uses which will increase the danger to health, life, property or the public welfare. All lots containing land within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Section and have road access no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Whenever a portion of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is located within or adjoins a land area that is being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate to the City an adequate perpetual easement over the land within the protected area and along each side of such area for the purpose of improving or protecting the area for drainage or other purposes expressed in this Section and other recreational uses, as determined by the Council. Public or private streets, driveways, drainage openings and culverts shall not be constructed unless the design thereof has been approved by the City, and such structures shall be designed so as not to restrict the flow of water. Subdivision applicants shall provide all certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. ORONO CC 370 (4-1-84) r § 10.55 A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area requirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: 1. For properties not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 3. For residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, a limited density credit may be allowed for inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning provisions. The owner or developer of such property will be credited with an amount of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land which otherwise qualified for development under this Chapter. Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedication of perpetual open space and flowage easements to the City over all protected areas so utilized for density credit. Subd. 16. Special Assessments. The land area in the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area which is not to be developed and is not used for credit as in Subparagraph A, Item 3 of Subdivision 15, and which is dedicated as an easement shall not be subject to special assessments to defray the cost of other municipal improvement projects, including but not limited to trunk sanitary sewer and water mains and storm sewer improvements. Subd. 17. Nuisance. Any filling, alteration, construction or artificial obstruction of the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area is declared to be and to constitute a public nuisance unless a permit to construct and maintain the obstruction has been obtained in the manner provided herein. A. Removal of Artificial Obstruction. If an artificial obstruction is found after investigation by the City, an order shall be issued to the owner, following ten days written notice and hearing thereon, for removal within a reasonable time as ORONO CC 371 (4-1-84) I I I I I I COUNCIL Mt£TINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION APR 13 1998 CITYOFORONO Date: April 9, 1998 Item No.: j Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment - Section 11.62 - Adoption List of Exhibits A - Revised Ordinance for Adoption B - Version Identifying Changes From Existing Ordinance C - Staff memo of 3-18-98 On March 23 Council tabled the Park Dedication ordinance pending minor language revisions and a resolution establishing maximum and minimum park dedication fee amounts. The following language revisions have been made: 1. Subd. 1: from: "...debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes,..." to: " debt retirement in connection with the foregoing,... 2. Subd. 3 A: from: "Each year, therefore, the City will establish both a maximum... to: "Periodically, therefore, the City will establish both a maximum... 3. Subd. 3B: from: "Each year the City will establish both a maximum..." to: "Periodically the City willestablish both a maximum..." 4. Subd. 4: from: "...debt retirement in coiuiection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes,..." to: "...debt retirement in connection with the foregoing,... (The resolution establishing maximum/minimum fees is a separate agenda item). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance. Proposed Motion: Moved by__, seconded by__, to adopt Ordinance U-----, Second Series, ^ Ordinance To Amend Municipal Code Section 11.62 Regarding Dedication Of Lands For Public Use For Parks And Playgrounds In Con'^u^tion With Class II And III Subdivisions. Vote: ___ayes,___nays. I : ■ ! I i I « ! i ■ :i I 1 * S t I. A ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.6: REGARDING DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC USE FOR PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS ApoPrif:>/'j The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Code Section 11.62 is hereby amended as follows: SEC. 11.62. PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. Lands For Public Use. The City finds that when land is subdivided, including a planned residential development or a planned unit development, the resulting additional housing units or commercial/industrial buildings have an impact on the City's park system. Therefore, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 462.358, subd. 2b, the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land within the City of Orono; as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, planned residential development or planned unit development; to convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the foregoing, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereoO shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The amount of the dedication requirement shall be roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the City's park system. Subd. 2. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this Section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. Subd. 3. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers 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 detemiincd by the City Council, as set forth below : A. Residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono, the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. Periodically, therefore, the City will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit based on an updated projection of the cost of the City's park systein, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne by new dwelling units in Orono. This will be done by a resolution of the City Council. B. Commercial/industrial zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. The City finds that the emplo>ees of commercial/industrial developments in the City make use of the City s park system, particularly trails and natural areas. Because the City's park system is focused on trails and natural areas versus active community parks and ballfields. commercial/industrial employees use the City's park system in ways similar to City residents. Therefore, the commercial/industrial dedication requirement will be tied to the residential dedication requirement by determining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park system. Periodically the City will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee based on this determination and the determination of the residential dedication requirement as set out in Paragraph A of Subdivision 3. This will be done by resolution of the City Council. C. Because the City of Orono’s park system is focused on trails and natural open space areas, the City docs not have a broad system of neighborhood parks. If a subdivision is planned to be ser\ed by a neighborhood park, this subdivision wilt receive a greater benefit from the City's park system than that received by the general population. 1 herelorc, the maximum park dedication amount as determined in Paragraph A may be exceeded up to the full 8% dedication requirement in the case of a subdivision that is planned to be served by a neighborhood park. Subd. 4. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdividcr, in lieu of a conveyance or dedicafion 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 shill account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. These funds are to be used only for the acquisition, development and improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces, and debt retirement in connection with the foregoing. Subd. 5. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value'' for purposes of this Code shall be the land pre-development value to be determined by the City Council as ot the time of preliminarv' plat application in accordance with the following: I A. The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. B. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: 1. Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. 2. If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdivider. 3. The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be detemiined at the time of preliminary subdivision approval provided that there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary' plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary' plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. Subd. 6. Development of Land Previously Platted. (Repealed per Ordinance #89, Second series, adopted October 8,1990.) Subd. 7. Future Subdivision. Any land wliich is further subdivided, divided or replatted or applied for such subsequent to May 1, 1990, shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon that land if the subdivider can prove that fees were previously paid. In no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. Subd. 8. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem ncccssaiy' or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of the Code. r Section 2. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be effective after the date of approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 13th day of April, 1998 by a vote of__ayes and ___nays. I ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ORDINANCE NO.____, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.62 REGARDING DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC USE FOR PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS S ■ Cot>^ The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Code Section 11.62 is hereby amended as follows: SEC. 11.62. PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. Lands For Public Use. The City finds that when land is subdivided, including a planned residential development or a planned unit development, th ‘^suiting additional housing units or commercial/industrial buildings have an impact on the Ci^ park system. Therefore. Ppursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 462.358, subd. 2b, the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land within the City of Oronoi.as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, or development of any land previously divided by plot, metes nwd hfiiinrls, nr any othcrmcans: planned residential development or planned unit deve lopment: to must convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land pi^v ifttwly nequired for auch-puMte purposes foregoing, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The amount of the dedication requirement shall be rouehlv proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the City's park system. Subd. 2. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this Section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. Subd. 3. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers 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 : A. Residcntial/agricultural/multiplc residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted; or subdivided ,- or ex isting lot of record. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono. the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that arc either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. Periodically, therefore, the Citv will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit based on an updated projection of the cost of the City’s park system, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne bv new dwelling units in Orono. This will be done bv a resolution of the Citv Council. B. Commercial/industrial zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided ef-ex isting lot of record. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. The Citv finds that the employees of commercial/industrial developments in the Citv make use of the City's park system, particularly trails and natural areas. Because the City's park system is focused on trails and natural areas versus active community parks and ballfields. commercial/industrial employees use the City's park system in wavs similar to Citv residents. Therefore, the commercial/industrial dedication requirement will be tied to the residential dedication requirement bv determining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in tenns of impact on the City's park system. Periodically the Citv will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee based on this determination and the determination of the residential dedication requirement as set out in Paragraph A of Subdivision 3. This will be done bv resolution of the Citv Council. Ct Because the Citv of Orono's park system is focused on trails and natural open space areas, the Citv does not have a broad system of neighborhood parks. If a subdivision is planned to be serv'ed bv a neighborhood park, this subdivision will receive a greater benefit from the City's park system than that received bv the general population. Therefore, the maximum park dedication amount as determined in Paragraph A mav be exceeded up to the full 8% dedication requirement in the case of a subdivision that is planned to be serv'cd bv a neighborhood park. Subd. 4. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider, in lieu 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 othenvise have been conveyed or dedicated. The Citv shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. These funds are to be used only for the acquisition, development and improvement of public parks, plavorounds. trails, wetlands, or open spaces, and debt retirement in connection with the foregoing. Subd. 5. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of this Code shall be the land pre-development value to be determined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following: A. The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. B. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: 1. Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. 2. If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdivider. 3. The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined as^ ai the time of preliminary' subdivision approval is-grantcd os long os provided that there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. D. - Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the cash contribution per lot be less than $500.00 per lot or $300.00 per dwelling unit. Subd. 6. Development of Land Previously Platted. (Repealed per Ordinance #89, Second series, adopted October 8, 1990.) Subd. 7. Future Subdivision. Any land which is further subdivided, divided or replatted or applied for such subsequent to May 1, 1990, shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon that land if the subdivider can prove that fees were previously I paid. In no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. Subd. 8. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary' or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of the Code. Section 2. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be effective after the date of approval and publication. 1998 by a vote of Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 13th day of April, ayes and__nays. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 18, 1998 Item No, Department Approval: . Administrator Approval; Name: Michael P. GaffronJ/* Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning \ L Item Description: Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment - Section 11.62 List of Exhibits A - Ordinance for Consideiation and Adoption B - Ron Moorse Memo 2-9-98 1 c4' Please review Ron's memo dated February 9. The proposed ordinance revisions address the rough proportionality issue, providing a basis for * T ' determining the amount of park fees in relation to the impact of both residential and commercial subdivisions on the City's park system. The ordinance also establishes that there will be ma.\imum and minimum 'per dwelling unit' ('per employee' in the case of commercial) park fees established by resolution each year, (see Subd. 3A and 3B) Additionally, the ordinance provides for a park dedication exceeding the 'maximum amount per dwelling unit' up to the 8% standard where a subdivision to be served by a neighborhood park derives greater benefit from such park than the general population, (sec Subd. 3C) The ordinance adds language regarding how park funds may be used, (see Subd. 4) Tlie ordinanace eliminates the prior language which established a minimum contribution per lot of $500 or per dwelling unit of $300. (see Subd. 5D) The ordinance does not establish park dedication requirements for the development of properties absent a subdivision/PRD/PUD process. It is not yet clear whether it is legal to do so, hence this is left for future discussion. Planning Commission Recommendation A public hearing w'as held by the Planning Commission on March 16. No members of the public commented. Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment on a vote of 4-0. i ! Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment March 18,1998 Page 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance, or direct staff to make any revisions you feel are appropriate. 0^ r S ■ • « COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 CITYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 9, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Park Dedication Fees for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Property Resolutions Residential Park Dedication Requirement The City's park dedication ordinance calls for minimum and maximum park dedication requirements to be set by Council resolution. The minimum and ma.\imum dedication requirements for residential property is set based on the proportionate share of the cost of the City's park system to be borne by new residential units. Based on the City's plans and policies regarding parks, open space and trails, staff has determined the proportionate share of the projected cost of the City's park system to be borne by new residential units is an average of $3,900 per dwelling unit. The calculation of this amount is as follows: Projected households at full development Current number of households Number of households to be added 3,660 2.970 690 Projected households to be added is 19% of the total projected households (690/3660). The additional 19% of households should pay 19% of the projected value of the City's park system which is $14.5 million. 19% of $14.5 million is $2.75 million. $2.75 million to be paid by 690 new households => $3,985 per household. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono, the application of the general 8% park dedication requirement would result in properties with lower values paying less than the $3,900 average and properties with higher values paying more than the $3,900 average. The establishment of a minimum and maximum park dedication fee amount is needed to address the requirement for rough proportionality between the park dedication fee and the impact of residential development on the park system. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 April 9, 1998 Park Dedication Fees for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Property - Resolutions ________ The attached resolution establishes minimum and maximum park dedication amounts for residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication Requirement The City's park dedication ordinance indicates employees of commercial/industrial developments make use of the City's park system in ways similar to City residents, particularly since the City's park system is focused on trails and natural areas. Therefore, the park dedication ordinance ties the commercial/industrial park dedication requirement to the residential park dedication requirement by determining the number of commercial/industrial employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park system. Based on the opportunities for park use by commercial/industrial employees being significantly less than for City residents, particularly in relation to weekend usage and family usage, staff is recommending that, for purposes of calculating the park dedication fee, ten employees are equivalent to one residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the park system. Because one dwelling unit has approximately 2.7 persons, this is a ratio of 3.7 to 1. To provide an indication of how this ratio translates to a park dedication fee, staff has obtained from the City's planning consultant information on the number of persons generally employeed in an office-type development. A conservative standard is that for a small office building there is one employee per 1,000 s.f of gross floor area. For a medical/dental building, there are two employees per 1,000 s.f. of gross floor area. A two acre site would accommodate a 20,000 s.f. office building. This office building would have approximately 20 employees, which would be equivalent to two residential dwelling units. Using a fee of $4,900 per unit, the park dedication fee would be $9,800. A 20,000 s.f medical/dental building would have approximately 40 employees resulting in a fee of $19,600. These fee amounts compare to a $50,000 fee amount which would be the full 8% park dedication fee on a two acre site zoned for office development. A resolution reflecting the ratio of ten employees per residential dwelling unit for the calculation of the commercial/industrial park dedication fee is attached for Council consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. 2. Motion to adopt a resolution establishing miiumum and maximum park dedication amounts for residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Motion to adopt a resolution establishing minimum and maximum park dedication amounts for commercial/industrial zoned land. PKDtOPtI A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PARK DEDICATION AMOUNTS FOR RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL/MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONED LAND I I WHEREAS, the City's general park dedication requirement is 8% of the land being platted or subdivided; and WHEREAS, the City's park dedication ordinance calls for the dedication requirement to be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system; and WHEREAS, because of the vastly differing land values in Orono, the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system; and WHEREAS, to address the rough proportionality issue, the City will periodically establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit, based on an updated projection of the cost of the City's park system, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne by new dwelling units in Orono; and WHEREAS, the proportionate share of the projected cost of the City's park system to be borne by new dwelling units is an average ot $3,900 per household; and WHEREAS, the application of the City's general 8% park dedication requirement would result in those properties with lower values paying less than the $3,900 average, and those properties with higher values paying more than the $3,900 average, and WHEREAS, the establishment of minimum and maximum park dedication fee amounts addresses the need for tough proportionality between the park dedication fee and the impact of the development on the park system. Page 1 of 2 r :'v- i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby establish the minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit as $2,900 per unit, and the maximum park dedication amount per dwelling unit as $4,900 per unit. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of April, 1998. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk I I A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PARK DEDICATION AMOUNTS FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND WHEREAS, the City's general park dedication requirement is 8% of the land being platted or subdivided; and WHEREAS, the City's park dedication ordinance calls for the dedication r^uirement to be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City s park system; and WHEREAS, the City's park dedication ordinance provides for the establishment of minimum and maximum park dedication amounts per residential dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the City finds Ihe employees of eommercial/indushial make use of the City's park system in ways similar to City residents, particularly since the City par system is focused on trails and natural areas; and WHEREAS, the City’s park dedication ordinance ties the dedication requirement to the residential park dedication requirement commercial/industrial employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling uni P on the City’s park system; and WHEREAS, the City finds that ten employees are equivalent to one residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the park system; and WHEREAS, the City has established a minimum park dedication amount per residential dwelling unit as $2,900 per unit, and a maximum park dedication amount per dwelli g unit as $4,900 per unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council do« hereby establish the minimum park dedication “"’“unt for commercial/industnal ^ $2,900 per each ten employees, and the maximum park dedication amount as $4,900 per each employees. Page 1 of 2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13 th day of April, 1998. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk I I Page 2 of 2 * • i COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 CfTYOFQRQMQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Femdale Road Reconstruction Project Plan Update Attached is a report prepared by Bonestroo Associates providing information regarding three options for the design of the Femdale Road Reconstruction Project. The three options are as follows: 1. 2. 3. A 28 ’ wide road with turn lanes at intersections. A 32' wide road. A 28' wide road. A meeting has been scheduled with the City of Plymouth Mayor and staff on Wednesday, April 15 to review these options and to discuss other issues related to the reconstruction project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. ; ! I r _r. p R r G H M M N N C M G M ki G M k I* M Report F or Ferndale Road Street and Storm Sewer Improvements Project No. 607 Plymouth, Minnesota April, 1998 File No. 70303m 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects r M p p f R ! I I t: i ‘* 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Rnu*nt .^n(tr*Uk ,tnc1 A\\ou-*tr\ Inc is ,fn Att.^nKHivv Ai tton (tiu.i! ilpo^Mtunity Cniph 'cr rmu ifjfils Oft'') G B »nrs'm<» l*e • >oM (ih f Anrt«*rltfc f’f • M.»rvm I '>orv<ft.i. • KicM.iulE Turn* f • (lU-nn R Cuuk P( •RuhtftG ScriuM»if>t Pf • Jtiiy A Huunlon Pi • Roht'f W Rcmno PE .tnd Sm.tn M fherlin CPA S<*niof COnMilf ,int s As'nt I'flv Pnnc'Pif/s Mow.irc) A Srinforrl PE • KiMth A Gofil»)n PF • Rotirr! R Pfefferie PE • Ricii.tfcl W Pf • f),!vt<J () 1 f’? • P')ht M ( i.M « » , A • M.irE A M.inson f*f • Muh.u'l 1 ' .»utfiMnn PE • h (J K f u Itl Pf • KcnncthP Ancivi son P| • Mnk R Rolfs PE • Sidney P WiMi.imson. PE I S • Rutn’ff f Kf) nilfi St ''.Uii Rnfhesiff »nif SI Cloud VN • SM.v.iuV**** Wl April 8,1998 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 ■ ^ i it Re: Femdale Road Reconstruction SAP 155-178-01 and 152-110-01 City Project No. 607 i File No. 70303 Dear Mayor and Council; Attached is our report for the proposed reconstruction of Fcmdale Road from Trunk Highway 12 to County Road 6. The report provides a detailed cost estimate of the work being considered and a plan of the area. The work as proposed will be in accordance with Municipal State Aid standards. Project costs which are eligible for Municipal State Aid reimbursement are described in the Cost Analysis section. We would be pleased meet with the City Council and staff at your convenience to review the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC, Thomas P. Kellogg Attach. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Date: April 8.1998 Reg. No. 9451 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 • Fax; 612 636-1311 i: n ♦ • hi r I »♦ ^ M t • ?• y Table of Contents Transmittal Letter Tsdile of Contents Introduction Proposed Improvements Permits and Easements Cost Analysis Conclusions and Recommendations Figures Appendices A through F - Construction Costs 1. 2. 3. 4. 10. 11. 13. 1 Plymouth Feasibility Report - Fcmdale Road Reconstruction fw f I p II r. I ’ * H I ^ ru t ' f" L ♦ • Introduction Femdale Road from County Road 6 to Highway 12 is approximately one-mile in length with a centerline that defines the boundary between Orono, to the west, and Plymouth and Wayzata, to the east. The entire roadway lies within the corporate limits of Plymouth and Orono. The City of Orono has requested that the City of Plymouth act as the lead agency for this reconstruction project. The City of Plymouth has requested the preparation of this report to evaluate the feasibility of reconstructing Femdale Road from Tmnk Highway 12 to County Road 6 to meet State Aid standards. The project location is shown on Figure 1, proposed storm sewer improvements are shown on figure 2, and the proposed street improvements arc presented on Figures 3 through 8 in this report The purpose of this report is to define the improvements and provide estimated project costs to determine project feasibility. Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstmetion f Proposed Improveinents Fcmdalc Road Reconstruction I • Fcmdalc Road is designated on the City's Municipal wState Aid Street System and is classified as a minor collector roadway. The function of a collector roadway is to collect traffic from local streets and connect to arterial roadways. This section of Femdale Road is presently in poor condition with significant surface distre.ss. Inadequate sight distances at some locations present safety concerns. The exi.sting street consists of a 6.7 meter (22 feet) wide bituminous .surface with 1 meter (3 feet) gravel shoulders. The drainage along the roadway is currently directed to shallow ditches. Femdale Road, as presented in this report, is proposed to l^e constmeted to a 9 ton design with B618 concrete curb and gutter. The urban design with curb and gutter provides a more efficient drainage .system, minimizes the need for additional right-of-way and significantly reduces tree removal. The north end of Femdale Road will be widened to provide a single southbound lane and two northbound lanes. The two northbound lanes will allow for east and westbound turning movements onto County Road 6. The hill north of Sixth Avenue will need to be lowered to meet a 30-mph design and improve sight distances. Also, a 3 meter (10 feet) wide bituminous walkway is proposed along the east side of the street from the Luce Line trail to County Road 6. The walkway will l->c graded south of the Luce Line trail to the Highway 12 bridge as part of the project. Future construction of the walkway south of tlie Luce Line trail will be the responsibility of Wayzata. The walkway would be located 1.5 meters behind the curb where topography and right-of-way permits. In areas where trees are to be preserved or embankments are steep the walkway will abut the back of curb. Pedestrian curb ramps will be required at all locations where the walkway intersects the street. A coticrete walkway was considered as an alternate pathway design as part of this report. The walkway would be 1.8 meters (6 feet) in width constructed of 100 mm (4 inches) of concrete and 100 mm (4 inches) of aggregate base. The walkway would be located 1.5 meters (4 feet) l>ehind the curb. The cost to constmet the concrete walkway is approximately 32 percent more than the co.st to construct the bituminous pathway. A detailed cost analysis for the concrete walkway an ’ ' c bituminous pathway are included in the Appendices of this report. As part of the street improvements, all existing driveways are proposed to be paved to match the exi.sting pavement Retaining walls, benns or hedges are proposed in some areas to preserve specimen trees and provide privacy for yards and houses close to the right of way. Where pra'^ tical, trees will be planted from nursery stock to replace those trees removed during construction. Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstraction r F r I * )« Traffic Analysis Based on traffic counts conducted by City’s Public Works Department, the average daily traffic volumes (ADT) on the nortli and south ends of Ferndalc Road from Trunk Highway 12 to County Road 6 arc 3200 and 3500 vehicles per day (VPD) respectively. Using Hennepin County’s twenty-year projection factor of 1.5, the ADT in the year 2017 will be about 5000 VPD. Left turning movements from Fcmdale Road onto the residential streets that intersect Fcmdale Road were studied as part of this report. Turning volumes were determined by using the number of dwelling units that have access to tiic individual streets, calculating the daily trip generation of these uses, and assigning the left turn volumes using a 50/50 north-south directional distribution. Based upon these assumptions, the estimated daily left turn volumes and afternoon peak hour left turn volumes are shown on the following page. Estimated I^fl Turns From Femdale Road to:Daily Left Turns P.M. Peak Hour LefftTL'ins 12*^ Avenue North 20 3 Lydiard Road 4/6 11* Avenue North 15 2 Brockton Lane Noith (North leg)140 20 Orono Private Street 20 3 6* Avenue North 140 20 Chevy Cha.se Drive 105 15 Brockton Lane North (South leg)140 20 Northgatc 20 3 Ridgeview Drive 125 20 Femdale Green 25 4 While the traffic volumes on Fcmdale Road w'ill increase with time due to other development in the area, the left turn volumes to the above referenced streets should remain constant. Plymouth Feasibility Report - Fcmdale Road Reconstruction , fi ^ H . i it i • 1 r i. Using an assumed peak hour percentage of 12 percent, the existing daily volume of 3500 VPD and a directional split of 60/40, the peak hour flow on Femdale Road is 250 in the major direction and 170 in the off-peak direction. The future volume projection of 5000 VPD translates to a peak hour flow of 360 in the peak direction and 240 in the off-peak direction. Considering the left turn lane warrants contained in the State of Minnesota Road Design Manual for rural intersections of roadways with a 70 km/h (43 mph) design speed (the minimum speed u.scd in the manual), none of the intersections along Femdale Road warrant a left turn lane. These warrants are based on the volume estimates. If peak hour left turns increa.sed to 50 or greater for any of the intersections, a left turn lane would be warranted at that location ba.sed on the State of Minnesota Road Design Manual, There are advantages to left turn lanes that need to be stated. The primary benefits are safety oriented. The left turn lane allows for left turning vehicles to move from the through lane thus decreasing the potential for rear end accidents. A left turning vehicle in a left turn lane decreases the delay to through traffic and the intersection capacity is increased. A 1976 traffic analysis of North Femdale Road conducted by Barton-Aschman As.sociates recommended that left turn lanes be constructed at 6*^ Avenue North, Chevy Chase Drive and the north and south legs of Brockton Lane North. Street Width Potions Three width options for the reconstmetion of Femdale Road are presented in this report. The proposed street width options for Femdale Road are as follows; • 8.4 meters (28 feet) with turn lanes, • 9.8 meters (32 feet) with no turn lanes • 8.4 meters (28 feet) with no turn lanes Typical sections and striping layouts for all three options are shown on Figures 3 through 8 in this report. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages for the three options is presented below. Option 1:8.4 meters (28 feet) face to face wh^re no turn lanes are present II meters (36 feet) face to face where turn lanes are present Advantages: m # m m Provides landscaped traffic islands Provides room for turn lanes, improving safety Decreases delays to through traffic Turn lanes will increase roadway capacity 1 I Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstmetion r i i p r I PI r h* - L • Turn lanes will increase traffic safety • Provides greatest flexibility for curvilinear alignment Disadvantages: • Has the potential for Increasing speeds (1 -2 mph) • Provides no room for bicycle / pedestrian lane Option 2:9.8 meters (32 feet) face to face Advantages: • Allows operation flexibility v. ith lane striping, either 2-12 foot traffic lanes and 2-4 foot bicycle lanes or 2-11 foot driving lanes and 1-8 fool parking lane • Lane widtli provides for safer traffic movement, allows for increased reaction time • Provides some room for bicyclists Disadvantages: Does not provide turn lanes for traffic safety Will not have the potential for decreasing speeds (1-2 mph) Option 3:8,4 meters (28 feet) face to face Advantages: • Minimum width as recommended by state aid standards, least expensive option • Provides an adequate through lane for traffic in each direction • Has the potential of increasing traffic delays which may reduce speeds Disadvantages: Does not provide room for turn lanes, decreases safety of turning and through traffic Winter snow and ice accumulation may narrow roadway Does not provide room for on street pedestrian and bicycle traffic Has the potential of increasing traffic delays In an elTort to help promote slower traffic speeds, a curvilinear horizontal alignment for all street options will be encouraged to the extents possible in the design phase of this project. Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdalc Road Reconstruction j f r i > HM I t I r %u- • . • ' t «« U The Cities of Plymouth and Orono will need to review the three street width options. Both cities should then come to an agreement on street width prior to ordering plans and specillcations. It should be noted that the three proposed street widths do not vary significantly in terms of their impacts to adjacent properties. Street Design The criteria for the roadway designs are ba.sed on Mn/DOT State Aid standards. The propo.sed design .speed for Femdale Road is 30 miles per hour (mph). The proposed pavement section for Femdale Road, which is based on the anticipated traffic volumes over the next 20 years, is presented below: 50mm (2”) Type 41 bituminous wearing course 75mm (3") Type 31 bituminous base course 400mm (16 ”) Aggregate base. Class 5,100% crushed rock Soil borings have been taken along the project that show the presence of some organic materials. Organics encountered in the subgrade will be excavated and replaced with a suitable clay or granular material. The street section will be reinforced with a geotextile stabilization fabric that will also provide separation between the subgrade and the aggregate base. Water Main An existing water main stub located near Femdale Green on the south end of the project would be extended southerly off of the roadway as part of the street construction. The extension would allow for a future water main connection to the City of Wayzata without disturbing Femdale Road. A 200 mm stub would be provided on the east side of Femdale Road approximately 100 meters north of Twelfth Avenue to serve any future Plymouth development. Storm Drainage As part of the street reconstruction on Femdale Road, stomi sewer is proposed to be constructed to improve the drainage along the street. Storm sewer would be in.stalled at the five low points on the roadway. Storm drainage would be directed southerly and easterly to existing ponding areas and wetlands. The cities of Medina. Plymouth iuid Orono with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distriet (MCWD) are currently working towards solving a high water level problem in Mooney Lake located just north of County Road 6 at Femdale Road. A possible solution to reduce the water level in Mooney Lake is to provide off-peak pumping from the lake to the Femdale system. The stomi sewer on the north end of the project has been sized to accommodate 1 cubic fool per second (cfs) of .stormwater should Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstruction f < • r k ‘ i ~4 r' flows from Mooney Lake be diverted to this system. The cities of Plymouth and Wayzata will need to review their existing drainage systems to verify that the additional flows are acceptable. Storm sewer design and calculations will need to be submitted to the MCWD for their review. Storm water quality ponds may be required by the MCV/D its part of the project. Because the land adjoining the project is nearly fully developed, property to construct ponds may be impossible or impractical to obtain. If the project requires ponding, the MCWD may allow payment to a general water quality fund in lieu of pond construction. The construction of the trail would result in a net hardcover increase of approximately 0.33 acres. Based on their current formula, it is anticipated that a payment to the MCWD of $5,000 would be required for the trail construction. The size of the total payment is primarily a function of the net hardcover increase and will depend upon the width of the roadway constructed. Currently, MCWD rules are currently being reviewed by the Watershed and may be revised later this year. Construction Sequencing The roadway will be constructed in a manner so as to minimize any impacts to adjacent residential access. Each day the contractor will excavate a section of roadway to full width and grade, install fabric and place the 400mm of Class 5 aggregate base. The street would then be opened to traffic at the end of the construction day. Access would only be restricted during the day and limited to a segment that can be completed. Through traffic will not be allowed during construction to increase construction safety. Emergency vehicle access would be maintained throughout the project. Traffic would have either a reclaimed bituminous or new gravel surface to travel on during non-construction hours. Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstruction r t n p ) f t r r « ' Permits and Easements The reconstruction of Fcmdale Road will require a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Storm Water permit, a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit and State Aid plan approval. Tlie DNR may require a permit for stonn sewer improvements near the Luce Line trail. Construction casements will be necessary to construct the street improvements on Femdale Road. The majority of the easements will be along the roadway and relatively minor in nature. Storm sewer casements will be required for any ponding off of Fcmdale Road. I ! Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstruction f r $* 11 I« Cost Analysis Cost Summiirv Detailed cost estimates for the three project options have been prepared and are included in the Appendices of Uiis report. All costs are based on anticipated unit prices for the 1998 construction season and can be related to the ENR index for March, 1998 of 5875. The total project costs include five (5) percent for contingencies and twenty (20) percent for legal, engineering and administration. No co.sts are included for MCWD general fund contributions, easement acquisition or city legal fees. The cost breakdown is based on the assumption that the Cities of Plymouth and Orono will share equally in the street and storm sewer costs for Femdalc Road north of Wayzata where the street lies equally within each city. The City of Orono will bear all costs for street and storm sewer construction between the Trunk Highway 12 bridge and the Plymouth / Orono border where the street is entirely within the City of Orono. The City of Plymouth will be responsible for costs associated with walkway co.istruction north of the Luce Line trail. The City of Wayzata would be responsible for any luture construction costs if the walkway is constructed south of the Luce Line U"ail. Assessments It is anticipated that the City ol Orono will not assess any residents for the project. The City of Plymouth will as.se.ss the residents that have direct access onto Femdale Road. Any assessments will be in accordance with current City street reconstruction policy. State Aid Participation We have estimated that I(X)7p of the street, 80% of the .stoim .sewer and 100% of the walkway costs would be eligible for State Aid reimbunsemenl. This cost esiimate does not include easement acquisition costs. Although a portion of the casement acquisition costs would be eligible lor State Aid reimbursement, the administration and a portion of the legal costs are not. Plymouth Feasibility Report - Ferndale Road Reconstruction r r Iv r: r i« u r s e The following is a summary of the estimated project costs for each City based on the cost sharing assumptions and if Option 1 (8.4 meter wide roadway with turn lanes) is constructed: Orono Orono State Aid Plymouth Plymouth State Aid Total Street ^ $0 $657,846 $0 $432,709 $1,090,555 Storm Sewer $32,544 $130,176 $21,462 $85,848 $270,030 Walkway $0 $0 $0 r $86,121 $86,121 Total $32,544 $788,022 $21,462 $604,678 $1,446,706 The total cost for Option 2 is $1,371,696 and the total cost for Option 3 is $1,301,033. Detailed cost estimates for Options 2 and 3 are included in the Appendices of this report. • *Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdalc Road Reconstruction F r n f i I ^ t r » Conclusions and Recommendations The street, stomi sewer and walkway improvements for the three options presented in this report are desirable and feasible as related to costs and construction. The project is in accordance with the City Municipal State Aid Street Plan. Ba.sed on information contained in this report, the following recommendations ;u-e presented for con.sideration by the City Council: - That this report be adopted by th: City of Plymouth and the City of Orono as a guide for construction of the proposed improvements. - That the Cities of Plymouth and Orono reach an agreement on the width of street to be constructed. - That the Cities conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project. - That an infonnational meeting be scheduled to receive input from the affected property owners. If the project is to proceed, the City of Plymouth will need to hold a public hearing to allow for a.sscssments on certain properties. - That the following schedule be implemented if the project is to proceed; Receive Preliminary Report April, 1998 Hold Informational Meeting......................................................April, 1998 Hold Public Hearing..................................................................May, 1998 Order Plans and Specifications............................................................Jtine, 1998 Approve Plans and Specifications...................................................August, 1998 Bid Date...................................................................................September, 1998 Award Contract.........................................................................September, 1998 Start Construction.....................................................................September, 1998 Complete Surfacing and Restoration...........................................September, 1999 Plymouth Feasibility Report - Femdale Road Reconstruction y Chose Dr US HWY NO 12 nO I' N // 7S (JB) (?») (30) • • Ji y 15^ (57) *o w 7 (55) 3 (47) (48) 5 6th Ave tjj i i .13* !| hevy Chose Or <S1> ,(53) V 7 (27) IJ' • f ir, 3I’ 3 (78) / 0-. 7/ i.- r i5* 4; 12lh Ave N 1 (5) ai' ^rockton la N 0-*--------- “ 1» ^ ROW r« I— U-. (W ST) 10 m Cl (WfANDERS) /-VARIES / CL' ROW (EAST) 1 0 m VARIES 0 m to 1.S m RCW VARIES4.2 5^ 5 rn Blm to FACE OF CUR3 .6 m VARIES 4.2 m to 5.5 m 3 m .3in TO FACE OF CURB BLVD. TRAIL VARIES 3.6 m IWNE 2%2% D=r 0 m to 3.6 m MEDIAN/ left turn lane 3.6 rn “iXNE profile grade 2% B618 CONCRETE CURB Sc GUTTER inrEi]' ^ SEE DETAIL PAVED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE I 50 mm (2”) TYPE 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE 75 mm (3") TYPE 31 BIT. BASE COURSE 400 mm (16") AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5. 100% CRUSHED -GECTEXTTLE STABiLiZAnON FABRIC DETAIL NO SCALE TYPICAL SECTION 8.4rr. (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE WITH TURN LANES PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA FERNDALE RD. - PROJECT 607 S.A.P. 155-178-01 & 152-110-01 70303RJ3 DWG 11/21/9/ COMIv FIGURE 3 70303 Bonestroo Rosjne Anderlik & Associates Engineers Sl Architects I TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE •5C mm (2") TYPE 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE 75 mm (3”) TVPE 31 BIT. BASE COURSE 400 mm (16") AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5. 100% CRUSHED •GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC DETAIL NO SCALE •o TYPICAL SECTION - 9.8m (32 FEET) FACE TO FACE PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA FECNDALE RD. - PROJECT 607 S.A.P. 155-178-01 Sc 152-110-01 7030iR.!3 DWG 11/21/97 COMM. 70J03 FIGURE 4 Bonestrcj Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers A Architects r n n TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE r* lw‘ 50 mm (2") TYPE 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE 75 mm (3”) TYPE 31 BIT. BASE COURSE 400 mm (16“) AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5. 100% CRUSHED GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC DETAIL NO SCALE PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA FERNDALE RD. - PROJECT 607 S.A.P. 155-178-01 <& 152-110-01 70.50JR33.DWG 11/21/9/ COMM. 70303 FIGURE 5 TYPICAL SECTION - 8.4m (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE J/]|Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects V oo 3 3 aocw r~ O 6lh Ave tJ Chevy Chose Dr r t < APPENDIX A ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 1:8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE WITH TURN LANES FERNDALE ROAD NORTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER UNIT EST. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST +5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ___________________ EST. (mobilization L.S.2i 1.00 C79 15,800 CLEAR AND GRUB L.S.20000.00 0.79 15,800 LANDSCAPING L.S.2i 1.00 0.79 15,800 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S.1i 1.00 0.79 7.900 RETAINING WALL S.M. 150.00 270 4:.500| 400 MM X 200 MM WET TAP EA.2000.00 1 2,000 200 MM DIP WATER MAIN M 150.00 5 750 (remove bituminous pavement S.M.3.00 9.700 29.100 fjOMMON EXCAVATION C.M.5.00 8.500 42,500 NOO mm PVC PERFORATED PIPE SUBDRAIN M 20.00 75 1,500 jGEOTEXTILE REINFORCEMENT FABRIC S.M.3.00 17,100 51,300 GRANULAR SUBBASE CM.11.00 1,200 13,200^ AGGR BASE. CL.5 100% CR ROCK 400 mm M. TON 11.00 17,400 191,400 TP 31 BIT. BASE COURSE. 75 mm THICK M. TON 32.00 2,800 89,600 TP 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE. 50 mm THICK M. TON 34.00 1,900 64,600 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK 1 b.1.00 3,750 3,750 B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER M 21.00 2,650 55,650 (pavement marking M 0.80 5,300"4,240 FURNISH & INSTALL SIGN PANELS S.M.275.00 10 2,750 SODDING W/100 MM TOPSOIL S.M.3.50 10,200 35,700 SEEDING W/ MULCH. FERTILIZER & TOPSOIL ha 3000.00 1 3.000 34,342 $721,182 144,236 $865,418 I ) APPENDIX B ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 1:8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE WITH TURN LANES FERNDALE ROAD SOUTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER UNIT EST. ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST +5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST EST. MOBILIZATION L.S.20000.00 0.21 4,200 CLEAR AND GRUB L.S.20000.00 0.21 4.200 LANDSCAPING L.S.20000.00 0.21 4.200 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S.10000.00 0.21 2,100 150 mm DIP WATER MAIN M 150.00 15 2,250 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S.M.3.00 2,600 7,b00‘ COMMON EXCAVATION C.M.5.00 2,900 14.500 100 mm PVC PERFORATED PIPE SUBDRAIN M 20.00 25 500 GEOTEXTILE REINFORCEMENT FABRIC S.M.3.00 4,600 13,800 [granular subbase CM.11.00 300 3,300| |aGGR base, CL.5 100% CR ROCK 400 mm M.TON 11.00 4,700 51.700 |tP 31 BIT. BASE COURSE. 75 mm THICK M. TON 32.00 750 24.000 |tP 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE. 50 mm THICK M. TON 34.00 500 17.000 IBITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK L 1.00 1,000 i.oooj B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER M 21.00 710 14,910 PAVEMENT MARKING M 0.80 1,400 1,120 FURNISH & INSTALL SIGN PANELS S.M.275.00 4 1,100 SODDING W/100 mm TOPSOIL S.M.3.50 2,800 9,800 SEEDING W/ MULCH. FERTILIZER & TOPSOIL ha 3000.00r.. 0.4 1.200 $178,680 ^934 $187,614 37.523 1225.137 r APPENDIX C ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 1:8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE WITH TURN LANES FERNDALE ROAD BETWEEN LUCE LINE AND C.R. 6 UNIT EST.EST. COMMON EXCAVATION C.M.5.00 600 3.000 |aGGR base . CL.5 100% CR ROCK 150 mm M. TON 11.00 1.750 19.250 TP 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE. 50 mm THICK M. TON 50.00 600 30.000 SODDING W/100 mm TOPSOIL______________________S.M.3.50 2.600 9.100 hoNCRPTE PEDESTRIAN RAMP EA.500.00 14 7.000 Ie STIMATED construction COST +5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $68,350 3.418 $71.768 14.354 $86,121 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 1:8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE WITH TURN LANES FFRNnAI F, ROAD NORTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER ________ 1 ITEM UNIT UNIT EST PRICE QUANTITY EST. y COST 300 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 80.00 143 11.440 375 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 90.00 410 36.900 450 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 110.00 6 660 525 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 130.00 505 65.650 600 mm RCP STORM SEWER _____________________M 140.00 50 7.000 300 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1000.00 1 1.000 600 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1500.00 3 4,500 375 mm CMP CULVERT M 40.00 200 8.000 STANDARD CATCHBASIN EA 1000.00 9 9.000 STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE EA 1500.00 12 18.000 ISTANDARD STORM SEWER MANHOLE EA 1500.00 1 1.500 IlMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION M 3.00 1.114 3.342 1 MFr.HANir.AI TRENCH COMPACTION M 3.00 1.114 3.342 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST +5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $170,334 8.517 $178,851 35.770 $214,621 APPENDIX E ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 1 ■ 8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE WITH TURN LANES UNIT EST. EST. item UNIT PRICE QUANTITY COST 300 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 80.00 11 880 375 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 90.00 126 11,340 450 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 110.00 12 1,320 525 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 130.00 120 15,600 600 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 140.00 7 980 600 mm RCP F.E.S. w / trash guard EA 1500.00 1 1,500 375 mm CMP CULVERT M 40.00 30 1,200 STANDARD CATCHBASIN EA 1000.00 2 2,000 STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE EA 1500.00 5 7.500I IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION M 3.00 276 _______J28| MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION M 3.00 276 828 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $43,976 +5% CONTINGENCIES ------------ $46,175 1+20% LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION ------------9i235 \tOTAL estimated cost ------------------------------------------$55^4ip_ OPTION 1 COST SUMMARY orono plymth TOTAL A STREET IMPROVEMENTS N. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDER 432,709 432,709 865,418 B. STREET IMPROVEMENTS S. OF W.4YZATA/PLY. BORDER 225,137 0 225,137 C. TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS: ........0 86,121 86,121 D. STORM IMPROVEMENTS N. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDER 107,310 107,310 214,621 E. STORMIMPROVEMENTSS. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDER 55.410 0 ______§5.410 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 820,566 626,141 $1.446,707 appendix aESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ^4 \‘f ■, •‘n*. w., 0,79 0.79 20.00 S.M.3.00 11.00 M.TON L 0.79 270 15,400 2.500 3,400 3.50 3000.00 +5% CONTINGENCIES 1+20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION |ror4L ESTIMATED COGT 10,200 1 15.800 15.800 15,800 7,900 40.500 1,500 46,200 12,100 80.000 57.800 3,400 35,700 3.000 $641,190 32.060 $673,250 134.650 $807,899 r APPENDIX B improvements +20% LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION jror^L ESTIMATED COST — *—• *• • - r LI APPENDIX C ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 2: 9.8 METER (32 FEET) FACE TO FACE FERNDALE ROAD BETWEEN LUCE LINE AND C.R. 6 UNIT . PRIGE'> ,dUANtlTfe?i^Gbst^ COMMON EXCAVATIoisl AGGR BASE, CL5 100% CR ROCK 150 mm TP 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE, 50 mm THICK CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP ESTIMATED CONSTRUCT|6 n tosY SODDING W/100 mm TOPSOIL C.M M. TON M. TON S.M 5.00 11.00 50.00 3.50 500.00 600 1,750 600 2,600 3,000 19,250 30,000 9,100 7,000 +5% CONTINGENCIES $68:350 3,418 +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ____ _______ $71,768 14,354 $86,121 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 2: 9.8 METER (32 FEET) FACE TO FACE FERNDALE ROAD NORTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER ' ' + ■* '■•II ■Jf'- EST. 300 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 80.00 140 11,200 1 375 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 90.00 405 36,450 1 450 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 110.00 5 550 1 525 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 130.00 505 65,650 600 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 140.00 50 7,000 300 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1000.00 1 1,000 600 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1500.00 3 4,500 375 mm CMP CULVERT M 40.00 200 8,000 1 STANDARD CATCHBASIN EA 1000.00 9 9.000 1 STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE EA 1500.00 12 18,000 1 STANDARD STORM SEWER MANHOLE EA 1500.00 1 1,500 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION M 3.00 1,105 3,315 MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION M 3.00 1,(05 3.315 +5% CONTINGENCIES 8,474 +20% LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $177,954 35,591 $213,545 APPENDIX E ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 2: 9.8 METER (32 FEET) FACE TO FACE FERNDALE ROAD SOUTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER EST; V UNIT’-^^-PRlCE TJl^ ..’.p +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 300 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 80.00 10 800 375 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 90.00 125 11,250 1450 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 110.00 11 1,210 (525 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 130.00 120 15,600 (eOO mm RCP STORM SEWER M 140.00 7 980 600 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1500.00 1 1,500 375 mm CMP CULVERT M 40.00 30 1,200 STANDARD CATCHBASIN EA 1000.00 2 2,000 STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE EA 1500.00 5 7,500 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION M 3.00 273 819 MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION M 3.00 273 819 +5% CONTINGENCIES $43,678 2,184 9,172 $5^034 OPTION 2 COST SUMMARY ORONO PLYMTH TOTAL A. N. of MV^ATA/^^LV. SoRbg 403,950 807,899 B. STREET IMPROVEMENTS S. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDE 209,097 0 299,097 C. TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS:0 86,121 86,121 D. STORM IMPROVEMENTS N. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDEf 106,772 106,772 213,545 E. STORM IMPROVEMENTS S. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDEF 55,034 774,853 0 55.034 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 596,843 $1,371,696 1 APPENDIX A ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STREET AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 3: 8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE FERNDALE ROAD NORTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER iP +5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST MOTILIZATION L.S.20,000.00 0.79 15,800 CLEAR AND GRUB LS.20,000.00 0.79 15,800 LANDSCAPING L.S.20,000.00 0.79 15,800 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S.10,000.00 0.79 7,900 RETAINING WALL S.M.150.00 270 40,500 |400 MM X 200 MM WET TAP EA.2,000.00 1 2,000 1200 MM DIP WATER MAIN M 150.00 5 750 (REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S.M.3.00 9,700 29,100 [common excavation C.M.5.00 6,800 34,000 |l00 mm PVC PERFORATED PIPE SUBDRAIN M 20.00 75 1,500 [geotextile reinforcement FABRIC S.M.3.00 13,700 41,100 [granular subbase C.M. 11.00 1,000 11,000 AGGR BASE. CL5 100% CR ROCK 400 mm M. TON 11.00 14,000 154,000 TP 31 BIT. BASE COURSE. 75 mm THICK M. TON 32.00 2,300 73,600 [ TP 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE, 50 mm THICK M. TON 34.00 1,500 51,000 [ BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK L 1.00 3,000 3,000 1 B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER M 21.00 2,650 55,650 [ PAVEMENT MARKING M 0.80 5,300 4,240 FURNISH & INSTALL SIGN PANELS S.M.275.00 10 2,750 SODDING W/ 100 MM TOPSOIL S.M.3.50 10,200 35,700 II SEEDING W/ MULCH, FERTILIZER & TOPSOIL ha 3000.00 1 3,000 1 29.910 $628,100 125,620 $753,719 ' ) r uI ) ) 7 I ) I i ! I I I APPENDIX CESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 3: 8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACEFERNDALE ROAD BETWEEN LUCE LINE AND C.R. 6 -:^uUNIT (C OMMON ^XCa Va TION I C M. A c 'GR base . CL5 100% CR rock 150 mm I M TON TP 41 B:T. WEAR COURSE. 50 mm THICK SODDING W/100 mm TOPSOIL CONCRETE P^EDESTRIAN RAMP +5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST M.TON S.M. EA. 5.00 11.00 50.00 3.50 500.00 600 1,750 600 2,600 3,000 19,250 30,000 9,100 7,000 $68,350 3,418 $71,766 14,354 $86,121 APPENDIX L' ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS OPTION 3: 8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACE FERNDALE ROAD NORTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER V ^ UNIT- +5% CONTINGENCIES '20% LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST___________ 300 mm RCP STORM SEWER M i 80.00 137 10,960 375 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 90.00 400 36,000 450 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 110.00 4 440 525 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 130.00 505 65,650 600 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 140.00 50 7,000 300 mm RCP F.E.S, W / TRASH GUARD EA 1000.00 1 1,000 1 600 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1500.00 3 4,500 375 mm CMP CULVERT M 40.00 200 8,000 STANDARD CATCHBASIN EA n 1000.00 9 9,000 STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE EA 1500.00 12 18,000 STANDARD STORM SEWER MANHOLE EA 1500.00 1 1,500 IMPROVED PIPE 'FOUNDATION M 3.00 1.096 ■3,288 MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION M i 3.00 1.036 3,288 8,431 $177,057 35,411 $212,469 I ( *APPENDIX EESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTSi OPTION 3: 8.4 METER (28 FEET) FACE TO FACEFFRNDAI.E ROAD SOUTH OF WAYZATA / PLYMOUTH BORDER 300 mm RCP STORM SEWER _________________M 80.00 9 720 mm RCP STORM SEWER M 90.00 124 11,160 IIro mm RCP STORM SEWER M 110.00 10 1,100 t 1 525 mm RCP STORM SEWER ___i M 130.00 120 15,600 600 mm RCP STORM SEWER___________________M 140.00"7 980 600 mm RCP F.E.S. W / TRASH GUARD EA 1500.00 1 1,500 i..375 mm CMP CULVERT M 40.00 30 1,200 STANDARD CATCHBASIN EA 1000.00 2 2,000 r*STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE____________EA 1500.00 5 7,500 I IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION_________________M 3.00 270 810 f * MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION M 3.00 270 810 ESTMTO d 66Ns 1 hOcTioN do^ i +5% CONTINGENCIES $43,380 2,169 t $45,549 +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 9,110 A A 1 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $S4y6S3 OPTION 3 COST SUMMARY ORONO PLYMTH TOTAL A StAEST lWR^'6'V^M^NfS M 6f wAV7AT a /pLy. borde 376,860 376,860 753.7191 R STREET IMPROVEMENTS S. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDE 194,065 0 194,065 1 n TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS;d 86,121 86.121 D. STORM IMPROVEMENfS N. OF WAYZATA/PLY. BORDEj 106,234 106.234 212.469 E STORM IMPROVEMENTS S. Ot- WAYZATA/PLY. BORDEF 54,659 0 54,659 F. TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 731,818 569,215 $1.301,033 APPENDIX FESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATE DESIGN: 6' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALKFERNDALE ROAD BETWEEN LUCE LINE AND C.R. 6UNITCOMMON EXCAVATION CM.5.00 600 3.000 4“ CONCRETE SIDEWALK W / 4" CL. 5 S.M.27.00 2.650 71.550 SODDING W/100 mm TOPSOIL S.M.3.50 2.600 9.100 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP EA.500.00 14 7.000 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST |+5% CONTINGENCIES +20% LEGAL. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $90,650 4,533 $95,183 19.037 $114,219 COUNCIL meetingAPR 13 1^98CHYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONDATE: April 9,1998 ITEM NO: /3 Department Approval: Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: 199® Insurance Policy Premium Tabulation and Award Recommendation Attachments: Insurance Policy Premium Tabulation Attached is a comparative tabulation of the 1997 actual and 1998 renew'al insurance premiums, and the 1998 budgeted amounts. At this time we are recommending award of all the policies except worker compensation coverage, which was awarded at the January 12, 1998 council meeting. The City will have an umbrella excess liability policy of $2 million in 1998, and as in the last several years will not waive the statutory limits established under Minnesota law. The estimated cost for all policies and the agent of record for 1998 is $128,961 compared to $117,945 for 1997, and $134,226 for 1996. This year the City will have all coverage placed with the LMCIT program, including the liquor liability for the first time. It is recommended that the 1998 insurance coverage be awarded as presented in the attachment, excluding worker compensation previously awarded. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Award of the 1998 insurance package effective January 1, 1998 to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for the comprehensive municipal property and casualty package $72,709, for the umbrella excess liability $18,611, for the petrofund reimbursement $574, for the open meeting law $771, for the boiler and machinery $1,277, for the surety bonds, $796, and for the golf cour.se liquor liability, $582. CITY OF ORONO INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM TABULATION Policy Awarded To: ActualPremiums 1997 RenewalPremiums 1998 InsurancePremiumsBudget 1998 Worker Compensation LMCIT $29,743 (A) $26.441 $48,900 Comprehensive Municipc.1 Property and Casualty: Property Vehicle Liab/Coll/UM/Equip Inland Marine Crime General Liability LMCIT $7,238 8,292 1,903 330 42,917 $7,456 9,906 1,663 330 53,354 Total Comprehensive Municipal Property & Casualty $60,680 $72,709 $77,475 Petrofund Reimbursement LMCIT 649 574 575 Open Meeting Law LMCIT 698 771 790 Employee Dishonesty Bond LMCIT 906 796 1,000 Boiler LMCIT 1,131 1,277 1,220 Umbrella Excess Liability LMCIT 15,588 (B) 18,611 19,750 Liquor Liability for Golf Course LMCIT 1,350 582 1,100 Agent of Record R.L. Young'Jahl 7,200 (C) 7,200 7,825 TOTAL $117,945 $128,961 $158,635 (A) Worker compensation policy approved as scperate item at 1/12/98 Council meeting. (B) Umbrella $2 million, without waiver of immunity (C) Fee for service contract, agent receives no commissions. INSAWARD Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Approval of Leave of Absence for Mark Thornton COUNCIL f AL'21 iNO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION/^PR 13 1W8 CITY or OBONO Date; March 30,1998 Item No; /5^Department Approval: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section Item Description: Hiring of Full-Time Community Service Officer Exhibits:None DISCUSSION rr- u f n .• /-cnWith Christopher Fischer's acceptance as a part-time police officer, the tull-time CbU position he had previously held became available. A "help wanted" advertisement was placed in several newspapers and community colleges serving the metropolitan area. Twenty-two applications were received, with seven candidates interviewed for the position. Of these final applicants, Jeffrey Johnson was selected. Mr. Johnson is currently employed by a local company and has knowledge of the area. Jeffrey had been a police officer in Baldwin, WI prior to moving back to Minnesota. He brings to this vacancy an understanding of the job, previous experience in law enforcement, and has expressed a desire to ser e our community. rnilN^IL ACTION REQUESTED Request Jeffrey Johnson be hired as a full-time Community Service Officer with an hourly rate of $10.38 per hour, with benefits, effective April 1, 1998. COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CrrY OF GfiONO Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed: Date: March 30, 1998 Item No: jlp Agenda Section: Name: Title: Gary Cheswick Chief of Police Item Description: Hiring of Part-Time Community Service Officer Exhibits: None DISCUSSION wi.h “ PW-'ime "on-call" Community Service Officer has become available Sememter T “ml'"® " 'f"program from April 1,1998 through Septemter, 1998 Tony will be available on weekends, but not evening or nights throughout the week when a call-out person will be needed. inrougnoui me nart-time «0 Officer and has shotvn interest in the feUi n r ‘ fo' "’C position from three other applicants who had asn of his interest, volunteer work, and test scoring, I am recommending he be hired as a par-time on-call Community Service Officer. ^ COUNCIL ACTION RFOTIRSTFn rate of ’’k ^ Community Service Officer with an hourly «Inn nil* ^ ^ ^ exclusion from PERA membership based on the ^ $5100.00 maximum earnings stipulaton, effective March 30, 1998. iHi- COUNCIL is. APR 13 1998 CHY or oflONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: / Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Voice/Data Communications Consultant ATTACHMENT: Proposal from Elert and Associates for Voice/Data Communications Assistance Current Voice/Data Communications Systems The City currently a phone system that was originally purchased in 1989 and was expanded 1992. The system is at its eurrent capacity in terms of number of extensions, and does not presently configured provide voice mail or direct-inward-dial numbers. m as The City currently has two fax machines but no ability to send or receive faxes at individual PC work stations. The City also currently has two Local Area Networks but no Wide Area Network, no E-mail and no Internet access. Needs Assessment Staff have identified a number of general needs regarding voice and data communications. These include voice mail, direct-inward-dial numbers and Internet access. Staff does not have sufficient expertise to ensure an in-depth analysis of voice and data communication needs that would enable the identification of specific technologies that could provide substantial productivity increases. Neither does staff have sufficient expertise to determine if the City's current phone system is capable of handling the City s projected needs, or to determine whether the required upgrades to the current phone system would be cost effective. Development of Specifications for New Voice/Data Communications System Stafi does not have sufficient knowledge of the current technology, or sufficient expertise regarding voice and data communication systems, to prepare specifications for a new system, or to evaluate vendor proposals and to ensure proper system installation and operation. Staff Recommendation To most effectively address the City's voice and data communication needs, staff recommends hiring a voiee/data communications consultant to assist the City in the process of needs assessment. Phase I Needs Assessment $3,600 Phase II Specification Development/Recommendation $2,600 Phase II System Implementation/Follovv-up $1,200 Total $7,400 City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal TABLE OF CONTENTS PHASE I - NEEDS ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................3 PHASE II - SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT/RECOMMENDATION .......................................6 PHASE III - SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION/FOLLOW-UP ...........................................................9 INVOLVEMENT OF THE CITY OF ORONO ..............................................................................12 CITY REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................14 City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal PHASE I - NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1 • Hold Initial Meeting with Appropriate Representatives to discuss and refine the proposed work plan to: a.Insure a mutual understanding of the purpose, objectives, and potential constraints. Define the working relationships between assigned personnel and consulting team. I 2. Collect all Available Data: Including your equipment records and cabling diagrams of existing trunking facilities from U.S. West. 3. Meet with Representative Personnel from the Various Departments: To obtain a "user's" view of existing system. 4. Review all Electronic Automation Plans: a. ! • Messaging Services 1) Voice Mail Applications 2) Electronic Mail Applications 3) Fax Applications 4) Multi-media Client Server Technologies Open Systems Interconnection Standards Internet Access Options 5. Conduct Interviews with Kev Personnel (6-8 interviews): To review long/short range plans to determine requirements assuming "state-of-the-art" telecommunication systems. Elert & Associates Pages I City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal PHASE I - NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1 • Hold Initial Meeting with Appropriate Representatives to discuss and refine the proposed work plan to: a.Insure a mutual understanding of the purpose, objectives, and potential constraints. b. Define the working relationships between assigned personnel and consulting team. 2. Collect all Available Data: Including your equipment records and cab’ ..ig diagrams of existing trunking facilities from U.S. West. 3. Meet with Representative Personnel from the Various Departments: To obtain a "user's" view of existing system. 4. Review all Electronic Automation Plans: a. Messaging Services 1) Voice Mail Applications 2) Electronic Mail Applications 3) Fax Applications 4) Multi-media b. Client Server Technologies c. Open Systems Interconnection Standards d. Internet Access Options 5. Conduct Interviews with Key Personnel (6-8 interviews): To review long/short range plans to determine requirements assuming "state-of-the-art" telecommunication systems. Elert & Associates Page 3 I i ‘ n ‘ City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal 6. Review Existing Equipment Inventory: Verify and record all telecommunications termmais. a. Voice - telephone and related equipment b. Data - modems, video displays, lines and associated interfaces 7. Conduct Initial On-Site Cabling Assessment. 8. Review Existing/Future Pagin2/Intercom Needs. 9, Review Automated AttendantA^oice Mail and A.C.D. Applications: Conduct Cost/Benefit Analysis and provide recommendation on automated cai. ndling equipment. 10. Review Total Expense for Present System: Investigate present costs and prepare forecast for future analysis. 1 11. Conduct and Analyze Traffic Study to Determine: a. Necessary CPU memory capacity b. Networking requirements: 1) Central office 2) D.I.D. 3) Digital connections 4) Alternate common carriers 5) TIE lines 6) Off-premises extensions 7) C.L.E.C. 8) MNet Elert & Associates Page 4 ■« Telecommunications Proposal 12. Summarize Equipment Requirements: Station equipment, auxiliary equipment, common equipment. 13. Provide Voice Metropolitan Area Network Alternatives: Telco vs. wireless vs. ovmed fiber/copper. Prepare Conceptual Design and Cost/Benefit Analysis : In addition to satisfying basic requirements, a successful Telecommunications Plan must be designed to blend harmoniously with the City of Oiono’s philosophies, organizational structure, and budgetary constraints. We believe that management can most easily determine the most suitable direction to take by comparing the characteristics and features of several alternatives. Consequently, during this task, we will identify and evaluate vanous techniques and equipment configurations capable of fulfilling requirements defined. Each alternative will represent a somewhat different approach, performance capability, cost, and support requirements. City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal PHASE II - SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT/RECOMMENDATION \l ( Prepare Detailed Specifications including: a. Vendor responsibilities b. Equipment/Cost required at cutover 1) Station 2) Common 3) Auxiliary c. d. e. f. Equipment/Cost required for five-year plan 1) Station 2) Common 3) Auxiliary Complete feature requirements 1) Standard 2) Optional/costs 3) Feature interaction analysis Equipment performance level 1) Memory/available, used, additions 2) Traffic handling 3) Feature 4) Expansion Equipment requirements 1) Energy consumption 2) Environmental 3) Space Cabling requirements 1) Number of required pairs a) existing b) future Elert & Associates Page 6 % AI City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal J grade of conditioning 3) Analyze re-use of existing facilities 4) Labeling and diagramming specifications h. Vendor Maintenance 1) pre-cutover testing 2) post-cutover diagnostic capabilities/procedures 3) cost 4) servicing alternatives i. Verification of Software Package Proposed Information of enhancements under development 1) capability 2) cost 3) release timeframes Trade-in PoliciesA^alues Restocking Charges Surge Protection Parameters Evaluation Criteria 2- Identify Qualified Vendor T icf Meet with the City of Orono’s Management : Review progress to date and obtain approval of specifications. Conduct Prebid Conference: Allow all potential vendors to review specifications. £gpduct Site Surveys: Allow all potential vendors to inspect locations. £lert d Associates Page 7 ‘ 'W- Mt. City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal 6. Review Bid Responses: Obtain all information required from vendors. 7. Conduct Financial Analysis: a.Initial b. Incremental for five-year plan c. Present value analysis of all proposals 8. Conduct Functional Analysis. 9. Meet vyith the City of Orono’s Management to Review Progress to Date. 10. Prepare Preliminary Report. 11. Review Report with the City of Orono’s Management. 12. Prepare Final Recommendation. 13. Present Recommendation to the City of Orono’s Management for Approval Elert <4 Associates Page 8 i City of Orono 3. 4. 7. Telecommunications Proposal PHASE III - SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION/FOLLOW-UP 1. Contract Negotiations 2. Physical Configuration T.avnut Mt as Contact for all Systems Design Question s During Planning anH develop Implementati on Schedule/ResponsiKiHtIPc 5- Conduct Job Committee Meetinp<; a.Vendor b. c. d. Telephone Company Training Personnel Installation 1) network 2) equipment Coordinate Training Propram: To assure all employees are professionally and competently trained without disruption of schedules. Both technical and teclimcal training procedures and practices will be followed throughout. non- jAssure Development of Internal Telephone Directory. ^^bhsh Class of Service Parameters : Tailor system to requirements of users. Elert & Associates Page 9 binina~rnrrB ir City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal 9. Determine All Station User Equipment Requirements: Review each user and determine software feature needs. 10. Design All Networking and Automatic Route Selection Patterns: Identify least cost routing for calls to be placed over the network. 11 . Establish Call Detail Recording Procedures. 12. Review All Requests for Changes Regarding Systems Component During Installation. 13. Make Change Order Recommendations to the City of Orono During Installation. 14. Provide Final Analysis to the City of Orono Related to the Final Systems Engineering. 15. Meet with the City of Orono’s Management to Review Progress. 16. Pre-Cutover Audit Meeting: Confirm appropriate work has been completed to assure a smooth cutover. 17. Cutover to New System: Negotiate staging of cutover to assure a smooth transition. 18. Ensure all Features Called for in Specifications are Operational. m Elert & Associates Page 10 . i^'ii fkAk jv.a i. • I I I * • 1 City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal 19. Conduct Final Equipment Review: Review equipment and record inventory of all equipment, hardware and software assuring all equipment called for in specifications is received; compare with contract. 20. Scrutinize All Billings: Prepare summary and itemization of all billings assuring they match contracted items and labor; obtain rebates for any overcharges. 21 . Review New System Usage: Evaluate employees* acceptance and use of the new system to ensure maximum efficiency. 22. Coordinate System Modifications : Assure that the system's "fine-tumng is completed. Assure all follow-up training is provided. 23. Meet with the City of Orono ’s Management: Final review of system to assure complete satisfaction. Elert & Associates Page II City of Orono INVOLVEMENT OF THE CITY OF ORONO Telecommunications Proposal Assistance and cooperation will be needed from the City of Orono in the following areas: 1.Assign a Coordinator to assist in scheduling meetings, obtaining existing records, and help coordinate project. S ' 2. Assign a room with a telephone that our study team can work from. i I 3. Interviews will be conducted at two levels: 4. a. b. With upper level management (i.e. Department Heads and above). These meetings will last approximately one hour. With representative workers within the various departments or work groups. Whenever possible we would like to conduct these interviews at the employee's workstation, when this isn't possible we will utilize the room provided to us. These meetings will last approximately 30-45 minutes. Management Personnel will be Required for Presentations that will run 30-45 minutes in length. We anticipate 5 or 6 of these meetings for this project. J ] J ] J Elert ct Associates Page 12 ] City of Orono Telecommunications Proposal COST Phase I — Needs Assessment: Phase n - Specification Development/Recommendation: Phase III - System Implementation/Follow-up: $3,600 $2,600* $1,200* *These costs are estimates and could vary depending on the outcome of Phase I. Option *Cost to implement MNet lines on current system with a Service Bureau for voice mail (include two hours of training):$980 Elert & Associates Page 13 •l I r U J C/iy of Orono Telecommunications Proposal CITY REFERENCES Client City of Bloomington Contact Duane Shuck Teleohone U 612-881-5811 City of Plymouth Stan Bimbaum 612-509-5340 City of St. Cloud Tom Hannon 320-251-3627 Ci ty of Eagan Knsti Peterson 612-681-4609 City of Minnetonka Diane Hunter 612-939-8200 COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 CIT V or ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: 1$ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Installation of a Voice Mail System The process of conducting a voice/data communications needs assessment, developing specifications, evaluating proposals, and implementing a new system will take approximately five months. In staffs discussion with Elert and Associates, we indicated that voice mail is a high need, and it would be beneficial if voice mail could be provided to a number of staff members prior to a new phone system being installed. Staff had, at an earlier time, determined that voice mail could be provided through US West at a cost of $20 per mailbox per month. Elert and Associates advised staff that Frontier offers voice mail at $6 per mailbox per month. Elert also advised staff that there is a set of phone lines (MNet lines) available to City's through a State contract at a fraction of the cost of regular business phone lines. The .vings from these lines would offset the cost of the voice mailboxes. Elert has proposed to implement the MNet lines with Frontier voice mail for a cost of $980. The MNet lines will be retained for ongoing savings when the new phone system is installed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Elert and Associates proposal to implement MNet lines with Frontier voice mail at a cost of $980. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the Elert and A.ssociates proposal to implement MNet lines with Frontier voice mail at a cost of $980. VOICMAIL. CUUNCIL M'r'£T'N'G APR 13 1998 CITY Of OfiONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title Cit>' Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Reconsideration of Amendment to Industrial Zone Moratorium Ordinance At its March 23 meeting, the Council approved an ordinance amending the industrial zone moratorium ordinance to enable exemptions to the moratorium under specific conditions. Councilmember Flint has concerns about whether the City should provide an exemption to the moratorium, and has requested the ordinance amendment be placed on the agenda for reconsideration. The initial moratorium ordinance and the ordinance amendment are attached for Council review. Councilmember Flint's concern is that the City may not want to allow new uses or the expansion of existing uses that are incompatible with the City's land use concept plan for the area. The exemption amendment attempts to address this issue by placing a three-year time limit on all uses permitted under the exemption. The exemption amendment also includes a set of conditions to prevent uses that would cause adverse noise, visual or odor impacts. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1.Motion to reconsider the ordinance amendment providing for an exemption to the industrial zone moratorium; or 2. No action required. ORDINANCE NO. 169 SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM REGARDING CERTAIN USES AS PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USES IN THE CITY ’S INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND ON THE GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISIONS, REZONING APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES OR OTHER AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IN THE CITY The City Council of Orono does ordain; SECTION 1. Statement of Policy . The purpose of Orono Municipal Code Chapter 10, Land Use Regulations, is to provide for the orderly development of commercial and industrial properties in accordance with the long term land use plan for the City as set out in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As part of the City's current Comprehensive Plan update process, the City Council has adopted a resolution setting out a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12. A number of types of land uses currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone may be incompatible with this concept plan. Therefore the City will conduct a study to determine the types of industrial uses compatible with the City's long term land use plan, both in terms of the character of Highway 12 and in terms of the rural residential character of the City. To ensure that, during the study period, uses that may be incompatible with the City's Highway 12 land use concept plan are not added or expanded; the City is hereby imposing a moratorium pursuant to Mirmesota Statute Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, on adding or expanding certain permitted and conditional uses in the City's industrial zone as listed below, and on the granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances or other authority related to development in the City's industrial zone: 1.Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholsteringj tire recapping, sales and storage. 2. Storage, repair, and wholesaling of boats and marine products. 3. Bus, truck, and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 4. Lumber yards and mill works. 5. Warehousing. 6. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage 7. Motor fuel stations. 8. Open sales lot. 9. Outside storage. 10. Railroad switch yards. It is estimated that the study, and any zoning amendments deemed necessary by the study, can be completed in a period of six months. The moratorium is to be effective March 9,1998 and is to expire on September 15,1998. SECTION 2. F.fFective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon the date of approval. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 9th day of March, 1998, by a vote of _J_ ayes and 0 nays. —V ATTEST: y Carole A. Haseman, Deputy City Clerk Publish In the Laker and Pioneer newspapers the weeks of March , • M ORDINANCE NO. 172 SECOND SERIES an ordinance amending ordinance TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM T™ REGARDING CERTAIN USES AS ® CONDITIONAL USES IN THE CITY’S ^^DUS fW^^ZONE, AND ON THE GRANTING OF BUILDING LAND SUBDIVISIONS, REZONING ^ CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE OR OTHER AUTHORITY RELATING TO Tffi DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IN THE CITY The City Council of Orono does ordain: drz-ximv 1 ^lAtPment of Policv The purpose of Orono Municipal Code Chapter 10, Land Use accordance ^^ith the long term land use plan for the Qty as set out n he O^ ^ AS part of the City's current Comprehensive Plan update process the C ^ Cotmcd te auo^^^^ resolution setting out a general concept plan for land use along ig '' y ' land uses currently listed as ^ :X" uc< a ^ ^ *e 4es incompatible with this concept plan. Therefore the Cit> vmU character of industrial uses compatible with the City's long term land use plan both tn terms of Highway 12 and in terms of the rural residential character of the Ut>. TO ensure that, during the study period, uses that may he land use concept plan are not added or expanded, the City IS ne y p ^a.rtc.;n r.p.nnitted and “r^esotasZtcSection46T355,Subdivisiononf “f/“P^XofTuS^ conditional uses in the City's industrial zone as* nurvariancef or other land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditiona r d»p P authority related to development in the City's industrial ^x>;ie SECTION!. F..inni™Imn conditions: The proposed use must not have an adverse impact on the City's residential neighborhoods. 2. The proposed use must not have an adverse impact on the development of adj properties. COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 CITS ov OHONO Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Reviewed: DATE: April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: City Recorder Contract Termination Attached is a letter from Sherry Frost, the City Recorder, indicating she will be terminatina h contmctual relat.onsh.p with the City to provide City recorder services. Sherry anSS a er are a COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. r Sherry R. Frost 5131 Highlana Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) 934-7498 March 21, 1998 City of Orono 2730 Keliey t^arkway Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attention: LinVee Ron Moorse Dear Lin and Ron: Our family placed our home on the market this past week and sold our homes witlm a couple of days. It has been our goal to own our Dusmess. and we have made an offer on a resort near Bemidji. We hope to finalize the financing, etc. of the resort m the next few weeks. Our closing date for the house is in four weeks, and we hope to he able to move immediately to Bemidji to start out the spring season. With regret but excitement for what the future may bring, I submit my resignation as City Recorder to be effective following the Park Commission meeting in April. 1 have learned a great deal and have enjoyed this opportunity and thank you for it. Sincerely, Sherry R Frost I ! / • COUNCIL ^ylL£TlNG APR 13 1938 CTV^CrOHON'J APR 13 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORONO DATE: April 10, 1998 ITEM NO: ^ ^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk / Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1.Denny Nelson Wednesday Evening Bassin' Tournaments Location: Lakeside Marina on Maxwell Bay Time: Wednesday evenings (6:00 p.m. to Sunset in May, June and July; 5:00 p.m. to Sunset in August and September): September 2Dates: May 27 June 3 July 1 August 12 June 10 July 8 August 19 July 15 August 26 July 29 2.Sherokee Use March for Parks Route: Begin at Orono City Hall, follow new bike trail to Luce Line. Bikers will bike west on the Luce Line toward the Ox Yoke Inn; walkers will walk east toward the Green Glen Park in Long Lake Time: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Date: April 26,1 998 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. 1 t y Date:April 3,1998 To:Lin Vee, City Clerk From: Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject: Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application of Denny Nelson’s Wednesday Evening Bassin’ bass tournament, being held at Lakeside Marina on Maxwell Bay. No problems were found as a result of last years special event permit. Therefore, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. J PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit Fee: $50.00 Date Received: Phone Number: Address: Sp _________________________ City, State, Zip: />! 'TTI/Sj —_______________________ Location of Parade or Event: ts /4/^oot— l-\puKt9 ~ o^) ^'^7- ^/3-**//o- 7/1 -"iji ^00 “T-o s^rf~C^ **\ V Date of Event: 7//r-V2i- g/,i.J/n Hours of Event:rooP»w io Su>ju^ , ( V^<» — 7$s^=S5^5t: X(T*% Type of Event: "75u^c^JA-VUV3AJ^S ._______________________________ Insurance Company: Ljjtrt.ux> Amount: / ^Copy 0/ insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) ^ 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. Remarks: 010396.3 TO: FROM; DATE: Lin Vee, City Clerk Gary Chesvvick, Chief of Police April 10,1998 SUBJECT; Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application for the March for Parks Event. The following should be noted on the approved permit: 1 . Walkers and bikers should stay on the trails. 2. All traffic control devices must be adhered to. FROM : CITY OF ORONO PHOHE no. : ® 612473C510 Hpt*. OS I'rSS 07:05Hr i P2 U4/U//VS I3;3J U* .VJi./UJ PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit Fae: 650.00 Date Racaived: Phone Numb^ : ^ ^ ^ Nome: y 0 \ L.Shg )__ Address; ^ Cpiyffu. f U/ o4^ CiVTiKjb rv]^ SS3SI I I i i ^ i Location of parade or Event: C l4\j }4 IS </Lq. ~ft> ULk<-^ U LJ-Oob' Date of Event:__W ( Hours of Event: t> (3~ 3____________ TypaofEvent; VTVWC^ "^SV ' ■■■■*1 mi* ^ ■ i ■■ » pm ■■■■<■ ■ i «■■ — Insurance Company:.___________________________Amount:____ /Copy o/ fnsurdnco certff/eata must be submitted with this epplicstfon) I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and apeclel events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Ofono harmless from ail liabilities that may arise directly or Indirectly from the pared© of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I understand aoma events may require off-duty or reserve officers end a fee may be required for these services. •r°=H>AtoVLat 'cr:^ Signature ^hr Date Approved: □ Denied: □ By:, Remarks: eidSM a ► 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Check Number 55983 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55983 A.P.W.A. 08-Sep-97 A.P.W.A. Totals Check Number 55983 A.P.W.A. Check Number 55984 55984 55984 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS 24-Mar-98 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS ADT SECURITY SYSTEM.S 55984 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS Check Number 55985 55985 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 04-Mar-98 Totals Check Number AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 55985 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Check Number 55986 55986 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 02-Apr-98 Totals Check Number ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55986 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Transaction Amount 90.00 90.00 334.06 312.94 647.00 584.88 584.88 553.13 553.13 Page 1 Comments REGISTRATION-GAPPA SERVICE 4/1/98-3/31/99 SERVICE 4/1/98-3/31/99 CELL PHONES REPLACE ST LAMPS Check Number 55987 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 55987 24-Mar-97 Totals Check Number AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 55987 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 55988 55988 ARMOR SECURITY INC 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number ARMOR SECURITY INC 55988 ARMOR SECURITY INC 563.64 563.84 96.31 96.31 APRIL INSURANCE REPAIR DOOR LOCK Check Number 55989 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 55909 O2-Apr-90 Totals Check Number ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 55989 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO Check Number 55990 55990 ASPLUNDH COFFEE 02-Apr-98 Totals Check Number ASPLUNDH COFFEE 55990 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 55991 55991 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES 19-Feb-98 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES 43.34 43.34 127.00 127.00 10.73 SANDER PARTS COFFEE - PD CELLULAR CHAGS COUNCIL MtETiNG APR 13 1998 crrv O'" ORONO 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Check Number 55991 55991 55991 Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Date Name 55991 AT i T WIRELESS SERVICES 19-Feb-98 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES 19-Feb-98 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES 03-Apr-98 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES Totals Check Number 55991 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 55992 ATaT - KC 55992 03-Apr-98 ATaT - KC Totals Check Number 55992 ATaT - KC Qieck Number 55993 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 55993 03-Apr-98 BEJIEFITS DESIGN GROUP Totals Check Number 55993 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 55994 BLACKOWIAK a SON 55994 09-Apr-98 BLACKOWIAK a SON 55994 21-Jan-98 BLACKOWIAK a SON Totals Check Number 55994 BLACKOWIAK a SON Check Number 55996 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO kOSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. S5996 09-Apr-9C BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-^pr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. 55996 09-Apr-98 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. Totals Check Number 55996 BONESTROO ROSENE a ASSOC. Check Number 55997 55997 BRESSLER, BRAD 09-Apr-98 BRESSLER, BRAD Transaction Amount 10.73 140.95 56.24 218.65 27.16 27.16 1.806.35 1.806.35 321.70 -168.58 153.12 3,021.79 3,013.75 1,427.89 346.99 481.27 1,427.38 560.00 60.50 207.00 983.50 1,764.83 27.50 350.50 484.75 55.00 2,200.00 3,000.00 300.00 120.00 67.00 221.00 20.120.65 Comments CELLULAR CHAGS CELLULAR CHAGS WECKMAN LONG DISTANCE APRIL ADM FEES 3/98 DEC 1997 SERVICE HERITAGE DR SAN SWR EDEWOOD HILLS SAN SWR WETLAND INVENTORY PMT 84 BYRDGE/BRKT INSP - JAN NLL/LLCC CHG ORDER 18 NLL/LLCC INSP JAN I/I NAVARRE-CASCO OCB RD TRAIL ADM-JAN DOWNLOAD MSA INSP FILES WTR TOWER ANTENNAE JAN CC MTGS COPY CHANGE ORD TO GAPPA SPRINT - STR TOWER DEC 97 COLTNCIL MTG FINAL WORK EST-MSA REIM CATWALK-FUEL TANK CANOPY-PUB WKS BLDG FINAL WORK EST-MSA REIM FINAL WORK EST-MSA REIM MISC OCB RD TRAIL MISC OCB TRAIL 32.86 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Register City of Crono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55997 BRESSLER. BRAD Totals Check Number 55997 BRESSLER. BRAD Check Number 55998 BRINKHAUS, JACK 55998 09-Apr-98 BRINKHAUS, JACK Totals Check Number 55998 BRINKHAUS, JACK Check Number 55999 BUDGET PRINTING 55999 55999 04-Feb-98 09-Apr-98 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 55999 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 58000 OiESHICK, GARY 56000 09-Apr-98 CHESWICK, GARY Totals Check Number 56000 CHESWICK, GARY Check Number 56001 CITY OF MAPLE GROVE 56001 24-Mar-98 CITY OF MAPLE GROVE Totals Check Number 56001 CITY OF MAPLE GROVE Check Number 56002 CITY OF WAYZATA 56002 56002 03-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 CITY OF WAYZATA CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 56002 CITY OF WAYZATA Check Number 56003 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING 56003 02-Apr-98 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING Totals Check Number 56003 CITYVIEW PLUMBING 6 HEATING Check Number 56004 CRYSTEEL 56004 56004 24-Mar-98 24-Mar-98 CRYSTEEL CRYSTEEL Totals Check Number 56004 CRYSTEEL Check Number 56005 CYS UNIFORMS 56005 09-Apr-98 CYS UNIFORMS Transaction Amount 32.86 44.00 44.00 6.46 15.89 22.35 58.01 58.01 786.00 786.00 2,059.48 617.50 2,676.98 152.88 152.88 69.58 244.63 314.21 13.74 Page 3 Comments MILEAGE - WATER SCHOOL SHIPPING FROM CART RET CT MAP COPIES REIMBURSEMENT RANGE RENTAL 4TH QTR 97 . WATER SECURITY • PAULUCCI BLDG FURNACE - COUNCIL CHAM SEAL KIT 8425 CYLINDER #425 NAME TAGS r 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Nunber Check Number S6005 S6005 Date Name 56005 CYS UNIFORMS 09-Apr-98 CYS UNIFORMS 09-Apr-98 CYS UNIFORMS Totals Check Number Check Register City of Orono Transaction Amount 78.90 76.90 56005 CYS UNIFORMS 169.54 Page 4 Commc"*.wS SHIRTS, EMBLEMS EMB SEWN, SS Check Number 56006 DEMBOUSKI. JAY 56006 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number DEMBOUSKI. JAY 56006 DEMBOUSKI, JAY 9.77 9.77 REIMB - TAPE, HANGERS Check Number 56007 DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 56007 56007 56007 56007 56007 56007 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION 56007 DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION Check Number 56008 56008 E-2 RECYCLING 02-Apr-96 Totals Check Number E-Z RECYCLING 56008 E-2 RECYCLING Check Number 56009 56009 56009 EXPRESS MESSENGER 09-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number EXPRESS MESSENGER EXPRESS MESSENGER 56009 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check Number 56010 56010 FARNIOK. CORREY 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number FARNIOK. CORREY 56010 FARNIOK, CORREY Check Number 56011 56011 FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. 03-Apr-98 Totals Check Number FIRSTAR TRUST CO 56011 FIRSTAR TRUST CO, Check Number Eo012 56012 FROST. SHERRY R. 02-Apr-98 Totals Check Number FROST, SHERRY R 56012 FROST, SHERRY R 813.72 177.29 136.11 650.02 976.16 240.69 2,993.99 5.581.48 5.583.48 27.10 7.58 34.68 32.36 32.36 103.85 103.85 765.00 765.00 AS BUILTS COUNCIL/PLANNING MINUTES ZONING FILES AS BUILTS COUNCIL/PLANNING ZONING FILES MARCH SERVICE DNR-6FFICE OP PLANNING HO«N CTY MEALS - BCA TRAINING 82GO BOND FA FEB PARK COM 3/2 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Date Name Check Number 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 56014 G a 02-Apr-99 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-96 02-Apr-99 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 C2-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 K SERVICES G & K G & K G & K G & K G a K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K G & K SERVICES SERVICE! SERVICES Sh.<\ SE^VICI-S SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES Totals Check Number 56014 G & K SERVICES Check Number 56015 GALL'S INC. 56015 08-Apr-98 GALL'S INC. Totals Check Number 56015 GALL'S INC. Check Number 56019 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GEtnJINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINT PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 genui!;e PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PAFTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 genui?;e PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUI.VE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 Od-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 U8-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56019 08-Apr-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. Check Register City of Orono Transaction 1,099.91 97.98 97.98 6.33 12.96 20.24 2.76 1.44 8.48 21.99 6.22 1.05 15.64 2.65 11.69 0.83 13.45 4.25 2.82 6.77 Page 5 Amount Comments 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 95.37 MATS - FW 54.69 mats - COUNCIL 54.69 MATS - ADM 62.55 UNIFORMS 12.15 RATHBUN 70.07 MATS - PD 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 90.61 UNIFORMS 12.15 RATHBUN 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 63.55 UNIFORMS 12.15 RATHBUN 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 90.61 UNIFORMS 12.15 RATHBUN 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 95.37 MATS - PW 54.69 MATS - COUNCIL 54.69 MATS - ADM 152.55 UNIFORMS 12.15 RATHBUN 70.07 MATS - POLICE ST THUNDER SPEAKER MIRRORS - SWEEPER LAMP, LIGHT, FUNNEL GAUGE BR CLEAN SPARK PLUG HAflDLE, LIGHT MISC SUPPLIES HOSE, HOSE END U-BOLT EXTRACTOR FLINTS WLD WHEEL LAMP SEAL. A FRESH 430 MISC SUPPLIES OIL SEAL FITTING. CRIMP HOSE 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Chech Number Check Number 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 56019 55019 Check P.cgiscer City of Orono Page 6 Date 56019 GENUINE 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08- Apr-98 09- Apr-99 08-Apr-99 08- Apr-99 09- Apr-98 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-98 08- Apr-99 09- Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-99 OB-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 Name PARTS CO. GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUniE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUirTE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE r?»*. .«E PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS G-C. PAPT. t:0. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PAPTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. Toti la Check N;.rrher 56' GENUINE PARTS CO Check Number 56020 56020 56C20 GERRING'S CAP. »(’SH 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 GERRING'S CAR HASH GEPRING'S CAR HASH Totals Check thxmhet 56020 GERRIN3-S CAR WASH Check Number 56021 GLASS PLUS 56021 24-Mar-98 GLASS PLUS Totals Check Number 56021 GLASS PLUS Check Number S6022 56022 56022 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 24-Mai-99 24-Mar-98 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC, GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC Total* C5»eck Ifur-her 56022 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALt INC Check Number 56023 H 6 L MESABl 56C23 24-Mar-98 Transaction Air.cui.t 7.86 64.51 9.10 7.80 21.30 78.49 32.99 1.94 21.91 •165.21 5.31 19.82 4.55 98.04 64.18 16.64 1.04 11.05 20.26 39.68 -10.42 39.46 38.94 19.82 -8.76 33.28 79.34 17.02 700.01 5.00 7.00 12.00 502.52 502.52 7.00 7.00 14.90 Comments SHOP SUPPLIES AIR HOSE. COUPLER BULB »429 SWITCH CAILPER IDLE ARM tie road end, clamps TERMINAL. SLIDE gauge 460 RETURN HELDING DIST CAP CABLE TIES CIL FILTER. GASKETS MUFFLER - 437 HOSE.FITTING. LABOR U-BOLT POLISH. ARMOUR ALL OIL. FILTERS fuel FILTERS RETURN CLEANERS LIGHTS MISC SUPPLIES EXCHANGE - RELAY/FLASHER SPLASH. FLASHER -712 HOLDER SPLASH CAR WASH CAR WASH WINDSHIELD REPLACEMENT FEBRUATY LOCATES FEBRUARY LOCArES H 6 L MESABl 410.00 biades r 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Check Nu jer Check Register City of Orono Date Name 56023 H & L MESABI Totals Check Number 56023 HAL hESABI Check Number 560* v' HACH CHEMICAL CO. 56024 02-Apr-98 HACH CHEMICAL CO Totals Check Number 56024 HACH CHEMICAL CO Oieck Number 56025 56025 56025 HASEMAN. CAROLE 09-Apr-98 24-Mar-90 HASEMAN, CAROLE HASOiAN, CAROLE Totals Check Number Check Number 56026 56026 56026 56025 HASEMAN, CAROLE 56026 HBALTHPARTNERS 24-Mar-98 24-Mar-98 24-Mar-98 HEALTHPARTNERS HBALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS Totals Check Number Check Number 56027 56027 56027 56027 56026 HEALTHPARTNERS 56027 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. 03-Apr-98 O3-Apr-90 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS HQINEPIN COUNTY TREAS HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS Totals Check Number 56027 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. Check Number 56028 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN 56020 09-Apr-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Totals Check Number 56020 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEH Check Number 56030 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 56030 O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 56030 O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 56030 09-Apr-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 56030 09-Apr-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 56030 O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 56030 09-Apr-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 56030 O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 56030 O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 5603C O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 5''330 O9-Apr-90 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON Transaction Amount 410.00 178.13 178.13 17.04 19.20 37.04 328.50 163.77 6,041.33 6,533.60 11.00 11.00 309.00 100.50 431.50 776.02 776.02 5,395.64 1,145.54 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,104.86 6.691.20 1,496.26 351.38 152.00 387.00 Page 7 Comments WATER TESTING CHEMICALS PICTURE MILEAGE - PERMIT TECH MTO APRIL HEALTH INS APRIL HEALTH INS APRIL HEALTH INS SPEC ASSMT SERV CHRG SPEC ASSMT SERV CHRG SPEC ASSMT SERV CHRG SPEC ASSMT SERV CHRG ROOM AND BOARD 2/98 CREDIT-DUPLICATE PAYMENT CREDIT-DUPLICATE PAYMENT FEBRUARY SERVICES JANUARY SERVICES DECEMBER 1997 SERVICE FULLERTON GORDON NELSON L.L. SWR EASEMENTS STONEGATE FARM EASMNT JAN-FEB SERVICES 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:4S PM Check Number Check Number S6030 S6030 56030 56030 56030 Dace Name Check Register City of Oruno 56030 HINSHAW i CULBERTSON 09-Apr-98 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 09-Apr-98 KINSKAW k CULBERTSON OS-Apr-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 09-Apr-S8 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 09-Apr-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON Totals Check Number 56030 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON Transaction Amount 341.00 198.00 110.00 1.028.00 130.00 7.648.52 Page 8 Comments GOLF COURSE LAND ISSUE JAN k FEB SERVICE MPRS LAWSUIT NEXTEL LEASE JAN-FEB SERVICES Check Number 56031 HUMAi;CE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO 56031 28-Apr-97 Totals Check Number HUMANCE SOCIETY OF WRIGHT CO 56031 HUMANCE SOCIETY O'* WRIGHT CO 65.00 85.00 1ST QTR IMPOUND FEES Check Number 56032 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. 56032 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number HYDRO SUPPLY CO 56032 HYDRO SUPPLY CO Check Number 56033 ICMA 1.082.70 1.082.70 METERS FCIv RESALE 56C33 03-Apr-98 Totals. Check Number ICMA 56033 ICMA 298.70 298.70 MEMBERSHIP - MOORSE Check Number 56034 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 56034 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 56034 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 46.55 46.55 STAPLES FOR COPIER Check Number 56035 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC 56035 02-Apr-98 Totals Check Number INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC 56035 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC 896.65 896.65 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIR Check Number 56036 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. 5603c 56036 02-Apr-98 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. 56036 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL CO. 80.85 105.44 186.29 BALLASTS MISC BULBS Check Number 56037 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA 56037 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number KENI.’ETH N. POTTS. PA 56037 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA Check Number •^6038 KUEHN. THOMAS 4.583.32 4.583 32 FEBRUARY PROSECUTION 56038 24-Mar-98 KUEHN. THOMAS 37.73 NEW EMPLOYEE RECEPTION 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 5603B KUEHN, THOMAS Totals Check Number 56038 KUEHN, THOMAS Check Number 56039 LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY KELLER ^gQ39 09-Apr-99 LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY KELLER Totals Check Number 56039 LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY KELLER 56040 LEAGUE OF MN CITIESCheck Number 56040 56040 56040 56040 56040 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 24-Mar-98 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN d'^'IES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES Totals Check Number 56040 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES Check Number 56041 LEAGUE OF M?^ CITIES INS. TRUST 56041 56041 56041 56041 56041 5C041 56041 56041 56041 56041 56041 56041 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-9B LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE LEAGUE leaglt: OF MN OF Mli OF MN OF MN OF MN OF MN OF m OF MN OF MN OF MN OF MN OF MN CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. CITIES INS. Totals Check Number Check Number 56042 LOGIS 56042 03-Apr-98 Totals Check Number 56041 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES I.SS. TRUST LOG?i3 S6..42 LOGIS Check Number 56043 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56043 56043 56043 56043 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-9B Totals Check Number Check Number 56044 56043 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56044 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS 09-Apr-98 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS Page 9 Transaction Amount Comments 37.73 50.00 AMUNDSON FORFEITURE 50.00 15.00 15.00 7.50 7.50 4.00 1998 LOSS CONTROL WRKSHOP 1998 LOSS CONTROL WRKSHOP 1993 LOSS CONTROL WRKSHOP 1998 LOSS CONTROL WRKSHOP ADDT'L DUE SUBSCRIPTION 49.00 TRUST 771.00 OPEN MEETING LAW TRUST 287.00 PETRO FUND TRUST 287.00 PETRO FUND TRUST 291.00 1/2 LIQUOR LIABILITY INS TRUST 5.064.50 1ST & 2ND QTR INS-CMC TRUST 2.596.00 1ST & 2ND QTR INS-CMC TRUST 5.525.00 1ST (• 2ND QTR INS-CHC TRUST 25.230.50 1ST k 2ND QTR INS-CMC TRUST 71.00 1997 WORK COMP AUDIT TRUST 140.00 1997 WORK COMP AUDIT TRUST 440.00 1997 WORK COMP AUDIT TRUST 2.390.00 1997 WORK COMP AUDIT TRUST 43,093.00 900.00 FEB PIMS DATA PROC 900.00 PARTS 46.51 PRY BAR SET PARTS 9.61 SCREW. PRIMER PARTS 68.37 MIRROR 8712 PARTS 3.66 LENS PARTS 128.15 268.00 PHYSICAL - FISCHER r 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Date Name Check Number 56044 LONG LAKE FAMIi^y PHYSICIANS Totals Check Number 56044 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS 58045 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENTCheck Number 56045 56045 56045 56045 56045 56045 56045 O9-Apr-90 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 O9-Apr-90 O9-Apr-90 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 LONG LCNG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE TRACTOR TRACTOR TRACTOR TRACTOR TRACTOR TRACTOR TRACTOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPJffiNT EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT EQUIFM^ENT EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 56045 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Check Number 56046 MAGIC CLEANERS 56046 09-Apr-98 MAGIC CLEA?;ERS Totals Check Number 56046 MAGIC CLEANERS Check Number 56047 MARK ERICKSON 56047 O3-Apr-90 MARK ERICKSON Totals Check Number 56047 MARK ERICKSON Check Number 56048 MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC. 56049 09-Apr-98 MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC. Totals Check Number 56048 MARTIN-MCALLISTER INC. Check Number 56049 MEDICA CHOICE 56049 56049 14-Apr-97 14-Apr-97 MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 56049 MEDICA CHOICE Check Number 56050 MICRO AGE 56050 03-Apr-98 MICRO AGE Totals Check Number 56050 MICRO AGE Check Number 56051 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 56051 56051 02-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 56051 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Transaction Amount 268.00 8.13 18.62 48.52 7.05 127.43 1.70 2.49 213.94 33.55 33.55 529.50 529.50 304.50 304.50 202.25 9,840.75 10,043.00 1,908.77 1,908.77 365.74 13.50 379.24 Page 10 Comments LINK 6 CHAIN MISC PARTS 8430 PROP ASSEMBLY 8430 SENDER SSEMBLY 8430 HEAT GAUGE-BACK HOE ROLL PIN LINK PIN BLANKET CLEANING EQUIPMENT CHG OUT EVALUATION - FISCHER APRIL HEALTH INSURANCE APRIL HEALTH INSURANCE COMPAQ COMPUTOR k MONITOR MEDICAL OXYGEN OXYGEN r 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Check Number 56052 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 56052 MINNEAPOLIS SPOKESMA*N 24-Mar-98 MINNEAPOLIS SPOKESMAN Totals Check Number 56052 MINNEAPOLIS SPOKESMAN Check Number 56053 MINNEGASCO 56053 56053 56053 14-Apr-97 14-Apr-97 14-Apr-97 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 56053 MINNEGASCO Check Number 56054 MINNESOTA CONWAY 56054 03-Apr-98 MINNESOTA CONWAY Totals Check Number 56054 MINNESOTA CONWAY Check Number 56055 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS 56055 24-Mar-98 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS Totals Check Number 56OS5 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS Check Number 56056 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 56056 03-Apr-98 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number 56056 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 56057 mti DIST CO. 56057 09-Apr-98 MTI DIST CO. Totals Check Number 56057 MTI DIST CO. Check Number 56060 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 0 -Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRD HARDWARE 56060 O0-Apr.-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 56060 08-Apr-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE Transaction Amount 29.50 29.50 49.08 407.82 1,532.44 1,989.34 159.70 159.70 99.20 99.20 74.32 74.32 147.50 147.50 4.88 4.22 1.69 1.18 7.39 2.12 -3.50 9.78 6.16 1.05 10.63 3.96 20.72 Page 11 Comments CSO POSITION GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES GAS CHARGES FIRE EXT REFILL&REPAIR ADV-SALE OF SQUADS DISABILir^ - BORIS P.RESSURE SWITCH BATTERY -COMPUTER KEY ENAMIL BOLTS, SCREWS.WASHERS BOLTS. PAINT. WASHERS WD40 ENAMIL AIR FRESHNER ENAMIL O-RINGS BULB KEYS ICE MELT r 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Check Number 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 56060 Check Register City of Orono Page 12 Date 56060 NAVARRE 08-Apr-98 08- Apr-98 09- Apr-99 08-Apr-98 C8-Apr-98 Oe-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 O8-Apr-90 08-Apr-99 08-Apr-98 Name HARDWARE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE Transaction Amount 38.49 20.66 33.62 3.27 20.50 28.70 41.50 24.53 5.88 3.17 21.29 0.43 13.07 9.23 6.06 11.70 17.53 2.12 8.89 12.81 27.31 3.72 CofTsnents BATTE.RY, SCRrws. BAGS CRYSTAL BAY PO ENAMIL, 3" B.RUSH 425 LIGHTS MISC SUPPLIES STIPPER, CHIP BRUSH PRIMER. ENAMIL PkiMER. ENAMIL NIPPLE. COUPLING KEY WILRELESS CHIME 3/4" COUPLING COPPER TUBE. ADAPTER.UNIO LIGH BULB KEY RINGS - NEW SQUADS PIPE - SHORELIJIE DRIVE BULB. TOILET TISSUE ROLLE PIPE THREAD COMPOUND KEY AND HOOK BULK NAILS. SCREWS BATTERY BATTERY Total* Check Number Qieck Number 56061 :* SP 56060 NAVARRE HARDWARE 433.76 56061 56061 56061 56061 56061 14-Apr-97 14-Apr-97 14-Apr-97 14-Apr-97 02-JU1-96 NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP Total* Check Number 56061 NSP deck Number 56062 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT 56062 09-Apr-98 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Total* Check Number 56062 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Check Number 56063 OLSON, RON 56063 09-Apr-9B OLSON. RON Total* Check Number 56063 OLSON, RON Check Number 56064 56064 56064 OMAN. LYLE 09-Apr-98 09-Apr-98 OMAN, LYLE OMAN, LYLE 89.08 NSP CHARGES 1.240.35 NSP CHARGES 1.958.50 NSP CHARGES 1.758.64 NSP CHARGES 123.83 HWY 12 k WILLOW 5.170.40 78.72 78.72 54.00 54.00 12.48 24.00 MILEAGE - WATER SCHOOL 2/98, 3/98 BANK TRIPS MILEAGE MILEAGE r 9 Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Gicck Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Girck Number 56064 t*6064 56064 OMAN, LYLE 09-Apr-98 OMAN, LYLE 09-Apr-98 OMAN, LYLE Total'j Check Number 56064 OMAN, LYLE Check Number 56065 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr*98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 56065 03-Apr-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Totals Check Number 56065 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Check Number 56066 PIONEER 56066 09-Apr-98 PIONEER 56066 09-Apr-98 PIONEER 56066 09-Apr-98 PIONEER 56066 O9-Apr-90 PIONEER 56066 09-Apr-98 PIONEER Totals Check Number 56066 PIONEER Check Number 56067 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 O0-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD 56067 08-Apr-98 POST BOARD Totals Check Number 56067 POST BOARD Check Number 56068 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. 56068 09-Apr-98 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC, Totals Check Number 56068 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC Check Number 56069 RATlffiUN, BARRY 56069 09-Apr-98 RATHBUN, BARRY 56069 RATHBUN, BARRY Transaction Amount 26.88 39.36 102.72 64.97 69.51 131.90 65.00 100.90 65.00 50.00 16.07 563.35 26.96 57.52 37.75 32.36 73.70 228.29 1.693.35 1.693.35 Totals Check Number 86 00 86.00 Page 13 Comments MILEAGE MILEAGE TOW - SQUAD TOW - AMUNDSON INSPECTION INSPECTION INSPECTION INSPECTION INSPECTION WELDING APPLICATION 2350 APPLICATIONS APPLICATION 2341 APPLICATION 2340 APPLICATIONS 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 45.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 90.00 LI. NSE RENEWAL 90.00 LICENSE RENEWAL 765.00 march JANITORIAL I MILEAGE - WATER SCHOOL r 9 Apr 1990 Thu 4:45 PM Check Number Date Name Check Register City of Orono Transaction Amount Page 14 Comments Check Number S6070 56070 56070 SA-AG INw. O2-Apr-90 SA-AG INC. O2-Apr-90 SA-AG INC. Totals Check N*urrher 56070 SA-AG INC 2.416.07 2.830.42 5.246.49 CONCRETE SAND CONCRETE SAND Check Number 56071 56071 SCHWABB INC. OS-Apr-90 Totals Check Number SCHWABB INC. 56071 SCHWABB INC. Check Number 56072 56072 56072 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC. 09-Apr-98 C3-Apr-98 Totals Chech Number SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC. SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC, 56072 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC. Check Number 56073 56073 56073 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC. O9-Apr-90 03-Apr-98 Totals Check Number ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC. ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC, 56073 ST. JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC Check Number 56074 560/4 56074 STAR TRIBUNE 23-Jan-97 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number S’^AR TRIBUNE STAR TRIBUNE 56074 STAR TRIBUNE Check Humber 56075 56075 STATE OF MINNESOTA 09-Apr-98 Totals Check Number STATE OF MINNESOTA 56075 STATE OF MINNESOTA 142.26 142.26 495.00 110.00 605.00 65.04 10.25 75.29 180.00 648.25 828.25 50.00 50.00 RUBBER STAMPS TH 12 RELOCATION 2/98 TH 12 RELOCATION 1/98 i 429 LOADER CLIP AD FOR POSITION CSO-AD EXEMPTION Check Number 56076 56076 56076 56076 56076 STREICHERS 09-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08- Apr-98 09- Apr 98 STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check Number 56076 STREICHERS Check tlUfT^r 56077 56077 SUBURBAN RATF AUTHORITY 03-Apr-98 Totala Check Number SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 56077 SUB'URBAN RATE AUTHORITY 28.49 69.70 263.16 677.50 1,038.05 400.00 400.00 SQUAD 182 HANDCUFFS HANDCUFFS BATON.HOLDERS SQUAD 182 1ST HALF MEMBERSHIP DUE 9 Apr 1998 Th.u 4:45 PM Check Register City of Orot^o Page 15 Check Number Date Name Check Number 56078 56078 THE HOME DEPOT 02-Apr-98 THE HOME DEPOT Totals Check Number 56078 THE HOME DEPOT Check Number 56079 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 56079 03-Apr-98 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Totals Check Number 56079 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Check Number 56080 TREADWAY GRAPHICS 56080 24-Mar-98 TREADWAY GRAPHICS Totals Check Number 5608C TREADWAY GRAPHICS Check Number 56081 TRI STATE PUMP 56081 56081 02-Apr-98 02-Apr-98 TRI STATE PUMP TRI STATE PUMP Totals Check Number 56081 TRI STATE PUMP Check Number 56082 UNITED LABS, INC 56082 09-Apr b UNITED LABS, INC Totals Check Number 56082 UNITED LABS. INC Check Number 56083 UNITED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. INC 56083 09-Apr-98 UNITED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. INC Totals Check Number 56083 UNITED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY. INC Check Number 56084 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 56084 56084 56084 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 Totals Check Number Check Number 56085 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 56085 56085 56085 56095 02-Apr-96 01- Apr-S6 02- Apr-96 02-Apr-96 Totals Check Number 56085 UNItm LIF Check Number 56086 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Transaction Amount Comments 320.21 320.21 PAINT 2.255.76 2.255.76 2468 GALLONS UNLEADED 268.16 268.16 BALLOONS & LIONS 786.94 82.54 PUMP REPAIR GS 85 PARTS 869.48 49.00 49.00 1998 ADM FEE 1.400.00 1.400.00 LEADRS ANNUAL MAINT UNIV OF MINNESOTA UNIV OF MINNESOTA UNIV OF MINNESOTA 85.00 85.00 85.00 BIKE BIKE BIKE PATROL PATROL PATROL TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING 56084 UNIV OF MINTJESOTA 255.00 INSURANCE -LIFE 0.85 APRIL INSURANCE INSURANCE -LIFE 14.98 APRIL INSURANCEINSURANCE -LIFE 6.42 APRIL INSURANCEINSURANCE -UFE 445.00 APRIL INSURANCE INSURANCE -LIFE 467.25 J 9 Apr 1990 Thu 4:45 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56086 56086 56086 56086 56086 56086 56086 56086 56086 56086 US WEST CCW-!UNICATIONS; 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COfWUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS O4-Feb-90 04-Feb-98 04-Feb-99 O4-Feb-90 04-Feb-98 04-Feb-98 04-Fcb-98 02-Apr-98 Total* Check Number 56006 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 56087 VEE, LIN 56087 O9-Apr-90 VEE. LIN Total* Check Number 56087 VEE, LIN Check Number 56088 VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT 56088 03-Apr-9B VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 5608? VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT Check Number 56089 VIUAGE CHEVROLET 24-Mar-98 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 56089 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 56089 Total* Check Number Check Number 56090 WALDOR PUMP 56090 56090 O2-Apr-90 24-Mar-98 WALDOR PUMP WALDOR PUMP Totals Check Number 56090 WALDOR PUMP Check Number 56091 YOCUM OIL CO INC 56091 56091 24-Mar-98 24-Mar-99 YOCUM OIL CO INC YOCUM OIL CO INC Total* Check Number 56091 YOCUM OIL CO INC Check Number 56092 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIEJ 56092 56092 56C92 56092 56092 O3-Apr-90 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 03-Apr-98 O3-J^r-90 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES vdlTJGDAHL COMPANIES .. NGDAHL COMPANIES YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES Transact ion Amount 249.92 259.97 30.82 13.21 396.23 58.91 44.30 57.61 57.61 1,160.50 134.69 134.69 1,698.60 1,698.6b 110.07 17 361. » 1,726.10 2,087.53 03.93 211.60 295.53 75.00 1 ‘S.Ou 75.00 1 475.00 75.00 Page 16 Comments PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE PHONE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 3/22-4/21 mileage CONFERENCE gas MONITOR REPAIRS 710 .'ARTS LS 3 * 5 PJMP REPAIRS FUEL OIL fuel oil - CLUB HOUSE 2ND QTR INS AGENT FEE 2ND QTR INS AGENT FEB 2ND QTR INS AGENT FEE 2ND QTR INS AGENT FEE 1ST QTR INS AGENT FEE I j r ? Apr 1998 Thu 4:45 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 17 Check Number Date Name Transaction Amount Comments Check Number 56092 56092 56092 56092 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES 03-Apr-98 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES 03-Apr-98 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES 03-Apr-98 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES 175.00 75.00 1,475.00 1ST OTR INS AGENT FEE 1ST QTR INS AGENT FEE 1ST QTR INS AGENT FEE Totals Check Number 56092 YOUNGDAHL COMPANIES 3,600.00 Grand Total 157,411.49 r 7 Apr 1998 Tue 11:45 AM Check Number Check Number 55968 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55968 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION O0-Apr-98 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 55968 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 55969 S59€r 55969 55969 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 55969 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 55970 55970 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURA.NCE CO. O0-Apr-90 Totals Check Number GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO 55970 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Check Number 55971 55971 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT L COLL 06>Apr-98 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT it COLL 55971 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 55972 55972 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL O0-Apr-90 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 55972 HENNEPIN COUirTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55971 55973 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 55973 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 Check Number 55974 55974 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 06-Apr-98 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 55974 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 55975 55975 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OP REVENUE 55975 HN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55976 55976 MN MUTUAL LIFE 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number HN MUTUAL LIFE 55976 MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 5,454.00 5,454.00 3,320.09 3,320.09 8,109.67 14,749.85 1,149.68 1,149.68 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 225.00 225.00 0.00 0.00 3,460.15 3,460.15 455.30 455.30 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRA.NSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA,MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON #CO26670O SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COM? W/H UNION DUES WH STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H 7 Apr 1998 Tue 11:45 AM Check Number Check Number 55977 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55977 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEP COMP 08-Apr-98 mn STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 55977 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 5S978 PEBSCO/OBRA 55978 08-Apr-98 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number SS978 PEBE.'O/OBRA Check Number 55979 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 55979 08-Apr-98 Totals Check Number .heck Number PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 55979 PEBSCO/OS CONF OF MAYORS 55980 55980 55980 PERA O0-Apr-98 08-Apr-98 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 55980 PERA Check Number 55981 UNITED WAY 55981 08-Apr-98 UNITED WAY Totals Check Number 55931 united HAY Transaction Amount 265.00 265.00 31.05 31.05 1,887.65 1,887.65 4,526.31 5,978.06 10,504.37 30.00 30.00 Page 2 Comments deferred comp w/h OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP M/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H Gra.nd Total 38,571.05 24 Mar 1998 Tue 10:29 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044152 044152 JOHNSON, MARY Ami Totals Check Number 044152 Check Number 044153 044153 GEMAR, JAMIE L, Totals Check Number 044153 Check Number 044154 044154 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 044154 Check Number 044155 044155 MOORSE, RONALD J Totals Check Number 044155 Check Number 044196 044156 VEE, LINDA S Totals Check Number 044156 Check Number 044157 044157 KUEHN, THOMAS M. Totals Check Number 044157 Check Number 044158 044158 OLSON. RONALD J Totals Check Number 044158 Check Number 044159 044159 Pettit. Sandra K Totals Check Number 044159 Qieck Number 044160 044160 ANDERSON, BRUCE L Totals Check Number 044160 Check Date 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 2S-Mar>98 25-Mar-98 Page 1 Check Amount 545.93 545.93 470.03 470.03 628.76 628.76 1.470.03 1.470.03 1«004.31 1.004.31 651.43 651.43 844.12 644.12 410.90 410.90 513.31 513.31 24 Mar 1998 Tue 10:29 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044161 044161 BOBZIEN, SUE A. Totals Check Number 044161 Qieck Number 044162 044162 BORIS, SCOTT W Totals Check Number 044162 Check Number 044163 044163 CARLSON* MiaiAEL B. Totals Check Number 044163 Check Number 044164 044164 CHESWICK, GARY B Totals Check Number 044164 Check Number 044165 044165 CORNICK. JAMES L. Totals Check Number 044165 Check Number 044166 044166 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C Totals Check Number 044166 Check Number 044167 044167 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 044167 Check Number 044168 044168 FARNIOK* CORREY L. Totals Check Number 044168 Check Number 044169 044169 FISCHENICH, DAN T Totals Check Number 044169 Check Number 044170 Check Date 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar*98 25-ilar*98 Page 2 Check Amount 644.28 644.28 892.24 892.24 365.70 365.70 1,532.67 1,532.67 1,634.71 1,634.71 1,200.85 1,200.85 1,175.67 1,175.67 1,200.62 1,200.62 1,163.40 1,163.40 ; I 24 Mar 1998 Tue 10:29 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Qieck Number 044170 044170 HANSING. CAROL J. Totals Check Number 044170 Check Number 044171 044171 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P Totals Check Number 044171 Check Number 044172 044172 KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN L. Totals Number 044172 Check Number 044173 044173 MCNALLY. STEVEN A. Totals Check Number 044173 Check Number 044174 044174 MCNICHOLS, DAVID I. Totals Check Number 044174 Check Humber 044175 044175 MOROHCZYNSKI. JA!^S Totals Check Number 044175 Check Number 044176 044176 PERSBLL. WILLIAM R Totals Check Number 044176 Qitck Number 044177 044177 SCHOENHOFP, JCim B Totals Check Number 044177 Check Number 044178 044178 TH0KT&.'*. MARK R. Totals Check Number 044178 Check Numoer 044179 Check Date 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar 38 25-Mar-98 25-M^r-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Mar-98 25-Kar-98 Page 3 Check Amount 332.61 332.61 987.07 907.07 632.13 632.13 1.186.88 1.186.88 440.73 440.73 1.508.29 1.508.29 175.47 175.47 1.186.01 1.186.01 984.26 984.26 I 24 Mar 1998 Tue 10:29 AM Check Humber Check Regisuer City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 044188 044188 VANG, BRUCE L Totals Check Number 044188 Check Number 044189 044189 HECKMAN, STEPHEN J Totals Check Number 044189 Check Number 044190 044190 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F Totals Check Number 044190 Check Number 044191 044191 DEBAERF. DONALD L. Totals Check Number 044191 Check Number 044192 044192 GREGORY, JAMES D Totals Check Number 044192 Check Number 044193 044193 HANSEN, STEVEN C Totals Check Number 044193 Check Number 044194 044194 Totals Check Number 044194 Check Number 044195 Check Date 25-Mar-98 Page 5 Check Amount 25-Mar-98 24 Mar 1998 Tue 10:23 AM Check Number Check Number 55962 Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Date Name 55962 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 24-Mar-98 121 STATE RETIREMEJIT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 55962 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Transaction Amount 315.00 315.00 Comments DEFERRED COMP W/H Check Number 55963 5’ 963 PEBSCO/OBRA 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number PEBSCO/OBRA 55963 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 55964 55964 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number PEBSCO/DS CONF OF MAYORS 55964 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 55965 55965 55965 PERA 24-Mar-98 24-Mar-98 Totals Check Number PERA PERA 55965 PERA Check Number 55966 UNITED WAY 24-Mar-9B Totals Check Number UNITED WAY 55966 UNITED WAY 19.87 19 37 OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H 1,887.65 1,887.65 USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H 4,308.77 5,673.54 9,982.31 PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PERA CITY SHARE 30.00 30.00 CHARITY DONATIONS W/H 38.0l0.>: i ) i 1 : COUNCIL MEETING APR 13 1998 Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer CrTYOFOW)NO April 2.1998 r ^' - - c * • »•. I j~ t 'j . ^ m. 0 3 K5>/ i i W«' , .J Dorothy M. Hallin, Clerk City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin: This is to inform you that the new voting equipment acquisition project for the 1998 elections has been delayed. We found it necessary to reject all proposals received from the three vendors who responded to our Invitation for Bids. We fully intend to issue a request for rebids, however, we do not anticipate this will be completed and in place within the short time remaining for Implementation in 1998. A meeting has been scheduled to discuss this issue in further detail. We also will bring you up to date on legislation and rules that will Impact us for the 1998 elections. Date: April 23,1998 Location: Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN Time:1:00 P.M. We appreciate your support in this project, and request that you continue that support as we resume our plans for new voting equipment in 1999. Patrick H. O'Connor, Director Taxpayer ServicepiiQiBP!9i$9i^f^ Department 4 A'600 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Ktinnesota 55487'0060 RgcscUii Piiper COUNCILMI££TING QRONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ,,,, MINUTES FOR MARCH 16, 1998 APR 13 1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Alternate Jeanne Mabusth. Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael GafTfon, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Assistant Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair omith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2325 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (#2) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 6:30-7:49 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaflron reported that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the application once as a sketch plan and in February as a formal plat request. The 1-1/2 acre parcel is divided into four tax parcels in the LR-lCl zoning district. The single family backlot configuration requires 150% of the standard or 0.75 acre. The front lot is proposed for a duplex based on its proximity within 200' of ih*: commercial district. The application was tabled in February to allow the applicant to provide a stormwater plan and recalculate the lot areas. Outlot C will be dedicated for right of way. The applicant has changed the boundary between lots 1 and 2 by moving the lot line to the south. An access outlot will be provided for the lakeshore lot at a reduced width of 20 ’ instead of the required 30', A private road corridor is proposed at 40' instead of the required 50', with a 24' paved road. The lot line typically thought to be the front lot line is less than the required width. Gaffron indicated the applicant is also planning to add berming with plantings along the property line abutting Lakeside Marina MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 {U2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) GaftVon reviewed the general comments in the memorandum, #1-3. He noted that no additional sewer charges are needed The property vvill be served by private wells. He concluded that only the back lot has riparian access. Covenants and restrictions will be placed on the chain of title to ensure that no riparian rights are given to the duplex property. The pond will be located north of the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has asked to receive credit for the pond towards area for the back lot. Gaffron said the intent of the code is to provide additional buffering, and he believes this is being accomplished and supported the credit. Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion #1-9 on pages 5 and 6 of the memo. He recommended the road be private. He noted the code only allows for two properties to be served by a driveway instead of three as requested A CUP is required to fill within 5' of the lot line Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission agrees with Staff in recommending the credit of unused 75-250' hardcover towards the 250-500' zone. Waade had no additional comments at this time. Russell Norum, 3264 North Shore Drive, noted the location of his property. He said he has no philosophical objections to the application and is open to being flexible regarding variances and conditional use permits He asked if the private road would be located over existing land to access the homes from CoRd 51 He is concerned with the road being cut in noting his own house has had problems with settling and the road will be next to it. Norum said he also is troubled with the ponding. A large pole building is located nearby that resulted in flooding in the area to the north of his property. He questioned what effect the ponding would have to drainage. Norum also indicated there had been an access road to the west of the property at one time and questioned what happened to that access for the subject property. He noted there are water pipes running under his lot and three other lots, their location is unknown. While he believes the new construction will aid property values, he is concerned with additional noise and lighting Smith clarified the concerns voiced by Noaim, namely, 1) access to the property, 2) additional erosion problems, and 3) why the previous access will not be utilized. Norum said he does not object to the road itself but to further erosion He felt the new road would be satisfactory' if improvement was made to ponding Gaffron remarked that the *mpact from the driveway location so near Norum's property is significant due to the steep cuts and needs to be resolved. The City Engineer has not reviewed this issue Gaffron said retaining walls may be required. Gaffron indicated the westerly access driveway never had any formal status Its location is poor due to sight lines along the hill The County has concluded that the proposed access is best in terms of sight lines but suggested the hill be cut down. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert VVaade - Continued) Norum's garage is located less than 10' from the proposed paving of the road. Norum indicated that the easement road was never meant to be used for the subject property. Waade suggested building up the properly to eliminate retaining walls. Gaft'ron agreed that changes are necessary and suggested the City Engineer review the plan. Gaffron responded to the flooding issue. He reported that it appears all drainage from applicant's site will go to the pond. It, however, will not solve the neighbor’s problem. Staff felt a comprehensive review of the area's drainage should be conducted from the marina eastward. Gaft'ron noted that there are no plans affecting the water supply off the property and does not know if there are any water lines on the subject property. Gaffron asked that a condition of Planning Commission approval include the City Engineer's review of grading. Dave Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, said he has spoken with neighbors and presented a petition opposing the duplex and variances for the property. Smith read the petition and the undersigned names. She noted there were unsolved issues surrounding the application, which has been reviewed twice by the Commission. Mabusth asked if the code section regarding the issue relating to the front lot line was available. Stoddard indicated he also did not understand the front lot line issue. In discussion issue #2, Mabusth noted that wetlands and stormwater are all defined as drainage easements and the referenced example is for a rural property. She supported allowing the credit for stormwater ponding. Commissioners agreed with Mabusth. Stoddard felt the road should be private. Commissioners agreed. Gaft'ron explained that the code standard for a private road width serving 3-7 units is 24* wide. If the road is public, it w ould need to be wider. Mabusth asked if a road name w ould be required. Gaffron said this would normally occur but with the existing access, the homeowners can retain the North Shore Drive addresses but may desire a sign board to direct people to their properties Stoddard said he supported a 24' private road but would like the City Engineer to review the preliminary grading plans prior to review by Council. Gaffron clarified the reasoning for the width and length variances necessary for Outlots A and B He indicated that two outlots are necessary for access and for the road. The City will require casements over the outlots for underlying utilities and to grant easements to the other property owners to allow them to continue using the access 3 MINUTtS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Mabusth asked il the applicant would meet the area requirement if given credit for the ponding. Gaffron indicated there would only be a very minor underage. Mabusth asked if the duplex would be serv ed by Outlet B. Gaffron indicated it would and noted that the standard calls for no more than two units being accessed off the 30' corridor. The reason behind the standard is to limit the units a*? three units would require a road. There may be a hardcover issue if the access was changed. Stoddard felt the variances for the widths of Outlots A and B made sense as it would allow for smaller roadway and lessen the hardcover. He noted that the property is allowed a duplex under the code and felt the road issue was not substantial enough to show any opposition. Mabusth asked what the absent Commissioners felt about the issues. Smith indicated that Lindquist was concerned with the number of variances and did not want to encourage their need. Gaffron said the duplex requires a 135' minimum width. The lot width as defined by CoRd 51 does not meet the requirement. It is only met if the width is defined along the private road outlot. The upper lot has about 121' width and the lower lot has 122'. If the "exception" segment in the front of the lot is considered there w ould be about 140'. Mabusth noted there would be a hardcover problem if additional driveway was necessary for three dwellings on one driveway outlot. The driveway would be minimized with two dwellings on one access Berg asked if the proposed units would be rental units. Waade said he would live in the single family home and rent out the duplex. Gaffron indicated the duplex would have to be rental units as the ownership of the duplex cannot be split into individual units under the City ordinances. Smith noted that all of the Commissioners at the last meeting were opposed to providing riparian rights for the duplex. Mabusth asked if the sewer locations have been reviewed The issue of easements needs to be resolved as well. Mabusth noted the need for a hold harmless agreement for the City. Gaffron said the manholes would have to be raised as well Waade said the bermed area would be built up about 5', and he would like to plant a row of pine trees for screening. Commissioners voiced their support. Smith asked what type of landscaping would be planted. Waade said he would like to add about 8-10 arborvitae trees on top of the berm to make a hedge. MINUTHS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - //2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard asked for clarification of the hardcov er variance requested GalTron said the variances in the 0-75‘ or 75-250'. The problem lies in the 7< zone from Ma.\well and Crystal Bays. The amount of hardcover allowed in the utilized, and the applicant would like to take the e.xcess and add it to the 250-500' allowable. Staff supports that request as it meets the intent of the code and the massing would be pulled Rmher back from the lake. Smith Mabusth and Stoddard agreed that this scenario meets the intent of the code. Sam Marfield 2455 North Shore Drive, in noting the nice area along North Shore Drive, e t the use of rental or multi-housing would not be appropriate to the neighborhood. He asked that Lindquist’s previous comments about not granting variances be carried through. Jack Swenson, 3020 North Shore Drive, said he felt the same as Marfield. He sees no reason to grant any variances and feels the character of North Shore Drive is one of single family residential. * David Dalvey felt the application would result in cramming houses on a property and add project crowding of the area. He did not believe the application was a good Mr. Henson, 3216 North Shore Drive, said his property was next to the subject property He rioted t^he problem corner with the pump house location He felt the proposal was a good use for the property in keeping the majority of the area single family. He noted more o the properties could be twinhomes. Henson supported the application and felt it would maintain the neighborhood's character. Gaffron noted that the issue of structural coverage has not been dealt with regarding the 15% ^s alloweT*’ structural coverage is 4800 s.f or 22% of the lot area where only Gaftron noted that if the applicant chose to withdraw the request for duplex and submitted a proposa or a single family residence, the lot width requirement would change to 100' and would likely have a smaller footprint. Jim DePetrovv said he did not support the duplex proposal and felt the sentiment is for single family dwellings. Waade commented that if a single family residence was built, it would still be rental property. He felt the duplex would be better in quality than most of the area's homes. His targeted renter would be upper bracket. Waade said he plans on living in the single family lesidence and believes the project would clean up the area. He noted that a larger unit building could be built on the properly. r r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION • m M M V**"* »•Oi^ ivirvivs-ii Robert Waade - Continued) Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the . The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina^ Waade felt that lot would be best served bv a multi-familv unit from a development standpoint. Smith asked if the road outlot w as taken into consideration for the 22% structural coverage. Gaffron said the road outlot would not be considered part ot the lot area Bera asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he could reduce the size Bere asked what stvie of building was being proposed. Waade sai rduot wouW two-story slab on grade Gaffron said .he footprint would need -o be limited to 32'x40' to meet the standard. Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. Mabusth asked what variances w ould be required if a single family home was built on the lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the ou.lots would be required unless the front ,ot line w'as changed. There would be no change to the credit tor pon mg. Smith asked for Waade’s comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family fe“to mitiuate some variances. Waade said he would need to know what he would be allowed on tne property. Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt some of the variances would be eliminated He supported the lol width and dnvewav access for three units instead of tw o He noted the property is zoned for duplex and cou d be higher density than what is being proposed He supported the stormwater towards the extra 50% lot area requirement Stoddard said he had been unaw structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is requited for emergency vehic es. Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage was reduce . Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to bo reduced to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s f footprint. Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the front lot^ack lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (^2 - U2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Mabusih asked what other variances would be required. Gaffron reported that lot width would be required unless the lot line along the road outlot was defined as the front lot line instead ot CoRd 51. There would be no need for a hardcover variance if credit was given tor the ponding. The variances necessary would be for the length and width of the outlot. Berg said it was important to note that the driveways would still be located th^ie whether one unit or two. Jody Dalvey said she would like to see the area cleaned up. She believes people would be .ess apt to buy property in the area if a duplex was allowed. She acknowledged that her primary concern is with the duplex. Berg felt the main issues have been addressed. ^ith suggested tabling the application to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Waade asked if the Commission would support the duplex proposal if the footprint was reduced. Smith felt the main issue was with reducing the structural coverage She noted support was voiced for the variance for the driveway. Smith informed Waade of the need to subrnit a drainage plan for review. She emphasized that lake access would only be allowed to the single family residence. Stoddard said he supported the Staff recommendations noted on page 6 of the memo notmg the property is zoned for duplex. He supnorted the driveway and lot width vanance and structural coverage of 15%. He suggested the applicant work with staff Smith noted the applicant also needs to protect the adiacent property in regards to drainage as part of the grading plan Marfield reminded the Commission of Lindquist's comments. Smith informed Marfield ha Lmdquist was speaking for himself She noted that the plan as proposed would most h ! r recommendation was made at this time. Smith informed the applicant that the Commission needs to see the revised plan before review by Council. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application ##2340. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 follows item #5.) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 199S SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS {ttS) KEVIN AND LISA OLSEN/JIM AND JUNE TOUVE, 4196 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CLASS I SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - 7:49- 8:45 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Aftlclavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Gaflron reported that the request is for a metes and bounds simple subdivision to separate a platted lot that was legally combined in the past. Lots 55, 56, and 57 were legally combined. Mr. Touve sold lots 55 and 56 to the Olsens without lot 57. They were advised that this constituted an illegal subdivision and would require a formal subdivision with the City, but the City staff would not recommend approval due to the sub-standard lot situation and given history of ownership of the property. Gaffron noted there are wetlands located on lots 57-61. Gaffron said he did not recommend separating lot 57 from lots 55 and 56 due to the lot sizes and "lot of record" status The zoning is one acre Lots 55-57 have a total acreage of .81 and meet the 80% requirement for buildability. Any reduction would make the size more substandard and give Touve increased potential for building within the remaining lots. Gaffron noted that Touve has not made any application to date regarding future building and that would be a separate application. Gaffron reviewed the issues for consideration as noted on page 2 of the memo. Lots 58- 61 when combined would be under the one acre requirement, and contain only .48 acre of dry buildable, which would not meet the standard. A driveway would also have to cross over the wetlands Gaffron indicated that the request to add Lot 57 to 58-61 would result in making a substandard group of three lots into a smaller group requiring variances. He feels consideration also has to be given to lots 58-61 if combined on their own merit. The deeds were created over 10 years ago, and the Olsen's have paid ta.xes on the 3 lots without having a deed to all three lots. Olsen's now have the property up for sale, and GaflVon believes the intent is only to sell the two lots. This needs to be resolved. If the lots are not separated, lot 57 would have to be sold with the other two lots. Gaffron said neither City or County records document the history behind the combination, and he recommends denial of the application. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO^LMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (U5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Lisa Olsen asked for an explanation of the process by which properties become legally combined. Gaffron said people make the request directly to the County or request the City to submit a letter to the County on their behalf Olsen asked what format is followed to make this legal. GatTron said the format requires the signature of the property owners and acceptance on the County's part. Olsen asked if there is any record showing the legal combination. Gaffron said there is not noting it likely occurred during the 1950-1960’s. Olsen disagreed with the way the lots were noted in the recommendation of legal combination. Gaffron said the terminology' for legal combination refers to the tax document, and since the County shows it as such, he needs to rely on that information. Olsen felt the legal records of the property indicate something new was created between 1963 and 1975. The first two lots are shown ta.xed together and later include all three. Olsen referenced her letter sent to Staff regarding the property ’s history. Her parents originally bought lot 55 and later purchased lots 56-61. She purchased both lots 55 and 56 from them in 1987 because the house located on lot 55 encroached into lot 56. County records only showed lot 55 and the house deeded on one parcel. She later purchased lot 56, and owner's duplicate of title includes lots 55 and 56. Olsen said she has never owned lot 57 and never legally combined the lots The only place where this combination is shown is on the tax records. The County records only show two lots. Gaffron asked if this was shown in 1987. Olsen said no. Gaffron said that was a key point because lots 55 and 56 were on one title. Olsen asked how the City can say she must buy another lot due to a typographical error when the legal records only show lots 55 and 56. She reiterated the only place all three are noted are on the tax records. There are no other records to indicate approval of this combination or legal document indicating the three lots were combined. Olsen said she was informed that the most expedient way to handle this issue is through subdivision. She felt the problem was created through an error made by the City that created the illegal subdivision. She asked that the combination be reversed and reflected in the tax records. Gaffron said he would not change his position; noting while there were separate deeds, the lots were legally combined. Mabusth asked if there were any variance applications in the past. Gaffron said in 1977 and 1979, the City relied on the record showing the combination in issuing building permits and reviewing variance requests. The three lots were combined at that time. Gaffron also indicated that reliance is placed on the County plat maps He concluded that unless a formal subdivision is applied for and approved, the property owner cannot sell off a part of a property that legally is combined as one parcel. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) MabSth informed her that it was a phrase used for combination of lots for tax purposes. occurred at the City at that time and probably occurred at the ou , Berg asked if the property has always been rev"e"d plat added that the Hennepin County e revision to the plat map occurred in of 1963 did not show the combination, _ showing the lots separately, and property.pi . tov Sk . i«. ...M — r""" and then a third added Gaffron referenced map a^nd^ ^erty IrrsTnronnXf^ suMivi^ion was rec,uired The current County maps show all 3 lots combined. Touve felt Gaffron was being hignly speculative. There were no public comments, Smith noted that Staff recommended denial Stoddard asked if the property owner had ary that there was no access and the property protwted ^ —“.'.“I‘r.r»r St" H..«.N... » his daughter, fouve asked that t ^ g ^^as an issue. A rn::.rwt‘‘ira« :::rndrrrzthip. There was no <.ues.ion egarding lot combination at that time. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jim and June Touve - Continued) Stoddard said it was his opinion that it would be best if lot 57 was combined with lots 55 and 56 with a driveway easement granted to the other lots. Mabusth asked whether he was requesting this of the applicant of if the buildability of the other lots were a consideration. Olsen informed the Commission that they are a large family, and it is not an option for her to purchase the additional lot. She asked that the lots be addressed by those that she owns. Lots 55 and 56. She would like to move forward. She asked if any other information is necessary or questions regarding legal ownership. She asked if the issue was due to the substandard size of the property. Mabusth clarified that Olsen would like the Commission to act on lots 55 and 56 only. Smith agreed that the substandard size was an issue. Olsen said she did address this with Gaffron, and had told her he would not give his opinion on this, and Olsen thought the lot size was satisfactory. Gaffron was asked if additional information was needed to assist in changing his opinion. Gaffron said he has read through the historic file and reviewe ‘ the 1987 file, and Staff will not support the subdivision request made by the applicant Olsen said she made a rough calculation of other lots in the neighborhood with exception of the lakeshore property. Of 18 lots, only 5 met the standard or were .88 acre or larger. The remainder were substandard and similar in size to her property at .58 acres (Lots 55 and 56). The hardcover of the property is at 11%. Touve responded to Mabusth questions regarding the development of the 7 lots. He said he would be willing to negotiate with the City, County and DNR regarding the building size and wetlands. He informed Stoddard that the wetlands have been delineated. He noted the wetland area has changed over the years due to manmade efforts on the east end w'ith the building of a dam A hill was pushed in by the road that changed the wetlands resulting in it becoming larger than it had been originally. Touve felt he had an adequate footprint with 25' to build without any variance with room for the 26' buffer from the wetlands. The problem has arisen because the wetlands were enlarged. 1 ouve said he would accept having a driveway to the east. He said it was his understanding that the City was using the pond in the past, and the City implied that he would get this land back when the sewer was installed Touve said he was concerned that the substandardness of the lot is a result of someone else's doing. The 7' drop from the culvert to his home has been blocked off He plans on adding cattails and dredging out the pond for ducks. If his plans were approved, he then would be willing to give a portion of lot 57 to lots 55 and 56. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) /^2350 Kevin end Lisa OIsen-Tim and June Touve - Continued) Mr. Touve's other daughter noted that lots 55 and 56 are similar to others in the neighborhood and asked for approval as presented Smith informed her that the Commission can only act on what is included in the application. She indicated that the application can be tabled to allow the choices to be evaluated. Commissioners agreed that the application would likely be denied as proposed. Ms Touve noted that the neighborhood was not perfect. Berg informed Ms. Touve that this is the time for the Commission to make improvements Olsen said it was also time to correct an error made by the City in the past. She would like to have the ability to sell her property if she so chose. She disagreed that the property was ever legally combined as there is nc documentation to substantiate it. Smith indicated that the Commission does not always accept StatTs recommendation but based on the information before her, she suggested the applicant work with staff to e.xplore options. Olsen said she has worked with staff' for 10 years to no avail and does not believe any additional time will help. Stoddard noted that many properties are substandard. The Comm'ssi'm's role is to make property conform to the zoning. He indicated that further discussion should be held regarding the wetland and driveway, and the applicant should include the Corp of Engineers, MCWD, and DNR in the process as they are the approving agencies for areas that include wetlands. He would like to see this issue resolved before any further recommendations are made. Mabusth concurred. Touve said the Corp of Engineers informed him he could fill areas less than 1/2 acre Stoddard said the other two entities must also be involved. Olsen noted that the home on Lot 55 was built in the 1920’s and became substandard when the zoning was changed to one acre. Olsen said the non-conlormity was not created by her Stoddard was of the opinion that the application as presented would be denied and suggested ftirther discussion include the wetlands and driveway issue. Olsen asked if the problem was with the buildability of the property or substandard size of lots 55 and 56 Berg said these w ere all issues of concern. Smith informed Olsen that tabling the application would allow her to keep options open. Denial would result in that recommendation made to Council for their action MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#5) #2350 Kevin and Lisa Olsen/Jiin and June Touve - Continued) Touve asked if the Commission could mandate Staff to work with them. He indicated it is difficult to work with the other agencies prior to City approval. Berg mforrned Touve that the process called for the other agencies review before City action can be taken. Smit said the City- would help him work through the process. Gaffron said an application would be required for building on lots 58-61 and advised that this be a separate application. Stoddard reiterated that the DNR protected wetlands required approval frorn the^entities noted prior to review by City. He suggested this be done now or an easement would be required and the lot could not be sold. Stoddard moved to table Application #2350. Olsen asked that the Commission act on the application at this time. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2350. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#3) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATHER AND LINDA SALLEE, 3285 CARMEN ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:49-8:56 P.M. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The applicant proposes to rebuild and expand an upper level deck located on the lakeside of the property requiring variances for stmctural coverage, hardcover within the 0-75* lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission was previously concerned with the hardcover in the 0-75' setback and asked to submit revised plans limitmg the increase to 1-2%, which would still en-.ble the applicant to have a more functional deck. A new plan was submitted. The original plan showed the deck extending 6'7" beyond the overhang The extension is the same in the new plan but in a smaller area, fhc remainde extends 2-1/2* beyond the overhang. Gravel was reported to be located under the deck and by the lakeshore, which Staff had been previously unaware of and hardcover calculations were redone to reflect this Bressler reviewed the issues l-o as noted in the memo and reviewed the recommendation for approval. Molsather and Sallee were in agreement with Staffs recommendation. Mabusth asked if the iiardcover calculations included the stairway and 25 s.f of pavers. Bressler said the calculations include all hardcover after removal of plastic. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 (#3) #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) There were no public comments Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval per Staff recommendation. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#4) #2292 TOM OKERSTROM, 770 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - 8:56- 9:40 P.M. The Applicant was present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application had previously been tabled due to problems with the survey, which did not accurately reflect the hardcover. The proposal is for a detached garage with dormers requiring variances for hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, structural coverage, and street setback. Bressler indicated that staff feels the garage location at 8' from the right of way is problematic. The residence was built in 1996 without a garage. The residence consumed the allowed hardcover and structural coverage. A driveway is still needed. The lot area and width do not meet zoning requirements. The structural coverage is proposed at 19%. Bressler reported that the drainage pattern was altered when the residence was built. The drainage problem has not been corrected which was a condition of the temporary certificate of occupancy. Final certificate of occupancy was not obtained. Bressler indicated that the 35' street setback could be met but would further increase the amount of hardcover. The shed will be removed as part of the application but was to have been removed when the house was built. Bressler recommended approval per the amendments and conditions noted in the memo. Okerstrom informed the Commission that he had been unaware of the hardcover issue when he built the house He feels this should be disclosed to the public. He would have made changes to his plans at that time if he had known. Okerstrom indicated that the building pad is the same as the previous residence on the property. Bressler said Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, had discussed these issues with the builder when the residence was built. Okerstrom said the information was not passed on to him He said he only heard of the shed removal and drainage issue recently. Bressler said the drainage correction was part of the condition of the temporary certificate of occupancy but was not done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Smith asked what hardship the applicant had for the proposed garage. Okerstrom asked Smith to explain hardship. Okerstrom indicated that the lot is only 50 wide. The garage plans had been reduced from the original proposed size. He did not believe a one-car garage would be aesthetically pleasing. Smith in noting the significant increase in hardcover, questioned how the property got to this point. A member of the audience noted that everyone needs a two-car garage. Okerstrom informed Stoddard that he was informed by Dressier of the problem with the 8' street setback. He is willing to place the garage further back but it would further increase hardcover. Stoddard said he would support more hardcover to place the garage further back on the property. Mabusth indicated that the necessary parking spaces would also be provided if the garage w as moved back. Mabusth asked what guidelines were given to the applicant in September and the dimensions of the proposed garage. Okerstrom said the original proposal was for a 30'x24' garage. It is currently proposed at 24'x28'. Mabusth asked if other garages in the area have gables or dormers. Mrs. Okerstrom said other garages are similar. She indicated the garage would be 1-1/2 stories for storage purposes, and other garages in the area are two-story and closer to the street. Stoddard asked what the neighbors reaction was to the proposal. Okerstrom said both neighbors were supportive. Mrs. Okerstrom noted that the prior review did not include any discussion of the proposal due to the improper sur\'ey. They had been made aware of the need to decrease the garage size and place the garage further back on the property. Stoddard said he would support the proposal if the garage w ere moved further back. He noted the Commission typically would like to see the whole picture of what will occur on a property. Mabusth voiced concern with lack of information provided to property owner at time the house was built. She supported a reduction in the garage size. Dressier noted that with the shed removal, the structural coverage would be 18.4^. Mabusth asked what the structural coverage was for the property with the previous home. Okerstrom said the previous house was closer to the lake and there had been a detached garage. The residence was moved back 8' because of the deck. Mabusth said she would prefer that the absent Commissioners were present for the discussion. 15 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#4) #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Stoddard noted the problem with applicants coming back after building a home and asking for variances to build a garage. He suggested the property owner sign that they have been informed of such an issue when a residence is built. Mabusth noted that sometimes the owner and builder are the same. Bressler clarified that the shed removal was not a condition of the certificate of occupancy but the drainage correction was. Smith suggested direction be given to the applicant. It was clarified that hardcover and structure size were issues of concern. Smith felt safety w'ould be improved if the garage was moved further back. She suggested considering a smaller garage since the structural coverage would increase and due to the house only being two years old. Okerstrom voiced frustration with resubmitting a plan that was a result of StafI' recommendations and hearing that further reductions are now needed. Smith informed him that the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity previously to discuss the issues. She would not support the structural coverage as proposed. While she understands the need for a garage, she was concerned that variances are being requested only two years after the home was built. Mabusth noted that the intensity of the structure is also an issue as the setback is substandard. Mabusth e.\plained for Mrs. Okerstrom what is meant by being substandard. Mabusth commented that the original house would have been smaller if the garage w'as built at the same time and considered with that application. Okerstrom said they were unable to afford to build the garage at that time. He also indicated that the house is the same size as the previous house. Berg reiterated that the Commission tries to improve properties and decrease the amount of structure on a lot when new construction takes place. Bressler reviewed the direction given. The Commissioners agreed to a 20' setback and hardcover. Mabusth asked about intensity of mass in relation to the lot line. Stoddard indicated the house is new but a reduction from w hat existed. He informed the applicant that if the motion is denied, the Council will review the application with that recommendation or the application can be tabled to allow the applicant to w ork with staff on further reductions Okerstrom asked for direction on garage location. Smith informed him that the Commission cannot redesign the garage but a structural coverage reduction is necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 («4) H2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) The size of the garage was discussed. A two-car garage was satisfactory, but Berg auestioned the need for the second storv. Stoddard indicated that a reduction in footorint would also redi r ^ ihe mass of the garage. Dressier indicated a 22'x24' garage would reduce the coveib^e bv 120 s.f to 18%. The oroDOsal was at 18.4%. With the shed removal, the structural coverage would be at 17.5%. Stoddard moved to approve Application #2292 per Staff recommendations subject to a footprint limited to 22x24' or 528 s.f The dormer would be allowed as well as heating but no plumbing. Motion failed for lack of a second. Stoddard begun to make a motion to delete the second floor but Okerstrom questioned it. Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2292 for a 22'x24' garage with an 8' first stor\' and a 10; 12 pitch, without dormer, per Staff recommendations. A space heater will be allowed. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#6) #2343 TIMOTHY AND BONNIE JOHNSON, 627 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - VARIANCES - 9:41-9:50 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted. The Applicants were represented by contractor, Pat Hanley. Dressier distributed pictures of the property. The proposal is for coi struction of a detached garage with dormer located near the front lot line. Variances are required for locating the structure in front of the principal structure and for side yard setback. Dressier explained that it would be difilcult to locate the accessorv structure to meet the side setback if it is to follow the line of the house and tie in w ith the loop driveway. The concern is with the location encroaching into the 10' utility easement. He noted that the garage doors will not be visible from the street and will present the look of a small cottage. The dormer will not be used for living space and no heating or plumbing is included. Dressier recommended approval for the accessory structure located 227' from the front lot line with principal structure located 329’ from the front lot line, but recommended denial of the 5' side setback variance. Hanley indicated that they attempted to place the structure to the side of the house but were unable to obtain the proper turn into the garage. The other side of the property is a walk-out. There is an attached two-car garage on the property and the proposed structure would be used for storage purposes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#6) #2343 Timothy and Bonnie Johnson - Continued) Smith asked if the structure could be reduced in size to meet the required side setback. Hanley said this would create a long narrow structure. He was informed that the structure could not be placed over the utility easement. Berg asked what the hardship is for the proposal. Hanley said the applicant is allowed to have more structure and there is no other location for its olacement. Mabusth noted that the neighboring property received a variance for a tennis court. There were no public comments. Smith supported staff recommendation with the structure meeting the 10' side setback. Mabusth moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2343 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Berg, who indicated the structure was too large. (#7) #2344 DOUGLAS AND MARILYN HOLCOMBE, 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES - 9:50-9:58 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed photographs of the property. The proposal is to rebuild a main level deck with an enclosed porch underneath with a stairway from the main level deck leading down to a small deck and steps on the lake side of the porch. The proposal requires variances for hardcover in the 0-75 ’ and 75-250' lakeshore setbacks, average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage. The existing deck nearest the lakeshore was built without a building permit by a pnor owner. Granting the variances would not result in further encroachments from existing structures. Bressler reviewed the issues. The lot does not meet the lot area and width. A lot line rearrangement was approved in January, 1998. The stairs and deck are the only increase in structure to the house beyond what was approved with variances in in 1977. Holcombe indicated that the stairs were part of the original approval The proposal negligiblv increases stnictural coverage and hardcover as it will be primarily placed over e.xisting hardcover. Bressler recommended approval for replacement of the existing deck and adding stairways, enclosing the area under the deck, a second level deck, and a landing on the lake side of the porch. Staff recommended removal of the lower level deck that was built illegally The applicant has agreed to this removal. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#7) #2344 Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe - Continued) The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Mabusth noted some reductions. Dressier said the reduction would be from the removal of the ilienallv built deck and increase is onlv for the staircase and smaller erade level deck. He noted the significant grades require the decking. Mabus'Ji noted there would be no impact to the average lakeshore setback with the curve of the lakeshore. Berg moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2344. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8) #2346 MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - 9:58-10:06 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren congratulated Dressier on his graduation from college and new position with the City of Northfield. Smith extended appreciation to Dressier on behalf of the Planning Commission. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the property located in the LR-1B, one acre zoning district. The lot area is only .387 acres if the vacated portion of Forest Lane is included. Without that vacated portion, the lot is .336 acres. The applicants were encouraged to move forward with the vacation. Documentation shows that other vacations have occurred and this will likely be allowed here. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence The existing structure encroaches into the west side yard at 3.4'. The chimney encroaches 1.7' and allowed at 18" and encroaches by 1". The residence is located front of the house next door. Van Zomeren felt the improvement will not affect average lakeshore setback. Van Zomeren said she was concerned with elevation as it slopes from the streetside doorway and the west side is completely exposed. The height is in keeping with the height requirement. The proposal includes an additional two bedrooms, storage room, master bath, with w alk-in closet and bath. Staff asked that the Planning Commission provide direction due to the close proximity of the side yard variance request. The option was not available to place the improvements to the side of the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#8) #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm - Continued) Acknowledgment letters were signed by adjacent neighbors. Van Zomeren said the request is reasonable but is concerned with the 3.4’ side yard setback. She cautioned the property owner to get a maintenance easement from the neighbor for placement of a ladder to access the upper portion of house if application is approved. Mrs. Palm said her neighbor in the neighboring house was unable to attend but supported the proposal. Van Zomeren acknowledged that the homes were staggered and encroachment was not as severe due to this. Smith asked if the neighbor on the hill would be impacted Palm said there were mature trees and the view would be upward. Smith noted she would like to see the existing excess in structural coverage eliminated. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2346. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2347 TIM SWEEZO, 4480 WATERTOWN ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITA'ARIANCE Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2347 at the request of the applicant. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2348 MARY JANE HAUSER, 1540 BOHNS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - 10:07-11:13 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant, Mr. Hauser, was present along with Attorney, Bruce Malkerson. Bressler said staff received a letter from the applicant's engineer regarding stormwater management in response to staffs report. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application requires a hardcover variance in the 75-250' lakeshore setback for a new residence on a vacant lot. Bressler displayed the survey noting the house and loop driveway location. Hardcover was previously proposed at 32% in the 75-250' setback and is currently proposed at 29.4%. A 2-car garage in being proposed in the 250-500 ’ setback, ahead of the principal structure, which is allowed on the lakeshore lot. Stormwater detention ponds are being proposed, which the applicant believes is adequate to mitigate the additional hardcover. Bressler indicated that the applicant would like to continue with the prouosed ponds even if the hardcover variance is denied. Bressler sai staff believes the pond w ill reduce runoff through a natural swale and supports the ponding proposal A grade level deck is proposed that will not encroach the average lakeshore setback; such a deck is considered a non-encroachment. A proposed spa is planned behind the average lakeshore setback. r 1 hllNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Bressler reviewed the issues #l-8 as noted in the memorandum. Bressler noted that the proposed driveway takes advantage of the existing grades. The alternative suggestion would result in extensive grading. Bressler said Staff recommended denial of the vanance as the driveway and deck could be reconfigured to meet the requirements Attorney Bruce Malkerson, representing the Hauser's, provided additional information to the Commission. He felt the hardcover ordinance data does not support the requirement. He said the revised plan is typical of homes found in this area of the lake and Orono. Malkerson referenced the existing asphalt driveway and the sharp nse to the treed area, the driveway was placed elsewhere to reduce the amount of hardcover, Mai erson sai i would result in cutting through the treed area and causing headlights from vehicles shining into the neighboring homes. While acknowledging that the plan is new construction, Malkerson said the existing lot with landscaping and grades reflect where the best location is for the home and driveway. Bressler informed the Comnussion that Staff is not advocating for the new driveway but believe the existing driveway could be altered to reduce hardcover. Berg informed Malkerson that the proposal is for new construction. Malkersoii responde that the proposed house size is normal for this area. Smith asked Malkerson if it is the applicant's preference to maintain the plan for the residence as proposed and place the driveway in the treed area to reduce the amount of hardcover bv 4%. Malkerson said that is the applicant's intent given the size of their family. Malkerson reviewed the hardcover allowance according to State law and felt it was not binding upon the City. Malkerson referenced the lot configuration in speaking about the applicant's hardship in substantiating the plan noting the lot was twice as wide as long. Malkerson also noted that the surface runoff' goes into the lake untreated, and while it \yas the City’s responsibility to treat the runoff, his client was willing to treat the runoff on his property via the pond Malkerson said the intent of the hardcover regulations was to enable the cities to liberally grant variances, and cities have changed that intent He felt the intent of proving hardship was not that there was no other use for the property but to giye cities flexibility in granting yariances. Malkerson felt the limited excess of hardcover over the standard is reasonable and meets the requirements of allowing the variance. Mr. Hauser said the plan has been revised many times with keeping in mind the 14 drop m grade. He felt any other location tor the driveway would be unsatisfactory. Hauser felt the house has been scaled back as much as possible. Hauser said his neighbors support his plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Hauser said his intent is to utilize the lot in the best manner. Hauser said the neighboring homes exceed the allowable hardcover. Hauser felt he was not asking for anythtng special noting he could meet the hardcover allowance by placing the dnveway in the treed area but reiterated the problems it would cause in that location. Hauser said the design has gone through much review. His time line is problematic, and he would like th;; Commission to make their recommendation at the meeting m order tor him to move forward with his financing. Mabusth indicated that hardcover was the only issue and noted that the house was ideally located on the lot. Hauser asked the Commission to consider the additional burdens existing on the property. Berg suggested that an option was to eliminate the circular driveway. Mabusth asked if consideration has been given to removing a portion of the loop. Bressler said eliminating the loop driveway would reduce the hardcover within 1% of meeting t e 25% allowed but had been informed by the applicant that this was not an option he would consider. Bressler said staff then looked at the footprint for possible reductions in hardcover. The plan for a straight driveway through the treed area would result in hardcover of 27%. A drivewav alternate was noted on oaaes 10 and 11 of booklet presented by Malkerson, which eliminates the loop of the driveway reducing the dnveway by 1000 s f at a 12’ width. Hauser indicated this would place the driveway into the higher elevations It would resuh in difficulty in backing out and require retaining walls and 2000 cubic yards of fill. Smith inquired about the proposed separate structure on the property. The structure is a proposed 2-car garage in addition to the 3-car attached garage. The original plan was for a 4-car attached garage but was eliminated due to hardcover. In noting the applicant's strong feelings regarding each element of the apolication and not wanting to redesign the plan any further, Stoddard asked what could be done to reduce the hardcover Hauser said he has tried to do so and considers the straight driveway as a last resort He feels the prooertv conditions with the grades and fill constitute hardship to allow the hardcov er variance for use of the existing driveway. Bressler proposed a change to the garage structure location and size to meet the hardcover. The separate structure would be increased in size and the attached garage reduced in size It was noted that this increase would result in the structure becoming an oversized accessoiy structure. !0 PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 16, 1998 r«r»irtTt] iKWn nnarti s for a hardcover variance. Hauser said the operty and treat runoft'. He felt this could be a anted. Mabusth asked if Hauser has discussed he neighbors were concerned with standing noff and immediately percolate resulting in no uDDorted the oondine as olaned but reauired the ommend hardcover at 27%. Hauser felt any t the neighborhood. operty to the north, which has an older lore setback. The house to the south was given dcover as pools were not considered hardcover property is 27.1% in the 75-250' lakeshore it was incredulous that 4.8% of hardcover could not be eliminated. She felt the oronosal was new construction and there were no hardships to allow the hardcover variance. Mabusth agreed that the site plan was excellent but the hardcover was e.xcessive. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend any leniency to allow him to work with staff. Berg said Planning Commission's directive is to meet the 25% allowable in hardcover. Hauser asked for an explanation of hardship which Berg supplied. Hauser said he has not mentioned the economics of the proposal but felt he needed to indicate that the house size was necessary to justify the expense of the lot. Smith agreed that the house was in keeping with the neighborhood but recommended the 25% hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Hauser asked if the Commission would recommend a smaller variance. Berg noted that the Commission is given guidelines in which to follow from the Council. Stoddard suggested the possibility of 25% hardcover in the 75-250' setback and 30% hardcover in the 250-500' setback with the applicant working with staff to meet these guidelines prior to the Council review. Bressler said there would be no variance required with this su2aestion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (U\0) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Smith and Berg both felt the code should be applied to the application and the 25% hardcover be met. Malkerson reiterated that the driveway would need to cut through the treed area to meet this requirement. Malkerson did not believe the lot should be considered a "clean" lot. such as is found in a cornfield. Bera said the requirement applies to all lots. Malkerson suggested the grading and filling be considered as well. Berg noted that the issue is whether the lot can be built upon within the parameters aiven. Malkerson disagreed that the test of the lot w as as indicated by Berg. Stoddard noted he did not believe there w'as a hardship based on the lot. Stoddard said he mav consider a plan with a small variance but the Commission historically does not send to Council applications that are not substantiated with a proposed plan. Stoddard said he could not support the plan as submitted. Hauser asked to table the application for further review. Smith e.xplained the procedure that is following. Bressler asked for direction for the applicant regarding the amount of hardcover. Hauser asked if the Commission would approve hardcover at 25.9%. Bressler noted that tabling the application would require an extension from the 60-day review period. Gaffron was asked for his opinion. Gaffron indicated that he would not be able to stipulate a percentace. He indicated in most cases the hardcover allowed sets the limit. Circumstances may present some alteration but is difficult with no hardship shown for a bare lot. Gaftron said Council may look at the existing amenities. Bressler noted that 320 s.f would equal 1% of hardcover. Berg asked if the applicant w ould consider eliminating the loop while still maintaining the entrance and drivewav Hauser said he would consider that noting the hardcover would still be exceeded by about 500 s.f Discussion was held regarding placement of the garage but Hauser said the locations w ere such to take advantage of the e.visting grades Hauser said the driveway could come straight in as an option as previously noted. Berg informed Hauser that the Commission's intent is to create a good situation for both the city and applicant. Smith questioned whether there was. jate support of the 25.9% hardcover requested. This would result in elimination of the loop without moving the driveway. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#10) #2348 Mary Jane Hauser - Continued) Stoddard moved, Berg seconded, to approve the hardcover variance in 75-250 ’ setback to allow 25.9% hardcover based on the applicant's proposed redesign of the driveway to utilize the layout of the lot. This recommendation would be subject to the applicant ledesigning the plan prior to Council meeting. The recommendation is based on the applicant's stated hardship of having to cut into the treed area, reconfigure the utility poles if the drivewav is realinned. and changes to grading. The drivewav is to remain in the same location and hardcover removed where it can to meet the 25.9% hardcover. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#11) #2351 LAURA ZAUNER, 3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES -11:14-11:21 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Fred Hendrickson represented the applicant. Dressier distributed photos of the property. The application is a request for an after-the- fact variance for 0-75' hardcover in the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore, and lakeshore setback for a deck replacement with railing The replacement results in a reduction in hardcover. Bressler reviewed the issues ' > .ote(l in the memo as well as the staft*recommendation for approval. Hendrickson said there had been a misunderstanding between the applicant and what was previously approved in 1992. Rotted decking was removed and replaced. The end result was a smaller deck. Additional hardcover was removed elsewhere on the property. There were no public comments. Hendrickson indicated the house is for sale. Berg !noved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2351. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL/VNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 ZONING AMENDMENTS (#12) CITY OF ORONO CODE AMENDMENT RE: PARK DEDICATION FEE - 11:22-11:31 P.M. Gaffron referenced Moorse’s memo indicating the City's intent to change the ordinance to reflect the rough proportionality and nexus requirements that have evolved concerning park dedications. Council had asked for a revision. Moorse suggested and Gaffron concurred that minimum and maximum dollar amounts for park dedication (to be established annually) were needed based on the value of park system. The park dedicMion ordinance was revised in 1989 to 8% of the value of the land of new subdivided lots. This did not take into account the impact per residence on parks, nor did it address proportionality. Gaffron noted the changes and additions to the code. He indicated the ordinance amendment is not in final form. Stoddard asked how the park dedication has been challenged. Gaffron explained how tins has occurred. Ciaffron informed Mabusth that Moorse has concluded through his analysis that the park dedication maximum per lot should be about $4,900. This is iustified based on park needs and anticipated needs for parks in the future, taking into account the existing park system value and the number of lots expected to be developed in the future. Berg noted the current ordinance did not reflect the need for park development and focus was on large lot sizes with need for trails not parks. Gaffron said the nexus shows the connection where bringing more people into the area will result in more use of parks and these people paying their fair share. Mabusth asked if the Park Commission reviewed the amendment. Gaffron said they gave some input and are not totally pleased with the result but accept the fact that the current ordinance is inadequate. Commissioners felt the amendment issue did not require further review by the Commission. There were no public comments. Stoddard moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Park Dedication Ordinance Amen^ent subiect to minor revisions and legal review prior to Council review. Vote. Ayes 4, ays MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAIWING COM^.IISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16. 1998 (#13) CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RE: LAND 1 r xro iTIOV . 11 .-Jl Gaffron reported that the land alteration code amendment is to allow staff the discretion recardine aoDroval of 10 cubic vards of filline/iiradine/excavation within the shore setback zone without requiring a conditional use permit. If staff determines a specific application does not appear to meet the intent of City policies or goals, it can be further reviewed by Planning Commission and Council. Gaffron recommended approval as drafied. Smith supported the amendment. It was noted that an idea was presented by Dressier regarding allowing clearing of a path but no more than 25% of beach should be altered. Gaffron said the Comprehensive Plan suggests there be no change to the shoreland. He feels this would result in both good and bad impacts citing a recent example for a beach. Stoddard noted that the area below the OHW mark is controlled by the DNR, who recommended approval of that project. Gaffron felt that project would have been recommended for referral to Council because it created an unnatural environment. He noted that the Watershed District has authority between the OHW and the flood plain. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve the zoning code amendment for staff administration of limited types of land alterations on lakeshore property. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATI ENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 AND MARCH 9, 1998 Smith, who attended the March 9, 1998 Council meeting, reported that much discussion was held regarding the Old Crystal Bay Road subdivision in relation to the trail and its location on either the west or east side. Gaffron indicated the Council decided to take an easement on the west side of the road on the subject propertv in order keep options open for the future. This results in easements being located on both the east and west sides of Old Crystal Bay Road No decision was made regarding where the trail will be located. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to withdraw Application #23^9 at the request of the applicant. Caribou Coffee. V'ote: Avcs 4, Navs 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY I^ 1QOQ A « 9 A X V Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meetine ofFebruarv 17. 1998. Vote: Aves4. NavsO. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 23,1998 AND APRIL 13,1998 March 23 - Stoddard April 13 - Berg ADJOURNMENT Smith moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn at 11:42 p.m. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Sandra Smith, Chair Person COUNCIL MASTINGPERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 PERMIT TYPE Building SGL FAMILY-NEW SP-ADD/REMODEL SP-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL-NEW COM-ADD/REMODEL COM-ACC STRUCTUR DEMO INST-ADD/REMODEL DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/GARAGES Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVB/PLUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY REMOVE OIL TANK Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES SPRINKLER WATER METER Sub-total Sewer k Water SEWER CONNECTION NEW SEPTIC SYSTE SAC ONLY SEWER k WATER Sub-total Sign TEMPORARY Sub-total Fire FIRE SPRINKLER Sub-total Uaer Defined LAND ALTERATION LAWN SPRINKLER Sub-total Grand-total ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/98 - 03/31/98 APR 13 1998 CITV or ORONO-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/97 - 03/31/97 PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW B 17,373.00 2,852,774.00 11,292 .43 6 13,411.00 2,239,725.46 8,717.14 56 17,931.50 1,807,228.00 9,110.37 37 14,528.25 1,533,487.50 7,341*59 3 2,899.25 418,300.00 1,884.51 1 287.25 20,000.00 186 *71 4 0 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 50.00 887.25 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 576.71 1 287.25 20,000.00 0.00 1 124.75 6,500.00 81.09 1 475.75 39,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 • 0 0 0m 0m 0m 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0 • 00 0m 0m 0m 1 0.00 19,480.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0m 0m 0m 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 1 287.25 20,000.00 186.71 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 77*39,514.00*5,176,782.00*22,474.02*49*29,368.50*3,899,712.96*16,903.24* 27 4,924 .44 389,255.00 0.00 33 2,799.32 211,659.68 0.00 0m 0m 0m 2 186.25 14,900.00 0.00 1 137.50 11,000.00 0.00 0m 0m 0m 1 35.00 2,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 # 00 0m 0m 0m 26 1,053.31 56,865.00 0.00 22 806.71 40,082.55.0.00 0m 0m 0m 3 105.00 5,150.00 0.00 2 70.00 2,200.00 0.00 3 105.00 1,875.00 0.00 7 245.00 2,900.00 0.00 0m 0m 0mm0 7 258.75 12,200.00 0.00 2 70.00 3,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 0.00 w 69*6,667.75*482,245.00*0.00*68*4,163.53*271,842.43*0.00* 44 4,354.64 324,469.00 0.00 47 3,518.14 229,980.36 0.00 0m 0m 0m 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 161.69 12,935.00 0.00 4 932.00 0.00 0.00 3 632.99 0.00 0.00 48*5,286.64*324,469.00*0.00*52*4,312.82*242,915.36*0.00* 8 280.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 300.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ^m 0m 0m 7 6,000.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0m 0m 0m 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 70.00 0.00 0.00 18*6,580.00*0.00*0.00*2*70.00*0.00*0.00* 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 1*35.00*0.00*0.00*2*60.00*0.00*0.00* 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 140.00 11,200.00 0.00 \0 0*0.00*0.00*0.00*1*140.00*11,200.00*0.00* 2 125.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3*160.00*0.00*0.00*1*75.00*0.00*0.00* 216**58,243.39**5,983,496.00**22,474.02**175**38,189.85**4,425.670.75**16,903.24*<* PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT NBR. BPEBRPT2-1 DATE OP RON 04/01/98 ..... PERMIT PEE CITY OF REPORT ***** ORONO PAGE: REQUESTER: CAROLE FROM 01/01/98 TO 03/31/98 BU? i-OING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER fit WATER USER SIGN FIRE BASE PEE 39,514.00 6,667.75 5,286.64 6,580.00 160.00 35.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW 22,474.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 2,591.49 242.60 163.22 5.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH PBB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 399.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN 55.50 16.50 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 64,978.76 6,965.85 5,466.36 11,585.50 162.00 35.00 0.00 REPORT NBR. BFBBRPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 BABB PBB PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH PEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT NAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL REPORT TOTAL 58,243.39 22,474.02 3,003.31 0.00 5,000.00 399.25 0.00 73.50 0.00 89,193.47 PERMIT FEE REPORT ♦♦♦♦♦ CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/98 TO 03/31/98 PAGE: 2 REQUESTER: CAROLE PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO « • * * *PAGE; 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/98 - 03/31/98 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/97 - 03/31/97PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User Defined SUBDIVISION 6 4,062.50 0.00 0.00 3 2,245.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 18 5,110.00 0.00 0.00 14 3,130.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 3 800.00 0.00 0.00 6 1,550.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE/CUP •1 250.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 REZONING 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 RQST SIMILAR USE 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 29*10,222.50*0.00*0.00*26*7,175.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 29**10,222.50**0.00**0.00**26**7,175.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BPEERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 ***** PERMIT FEE REPORT •• CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/98 TO 03/31/98 USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEB 10,222.50 10,222.50 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 10,222.50 10,222.50 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE 1998 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIESJanuary February March Apri I Hay June July August Septeniber October November Dece<nber YTD TotalsSpring ParkPlan Review 0.00 0.00 0.00 Inspections 15.00 45.00 60.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 TOTAL 40.00 70.00 85.00 No. Plan Reviews 0 0 0 No. Inspections 1 3 4 Minnetonka Beach Plan Review 7,206.05 2,133.30 2,493.88 Inspections 195.00 285.00 225.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 TOTAL 7,426.05 2,443.30 2,743.88 No. Plan Reviews 0 2 3 No. Inspections 13 19 15 0.00 120.00 75.00 195.00 0 8 11.833.23 705.00 75.00 12.613.23 5 47 7,466.05 2,513.30 2,828.88 12,808.23 I PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTEDREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 04/01/98QTY422 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 30* PERMIT TYPEBuildingSGL FAMILY-NEWSF-ADD/REMODEL SF-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL-NEW COM-ADD/REMODEL COM-ACC STRUCTUR DEMO ACC/GARAGES Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING FIREPLACE GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY REMOVE OIL TANK Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES SPRINKLER WATER METER Sub-total Sewer k Water SEWER CONNECTION 3 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 1 SAC ONLY 3 SEWER k WATER 0 Sub-total 7* Sign TEMPORARY 1 Sub-total 1* Fire FIRE SPRINKLER 0 Sub-total 0* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 1 Sub-total 1* Grand-total 79** ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 03/01/98 - 03/31/98BASE FEE7,554.005,398.25 0.00 50.00 0.00 287.25 475.75 0.00 287.25 14,052.50* VALUATION1,199,614.00453,133.00 0. V/ 0 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 39.000. 00 0.00 20.000. 00 1,731,747.00* 105.00 0.00 100.00 0. OO 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,205.00*0.00* 35.00 0.00 35.00*0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00* 75.00 0.00 75.00*0.00* >2,636.63**2,093,107.00* PLAN REVIEW4,910.092,593.160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 186.71 7,689.96* 10 2,613.75 206,900.00 0.00 1 136.25 10,900.00 0.00 10 469.56 27,265.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 500.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 22*3,254.56*245,565.00*0.00* 16 1,520.57 115,795.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 494.00 0.00 0.00 18*2,014.57*115,795.00*0.00* 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* * * * * tQTY 7,689.96** 0 0 0 1 1* 1 1* 1 1* 0 0* 54** COUNCILMARCH 1998 APR 1 3 1998 PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE .................PREvfdl6¥Ql&fi(iEJ>it)-...............................03/01/97 - 03/31/97VALUATION PLAN REVIEWBASE FEE49,466.50 1,605,920.00133,294.25 256,550.001287.25 20,000.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 887.25 100,000.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 20*13,985.25*1,982,470.00* 8 711.37 55,709.00 1 137.50 11,000.00 8 289.04 16,523.55 2 70.00 825.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 20*1,242.91*85,057.55* 10 771.25 50,500.00 1 86.69 6,935.00 0 0.00 0.00 11*857.94*57,435.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 70.00*0.00* 30.00 0.00 30.00*0.00* 140.00 140.00* 0.00 0.00* 11,200.00 11,200.00* 0.00 0.00* 6,153.221,289.12186.71 0.00 576.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,205.76* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 16,326.10** 2,136,162.55**8,205.76** PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED MARCH 1998REPORT NBR. BPEERPTl-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 BUILDING MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 03/01/98 TO 03/31/98PLUMBING SEWER & WATER USER PAGE! 31REQUESTER: CAROLESIGNFIRE BASE FEB PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT TOTAL 14,052.50 7,689.96 866.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,608.85 3,254.56 0.00 123.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50 0.00 3,400.09 2.014.57 0.00 58.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.072.58 3.205.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.207.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 REPORT NBR. BPEBRPTl-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 REPORT TOTAL ** PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OP ORONO FROM 0.*»/0l/98 TO 03/31/98 PAGE: 32 REQUESTER:. CAROLE BASE PEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH PEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROW PBRMlf total 22,636.63 7,689.96 1,049.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50 0.00 31,398.52 WED, APR 1, 1990, 4:44 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1^98 PAGE 1PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISS PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 30C ME 0101010102 02 02 04 05 06 10 11 11 11 11 11 16 19 19 24 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 24 24 24 29 29 29 29 29 29 13312900281524353359 825 1945 4119 3615 3165 25 1299 3240 3105 4720 1291 2435 200 2704 2570 3190 300 3241 3535 137 3560 2250 3265 500 2480 2735 3011 2520 395 500 3241 3067 395 127 4100 315 3211 825 3225 1900 1355 2185 1410 500 2995 3359 3211 NORTH ARM DR WEAR CIR DEER RUN TR NORTH SHORE DR CRYSTAL BAY RD FOREST ARMS LA CONCORDIA ST OAK ST LYRIC AVE CASCO CIR MYRTLEWOOD RD WILDHURST TR BAYSIDE RD CASCO POINT RD NORTH ARM DR BRIAR ST NORTH SHORE DR WOODHILL RD KELLEY PKWY LYDIARD AVE SUSSEX RD 6TH AVE N CASCO CIR CHRISTINE DR CHEVY CHASE DR IVY PL FRENCH LAKE RD CARMAN RD ORONO ORCHARD RD S OLD BEACH RD COUNTRYSIDE DR W SUSSEX RD THOROUGHBRED LA PERNDALB RD N TONKAWA RD CASCO CIR FARVIEW LA FERNDALE RD N CHEVY CHASE DR WATERTOWN RD WOODHILL RD 3AYSIDE RD FOREST ARMS LA CARMAN RD FOX RIDGE RD SHORELINE DR WATERTOWN RD SHORELINE DR ORONO ORCHARD RD DEER RUN TR CRYSTAL BAY RD BAYSIDE RD 98/03/0598/03/0990/03/0990/03/0598/03/09 90/03/13 90/03/19 98/03/16 90/03/24 98/03/17 98/03/27 90/03/20 98/03/23 90/03/24 98/03/24 98/03/30 98/03/05 90/03/06 98/03/10 98/03/05 98/03/02 90/03/06 90/03/03 98/03/10 98/03/10 98/03/10 98/03/11 98/03/13 90/03/17 98/03/26 OR-009991OR-009992OR-009995OR-009997OR-009907 OR-010023 OR-010030 OR-009615 OR-010048 OR-010027 OR-010046 OR-010039 OR-010042 OR-010049 OR-010050 OR-010064 OR-009990 OR-010002 OR-010004 OR-010001 CR-009613 OR-009767 OR-009970 OR-010009 OR-010010 OR-010011 OR-010012 OR-010021 OR-010022 OR-010047 98/03/10 OR 98/03/17 OR 98/03/19 OR 98/03/23 OR 98/03/26 OR 98/03/26 OR 98/03/26 OR 98/03/27 OR 98/03/31 OR 98/03/02 OR 90/03/12 OR- 90/03/25 OR- 90/03/26 OR 90/03/12 OR 98/03/24 OR 98/03/26 OR 98/03/03 OR 90/03/03 OR 98/03/11 OR 98/03/17 OR 90/03/17 OR 90/03/26 OR 010008 010029 010036 010040 010056 010058 0100^9 010061 010065 009986 010019 010051 010057 010018 010045 010060 009989 009990 010017 010032 010033 010055 1682457114759515173131531424255014458524 19372809 10236030 00000000 OOOOCOOO 14744540 17042646 19723950 14726539 17227129 18238046 15331544 14242550 14738080 00000000 14601233 14759515 14752097 14741757 15440117 00000000 14710532 14445353 00000000 15310320 15570260 36332561 36332561 35531445 34789814 39296767 32266220 35360667 35453797 36332561 34709558 34343006 34432452 39414211 34210843 34450585 34709550 34791600 39296767 34980071 35453797 35453797 39414211 LOUISIANA HOMES INC A fic T DEVELOPMENT CHARLES CUDD CO PREFERRED HOME IMPROVEMENT KLINGELHUTZ NEIL CONST INC HESTIA HOMES INC. QUALITY CRAFTSMEN EASTWOOD BUILDERS CUSTOM REMODLERS INC MAAS CONST INC SMITH WF ROOFING GARLOCK FRECH ROOFING CO SELA ROOFING LAKE STATE REMODELERS PREFERRED HOME IMPROVEMENT DALBER ROOFING VALLEY METRO CHIMNEY SPEC A k T DEVELOPMENT BOYER k SONS INC HERMAN RENOVATION CO CUSTOM COTTAGES LTD DANBERRY COMPANY YERIGAN CONSTRUCTION CO ASHLANN BUILDERS GUSTAFSON REMODFLING FIRESIDE CORNER firesid:: corner GUYERS BUILDERS EXPRESS DALCO CONCRETE k MASONRY VOGT FRED k CO GAS LINE PLUS MARSH HEATING & AIR COND FIREPLACE CENTER FIRESIDE CORNER DITTER INC TROPIC AIR WILLIAM BUNN MASONRY INC. KLEVE HTG k AC LAKELAND NORTH HTG k A/C RON'S MECH INC DITTER INC COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C VOGT FRED k CO WEST AIR FIREPLACE CENTER FIREPLACE CENTER KLEVE HTG k AC BEUTLERPOSTHILLHUNTLYYOUNG PARKS RAGATZ ROLLAND CODDON CARLSON LUNDBERG SCHIMMEL BOYLAN STEN UTTER CURLEY HUNTLEY GANZ DAYTON KENNEFICK RYAN SATTERVAL CHRISTENSEN STANDISH MILBRATH WEBSTER MACDONALD RUTLEDGE NELSON KENNEFICK RAPPAPORT BREN SHOLL MCGUIRE LUNDELL PARKS HOUCK POLANSKI JOHNSON LIBBY HARRISON YOUNG LUNDELL 170,250,361,410,40, 60, 8, 20, 4. 5, 12, 1, 4, 17, 4, 3, 20, 39, 2, 20, 10, 169, 19, 12, 5, 20, 14, 10, 10, 1, 2, 1, 10, 10, 2, 7, 1, 2, 10, 150, 5, 6, 7, 3, 8, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10, 364.00 000.00250.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 400.00 280.00 000.00 500.00 875.00 173.00 550.00 655.00 .00 000.00 000.00 700.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 900.00 200.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 500.00 000.00 200.00 900.00 000.00 165.00 400.00 600.00 100.00 900.00 800.00 400.00 500.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 HBD, APR 1, 1998, 4:44 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1998 PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PACE 2PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VAL-’ATION 22C 22C PL 01 127 CHEVY CHASE DR 98/03/05 OR-009999 39337717 THOMPSON PLBG JACOBSEN 12,500.00 01 127 CHEVY CHASE DR 90/03/05 OR-010000 29337717 THOMPSON PLBG JACOBSEN . 00 01 2405 DUNWOODY AVE 98/03/09 OR-010005 00000000 WALTON . 00 01 2520 THOROUGHBRED LA 98/03/11 OR-010013 24432921 SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG 12,500.00 01 3011 SUSSEX RD 98/03/11 OR-010014 24432921 SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG 16,700.00 01 1331 NORTH ARM DR 98/03/25 OR-C10052 29337717 THOMP^'ON PLBG 8,200.00 02 3067 FARVIEW LA 90/03/03 OR-009993 24248455 MACK liUMBING RAPPAPONT 7,500.00 02 500 TONKAWA RD 98/03/04 OR-009996 24724959 WESTL KA MECH CONTRACTORS NELSON 12,995.00 02 2340 FOX ST 90/03/10 OR-010007 24841406 COKLEi PLBG ROBERTS 3,750.00 02 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE 98/03/23 OR-010041 24721977 MADSEN PLBG k HTG HOLCOMBE 9,000.00 19 1050 TAMARACK DR 98/03/17 OR-010031 24738403 DAY EARL W fit SONS 15,000.00 24 190 CYGNET PL 98/03/12 OR-010020 24720805 ALS MASTER PLUMBING HOHRMAN 1,900.00 24 137 CHEVY CHASE DR 98/03/13 OR-010025 25336633 PLUMBING SYSTEMS, INC.SATTERVALL 2,450.00 24 2250 FRENCH LAKE RD 98/03/20 OR-01C038 24731657 FADDEN CLIFF fit SONS STANDISH 5,500.00 29 825 FOREST ARMS LA 90/03/11 OR-010015 27554268 JERRY’S PLBG fit HTG PARKS 1,000.00 29 500 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 98/03/11 OR-010016 29335636 DUDA, LEON PLUMBING SERV.WEBSTER 2,000.00 29 4575 WAYZATA BLVD 90/03/16 OR-010026 00000000 RUDD 800.00 29 3265 CARMAN RD 90/03/19 OR-010037 00000000 MILBRATH 4,000.00 18C 18C SI 13 3445 SHORELINE DR 98/03/31 OR-010067 00000000 OVERSOW Oo•1C 1C SH 01 2850 SOMERSET LA 98/03/03 OR-009988 54425855 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICES .00 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/03/09 OR-010006 54734300 SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE JUNDT . 00 0*398 LEAP ST 98/03/13 OR-010024 00000000 ANDERSON .00 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/03/19 OR-010034 54734300 SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE CROSBY . 00 1220 BRACKETTS POINT RD 98/03/19 OR-010035 54734300 SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE CROSBY . 00 01 398 LEAP ST 98/03/24 OR-010044 54734300 SULLIVAN’S UTILITY SERVICE ANDERSON . 00 01 1600 LONG LAKE BLVD 9b/03/30 OR-010063 00000000 CAJACOB . 00 7C 1C UD 19 405 NORTH ARM DR 98/03/23 OR-010Q4?00000000 oo•1C IC 79C 2,093,107.00* WED, APR 1, 1998, 4:43 PM PAGE 1NUMERICAL LISTING MARCH 1998.^*^:RMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION ROLLAND 20,000.00 20,000.00 DAYTON 10,000.00 KENNEFICK 169,000.00 SHOLL 10,900.00 YOUNG 40,000.00 LIBBY .00 1,800.00 HARRISON 1,400.00 BEUTLER 178,364.00 POST 250,000.00 RAPPAPONT 7,500.00 HILL 361,250.00 NELSON 12,995.00 HUNTLY 410,000.00 HUNTLEY .00 JACOBSEN 12,500.00 JACOBSEN .00 GANZ 2,700.00 WALTON 20,000.00 39,000.00 .00 JUNDT .00 ROBERTS 3,750.00 RUTLEDGE 1,900.00 RYAN 19,000.00 SATTERVAL 12,000.00 CHRISTENSEN 5,000.00 STANDISH 20,000.00 PARKS 12.500.00 16.700.00 1,000.00 WEBSTER 2,000.00 HOUCK 500.00 7,600.00 MCGUIRE 150,000.00 HOHRMAN 1,900.00 MILBRATH 14,000.00 WEBSTER 10,000.00 PARKS 60,000.00 ANDERSON .00 SATTERVALL 2,450.00 RUDD 800.00 CARLSON 5,280.00 RAGATZ 2,200.00 8,000.00 YOUNG 15,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 CROSBY .00 CROSBY .00 MILBRATH 1,000.00 4,000.00 STANDISH 5,500.00 OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- OR- 009613 009615 009767 009970 009986 009987 009988 009989 009990 009991 009992 009993 009995 009996 009997 009998 009999 010000 010001 010002 010004 010005 010006 010007 010008 010009 010010 010011 010012 010013 010014 010015 010016 010017 010018 010019 010020 010021 010022 010023 010024 010025 010026 010027 010029 010030 010C31 010032 010033 010034 010035 010036 010037 010038 98/03/02 N 98/03/16 N 98/03/06 N 98/03/03 N 98/03/02 N 98/03/09 N 98/03/03 N 98/03/03 N 98/03/03 N 98/03/05 N 98/03/09 N 98/03/03 N 98/03/09 N 98/03/04 N 98/03/05 N 98/03/05 N 98/03/05 N 98/03/05 N 98/03/05 N 98/03/06 N 98/03/10 N 98/03/09 N 98/U3/09 N 98/03/10 N 98/03/10 N 98/03/10 N 98/03/10 N 98/03/10 N 98/03/11 N 98/03/11 N 98/03/11 N 98/03/11 N 98/03/11 N 98/03/11 N 98/03/12 N 98/03/12 N 98/03/12 N 98/03/13 N 98/03/17 N 98/03/13 N 98/03/13 N 98/03/13 N 98/03/16 N 98/03/17 N 98/03/17 N 98/03/a 9 N 98/03/17 N 98/03/17 N 98/03/17 N 98/03/19 N 98/03/19 N 98/03/19 N 98/03/19 N 98/03/20 N 3190 4119 300 3241 4100 3359 2850 2185 1410 1331 2900 3067 2815 500 2435 2435 127 127 2570 200 2704 2405 1400 2340 2735 3535 137 3560 2250 2520 3011 825 500 500 3225 315 190 3265 500 825 398 137 4575 3165 3011 1945 1050 2995 3359 1220 1220 2520 3265 2250 SUSSEX RD OAK ST 6TH AVE N CASCO CIR WATERTOWN RD CRYSTAL BAY RD SOMERSET LA WATERTOWN RD SHORELINE DR NORTH ARM DP WEAR CIR FARVIEW LA DEER RUN TR TONKAWA RD NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE DR CHEVY CHASE DR CHEVY CHASE DR LYDIARD AVE WOODHILL RD KELLEY PKWY DUNWOODY AVE BRACKETTS POINT RD FOX ST COUNTRYSIDE DR W CHRISTINE DR CHEVY CHASE DR IVY PL FRENCH LAKE RD THOROUGHBRED LA SUSSEX RD FOREST ARMS LA ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO ORCHARD RD S CARMAN RD WOODHILL RD CYGNET PL CARMAN RD ORONO ORCHARD RD S FOREST ARMS LA LEAP ST CHEVY CHASE DR WAYZATA BLVC CASCO CIR SUSSEX RD CONCORDIA ST TAMARACK DR DEER RUN TR CRYSTAL BAY RD BRACKETTS POINT RD BRACKETTS POINT RD THOROUGHBRED LA CARMAN RD FRENCH LAKE RD 29 14759515 04 00000000 29 14752097 29 14741757 02 34789558 02 14458524 01 54425855 29 34791600 29 39296767 01 16824571 01 14759515 02 24248455 01 17313153 02 24724959 01 14242550 16 14242550 01 29337717 01 29337717 24 14601233 19 14738080 19 00000000 01 00000000 01 54734300 02 24841406 01 36332561 29 15448117 29 00000000 29 14710532 29 14445353 01 24432921 01 24432921 29 27554268 29 29335636 29 34988071 24 34210843 02 34343006 24 24720805 29 00000000 29 15310320 02 19372809 01 00000000 24 25336633 29 00000000 06 14744548 01 36332561 02 18236030 19 24738403 29 35453797 29 35453797 01 54734300 01 54734300 01 35531445 29 00000000 24 24731657 A & T DEVELOPMENT BOYER fit SONS INC HERMAN RENOVATION CO DITTER INC KLINGELHUTZ NEIL CONST INC SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICES COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C VOGT FRED fit CO LOUISIANA HOMES INC A fit T DEVELOPMENT MACK PLUMBING CHARLES CUDD CO WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS PREFERRED HOME IMPROVEMENT PREFERRED HOME IMPROVEMENT THOMPSON PLBG THOMPSON PLBG VALLEY METRO CHIMNEY SPEC DAL3ER ROOKING SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE COKLEY PLBG FIRESIDE CORNER CUSTOM COTTAGES LTD DANBEPRY COMPANY YERIGAN CONSTRUCTION CO SOUTHWEST K.':TR0 PLBG SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG JERRY'S PLBG fit HTG DUDA, LEON PLUMBING SERV. WEST AIR LAKELAND NORTH HTG fit A/C TROPIC AIR ALS MASTER PLUMBING ASHLANN BUILDERS HESTIA HOMES INC. PLUMBING SYSTEMS, INC. EASTWOOD BUILDERS FIRESIDE CORNER QUALITY CRAFTSMEN DAY EARL W fit SONS FIREPLACE CENTER FIREPLACE CENTER SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SULLIVAN'S UTILITY iJERVICE GUYERS BUILDERS EXPRESS F/^DDEN CLIFF fit SONS WED, APR 1, 1998, 4:43 PMNUMERICAL LISTING MARCH 1998 =AGE 2 ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 98/03/2C N 1299 WILDHUR:. . TR 11 19723950 MAAS CONST INC SCHIMMEL 1,500.00 98/03/23 N 395 FERNDALE RD N 01 34789814 DALCO CONCRETE & MASONRY 10,000.00 98/03/23 N 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE 02 24721977 MADSEN PLBG & HTG HOLCOMBE 9,000.00 98/03/23 N 3240 BAYSIDE RD 11 14726539 SMITH WF ROOFING BOYLAN 4,875.00 98/03/23 N 405 NORTH ARM DR 19 00000000 • 00 98/03/24 N 398 LEAF ST 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE ANDERSON .00 98/03/24 N 1900 FOX RIDGE RD 24 34458585 RON'S MECH INC POLANSKI 3,100.00 98/03/27 N 25 MYRTLEWOOD RD 10 17842646 CUSTOM REMODLERS INC LUNDBERG 12,000.00 98/03/26 N 2480 OLD BEACH RD 29 15570268 GUSTAFSON REMODELING MACDON* ',D 10,000.00 98/03/24 N 3615 LYRIC AVE 05 00000000 CODDON 4,400.00 98/03/24 N 3105 CASCO POINT RD 11 17227129 GARLOCK FRECH ROOFING CO STEN 17,173.00 98/03/24 N 4720 NORTH ARM DR 11 18238046 SELA ROOFING UTTER 4,550.00 98/03/25 N 3211 BAYSIDE RD 02 34432452 WILLIAM BUNN MASONRY INC.LUNDELL 5,165.00 98/03/25 N 1331 NORTH ARM DR 01 29337717 THOMPSON PLBG 8,200.00 98/03/26 N 3211 BAYSIDE RD 29 39414211 KLEVE HTG & AC LUNDELL 10,000.00 m 9^ 9^ A 9^ 9^ 9^ 98/03/26 N 500 TONKAWA RD 01 39296767 VOGT FRED i CO NELSON 10,000.00 98/03/26 N 825 FOREST ARMS LA 02 39414211 KLEVE HTG & AC PARKS 6,400.00 9^ 9^ 9^ 9^ 9^ 98/03/26 N 3241 CASCO CIR 01 32266220 GAS LINE PLUS KENNEFICK 2,000.00 98/03/26 N 3067 FARVIEW LA 01 35360667 MARSH HEATING i AIR COND RAPPAPORT 7,500.00 9k 9^ 9^ 9^ 9^ 9^ 98/03/26 N 1355 SHORELINE DR 24 34789558 OITTER INC JOHNSON 8,900.00 m 9% 9% 9^ 9% 9% 9il02l21 N 395 FERNDALE RD N 01 35453797 FIREPLACE CENTER BREN 1,000.00 98/03/30 N 1600 LONG LAKE BLVD 01 00000000 CAJACOB • 00 98/03/30 N 1291 BRIAR ST 11 15331544 LAKE STATE REMODELERS CURLEY 3,655•00 p% 9% 9^ 9^ 9^ 98/03/31 N li*r CHEVY CHASE DR 01 36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER 2,200.00 98/03/31 N 3‘845 SHORELINE DR 13 00000000 OVERSON • 00 OR-010039 OR-010040 OR-010041 OR-010042 OR-010043 OR-010044 OR-010045 OR-010048 OR-010047 OR-010048 OR-010049 OR-010050 OR-010051 OR-010052 OR-010055 OR-010056 OR-010057 OR-010058 OR-01’:059 OR-010060 OR-010061 OR-010063 OR-010064 OR-010065 OR-010067 79C 01 02 03 V4 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 99 9999 WORK TYPE CODE Residence Addition Garage/Attached Garage/Detached Porch Deck Fence Gazebo Fool Re-side Re-roof Tennis Court Sign Dock Shed Demo-Principal Structure Demo-Accessory Structure Move Commercial Institutional Storm Damage Repair 1-100 Cubic Yards 101 Cubic Yards or More Undefined 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Replacing Existing Lifting Principal Residence Well Abandonment Foundation Only Temporary Trailer Renovate/Remodel Accessory Structure Stairway to Lake Retaining Wall Entrance Monuments Tree Removal LOCAL USE CODES Undefined 1 "1 REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 MARCH 1998***♦♦ PERMIT ISSUED REPORT ^ * *--^ * CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 03/01/98 - 03/31/98 PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP Sub-total Grand-total QTY 1 9 1 11* 11** BASE FEE 625.00 2,640.00 300.00 3,565.00* 3,565.00** VALUATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** QTY 1 4 1 6* 6** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 04/01/98 * * • * •PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 03/01/98 TO 03/31/98 * t * « * USER REPORT TOTAL BASE PEE 3,565.00 3,565.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 3,565.00 3,565.00 REQUESTER: C-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 03/01/97 - 03/31/97 BASE FEE 220.00 780.00 250.00 1,250.00* 1,250.00** VALUATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** PLAN R PAGE REQUESTER: C