Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2001 Council PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE -j. 14 COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILLOIITTRE INFORMATION REQUESTED ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (plem print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 2. -✓Fi,UbT c 10//ii�c //�%F�-1 ji41ic'u; crir.�.Ci7 _ d� IS. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL COl"O'll MFETINO 1. Park Commission Interviews MAR 12 20M CONSENT AGENDA CI7y OF OgONO 2. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Council Meeting of February 26, 2001 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pauline Bouchard, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jan Berg, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #2640/2641 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard 1) General Concept Plan Approval Resolution 2) Fees 5. #01-2661 Thomas and Ingrid Anderson, 3550 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution 6. #2656 Surface Water Management Plan • Update MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 7. Orono Orchard Sanitary Sewer Project Change Order HI 8. No Parking Zone on County Rd 51 East of Noerenberg Bridge - Resolution CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 9. Coffee Channel Snowmobile Access 10. Amend Annual Appointments - Resolution 11. Resolution to Schedule TIF Hearing 12. Insurance Award - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2001, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEV'S REPORT • 13. LICENSES Kennel Set Up Special Events 14. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2001 03/05 -Park Commission, 7:15 p.m. 03/12 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/19 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. 03/22 -Council Work Session, 3:30 p.m. 03/26 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04/02 -Park Commission, 7:15 p.m. 04/09 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04/16 -Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. 04/23 -Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04125 -Board of Review, 7:00 p.m. eniwno sACF_TINO MAR 12 20W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY ur UNOtVC DATE: March 9, 2001 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator will Report Item Description: Park Commission Susan Moseley is the final Park Commission applicant to be interviewed. A copy of her application, and a Park Commission Applicant Interview form are attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required at this time. PARK COMMISSION APPLICANT INTERVIEW Criteria Ercenent Good Fair Poor Interest in serving on the Park Commission Knowledge, skills abilities, and experience Familiarity with the following items: a. The Park Plan section of the City's Community Management Plan b. The City's Park Dedication Ordinance c. The City's bike/hike trail plan d. The City's current park facilities Support of current Programs/Policies and Philosophy of City Perspective on Council/Park Commission responsibilities and relationship Perspective on key issues facing the Park Commission APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION Commission Applying For: ❑ Corr Post Of fice & CITY of ORONO Municipal omca Stnst Addms: NalOn1 Addnss: 2750 KOIN) Pidnsy P.O. got 66 Onno, MN 55356 CrssNl Bay, NN 55323-0066 Od'Parks Commission ❑ Plann, immission v Task Force (Name) Telephone (H) ya) k "t.7/' d'6-f):5 Resident of Orono 13 years. Work Experience: Education: n / (w) 0,763 s7/ 07.60 TdaFLosn (612) 6737557 • FAX 4730510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as spec/is as possible. Use aaa'•'^nalfheet ff ne ssery.l L / / L /n) L ti LL)2 other Comments: (Use this space to Include any further Information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are &asking. you may also attach othermatedals you would like the Council to consider.) understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. IN Dow Signem, --NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. a�aue v 3 MINUTES OF THE - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 CnUNt` 1- MEETING ROLL Cn r fir GnUnU The City Council met on the above -mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Jim White, Jay Nygard, Richard Flint and Bob Sansevere. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, City Attumey Tom Barren, Public Services Director Greg Grippe, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Peterson called the meeting tc order at 7:02 p.m. (#I) Park Commission Interviews Peterson thanked the applicants for applying to the Park Commission and serving the community. Peterson noted there is one vacancy open on the Park Commission at the present time. Paul Kerr, 4680 West Branch Road, indicated he has accessed the City's Web site and reviewed the Parks and Trails section of the Comprehensive Plan. Kerr stated his understanding of the Comprehensive Plan lays out a philosophy of a rural or bucolic setting, bigger lots. and a slower push towards development. Kerr stated since he is fairly new to the community, he is unsure exactly what direction the City is headed, but feels that Orono is going in the right direction generally. Kerr commented he has attended the past several Park Commission meetings and has familiarized himself w ith the local parks. Sansevere inquired what Kerr would make a priority if he were selected to be on the Park Commission. Kerr stated he has no personal agenda, but would be interested in improving some of the parks by adding play equipment. Kerr indicated he does a lot of bicycling and likes to ski, so he would prefer the parks in this area remain more natural and undeveloped. Kea stated he would like to know how the residents feel about the parks and what they would like to see for the parks. Nygard noted Kerr resided in Excelsior for a number of years, and inquired how long Kerr has resided in the general community. Ken stated he lived in Excelsior for ten years, and is excited about the man, opportunities that exist in the Orono community for parks. White inquired what Ken thought about the Dakota Rail to Trail project. Kea indicated he is familiar with the proposed Dakota Trail and supports ahematis a means of transportation. Ken stated in his view the Dakota Trail would provide a safe way to get around the area. Ken indicated he is very supportive of trails. In response to a question by White, Ken indicated he has been involved a ith fundraising activities while a resident of Excelsior. K.rr noted a possible source of resenue discussed by the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (Park Commission Interviews, Continued) Park Commission was pulkabs. Kerr indicated he is in favor of fundraisers that the people are willing to support, and cited Excelsior selling bricks around their play equipment as one possible source of revenue for the Park Commission. Mayor Peterson thanked Kerr for applying to the Park Commission. J. Patrick Wolfe, 2871 Casco Point Road, indicated he has not had a chance to review the City's Comprehensive Plan. Wolfe stated in his view he sees the Park Commission acting more as a service entity to the City Council, with the City Council making the final decisions on any long-range planning and dollars spent on the various parks. Wolfe stated the Park Commission in his opinion makes recommendations to the City Council on the direction they would like to see the parks go. Sansevere inquired what priority Wolfe would have while on the Park Commission. Wolfe commented he would like to become involved in the overall long-range planning of the parks and bail system. Sansevere inquired what thoughts Wolfe had for fundraising for the Park Commission. Wolfe stated he would bring to the Park Commission the experience of having raised funds for the ice arena and having reached a consensus among a number of different organizations to help make the ice arena possible. Wolfe stated he also has a concern regarding the quality and uses of the lake. White inquired what his thoughts were regarding the Dakota Rail to Trail project. Wolfe stated in his view the Dakota Trail project needs to start with the Mayor and her counterpart in Minnetonka Beach in order to reach a mutual consensus on the trail. Wolfe stated he would like to see the hail happen, and feels that an agreement can be reached by educating the people and legislators on the advantages of the trail. Mayor Peterson thanked Wolfe for applying for the Park Commission. CONSENT AGENDA (02) Approve/.Amend Items 4, 13, 14. 15, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda. Sansevere moved, White mounted, to approve the Consent Agenda m amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 APPROVAL OF MINUTES •(03) REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Sausevere moved, White seconded, to approve the minutes of the regular Orono City Council meeting of February 12, 2001, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS — Rick Meyers, Representative Meyers reported on the February 5" Park Commission meeting. Meyers stated the Park Commission is interested in erecting signage in the area of the Navarre Park denoting "children at play" or "playground in area" to alert the vehicular traffic in the area of the park. Meyers stated the Park Commission is very grateful for the recent land donations by Carlson and Lorton, but noted concerns regarding access to the parks. Meyers stated the Park Commission is considering some type of access off of Old Crystal Bay Roan to the Carlson property, and if that cannot be done, then some type of parking lot will need to be constructed to utilize the park. In regards to the Lorton property, the Park Commission is looking at options for connection to the school property and a trail connection off of County Road 6. The Park Commission is looking to avoid having the land become landlocked. Meyers reported the Park Commission is continuing to discuss the lake access p ints and will be rephotogmphing several of the sites in order to better ascertain what exists in the area. Meyers indicated the Park Commission would like to schedule a wori session with the Ifty Council to discuss the lake access points and the issues associated with them. Meyers stated one issue that a as raised while discussing the lake access points was access by snowmobilerr. Meyers noted there has been heavy snowmobile traffic on the lake this year due to the amount o: snow received so far this year, aid in his opinion the City needs to take a look at how this traffic can be handled safely. Nygard inquired where the crosswalk was going to be for the Navarre Park. Meyers stated it would be located on the side road. Nygard indicated he has concerns regarding traffic on County Road 19 in the area of the park and young children crossing the road while attempting to get to the park. Nygard stated in his view he would like to see more attention focused on this issue by the Park Commission. Meyers stated he is in agreement with Nygard, and suggested that perhaps the Public Works Department look at how this situation can be improved. Sansevem inquired whether the lights at the intersection of 19 and 15 have the "walk" and "don't walk" meters on them. Meyers stated they are on the lights. Meyers commented the crosswalk on County Road 15 also experiences problems and perhaps needs some updating and/or enforcing. PAGE MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26,2001 (Park Commission Comments, Continued) Meyers stated the Park Commission also discussed the new field at the Lee Carlson property, and indicated the Softball Association raised the majority of their money from their pulltab operation. Meyers commented Orono has an abundance of land but is lacking the funds to be able to improve the parks, and suggested that pulltabs is one option the Park Commission could pursue. Meyers noted a bill was recently introduced in the legislature regarding the Dakota Rail to Trail project, but to his knowledge this bill has been sent back to committee for their review. Mayor Peterson commented the Park Commission is looking for any interested resident to donate hostas and daylilies for planting at the Navarre Park. Meyers staled they intend to draw up a little landscaping plan for the Navarre Park and will be inserting an article in the local newspaper asking for donations of specific plants, particularly hostas. Sansevere suggested the requested donation of plants be included on the City's web site. Nygard stated in his opinion the snowmobile issue is a recreational issue and needs to be dealt with by the City. At the present time snowmobilers are forced to break the law because there are not enough access points or trails to get from one place to another, which should be accommodated in some areas. Nygard stated there needs to be responsibility by the snowmobilers as well as the City. Nygard stated he would like the Park Commission to discuss trail access as it relates to snowmobilers more indepth and the hazardous navigation areas, such as the Coffee Channel and Narrows Channel. Nygard stated he would like the Park Commission to explore ways to get the LMCD and sheriffs office more involved in this issue as well. Sansevere inquired whether there is any marking for snowmobilers alerting them of thin ice. Nygard stated the Sheriffs Office does put markers out on the poor spots. Nygard stated if the snowmobilers have an honest way of getting around, in his view they will respect that and stay off of private property whenever possible. Meyers indicated he would be willing to discuss this issue with the LMCD and the Sheriffs Office if directed to do so by the City Council. Meyers stated he is aware that there is a problem under the bridges and that perhaps some kind of route could be provided to allow the snowmobilers access around the channels. Sansevere commented in his opinion there needs to be personal responsibility on the part of the snowmobilers and that they should avoid the dangerous spots. Sansevere stated the snowmobilers need to respect the rights of the property owners as well. Sansevere stated he is supportive of looking into the situation, but in his view the snowmobilers do not need unfettered access to all points of the lake. Nygard slated he is looking fer ways that would enable the snowmobilers to be responsible and not encroach on private property by having trails and access points available to them. PAGE MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (Park Commission Comments, Continued) McMillan, LMCD, pointed out that Ex -Mayor Jabbour had researched a number of years ago the possibility of finding an alternative to Coffee Channel. McMillan indicated she is unsure whether that effort was successful, but suggested Gabriel labbour be contacted. Meyers stated in his opinion this is a public safety issue that should be addressed. Mayor Peterson suggested the Park Commission may want to include this item on their next agenda. Flint stated in his view it may not be appropriate to have the Park Commission review this since they may not be able to fulfill this role due to the many different agencies that are involved. Flint suggested having City Staff discuss this issue with the various agencies inve lved and clarify the concerns that need to be addressed. City Staff can then develop possib' s and recommendations for consideration by the Council in a future work sr - Mayor Peterson suggested that perhaps the City could consider writing:. icaer to the various groups involved once the issues have been discussed and better defined by City Staff and the Council. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT— LILT MCMILLAN, REPRESENTATIVE McMillan reported the LMCD is continuing to address the issue of increased water patrol for the 2001 and 2002 boating seasons. McMillan stated the LMCD is looking to add two full-time deputies for five months at a cost of $100,000 per year. McMillan stated five cities in the LMCD have indicated they do not wish to participate in the funding of the increased water patrol, with nine cities agreeing to a voluntary payment to help fund this project. McMillen stated in her view this issue will be finalized at their March meeting. McMillan reported the LMCD's expenditures for the harvesting of millod are over budget er they are in the process of reviewing this program to determine if .here are other alternatives available to control the milfoil on the area lakes. White commented the general public needs to become better educated on checking their boats for the ubra mussel. McMillan indicated the LMCD is establishing a web site, which should be up and running sometime next month. McMillan noted she has been appointed by the managers of the Watershed District to serve on their Citizen's Advisory Committe. Mayor Peterson thanked McMillan fir her commitment to we I MCD PAGES MINUTES OF THE OHONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — LIZ HAWN Liz Hawn stated she would be available at tonight's meeting to answer any questions the Council may have. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pam Meyers, Superintendent of Mound Westonka Schools, addressed the City Council regarding the upcoming school referendum scheduled for March 171°. Meyers stated the School District is interested in passing this 4.5 million dollar bond issue in order to help finance routine maintenance projects and technology updates at the schools. Meyers stated the information pertaining to this bond referendum can be accessed through their Shirley Hills School web site which gives detailed information on each of the 24 projects being pmposed as pan of this referendum along with a tax than illustrating what the impact will be to an individual property owner. Beaty Butler, 3145 Casco Circle, stated she has lived in Orono for 26 years, with all of her children attending the Mound Westonka School System. Butler stated in her view this school district provides a good education and encouraged the City Council and Orono residents to support this referendum. Flint noted a substantial number of Orono residents do attend the Westonka Schools. White stated in his experience Mound has been very responsible spending referendum money in the past. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CONTINUED Betty Butler, 3145 Casco Circle, suggested the City ask the various snowmobiling clubs in the area to assist them in coming up with an agreeable solution to the channel access problem. Tim and Lorie Line, 4415 Forest Lake Landing, addressed the City Council regarding possible violations of the building and zoning ordinances in their neighborhood. Tim Line stated they have been residents of Orono for the past four years. Line commented he feels that the City is a first-class community, a growing community, and a community where the building and zoning ordinances should be enforced in order to maintain the property values of the homes in the area. Line stated there are some instances that exist in the area of County Road 19 and County Road 51 which are, in his view, blatant violations of the ordinances and should be addressed by the City. Line indicated they have brought these concerns to the attention of City Staff approximately one year ago, and in his opinion these concerns have not been .. Iequately addressed. Line stated there are a number of resident.. in this area which have large boats stored in their front yards in violation of tho City's ordinances. Line distributed a number of photographs to the City Council for their review of the various situations they feel are in violation of the ordinances. Line also raised a concern regarding the number of vehicles parked at one residence. Line indicated he was informed by City Starr that as long as the vehicle is licensed, it is permissible in Orono to leave a vehicle parked for an indefinite period of time. Line stated one of the vehicles MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26,2001 (Public Comments, Continued) in question has not been moved for over two years. Line stated there are also a number of garbage cans that are routinely left in the road, and when questioned whether these should be removed, he was informed by City Staff that as long as they are covered, they do not need to be stored inside an enclosed structure. Line stated in his opinion the garbage cans should be stored inside and off the road. Line commented he realizes these issues will not be resolved overn..ioht, but in his opinion all property owners within the City should follow the ordinances. Line requested the City make the people better aware of the violations and the ordinances that need to be followed by informing them of the violations and enforcing the City's ordinances. Ms. Line stated there are approximately 24 properties in this area which arc not conforming to the City's ordinances. Sansever: commented the parking of a semi van in front of one of the residences does appear to be a blatant violation. Moorse stated the house has experienced substantial storm damage and the property owners are in the process of determining whether the house will be fixed or tom down. Moorse stated it is his understanding the property owners have determined the house will be tom down and are now in the process of removing their personal belongings from the house. Sansevere stated he would be willing to look at the ordinances regarding boat storage. Line stated in his opinion the ordinances governing boat storage are appropriate and should be followed. White requested City Staff look into these complaints. Flint stated he appreciates the Lines coming before the Council on these issues. Flint stated he realizes there are other areas within the City that are also affected by residences failing to follow the ordinances. McMillan suggested the City include in their newsletter an article concerning the proper storage of boats. Liz Hawn, 625 Spring Hill Road, stated in her opinion large boats are the equivalent of structural coverage and should be treated as such if they are routinely storing their boats in their yard. Mayor Peterson commented she also has a concern with docks being left on the shores during the wintertime as well. Moorse indicated City Staff will be looking into these complaints PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT `(84) 02450 GLENN AND SANDRA GRONBERG, 325 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH — EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION NO.4610 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4610, a Resolution Granting an Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for a Plat Proposed at 325 Willow Drive North. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (05) #2550 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH — PRELIMINARY PLAT — DENIAL RESOLUTION NO.4611 Charles Van Eeckhout, Applicant, was present Weinberger stated the primary unresolved issue with this application is access to the property. Weinberger indicated the review period expires at the end of the month and will need to be extended if the Applicant intends to pursue this application. Weinberger slated he has a letter available tonight for the Applicant's signature extending the time period. Weinberger stated a resolution denying preliminary plat is before the City Council tonight. Van Eeckhout stated he has not made any new progress on securing access to this development. The Planning Commission indicated at their last meeting they did not wish to discuss this application any further. Van Eeckhout stated he has spoken with the Long Lake Planning. Commission who indicated in their view there is not a positive response by the residents on that street to have access off of Apple Glen Road due to the added traffic that would result. Van Eeckhout commented Apple Glen is a public road and in his view he has a legal right to have access off of Apple Glen if he so desires since other people in the past have been granted access off of this road. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion a denial resolution is not the best wav to handle this matter and other options should be explored. Van Eeckhout staled in his view the time limit is a non - issue since there was oi,r occasion in the past where the time limit expired. Van Eeckhout stated the application before the Council tonight proposes to construct seven lots with access off Apple Glen Road. Van Eeckhout stated the only reason for denial contained in the resolution is the lack of access, and in his opinion he is legally entitled to this access if he wishes to pursue it. Van Eeckhout stated the City in essence is telling him that he is not entitled to access off Apple Glen, which is inconsistent in his view. Van ECeKiiout noted he would prefer access to be off of Brown Road, but was told on December I I1h by thr City that they would accept access off of Apple Glen, which was later rescinded at their January meeting. Van Eeckhout stated that decision by the City hurt his negotiations with John Dunn on securing access into this development. Sansevere stated he does not agree with Van Eeckhout's statement. Mayor Peterson indicated she also does not agree with that version. PAGER MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (025%Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Van Eeckhout stated that the Council minutes basically stated that Long Lake should be informed that the City of Orono is in the process of approving this application and would like to obtain the comments of the City of Long Lake regarding access. Moose indicated it is his understanding that the Council was saying that this proposal may be acceptable if the access issue is resolved. Moorse stated they requested the City of Long Lake review this application to see if access off of Apple Glen would be acceptable. Moorse noted the City Council informed the Applicant that they would not be giving preliminary approval to this application until the access issue was resolved. Van Eeckhout stated it is his understanding that what was said was that :he City of Orono would approve this application if the City of Long Lake agreed to the access off of Apple Glen. Sansevere indicated he has stated from the beginning that he would prefer access off of Brown Road and would not support this application until that access is obtained. Mayor Peterson commented she has echoed the same feeling as Sansevere. Van Eeckhout stated he has a right to have his application reviewed and approved if it is consistent with City ordinances. Sansevere indicated the Applicant needs to demonstrate access to all seven lots. Van Eeckhout stated he has full access off of Apple Glen. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn did agree to binding arbitration to determine access. Sansevere noted at one meeting John Dunn's son indicated his father did not agree to arbitration Van Eeckhout stated Dunn did in fact agree to that, but then later changed his mind when the City Bipflopped on this issue. Ve.., Eeckhout stated in his opinion the few rights that Dunn has remaining on that strip of land amount to a few hundred dollars, but he is now demanding many thousands of dollars. Van Eeckhout stated in his opinion the City should allow him more use of the existing driveway without obtaining any further approval from Dunn. Van Eeckhout stated there are multiple sites throughout the City with three or more houses accessing off of one driveway. Tom Barrett, City Attorney. stated there is a distinction between what the City allows for access off of a driveway and what the meaning of the private easement is. Barrett stated it is important to understand what the easement is because the City is unable to grant any more authority to the Applicant under that easement than what he already has. Van Eeckhout stated there are many cases in Orono where driveway easements are being used to gain access by multiple lots. Sansevere stated in his opinion what the Applicant is proposing at this time lacks proper access into this developme t. Sansevere indicated he will continue to oppose this application until PAGE MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (N2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) access is resolved. Sansevere suggested the Applicant continue to attempt to resolve this issue with John Dunn. Van Eeckhout stated the resolution before the City Council tonight has nothing to do w;th access off of Brown Road. Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant has gained access off of Apple Glen Road from Long Lake. Van Eeckhout stated he is legally entitled to access off of Apple Glen without approval from Long Lake. Sansevere stated until Long Lake gives approval to access off of Apple Glen, he will not support this application. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, indicated the subdivision authority of the City is a broad semi -legislative authority, and where a subdivision accesses a public road is within the Council's authority. Barrett stated the Council is entitled to make a decision that access off of Brown Road is better versus Apple Glen. Mayor Peterson stated that was her decision. Sansevere commented that was also his decision. Flint indicated he preferred Apple Glen. Mayor Peterson stated it is her understanding that Apple Glen is no longer an option since Long Lake denied access. Van Eeckhout stated Long lake has not formally denied access. Van Eeckhout stated he was informed by Long Lake City Staff that the Council would probably not approve this access. Mayor Peterson inquired whether the City has gotten anything in writing from Long Lake officially denying this access. Weinberger stated the City has not received anything in writing from the City of Long Lake denying access off of Apple Glen. Moorse noted the Applicant at one point was talking about having a four lot subdivision with two lots being accessed off of Apple Glen and two lots off of Brown Road, which seemed like a good plan to the Council. Moorse indicated it was his understanding the City would be willing to support the Applicant on the four lot subdivision if he went to Long lake with that proposal. Moorse stated he is unsure what the status of that proposal is. Van Eeckhout stated Orono's Planning Commission would not discuss it because he did not have access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (g2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Moorse commented it was his understanding the Applicant appeared at that Planning Commission meeting with a new plan. The Planning Commission indicated at that time that they were dealing with the application before them and would not be agr^cable to reviewing a new plan being presented that evening. Van Eeckhout stated he requested the Planning Commission to give some input into a plan that involved five lots as well as one that involved four lots, and requested the City grant him access off oi Brown Road. Sansevere inquired what stage the arbitration is at with John Dunn. Van Eeckhout stated the offer to go through with arbitration is still a valid one. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn did agree to go through arbitration in December after the Council had agreed to preliminarily approta his application. In January, following the Council's decision not to support the application, Dunn changed his mind and refused to discuss arbitration. Van Eeckhout stated Dunn is now demanding a large sum of money for this small strip of land. Sansevere indicated, without access, the Applicant does not have a subdivision. Mayor Peterson commented she is confused about the number of lots in the subdivision that they are discussing. Van Eeckhout stated what is before the Council at this time is a seven lot subdivision. Van Eeckhout stated if the Council will grant access for three lots off of Brown Road, he will bring back a proposal designed that way. Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant can get three lots in there the way it is structured. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated this is clearly not going to be a public road with the easement, which is one of the things that the City has tried to establish for any of these subdivisions. Barrett stated it is going to be defined as a driveway. Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant would like this application extended. Van Eeckhout stated he would like it resolved. Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4611. a Resolution Denying Preliminary Plat for Property Located at 120 Brown Road South. Van Eeckhout requested the Council discuss the grounds for denial. Van Eeckhout stated he does not find any grounds for denial her.. Sansevere stated in his view access should be off Brown Road. Mayor Petei ion staled in her opinion access should be off of Brown Road also Van Eeckhout questioned whether that was legal grounds for denial. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26,2001 (k2550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued) Sansevere stated he understood from what the City Attorney has said, it is legal grounds for denial. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated he has reviewed the proposed resolution, and in his judgment the Applicant has not been able to satisfy a reasonable requirement of the City ordinances that he have legal access to his property in order to support the subdivision. Mayor Peterson commented the City can either vote on the denial resolution tonight or Mr. Van Eeckhout can agree to an extension. Sansevere encouraged the Applicant to take the extension. Van Eeckhout questioned whether the extension would be valid anymore. Flint stated the Applicant cannot come to the City Council and present vague ideas regarding a subdivision. Flint stated the Applicant needs to have his proposal laid out so the Council knows exactly what is being proposed. Flint commented he is unable to abstractly discuss this matter. Van Eeckhout indicated he understands that. Mayor Peterson commented the Council would prefer that the Applicant agree to an extension. Van Eeckhout inquired whether the City Attorney feels the extensions granted to date have been valid. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated in his opinion there is a good faith basis to say that they are. Sansevere commented the extension would give the Applicant more time to reopen his negotiations with Dunn, but the choice is up to the Applicant. Van Eeckhout stated he also has asked the City to support a condemnation in order to gain access. Sansevere stated he woulA not be in support of that proposal. Van Eeckhout commented he would like to get the Council's view on condemnation. Sansevere stated there has not been any formal action by the Council on that matter. Mayor Peterson encouraged the Applicant give some consideration to extending the time limit. Van Eeckhout stated the Orono City Council has the authority to perfect this easement. Van Eeckhout commented in his view an extension will not do much good, and if the denial resolution is approved, he will proceed from there. Flint stated if the Applicant chooses not to go with the extension, the Council has no option but to vote his application down. Flint comment: d it is his understanding that the City Council is not in support of the application as it is being presented this evening. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE CRONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (N2550 Charles Van Eeckhout; Continued) Sansevere inquired whether the Applicant prefers the Council vote on the resolution. Van Eeckhout stated in his view the time extension is not the big issue tonight. Van Eeckhout stated until he signed the extension on December I", the City did not have extension for a period of time. Flint stated at the time the Applicant signed the last extension he agreed to do so without any prejudice to any rights which have accrued to the Applicant in the past. Mayor Peterson inquired whether the Applicant will agree to an extension. Van Eeckhout stated he is convinced an extension will not do anything for him. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (N6) N2631 CITY OF ORONO—ZONING CODE AMENDMENT —RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT —ORDINANCE NO. 202, 2"D SERIES Gaffron stated the City Council discussed this matter in a vvrk session last week, with the Council requesting some minor changes to the Ordinance. Gaffron stated the requested modifications have been incorporated into the ordinance and are defined in his February 23, 2001 memorandum. Gaffron recommended the Council adopt the ordinance for creation of a residential planned unit development district. Flint questioned the section regarding clustered use in a rural area and whether that is good policy on the part of the City. Flint inquired if someone had ten acres in a five acre zoning whether they would be permitted to have two units in close proximity to one another. Moom staled it is his understanding of the ordinance that clustering of single family homes is permitted in the rural areas but clustering in addition to that is only permitted in the urban areas. Gaffron stated if a person has ten acres and wants to construct two dwellings in close proximity, that would be acceptable. Gaffron stated they would be permitted to construct two houses on the ten acres but not three. Gaffron stated it is reasonable to expect that someone might cluster eight homes on two acre sites with 32 acres remaining open in order to make :he septic work. Flint stated that cluster is not attached. Gaffron stated with attached dwellings you start to deal with issues relating to sewer and maintaining open space. Flint stated the Council can probably review this issue in the future. Gaffron commented the City has generally thought of rural areas as having ingle family units and not attached housing units. PAGE 13 AOYi UTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (#2631 City of Orono — RPUD Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Tom Barrett, City Attorney, questioned Item 5, Subdivision 5(G) and Subdivision 5(H). height of buildings. Gaffron stated with the elimination of the two and a half story requirement, the City's 30 foot rule will still allow the same measurement methods. Gaffron stated the issue of stories will not be a matter for consideration and the Cit% will simply deal with a height of 30 feel. Tom Barren, City Attorney, suggested that what the City may have created is a rule which allows greater massing of the building because there is no longer a gable limiting the structure to two and a half stories. Gaffron stated that would be the case. and gave an example where someone could have two stories with each story being 15 feet in height. Peterson moved, Sansevero seconded, to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO.202, Second Series, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10 of the Orono Municipal Code by Adding Section 10.33, RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. VOTF.: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#'n #2639 CITY OF ORONO — ZON-ING CODE AMENDMENT — SECTION 10.52, SECTION 10.52: ADD RPUD TO LIST OF ALLOWABLE ZONING DISTRICTS IN HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA — ORDINANCE No. 203, 2Na SERIES Gaffron stated this matter has been modified slightly to include some additional revisions to Section 10.52 which clarify the ordinance. Gaffron reviewed his February 26, 2001 memorandum regarding the proposed revisions. The following language has been added referencing the RPUD exceptions to the five acre minimum acre for rezoning. Subd. 1. Minimum Area. "To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study, applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum of five acres, except that exceptions to this requirement may be granted for certain properties being rezoned to RPUD per the conditions established in the RPUD District standards. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Stud%." In addition, language has been added that specifically requires the granting of rights -of -way for trails as part of the "access and circulation plan" when rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor and the addition of a finding of consistency has been included in the ordinance as it relates to available zoning districts. Gaffron gave a brief Highway 12 Corridor Study area background, noting this me was originally defined in the 1988 Comprehensive Plan but not redefined as pan of the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan update. Gaffron indicated the updated Comprehensive Plan does not change the boundaries but merely clarifies end more strictly defines what is planned to happen for certain properties within that corridor. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (H2639 City of Orono — Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Gaffron recommended adoption of the ordinance. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 203, Second Series, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10 of the Orono Municipal Cade by Amending Section 10.52, Subdivision 5 Available Zoning Districts for Highway 12 Corridor Study Area. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (p8) #2640/2641 ORONO AMBAR, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD — GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Sansevere moved, Flint seconded, to continue the application to a future Council meeting following resolution of the frontage road, parking and grading issues, subject to the City of Orono receiving an extension to the application deadline from Mr. Dunbar. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (09) 02650 KHtSTEN AND PATRICK BURTON, 2601 RAINEY ROAD — VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO.4612 Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, Bill Hintres, Architect, Dick Peterson, Attomey-at-Law, and Kirsten Burton, Applicant, were present. Weinberger stated Staff was directed at the last City Council meeting to draft a resolution permitting a conditional use permit to allow a guest house and approving a variance to allow a three story guest house. Staff has drafted that resolution approving the conditional use permit for the guest house and approving the variance to allow a three story structure to be pla ed on the property. Weinberger indicated the resolution denies the variance to allow a handrailing around the roof of the guest house. The resolution further approves a variance to the six foot chimney height. Weinberger noted he has revised the resolution by adding Item No. 3 on page four of six, which requires that no tree within 30 feet of the guest house is permitted to be removed without consent of the City of Orono. Orono is hereby approving variances to permit the added height based on the hardship that existing mature trees would be removed if the guest house were built per Code requirements. Should a tree be requested to be removed, an equal replacement shall be planted. City Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Baldwin presented a map of the site to the City Council showing the proposed structures and landscaping in the area. Baldwin stated they have attempted to save as many mature trees as possible by locating the house in this area. Sansevere commented it was his understanding the fully mature trees would not be replaced with fully mature trees but with trees that are two or three inches in size. Sansevere indicated he does have a problem with that item. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (N2650 Kirsten and Patrick Burton, Continued) While stated a two or three inch tree can be 20 feet tall. Sansevere stated some of the mature trees in this area are probably 50 or 60 feet tall. White stated it is not possible to get a tree replacement that size. Sansevere commented he understands that but would like appropriate language contained in the resolution requiring equal replacement. Weinberger stated it is unlikely the City will ever get equal replacement of a mature tree. Weinberger stated in cases where mature trees have been removed around the lakeshore, the City has required at times that two or three trees be planted. Weinberger noted eventually the canopy cover is restored, but it sometimes takes decades to regain what was lost. Sansevere stated he would like to see the trees protected since the hardship being demonstrated is the mature trees on the lot. Sansevere inquired whether a garage is to be constructed in connection with this guest house. Baldwin stated there is a detached car port for the guest house. Baldwin stated they are planning to plant additional trees in the area as well as preserving as many of the existing ones as possible. Flint inquired how the contractor will be required to stay within the building pad. Baldwin stated the building pad area will be staked as well as fences being erected denoting the buildable area. Baldwin stated the contractor will be informed of the exact location of the house. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, indicated there is a statute that exists which creates trebled damages for unauthorized cutting of trees on a person's private property by taking the value of the trees, which can be significant if they are mature trees. Barrett recommended the contractor be notified of this issue. Mayor Peterson inquired whether the parties have any questions regarding the resolution. Peterson indicated in his opinion the third whereas should be amended to read Section 10.28 rather than Section 10.24. Weinberger indicated he will check that. Baldwin expressed a concern that they not be held responsible for removal of scrub trees in the area. Baldwin stated they would like to replace some of the box elder trees and other scrub trees with a nice hardwood tree. N'_inberger stated Staff could look at and would be agreeable to allowing upgrading of some trees. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26,2001 (02650 Kirsten and Patrick Burton, Continued) Flint moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4612. a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for guest house; a Conditional Use Permit to allow a two root chimney height; Variances to permit a JO foot, three story guest house; and to deny a variance to permit a 2 % foot railing; and deny a conditional use permit for a six foot chimney height. Sansevere stated he wants to be clear that no precedent is being set with approval of this resolution. Nygard stated he voted in opposition to this proposal at a previous City Council meeting because in his view sjustification is being shown for three stories rather than an actual hardship. Nygard stated the amount of square feet being proposed can be accomplished with two stories rather than !:nee. Nygard stated in his opinion the approving of this three story house may lead to other applicants requesting three story houses, which the City may not be able to deny. Nygard commented he is glad there have been some conditions included in the resolution which restrict the future expansion of this house. Nygard stated in his view this property could be subdivided in the future and this guest house could turn into n primary residence. Nygard noted at the previous City Council meeting Mike Gaffron indicated this application was precedent setting with the architect making a compelling argument that 30 feet is more restrictive than 2''A stories. The City Attorney also expressed a concern that approving this application would open the door to someone else requesting a much larger structure that is three stories high. Nygard armed in looking at all the information in front of him, he asked himself what the risk and reward for the City would be by making this decision. Nygard stated the reward would be making a new member of the Orono community very happy. Nygard commented the risk that he sees is very great and provides many open-ended opportunities which the City may not have control over in the existing ordinances. Sansevere stated the City Attorney raised the issue of the trees being a hardship. Sansevere stated he feels there needs to be a hardship demonstrated before he would vote in favor of it. Sansevere stated he concurs with the hardship. Nygard stated in his t iew preserving large trees does not create a hardship for constructing a three story house. Nygard stated the trees could play a hardship on the position of the house or the shape of the house, but not to create an extra story. VOTE ON ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Nygard Opposed. (010) a2651 ROBIN AND JEREMY BUPP, 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE — VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO.461J Weinberger stated the City Council directed Staff to draft a resolution denying variances requesting hardcover giver 25 percent for a lakeside patio and expansion to the driveway within the 75-250' lakeshore setback. Weinberger indicated the Council did approve a variance to MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 (02651 Robin and Jeremy Bupp, Continued) permit a 3 by 8' landing and steps outside the patio door to access the front yard from the main living level of the house. Staff has drafted a resolution reflecting denial of the hardcover variances and approval of the variance for the landing and stairway totaling 36 square feet.. White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO.4613, a Resolution Denying hardcover variances to permit construction of a lakeside patio and expansion of the driveway, and to approve a variance to permit a 3' by 8' landing and stairway for the property located at 2696 Caroline Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Nygard and Sansevere Opposed. Jane Clemons, 2690 Caroline Avenue, noted these property owners have cut down a number of mature trees over 100 years old. Weinberger stated a couple of the trees were located where the house was to be constructed. White noted the issue before the City Council was not the removal of the trees. Mayor Peterson indicated she was unaware of the removal of the trees. Weinberger stated there is a question over which property one of the trees was actually on Tom Barrett, Cin, Attorney, stated the difference between this application and the previous application is that the previous applicants suggested that by saving certain sized trees they would need a variance to construct a certain size house. Barrett indicated the City does not have an ordinance requiring trees be preserved except those within 75 feet of the Lakeshore. •(811) 001-2660 KEITH WATERS AND ASSOCIATES FOR JEFFREY AND LEONTYNE MAXWELL, 740 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH — VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO.4614 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4614, ■ Resolution granting a variance to lot area and lot width for the property located at 740 Willow Drive South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •(012) #01.2662 RVC HOMES, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL— VARIANCE — RESOLUT.'ON NO.4615 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4615, a Resolution granting a variance in lot width to construct a new residence at 1080 Wildhunl Trail. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE, ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Moorse indicated the negotiating team met with Mn/DOT this past Friday in relation to the amount of reimbursement for replacement of the Long Lake Fire Station, and have arrived at a replacement equivalent to 16,500 square feet. In addition to the 16,500, a four percent contingency amount has been included. Peterson stated she is meeting with the Long Lake mayor and a consultant recommended by the State Fire Center to discuss whether the City of Orono will agree to construct anything larger than the 16,500 square feet being reimbursed by Mn/DOT. Peterson stated what the consultant recommends will be the recommendation given by both mayors. Moorse informed the City Council that a meeting between the Long Lake Fire Station Planning Committee and the three City Councils has been scheduled for Monday, March 5ih, at 4:00 p.m. Moorse encouraged as many Council Members to attend this meeting as possible. Moorse stated before the meeting the architect designing the new fire station will be presenting two concept plans for consideration, one for 16,500 square feet and one for 19,000 square feet. White complemented City Staff on their efficiency in getting the roads plowed this past snow storm. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT e(N13) BID AWARD-2001 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT Sausevere moved, White seconded, to accept the bids as presented for the calendar year 2001 and as outlined in the Public Service Director's memorandum of February 26, 2001. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •(0014) APPROVAL OF 2001 PARK MOWING CONTRACT Saoser ere moved, White seconded, to accept a quotation from Shaughnessy Lawn Service, Orono, Minnesota, for the 2001 season, to provide park mowing services in the amount of $14.300. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •(N15) REVISED ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR ST. EDWARDS CHURCH SEWLR AND WATER SERVICE — RESOLUTION NO.4616 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO.4616, a Resolution Adopting the Supplemental St. Edwards Church Sanitary Sewer and Wate. Service Assessment Roll. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT •(N16) APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ASSISTANT Sansevere moved, White seconded, to appoint Denise Leskinen to the position of Administrative Support Assistant at the pay rate of $13.70 per hour, which is Step I of Level of the Administrative Supporlll'echnical/Public Works Employee Pay Schedule, effective February 20, 2001. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (1117) PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Sanaevere moved, White seconded, to approve the appointment of Jeanne Mabusth to fill the unexpired term on the Planning Commission that expires on March 31, 2002, and to appoint Gary Welsh, Marc Fritzler, and David Rahn as alternate members of the Planning Commission. Mayor Peterson inquired who would be calling the alternates. Gaffron stated Staff would like to maintain a minimum of five members on the Planning Commission for each meeting. Staff will tail an alternate if a member is going to miss a meeting Nygard stated in his opinion he would prefer to see a minimum of seven commissioners at each meeting. Hawn indicated they would like to have some consistency on the Planning Comm&;on since some applications appear before the Planning Commission a number of times. Mayor Peterson suggested this item be reviewed in a year to we whether the number of alternatives are appropriate and whether any changes should be made. VOTE ON ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0 (N18) SCHEDULING OF WORK SESSION The City Council directed City Staff to schedule a work session for March 22n° at 3:30 p.m., to discuss issues relating to the new Highway 12 corridor, the City's telecommunications antenna ordinance, and the annual property revaluation process. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 26, 2001 •(N19) LICENSES Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve the following licenses: Home Occupation I. Paulette Pickard Smunnans (Massage Therapy) 550 Orono Orchard R, ad Residential Kennel License 1. Robin A. Kilbane 495 Oxford Road 2. Jayne Paasch 2150 Kenwood Way 3. John T. Redmond 2695 Casco Point Road 4. Chris and Erin Tully 1355 North Arm Drive VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •(M20) BILLS Sansevere moved, White seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (N21) SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR USE OF 2001 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM — RESOLUTION NO.4617 Peterson moved, Nygard seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO.4617, a Resolution Approving Submittal of an Application for use of 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Consolidated Pool Funding and A thoriziog Signature of Subreciplent Agreement with Hennepin County and any Third Party Agreements. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara .^eterson, Mayor AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SEr FOR MONDAY,MARCH 12, 2001, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•) Asterisk items are comidere l to be routine items to, be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Gem` on the agenda Mcmos regarding cacti of the Agenda items we avaRable in the Public Packet - located on the counter rem the sign in sheet. ROLLCALL r_ 1. Park Commissionlaterviews CONSENT AGENDA MAR i o � 2. ApprovelAreend CIIY OF on, APPROVAL OF MII4UTE5 OfVp ` 3. Regular Comcil Meeting of Febmary 26, 2001 PARK COMIMISSION COMDIIENTS - Pauline Bouchard, Representative PLANNING CONU USSION COMMENTS - Jan Berg, Representative PUBLIC COML3IENfS -(Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMLNISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #26402641 Orono Andras, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard 1) Geneml Concept Plan Approval Resolution 2)1. S. k01-2661 Thomss and Ingrid Anderson, 3550 North Shorc Drive - Variances - Resolution 6. 42656 Surface Water Management Plan -Update MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 7. Orono Orchard Sanitary Sewer Project Change Order HI S. No Parking Zone an County Rd 51 East cfNoerenberg Bridge - Resolution CRY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 9. Coffee Charnel Snowmobile Access 10. Amend Annual Appointments - Resolution 11. Resolution en Schedule TIF Hearing CRY ATTORNEYS REPORT 12. LICENSES Kennel San Up Spacial Events ` 13. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS am 03/05 -park Commission, 7:15 p.m. 03/12.Council Meeting.7:00 p.m. 03/19 -Planning Commission. 6:30 p.m. 0322-Council Work Session. 3:30 pm 0326 -Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m. 04/02-Park Commission. 7:15 pm 04109 -Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m. 04116 - Pluming Commission, 630 pm 04123. Council Meeting. 7:00 pm 0Y25 -Board of Review, 7:00 pm COir.1r11 MEETING Application Date: 10/30/00 MAR 1 2 2000 Deadline: 4/30/01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CI I Y ut- UHONO DATE: Much 9, 2001 ITEM NO.: 7-, Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Paul Weinberger Zoning Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: Orono Amber, LLC. 2060 Wayzata Boulevard #2640 Preliminary Subdivision/CUP-Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2641 Site Plan Reviews List of Exhibits: A Site Plan B Resolution Summary: Staff has prepared a resolution approving the General Concept Plan. The primary change in the plans was to separate the outgoing traffic from the incoming traffic and parking lot area in front of the senior building. The City's traffic consultant has reviewed the plans and concluded the proposed plan leas made a good faith effort to address earlier concerns. The following final recommendations shall be addressed in the preliminary plat drawing: Restriping for a right turn lane and acceleration lane should be provided to allow ingressregress traffic from Highway 12 to be separated from other Highway 12 traffic. Individual street width for the service drives shall be constructed to a 14' width for each lane of traffic. The underground parking access to the office building shall be changed to a 90 degree access, as shown on the site plan attached. The purpose of the change is to improve site lines. Final traffic sign plan shall include "one way - do not enter" signs at the west end of the parking area in front of the senior building, and "one wn - - do not enter" signs at the east end of the one way drive exiting towards Brown Road North. Strps sign: shall be placed at intersections within the service drive area. Snow storage areas/plans shall be provided. Primary access would be via a private road entering Brown Road north of the stormwater pond. This would be the primary access to and from the property. A signalized intersection is planned for the Highway 12 and Brown Road North intersection. Secondary access to the property would be via a right-in/right-out access directly to Highway 12 at the boundary between the two proposed lots. The service drive has been designed to allow for a future connection to the west beyond the office building parking lot. Two future connection options are available, one to Brimhall Avenue and the other to Willow Drive North. 92640/2641 Orono Amber, LLC. (cont.) 2060 Wayzata Boulevard Page 2 The change to the road and parking area has reduced the impact of a retaining wall on the south side of the property. The only wall that will be required will be on the north end of the MnDot pond. Previous plans would have required an 5-10' wall that would have extended from the Brown Road entrance to the Highway 12 entrance. Following the General Concept Plan Approval the City of Orono could do a simultaneous Preliminary Plat/Final Plat approval that would include rezoning the properties to RPUD and B-6, and amending the Comprehensive Plan to allow residential use for the "55+" senior use. The final development plans require the use of City financing mechanisms to ensure the viability of the longterm senior use of Lot 2. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the General Concept Plan for a 62 unit"55+" senior building and 23,000 s.f. office building per the site plan attached subiect to addressing the issues noted above, based on the findings as noted in the resolution and based on the conditions as noted in the resolution. 11 I VV a A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD FILE NO. 2640/2641 WHEREAS, Orono Ambar, LLC (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Outlet F, Sugarwoods, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the City of Orono Highway 12 PUD ordinance (Municipal Code Section 10.53) requires a multiple step approval process for properties developing as part of a PUD; the General Concept Plan approval stage is the first step in the process followed by the Development approval stage, with a concurrent platting process for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested General Concept Plan Approval for a two lot plat of this 6.7 acre property. Proposed is a rezoning from B-1, Retail Sales Business District to B-6/PUD (for office use of the proposed west parcel) and RPUD/PUD (for multi- family residential use of the proposed east parcel). The intended use of the properties are a 23,000 s.f. office building and a 3-story, 62 unit residential senior housing building; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area for which the City has established special requirements for rezoning per Municipal Code Section 10.52; and WHEREAS, the proposed residential use of a portion of the property would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as the property is not guided for residential use in Orono's 1980 Comprehensive Plan nor in the preliminarily approved 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Orono City Council makes the following findings in regard to this application: Page 1 of 14 FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning Files #2640-2641 2. The property is located in the B-1 Limited Neighborhood Business District. The property consists of approximately 6.7 acres. 3. The development plans include a 23,000 s.f. two-story office building and a 62 unit "55+" senior housing building. The office building would be located on a parcel approximately 2.7 acres in size. The residential use would be located on a parcel approximately 4.0 acres in size. 4. Rezoning of the property from B-1 General Business to B-6 and RPUD is essentially down zoning of the property as the permitted uses in the B-6 and RPUD districts would have less potential impact on the adjacent residential properties than certain allowed B-1 retail uses. The proposed office use and senior residential component ill not result in the same traffic levels or development pattern as a retail environment. 5. The 62 unit building on the 4 acre site would provide 15.5 units/acre of senior housing units at a variety of unit sizes and rental rates. The proposed rezoning to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district is appropriate to allow for the units/acre density requested based on two key factors: The land is currently zoned to allow high intensity retail uses. The proposed higher density senior housing use will have a substantially lower impact on the adjacent properties and the transportation system than would a high intensity retail use. b. The senior housing use has a substantially lower impact in terms of traffic generation and impact on adjacent properties, particularly the single family residential neighborhood directly adjacent to the property, than would other types of higher density residential development. Page 2 of 14 6. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is warranted because while the use of the westerly portion of the property will be in keeping with the currently planned "commercial" use as established in the 1980 and 2000-2020 CMP, senior housing use of the easterly portion of the property will be more compatible with the existing adjacent single-family residential use to the immediate north than would development to high -intensity retail commercial as currently guided. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is also warranted because topography of the site is severe, making retail development more difficult, more costly and potentially more visually incompatible with the surrounding area due to the potential need for extensive retaining walls to accommodate expanded access and parking needs. 7. The proposed senior housing meets a number of Orono's housing goals including the provision of lifecycle housing options and provision of affordable housing. S. The proposed development has incorporated building and road design that takes advantage of the existing topography. The senior building has been designed to fit the general topography of the land, resulting in the ability to reduce the visual impacts of the 3i° story as we'l as maintain a vegetated buffer to the north where existing residential homes would be most impacted by the mass of the building. Likewise, the office building has been limited to two stories, has been moved to prov0e more than the required rear setback, and has been oriented with the short -ide facing the adjacent residential neighborhood, limiting its visual impacts from neighboring properies. Provision of buffers on site will decrease the visual impacts to the adjacent single family residential use. The Sugar Woods Homenwners Association owns and maintains a 49 wide platted outlot buffer strip along the perimeter of that residential subdivision and immediately adjacent to the property. While restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugar Woods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2" in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development, add:Tonal screening will be needed on the property to minimize the impacts of the mass and length of the senior building as well as the proximity of parking area serving the office building. Buffers to the east, south and west of the property are less critical because the, property is located on Highway 12; thr. properties to the east and Page 3 of 14 south in the City of Long Lake are or will be mostly commercially developed. Properties located west of the project are commercially developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station. 10. Stortnwater management will be provided by storm drains discharging to the existing stormwater pond located adjacent to the property. The pond is owned by MnDOT and has been designed with the capacity to handle stormwater flows from the property. In addition to the City of Orono, MnDOT and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have approval authority over the stormwater management plan. 11. Vehicular access to the property will primarily be via a private road entering Brown Road north of the stormwater pond. This is the ideal primary ingress/egress to the property because a signalized intersection is planned for Highway 12 and Brown Road as part of the Highway 12 re-routing process. The City intends that this signalization be completed concurrent with completion of development of the property. Secondary access to the property will be via a right -in right -out access directly to Highway 12 at the boundary between proposed Lots 1 and 2. At this location a full access to Highway 12 is not appropriate because of proximity to the Brown/12 intersection. The Orono Comprehensive Plan does include a future service road connection between Brown Road and the properties to the west. The service drive has been designed to allow for a fitture connection to the west via the northwest comer of the office packing lot. This would connect with existing future - 1 Outlots existing within dte plats of Sugar Woods and East Willow Woods, wit,. -ntiil Future service road connections to a location directly dcross 12 fror, B. 't Avenue or continuing west to Willow Drive. Such future connections w„ likely reduce the amount of through tmtTc affecting the senior housing visitor parking areas. Page 4 of 14 12. Required off-street parking per Section 10.61, Subd. 10 is as follows: Office Building: Required stalls = I per 200 s.f. of "net usable floor area for office use" Net usable floor area = 19,400 s.f. ± Total stalls required = 19,400/200 = 97 Total stalls proposed = 97 Senior Residential building Required stalls = 2 per dwelling unit (standard for multiple dwelling use) Number of dwelling units = 62 Total stalls required = 124 Total stalls proposed = 83 interior stalls + 39 exterior stalls = 122 stalls The senior housing parking proposal is 2 stalls short of the standard parking requirement. A building designed for senior housing use may not require the sm..e parking standards as an apartment -type multiple dwelling use. Applicant has stated in his experience the parking proposed on site will be sufficient for the intended use. Pedestrian access between the office and senior building parking lots will be provided to allow for potential use of the office parking by senior building visitors during weekend hours. 13. An existing 8' wide trail which is part of the Orono comprehensive trail system is located along Brown Road. An existing 6' sidewalk is located along the south property line adjacent to Highway 12. The proposed site plan provides pedestrian access to the existing trail and sidewalk via sidewalks within the site. A sidewalk connection between the office building and senior housing building within the site will also be constructed to allow for easy pedestrian access between the two uses, which will allow for weekend overflow parking. 14. The applicant has provided preliminary site plans, grading plans, landscaping plans, utility plans and building construction plans which the Council finds are sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the project. Page 5 of 14 15. The applicant has requested financial assistance from the City of Orono to allow for affordable rents. Such methods include the creation of a TIF district or similar provisions or reimbursements. 16. The developer has proposed to plat the senior housing project as condominiums. Each unit would have a separate legal description and tax statement. Under this type of plat the units would be owned by a non-profit agency and rented to the occupants under the agreements established for the building. fhe applicant has provided a preliminary plat drawing to allow subdivision of the property into two lots for development purposes. 17. The City Council finds that the proposed rezoning, proposed comprehensive plan . amendment, proposed subdivisio, end proposed development of an office building and senior housing building are appropriate for the property, will not have negative impacts on the surrounding properties when all approval conditions are met, and are in keeping with the goals, policies and philosophies of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Otoilo hereby approves the General Concept Plan for development of a 62 unit building for senior housing use and a 23,000 s.f. general ntiice building, subject to the followidg declarations and conditions: The City of Orono will approve an amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan to allow for the proposed uses upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan and Final Plat Approval. 2. The City of Orono will approve rezoning of the property as described herein upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan and Final Plat Approval. This resolution is not intended to grant Preliminary Plat Approval Page 6 of 14 4. Conditions for Development Plan and Final Plat Approval are as follows: Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions: 1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. (Plans and specifications for service line connections around the pond. Proposed r'ans shall be provided to the City for final review and approval with the Preliminary Plan set. The Public Works Department and MnDOT shall review and approve all utility improvements.)(Final sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Plan sets for sewer and water shall be provided with the Preliminary Plat set.) 2) Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Development Plan and Final Plat Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and MnDOT have approved the stormwater Plans. 3) Engineering details and design for any proposed retaining walls. 4) Final landscaping design plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the RPUD and B-6 zoning districts. 5) Final building construction plans detailing roofing and siding materials, etc. Page 7 of 14 6) Road and parking lot construction plans, including confirmation that parking lots and roadways will be paved and provided with concrete curb and gutter, and that all driving lanes within parking lots shall have a 9-ton minimum pavement section. A geotechnical evaluation of the soil shall be done in conjunction with the pavement design and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Applicant shall provide detailed engineering evaluations and plans to indicate the stability of the parking areas located adjacent to the office building, including the retaining wall system adjacent to the property. 7) Detailed signage and lighting plans. 8) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review progresses. B. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as outlined in a forthcoming Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution. C. General Conditions. 1) The sidewalk/trail connections shall be provided to the Brown Road trail along the east side of the property, from the property to the sidewalk along Highway 12, and between each of tfie proposed buildings. All trails shall be permanent'y owned and maintained by applicant/property owner to provide pedestrian access through the site. 2) Applicants' architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of building permits. Paee 8 of 14 3) Appropriate traffic and parking signage shall be installed subject to the Orono staff and City Engineer's review, including required stop signs within the parking lots and service drive to ensure safe parking areas and pedestrian crossing within the development. 4) All landscaping shall conform to the standards established by City ordinance for the RPUD and B-6 districts. 5) Monument signs may be provided by the developer at each entrance to the site. The signage shall be limited to a company or development name and/or logo and street address on the monument signs. Final design/materials of monument signage shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 6) Final lighting plan shall be subject to City staff approval and shall locate lighting so as to direct lights away from the adjacent residential neighborhood. l) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". All erosion controls as required by the City shall be in place prior to commencing excavation on the site. 8) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the construction limits area. Developer must strive to maintain perimeter vegetation to the greatest extent possible during construction to minimize visual impacts. 9) Additional improvements including burying of power lines, installation of street lighting compatible with the City of Long Lake's street lighting program, and improvement of sidewalks outside the project boundaries will be addressed in the Development Agreement noted herein. Page 9 of 14 10) A road easement shall be granted to the City to permit public ingress/egress over the driveways on the site to guarantee future access for a public road should the City choose to develop a service road connection to the west in the future. 11) Easements shall be provided to allow for ingress and egress over the driveways and sidewalks on the site to allow access between the office building and senior housing parcel. 12) Additional Drainage and Utility Easements shall be granted to the City of Orono over all utility lines and rights of way. 13) This concept plan approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions w the review process continues. D. Financial Plan. Development Plan and Final Plat Approval are contingent on successful completion of a financing plan acceptable to the City Council which may include nee of TIF funding and/or other means of financial assistance for the senior bnusing development. The use of such financial assistance methods is im. , ' w ensure the continued use of the senior housing building for its intended purpose, and to provide disincentives to its conversion to other uses whioh may not be in keeping with City housing goals. E. Development Agreement. Development Approval and Final Plat Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all financial arrangements between the applicant and the City, as well as all specific City requirements for the development. Page 10 of 14 Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to landscaping, grading. erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks, retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. G. Park Dedication. City will waive the RPUD requirements for 10% site dedication for private parks for the senior housing project. The standard Park Dedication fee shall be paid by the developer for the senior housing site at the standard residential rate provided by City ordinance (8% of the fair market value of the site but not less than $3,100 per dwelling unit). The City Council may agree to defer specified amounts of the senior housing park fee, which arrangement shall be detailed within the Financial Plan. The standard park dedication fee for the office project site shall be paid by the developer at the standard per -acre rate per City ordinance (8% of fair market value of land but not to exceed $13,250 per acre). H. Sewer and Water Connection Charges. The applicant shall pay sewer and water connection charges to the City in an amount to be arrived at by use of the following formula: (A + B) - 41 x 6.7 acres x $13,545/acre = Connection Charge Due (A + B) where: A = number of senior housing dwelling units B = number of SAC units required for office building 41 = number of sewer/water units paid previously The City Council may agree to defer specified amounts of the sewer and water connection charges, which arrangement shall be detailed within the Financial Plan. Page 11 of 14 5. This General Concept Plan approval resolution approves the development concept subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of this resolution and all other requirements of the City. This resolution does not constitute approval of the Rezoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This resolution does not constitute Preliminary Plat Approval. Such approvals shall only be granted when the City Council finds that all "Conditions for Development Plan and Final Plat Approval" as identified herein have been met. 6. This Conceptual Approval shall be effective for a period of 6 months from the date of this resolution. If Development Plan and Final Plat Approval is not granted within that period, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period. 7. The undersigned applicants have read. understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of ckemselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of March, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner Applicant Property Owner Page 12 of 14 STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrutent, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 13 of 14 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 20 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ day of _ , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for stud county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) des,:ribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 14 of 14 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _. _, 20__ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _da- of .20 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, person,:lly appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 14 of 14 arEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCILACTION MAR 12 20 Cl I r ui- OnONO Date: March 6, 2001 Item No.: Department Approval: Auministrator Approval: Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gafrron Title: Planning Dircc '�r Item Description: Dunbar Project: 1. Sewer and Water Connection Charges Analysis (*2&40/j&q I tw 2) H. Park Fee Analysis Since my February 7 memo (attached), the Council has considered the option of deferring certain up -front charges and development fees for the Dunbar senior housing project. Such deferral would be in exchange for guarantees that the use of the site and building would remain as senior housing for as long a term as possible. The deferred amounts plus interest would have to be paid back to the City if the use becomes other than senior housing. A brief summary of this plan is as follows: 1) The developer buys the land, ctraveys it to the City for $1; 2) City approves TIF funding plar with controls on rental price of 20% of units for 20 years; 3) City leases land back to the developer for 40 years (the life of the HUD bond guarantee) with a covenant in effect that requires that it remain in use as senior housing for that period; 4) City defers the up -front costs of park fees and sewer and water connection charges. City proceeds with street lighting, sidewalk and power line burial projects, paying itself back via TIF dollars over the 20-year TIF rriod; 5) At the end of 20-year TIF period, i :y loses its control over the low-income requirement; 6) At end of 40 year bond life, City sells the land back to the developer/owner for $I; at that time, the deferred amount plus 40 years interest becomes due nnlncc the owner agrees to maintain the senior housino slams for a specified renewable contractual period. In the February 7 memo, an option for revising the nark fee ordinance is discussed, as are options forinterpretation of the original S& W agreements %.m Rebers. With the proposed incentive program in place, the City has no strong motivation to revise its Park Dedication ordinance nor to reduce the sewerand waterconnection charges below the amounts established by ordinance and per the original S&W agreement with R•--ers. Deferral of the entire S&W connection charge and perhaps a portion of the park dedication fees would be appropriate. Since O•ino's per -unit park fee is relatively high compared to that charged in some other cities for similar types of multi -family housing, staff would recommend that a park fee equivalent to $500 per out ($31,000 for 62 units) be collected up front, with the remainder ($2600 per unit) deferred. Dunbar Project ices March 6, 2001 Page 2 Based on information contained in the February 7 memo and taking into account the deferral/incentive program under consideration. l would suggest the following fee structures for the Dunbar project: Proposed Park Fees otal Amount Payment Up -front Deferred Amount Office Property $33,12; $33,125 -- Senior Housing Property $192,200 $31,000 $161,200 Totals $225,32: $64, 125 $161,20u Proposed Sewer and Water Connection Cb,-ge Payment UP-4, .t Deterred Office Property so $0 Senior Housing Property SO $40,838 'total dtferred amount would be approximately $301.000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Prof Fee and Sewer & Water Connection Charges for the DunbarProject per the above proposal. To: Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Date: February 7, 2001 Subject: Dunbar Project: 1. Sewer and Water Connection Charges Analysis 11. Park Fee Analysis SUNIMARY I. Sewer and Water Connection Charge. There are two alternatives for determining the Sewer and Water Connection Charge based on two interpretations ofthe original agreement for construction of the Highway 12 sewer and water system, yielding a total S/W connection charge of either $40,838 based on developer purchase of additional units at current rates; or $0 based on a conclusion that Rebers' original assessments for the project (totaling $277,100 for the 44 units) were not tied to a limitation on number of units. II. Park Fees. The commercial park fee for the office site under the standard formula is $33,125. The residential park fee under the current ordinance is $192,200 although this is 25% of the land value. Council may wish to consider amending the existing Park Dedication ordinance by: 1. Adopting language that will allow a reduction/waiver of park dedication fees or requirements for projects receiving City assistance or meeting cartain public purposes; and/or 2. Adopting language that would cap park fees at a given percent of land value for higher -density residential projects, or eliminate the minimum/maximum per -unit fees for such projects. Dunbar Fees Analysis February 7, 2001 Page 2 1. SEWER & WATER CONNECTION CHARGES ANALYSIS The Dunbar project involves developing within Outlot F, Sugar Woods, a 62-unit se or housing building and a 27,000 s.f office building. The senior housing building is expected to equal 62 SAC units. The office building is expected to net out at approximately 10 SAC units, although this could increase to perhaps 12-14 units depending on the extent of medical office fixtures installed. For discussion purposes, the two buildings will be considered as requiring a total of 75 SAC units. One SAC unit is the equivalent of 1 City sewer unit or 274 gpd. Outlet F 1989 Assessed Unit Allocation The document cora.olling the use and assessment of sewer and water units fo.Oudot F is the 1989 Petition for Local Improvements submitted by Otten, Wear and Rebers. In 1989 Otten, Wear and Rebers were each assessed for the costs of the SugarWoods/North Highway 12 sewer and water trunk (Phase 1) and each were assessed for the Phase II improvements which included a) well, pump station, and connections for the assessed parcels; b) sewer upgrade to connect Phase I trunk to M WCC interceptor; and c) water tower construction and connections. Each were allocated a specific number of sewer and water units. The project was assessed on the basis of a total f 329 units, with 40 units allocated to Otten, 10 unl is to Wear and 69 units to Rebers. The remair' ; 210 units were expected to be used and paid for oy future d welopment in the Highway 12 are. Of Rebers' 69 units, 25 were attributed to the Sugar Woods residential development. Rebers paid off the assessment for the 25 Sugar Woods residential units in 1989; the remaining 44 units were specially assessed at a rate totaling approximately $6,300 per unit, and final payments for Phase 11 will occur in 2002. Of these 44, 3 were sold to Service 800 in 1999 for use in Sugar Woods Outlot E, and the remaining 41 are available for development within Outlot F. Because Rebers' remaining allocation of 41 units is less than the 75 units that will be required to serve Outlot F, a total of 34 units are technically lacking. While the 1989 Petition clearly species that the petitioners will be reimbursedfor unused units at the full assessment rate plus interest upon full development, it says nothing about purchase ofadditional units should the development exceed the number ofallocated units. It might be assumed that the extra required units should be purchased by the developer at the current connection charge rate for the 1989 Highway 12 sewer/water project. One might argue, however, that Rebers simply paid for a share of the sewer and water system at a rate that was determined by a unit allocation but which didn't limit him to that allocation. Dunbar Fees Analysis February 7, 2001 Page 3 Highway 12 Current S/W Connection Charge Prior to March 2000 the 1989 Highway 12 ve•ver and Water Connection Charge unit rate totaled $9,695 per unit. In March 2000 Council adopted Ordinance 195, Second series which converted this to an acreage charge in order to assure repayment of remaining project bonds regardless of the ultimate number of units developed, and to keep the connection charge somewhat reasonable for the types of development anticipated and wanted in the Highway 12 area. The acreage charge under the 2!101 fee schedule is $5,105/acre for sewer and $8,440/acre for water, for a total of $13,545 per acre. This applies to both residential and non-residential properties. Connection Charge Options for Dunbar Project The question remaining, then, is what to charge for the additional 34 units required for Outlot F. Two options appear to exist: Option I. A case can be made that the site has 41 of 75 units paid, or 55% of the required units, and should pay 45% of the current coanect:on charge for the remaining 34 units. The total site is 6.7 acres. The connection charge would be calculated as follows: 6.7 acres x $13,545/acre x 0.45 = S40,838 (this figure would change slightly depending on the final number of required units) Option 2. It could be argued that Rebers initially paid this property's fair share of the costs of sewer/water installation, having been assessed approximately $277,100 for the 44 units for Phases 1 and 11, and should incur no additional costs regardless of the number of units ultimately developed. Note that SAC charges for the project will be at the current Met Council rate of $1 150 per unit or totaling approximately $86,000. Note also that the excess units needed for Outlot Fare directly a result of the senior housing project, and would likely not be needed if all of Outlot F were to develop commercially as currently zoned. Therefore, the cost of the excess units should be attributed to the senior housing, not the office building. Dunbar Fees Analysis February 7, 2001 Page 4 11. PAkK FEE ANALYSIS Residential. The standard Park Dedication fee for residential property is 8%of the land value, with a minimum fee of $3100 per dwel!!ng unit and a maximum of $5300 per dwelling unit. The residential portion of the Dunbar site is valued at approximately $775,000. The standard park fee of 8% is $62,000. However, using the minimum per -unit fee, $3100 x 62 dwelling units is $192,200 or approximately 25% of the land cost. Although an argument can be made that higher density residential development has similar park needs and impacts as lower density housing, the relationship of park impact fees to land value becomes very disproportionate under higher dewily development. It can generally be assumed that in Orono, development of single family 2-acre and 5-acre lots will have land costs high enough that the maximum park fee of $5300 per unit almost always kicks in and developers will almost always be paying less than 8% in park fees. However, at densities of 4-6 units per acre or higher, even the $3100 per -unit minimum fee will far exceed 8% of the typical land cost per unit as can be seen on the attached table of Density vs Land Cost. This factor can become critical when attempting to meet City housing goals. In a situation where the City is providing incentives for a development that meets specified City goals, it may be a;,propriate to reduce or waive the park fees m a further incentive to such developmea„ W -notonka has recognized this via the following ordinance language: -400.030.7 The city council, at Its discretion, may waive or reduce the requirements of this section when the subdivision includes a city -misted development or redevelopment area or achieves some other public purpose and the requirements would create a financial hardship for the project." For projects not serving a specified public purpose, a further amendment of the park dedication requirements would be needed in order to lower park fees for higher density residential projects, if the Council were to conclude the current fees are inappropriate. Regarding the RPUD ordinance, Planning Commission has concluded that the required private recreation arers for RPUD developments should M be credited toward the Park Dedication requirements, acc they serve different purposes. The "Private Recreation Area" language in the RPUO is from the Minnetonka Zoning Code, and is in additioto their Park Dedication requirement of 10% of the land area or (at Council option) a nark fee. For comparison purposes, Minnelonka's park fees appear to be unrelated to the value of the land, and are significantly lower than Orono's perk fees: Oren Minnetonka Single Dwelling $3100-$5300 $550 Townhome, duplex or multi -unit building $310045300/wit $500/unit office/Industrial $7750-13,250/acre $3000/acre Commercial $7750-13,250/acre $2400/acre Dunbar Fees Analysis February 7, 2001 Page 5 Commercial. The Park dedication fee for commercial property is 8% of the land value, with a minimum fee of $7,750 per acre, and a maximum of $13,250 per acre. The commercial (office) portion of Outlot F will be approximately 2.5 acres with a value estimated at $550,000 (assuming selling price of approximately $5 per square foot). 8% of $550,000 is $44,000. Using the maximum per acre fee, 2.5 acres x $13,250 is $33,125. The park fee for the office portion should be established at this figure. Park Fee Analysis: Density vs Land Cost Density Land Cost 0.5 units/ac I uniUac 2 unitslac 4 units/ac 6 units/ac 10 units/ac IS units/ac 20 units/ac $1/9f Land CosilUnit "$97,'000: $44,000 $22,000 $11,000 $7300 $4400 ($44,000/ac) 8% Fee/Unit $7000 $3500 $1750 $880 $580 $350 Min/Max Fee $59�0' $3500 $3100 14 $3100 28 $3100 42 $3100 74 S2/sf Land Cost/Unit 1-`.Z'$UU ^$B (7 - $44,000 $22,000 $14,500 $8700 -55800 $4350 (S87,000/ac) 8%Fce/Unit $14,000 $7l)0�'� $3500 $1750 $I I50 $700 $460 $350 MinIMax Fee $5300 $5300�_ $3500 $3100 14 $3100 21 $3100 36 $3i00 53 $3100 '1 S3/sf Land Cost/Unit ' 0,0 `$ 3P $65,000 $32,500 $22,000 " $13,000 $8700 56500 ($130,000/ac) 8%FeefUnit r$2 t. ': r$ $5200 $2600 $1750 $1050 $700 $520 Min/Max Fee $5300 $5300 $5200 $3100 10 $3100 14 $3100 24 $3100 36 $3100 48 $4/sf Land Cost/Unit S350,00%,, $175,01U,8 ' ' ' $44,000 $29,000 $17,500 $11,700 $8750 (5175,000/ac) 8%FeefUnit ARM s, $7500 $2320 $1400 $950 $700 Min/Max Fee $5700 $ 3 wS5300'".` $3500 $3100 11 $3100 IS $3100 26 $3100 35 S5/sf Land Cost/Unit $440,000 $220,000. $130,000 $55,000 $37,000 722,000 $14,700 $11,000 (S220,000/ac) 8%Fee/Unit $35,200 $17,600 $8800 $4400 $2960 $1760 $1275 $880 Min/Max Fee $5300 $5300 $5300 $4400 $3100 8.4 $3100 14 $3100 21 $3100 28 K% $%of land CosVUnit Ex,,".. Max Fee Per Unit - S5300/Unit Maximum Park Fee Charged $% of Land Cod/Unit Is Within Acceptable Range of S3100-5300/Unt1 - 8 % Park Fee Charted 8%of land CmVUnil is Less than Min Fee Per Unit - S31U0/Unit Minimum Fee Charged (Small bold 8 at lower right is actual %j S3100Nnit Min Park Fee Exceeds Unit Land Cost rS&ANPrrPj4P0::::SEWERA MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CIIARGES (If not previnasly assessed or if an improvement project Ls not deemed lobe required r the role d ily. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.) The eaaaeellon charge far properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside lire delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charted the connection fee for [hot urea. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. 1983-1 Highway 12 Orono -Long Lake- Medina $ 1,380.00 (1) 1989 Highway 12 $5,105/acre 1"2 Slubbe Ilay Sewer Stubbs tiny NX/NW - Ilayside East $15;)t15mo (5) II Bederwood $24,625.00 (5) III Bayside North $20,850.00 (5) IV Oxford $29,430.00 (5) V Cygnct and Lear $23,785.00 (5) (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (6) 3li-37691 19971mpro"ments s'3) 316J7691 iW Improve Crystal Buy (7) 313.!7691 1998-1999 Sewer Improvements (4) 406-37691 I M Fund n LS h Forcemain (8) 314-37691 2000 Sever Improvements (A 308-31691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay 2001 Fce.Sclrcdulc-Page 11 Ii'ARY SSWER AND MUNICIPAL WA'VEIt CONNRCTION Cl [ARGV%(If nut previously assessed or if an ingrtuventenI project is not decvned to be required /,ee sole discrcdon of the City. If nn iuglruvenunl is ngnired, the cunuecliml cluu'gc m:q• be in nJJilion lu mty nsscssment.) The connection charge for properties wuhing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be ehs=PRORCTS fore area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. I# By District - Project Unit Charge + Area Or Acreage Charge + Front Foot Charge Credit To Area 1967 LW-1 Highway 12/Crystal Bay Road $ 4,590.00 $ 34.15 (1) 1969 LW-2 Chevy Chase $4,590.00 t 1970 LW-1 Navarre Residential S 2,275.00 S 22.65 I 1970 LW -I Navarre Commercial S 3,415.00 S 34.15 I 1982-IA Navarro S2,425.M1 (1) 1989 1 lighway 12 S9,4411/aerrc (1)- 1999Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation• S 375.00 (1) •19" Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Connection Charge -All properties within the Navarre Municipal Water District (the area served with municipal water service vin the Navarre Water Treatment Plan() which were either not assessed or not fully assessed via special assessment for the 1999 Navarre Water Treatment Plan Rehabilitation Project shall pay a connection charge of $375.00 per unit upon connection to the municipal water system. Such charge shall be collected at the time a building permit is issued for new construction, or at the time a connection permit is issued for existing structures. (1) 601-37391 Water Operating 20W Yov.G.Ja•dvle-Page 14 PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT 7 [-L� , 1989 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: The undersigned Petitioners, being all the owners of real property abutting the North side of Wayzata Boulevard (U.S. Highway 12) from the Northwest quadrant of Brown Road and Wayzata Boulevard and to and including the Northeast quadrant of Willow Road and Wayzata Boulevard sketched on Exhibit A annexed hereto (the "Assessed Parcels") hereby petition that construction of sanitary sewer and water facilities (the "Improvements") be undertaken by the City of Orono pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 as follows: Phase I• a) Sewer and water trunk to serve the Assessed Parcels. Phase II: a) Well, pump station, connections for Assessed Parcels and related improvements. b) Sewer upgrade to connect Phase I (a) trunk to Metropolitan Waste Commission interceptor. c) Water tower construction and connections. subject to the fc=lowing conditions: 1. Final Plans and Specifications. The City has engaged the City Engineers to prepare detailed plans and specifications for completion of the Phase I Improvements, including preparation of estimates, special contract provisions, preparation of proposal forms and designation of the description of all necessary and permanent temporary easements. The City will engage the City Engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications for completion of the Phase II Improvements at such time as the City is prepared to undertake the Phase II Improvements. Plans and specifications for Phases I and II shall be coordinated with Petitioners for proper placement of the driveway curb cuts, individual building uti'4ty services, and water service stubs. 2. Easements. F tioners shall makq available to the City, at no cost to the City, all permanent and temporary easements necessary for the installation of the Improvements within the Assessed Parcels, as determined by the City Engineer. Each such easement requested by the City shall be in writing, in recordable form, and on terms reasonably satisfactory to the City and the affected Petitioner. C,%WS\TTY\fET IT 1011. 7R 1/ai r I' .1 all . _ 3. 'j'y,�,e1 Ceete of Project, In consideration of the action of the City Council authorizing the Construction of the Improvements, Petitioners hereby agree to be assessed their fair share of the cost of the Improvements, including reasonable engineering, legal and administrative costs 'ncurred by the City, according to the number of units allocated to each Fetitioner (as set out opposite their signatures hereto). The City Engineer he �• estimated the- the asac,a msn*o. f � each __ w_ill total S1 jin-.00.. . -, or ase I Im rove ants and 3 r Phase II Improvements.% The may, at its elect on, may determine to perform certain C •_ Phase II Improvements as a part of Phase I and increase assessment for Phase I Improvements by up to $i,000.00, provided that the Phase II Improvements are ratably reduced such that the total assessment for Phase I and Phase II Improvements, regardless of when constructed or assessed, does not exceed �pltali,ZA5& tjerest, if any). Nevertheless, Petitioners agree to �e� T"� d o 0, more than such �nu�nt. The final assessman ro sea a ase upon a final cost of '.he Improvements and the units allocated to each assessed Petitioner. 4. Special Assessment Installments; Interest. Each Petitioner's share of the cost of the Phase I Improvements shall be paid by the Petitioner to the City as a special assessment levied against such Petitioner's benefitted parcel or parcels i five (5) equal annual installments of principal and capitalize interest (if any), and with interest on unpaid installments at a annual percentage rate to be established by the City at the time of the sale of the Improvements bond issue. Each Petitioner's share of the cost of Phase II Improvements shall be levied a n t such Petitioner's teneii FT parcel or parce s in seven 7 e al installments of Drina pa an c a ize nteres ( f env) 5, Reimbursement of Assessments. The City will reimburse any Petitioner who fails to be able to utilize the number of units reserved herein, only if the City refuses to approve a development plan allowing use of the total number of units reserved herein, in an amount equal to the total assessment paid for each unit the Petitioner is unable to use, together with interest thereon. Reimbursement by the City shall be. paid in lump sum if ac,.ruing after all installments of special assessments have been paid. If final City action denying development utilizing the reserved number of units is taken prior to payment in full of a Petitioner's installment obligations, then the City shall reimburse such Petitioner in lump sum for the portion of the assessment already paid (including interest paid thereon) with respect to unused units, and in equal yearly payments over the remaining term of the special assessment period for that portion of the remaining installments (and interest thereon) allocated to the unused units. Notwithstanding any right to reimbursement that has accrued or may / n d n C:IDMS\TMPU1T1ON.7/21/89 accrue, any installment payments of special assessments due hereunder shall be fully paid when due. S. Acceleration of Payment. Petitioners herein agree that prior to the granting of a building permit for a Petitioner's parcel, the special assessment petitioned foi herein for such parcel, including all remaining installments and any interest due thereon, shall be fully paid; provided that if fewer than the total number of units allocated to a Petitioner herein are allocated to a portion of such Petitioner's parcel, pursuant to a development plan approved by the City, then this special assessment shall only be fully paid with respect to the units allocated to such portion. 7. Exclusion from Initial Assessment, Petitioners William J. and Mable J. Wear (PIN 34-118-23-24-0001 and PIN 34-118-12-21- 0002) (the "Wears") enter into this petition on behalf of themselves and their successors or assigns. It is understood that the Wears currently receive sewer and water service from the City of Long Lake. The Wears will be assessed for tan 10 unit ' hereunder. An additional thirty-two ,3 un bs will be reserve e Wear property for five (5) years following the date of Wear's execution hereof. At such time as the Wears, or their successors or assigns, petition to utilize the reserved units and be connected to the Improvements, they shall be assessed based upon then current unit values as determined by the City. S. Payment Dates. If the special asses=ments levied by the resolution of the City Council pursuant to this Petition for Phase I (and subsequently levied for Phase II) are aaopted by and between October loth of any year and April loth of the following year, it is u.nderstood and agreed that the Fatitioners will pay the City Clerk one-half (1/2) of the first annuol installment with interest on or before May 31st next ':ollowing tie levy, and will pay the remaining one-half (1/2) of such first installment with interest to the City Clerk on or before the following Septe=-,r 30th. All remaining installments shall be paid as assessments to the Treasurer of Hennepin County as and when the general property taxes become due upon Petitioner's respective properties. If the special assessments levied by the City Council pursuant to this Petition are adopted between April llth and October 9th of any year, then all installments due hereunder shall be paid as assessments to the Treasurer of Hennepin County as and when the general property taxes becor ''Te upon such propertv. g, 14aiver by Petitioners. Petitioners agree to waive, and hereby do waive, any and all rights to appeal the special assessments, including any supplemental assessments, with regard to any procedural or substantive rights, rights to a public hearing, rights no `ices under Minnesota Chapter 429 or any other ordinances c: :y, and the constitutions or laws of the StEee of Minnesota o. of the United States. C: \OOCS\TTY\PET IT I ()A. 7/21/89 10. Suc essors and Assigns. The terms and provisions of the Petition shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, and shall be binding on all future owners of all or any part of the Petitioners' respective properties and shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall be enforceable by the City against the Petitioners, their heirs and assigns. NO. OF UNITS ALLOCATED TO 'TITIONERS• ADDRESS EACH PETITIONER Mors of PIN 34-118-23-21-0001: �Yf :=✓ 69 q->a•_ Rebers Construction Co. ✓ B�� 7� 2t .j'"o Rebers Construction Co. i5 ey/B.-Re a 3524 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 K / c/o Rebers Construction Co. Barbara Rebers/ 3524 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 iners f PIN 34-114-23-24-0001 and K=r��9,j 10 34-111188--12-21-0002 17 36 Hackberry Hill William W. Wear Orono, MN 55356 36 Hackberry Hill ab a J. 4ear Orono, MN 55356 mors of PIN - - - L-Qku: Q7 40 , (J ), 4q5 Willow Drive South C arles . Ringor Long Lake, MN 55356 �-,,, dti- 405 Willow Drive South Mary Ringer Long Lake, MN 55356 i C, V=S%iMYEi IT IN. 7/21/89 4 i Louise W. otten, husband and wife, as Optionees under Optioneement 7�gr dated Sf 1 I X7 Ezamined, checked and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of ovners property affected by the asking of the improvements petitioned Tbr. City Cle C 1 \DWS\ TTY V ET IT I e1.7121 /89 N 112 SEC. 34, T.118, R. 23 �w n �/! rT ' eeo.x ep flINOE 7 u' PINA 314 118 23Al 6001 a' 2 \" HAW 1R. MeyersAl a737� r N 93 `R GhllrlsS J. Gv�ytr �J` ��c v� ' i gill loll 40 go � a� _ lij° ss ..Y-r I ri: ' , . JI. ; . �q. n , � t•., i •, ^' a'�, • , Ai11e+j W I M , w !Y!`t. :! 1'e, . YI e• • I+,:, rii+Yr. loll n weuiora= noere e= ^� eAll. l...N` e.Y v I V 0 V R 4.� /V /Z tv (el � COD 0 f a) • 1� (i) feo e 94 ]61 � liu 1 a.,... Y/ r, (464 4 +t yaw • � � �! 'Y j i �',.7 ,. a. r y i Ux) ' u f a 4 WAY Af +`+�•. w� 1]r,Y (N �p r. LoNd =} a g. lel • ++r � �+ • � WAY m a..., i . s __asp. v, _1-�L._ !• ._ ���.j�. Application Date: 12/20/00 COl u"a MEETING 60 Day Deadline: 4/19101 MAR 1 2 20 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl ry rx OHONO DATE: March 2, 2001 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Paul Weinberger Zoning Title Zoning Administrator Item Description: k01-2661 Thomas and Ingrid Anderson 3550 North Shore Drive Variances Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (IQ Acre) Lot Ana: 21,174 s.f. (0.49 acre) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Planning Commission Minutes (Febmary 21, 2001) C Site Plan D Planning Report Application Review Applicants have requested variances to permit a 20' X 27.5' garage addiuov with second Floor living space. Also proposed is replacement of a deck on the north side of the house and replacement of a dog kennel. The garage addition will be over the driveway off the end of the house. A small retaining wall, approximately 2' in height is proposed to be replaced along the side of the driveway. All the improvements constitute an alteration to existing hardcover over 2S in the 75-2S0' setback. The property is unique by the fact the property has frontage to lake Minnetonka on both the north and south sides of the property. As a result, there are two 0-75' lakeshore setback zones that a-- accounted for in determining total allowed hardcover. The attached revised site plan indicates a change in the side setback from 10' to 9.5'. The applicants shall be made aware no side setback variance was applied for and no approval shall be given for the encroachment to the side setback. This application requires the following variances: Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2): To permit 4,551 (41%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 4,687 s.f. exists and 2,775 s.f. (25%) is allowed. 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) and Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B): To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on the north side of the house to constmct a new fence exceeding 3 % feet in height. A six foot fence/wall system is proposed. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of the variances requested and that the amount of hardcover be slightly increased to permit a backup apron ii prevent having to back out to North Shore Drive. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving variances based on the hardships noted in the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (6) FILE NO. #01-2661 WHEREAS, Thomas Anderson and Ingrid Anderson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3550 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 25, Lydiard's Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in acLordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 2001, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance application to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 4,551 s.f (41 %) hardcover in the 75-230' lakeshore setback where 4,687 st.. (42%) exists and 2,775 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on the north side of the house to construct a new fence/wall system exceeding 3 '/r feet in height for use as a dog kennel. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Oron FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #01-2661. The property is located in the LRAC (1/2 acre) One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 21, 2001 and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 0 for variances based upon the following findings and hardships: Page 1 of 6 A. The property is unique by the fact the property has frontage to Lake Minnetonka on both the north side and south side. There are two 0-75' lakeshore setback zones located on the property. B. The replacement of the deck and the dog kennel located to the back of the house would encroach into the average Lakeshore setback to the north side of the property. The average lakeshore setback ordinance is intended to protect lakeshore views for adjacent properties. C. A visual inspection of the property indicates there is no real real lake access or water to the north side of the property. The north side of the property functions as a wetland draining towards Lake Minnetonka. The north sides of the properties function as back yards and have been developed accordingly. The primary lake views and docks are located to the North Shore Drive side of the property. D. The retaining wall is being replaced due to the deteriorating of the existing railroad ties. The ties are necessary to stabilize the ground between the driveway and the elevation of the adjacent house. E. The Planning Commission recommended the applicants construct a turnaround on the property that would permit a vehicle to maneuver enough to not require vehicles to back out to North Shore Drive. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions. light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property-: would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety Page 2 of 6 and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit 4,551 sT (4) %) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback where 4,687 s.f. (42%) exists and 2,775 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) and Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B) to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on the north side of the house to construct a new fence exceeding 3 '/2 feet in height, subject to the following conditions: Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and most be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 12, 2002). site plan shall be in compliance with the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable m a misdemeanor. 3. The undersigned applicant and owner have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of March, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Owner Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson ar Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporate ^ and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _day of , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) as. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _day of , 20_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 [REVISED SITE PLAN] Page 6 of 6 \ok\� f,a '04° ,....,929.4 COWOT LML (AW m .... 00 N 44°48'0�'�E?02.23������: � I IL4'c o by x fCq o-15 SETBPCKD UNE vm� y'' Tye - � � 4'•9 y_ r N w, z ° _ cA u f6vOKSE NOOSED J i w DECK - '"' FfiSTiN Ate"°Sc m V L K e s�S� G( e IYO &Sl 1 E� ..'......`0-75 SETBACK I �. - N m � y OKED PkiST/�c fivers L z _ °Po y.2 g m L�.Kes e � w ro+ y �(/ vFa`,�4ga1 � fyis E C6sag ° aRM4r l°,� SETBACK UNEN CO. 7ZG. N4�, 51 (NORTH SHORE DRIVE) l R ° vi SCR "Ib:...., 23' 25'%yy 762 La.4 CONTOUR LINE a ke s'L-ore. N� 61 7 i �tioRTti N��FTC)� �RMkq waoe .— Z F (WJI iacrcrz w� t a wsnc � J O M 0 a.... {; EXISTING ` In f HOUSE' r' Y 4Y r 2J^ F .; Q 0-75 SETBACK LINE'•"n: t Ul ..r; a W .....,929.4-ONTOLR LrC tl �tioR Ta ti q�MJ . \ ZONTW0. LIMF. .. ;. r939:4 +W _ — 6 OD N 44�ga—� 502.23r I� 0 FOOT SI LfE Avem SETBPqc I eau' s pW e PFWOS P r lea ]ao °_' v.� .EXISTING mmoseo` f x e `.® HOUSE r, N 2-SW o. m , ,P OECk •!> EXISTING Pen^oseo � t f, c� HOUSE GMAZ. e 11.5 71 , 3 i 1 � I S 8 u.. No. 51 � (NORTH SHORE DRIVE) RD o . c — 6-9 5 W' AXE -szaa CON„oU, FhP 0 7vp p a ^vv v a/ Qp ° 977.1 a .77.7 O p D p O ° O ° 971.4 a C \ X /SI. OOO M /SI. Ov N 936.1 O x o fl].6 o X 97 F! ° F " x.9 c i 4 'fK{ x' _i.,r R,�s .i�♦! S �.�t�r.! v r� ��`It'�Fr�`(t.;`Y, a t l,. � 'F yr All WIS. ME _ B •� -Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department pe) pyl , (23) (14) (27) 79) (72) \ (71) 10) P RE (a) (s) (29) �, ♦ (28) \ (59) (25) (26) \ Null9 1 1' (17) (12) 2 (14) e (25) (9) la) (t0) s 1551 r (19) e (20) 9 v (2) (7) (55) \12 („\ 0 J` 06- 117-a3- Parcel In o maW Parcel ID 0811723340055 House Number 3550 t3' Street Name NORTH SHORE DR Condominium Pis is not a royalty nco ded map. It repeaads a cgrp ;Won crtrd fu aiii , 9d data from City, County, and Sate road audw hes and adMraouno A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE 4PPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2MMq;? 27S • o e ($50.0o per each additional variance) Reoewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non -conforming structures $250.00 After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORINIATION Site Address .56 0 //1llA%N ,SHOAT ll. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0 & — // ,/ - Attach legal description to application if not included on Date Property Acquired_ Le. rmazjr / 3 , / I (do) fo not also own the adjacent part Is of lane Present use of property: residential _other (sp Zoning District: G R- / r. Application k Date Received Amount Paid _ 2 7 S survey. r� r 9 $ �'a ec."• :lxo APPLICANT/� Phone (home) 9 51 l N 9/-a 7 3 7 Tn Name r ee r Q i%✓e F<c n.✓ Phone (work) 5/ Address: 316SO Nn. , $bo:c Q,,�,e City: oro n Zip: 5639/ ONNWER (if different than applicant) $A,7E Phone (home) _ New- Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: DESCRIPTION OF Describe request in VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Lot Width Estimated Construction Cost $ 90, v o n if Hardcover Setback: _ Front _ Side — Rear — Other (specify) t r<fioct Y<i arw tn9 Qro4t.4i cwa. Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or pra:tical difficulty or unusual property conditions compliance with Zoning Code requirements, F75f' / t lad /n.fe F .,Ayr s (attach additional sheets if necessary) Con'rVrm.Yy a7�- CIVY bo/1/6,velQc /'ev.iemeat w�.l i:,,Pio✓.�y de, J,'/•YY o Ftlu+e/%4/ EXIHBIT A ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LRA B Lot Area Required 21,780s.f it acre) Actual 21,174 s.f (.49 acre) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Sin Total Structural Coverage 21,174 s.f Allowed: 3,176 s.f. Existing: 1,163 s.f. Proposed: 2,671 s.f. Hardcover Calculations: Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover 0-75' 2,500 s.f. 0 s.f. 278 s.f. No South (110/0) Change 75-250' 11,100 s.f. 2,775 s.f * 4,687 s.f * 4,475 s.f. (25%) (420%) (40%) 0-75' 7,574 s.f. 0 s.f. 51 s.f. No North (< I ON Change e0, 2661 Thom. and Inand Mdersan ,SO North Shore Drive Varian Pye 4 of 4 sides ofthe properties have functioned as back yards which would be the appropriate location for a dog kennel and deck. In this unique case there are no direct lakeshore views being impacted. The fact that the 929.4' is located at the edge of the "wetland" qualifies the lot as having Iakeshore to the north side of the house. 3. The existing retaini.ig wall is necessary because the elevation drops approximately T to the applicant's property. Without a retaining wall there would be erosion problems from the neighboring lot. 4. Total existing hardcover on the property would be reduced slightly. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variances requested based on the hardships noted above and is subject to a final drainage review by the City Engineer prior to Council Action. Staff requested additional information regarding the drainage plan on the property. It is our understanding the surveyor is in the process of completing the drainage plan. The information was not received prior to the date of this memo. options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Other action. I01-2661 Thom. end Inarid Anderson 3350 Na 5 MDAve vw., reae 3 or3 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B)- To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on the north side of the house to construct a new fence exceeding 3 %2 feet in height. A six foot fence/wall system is proposed. Required Setbacks LR-IC Front Yard = 30' Side Yard = 10' Issues: I. Conformity to Zonine Code and Comorehensive Plan The applicants have proposed to reduce the total hardcover on the property by removing part of the driveway that is not required for maneuvering vehicles, mostly to the east side of the propo.cd garage. The building additions have been placed mostly over areas that contain hardcover. The replacement of the deck and the dog kennel located to the back of the house would encroach into the average lakeshme setback to the north side of the property. The average lakeshore setback ordinance is intended to protect Lakeshore views for adjacent properties. Staff visited the site and determined this property as well as the other properties nearby have lakeshore access across North Shore Drive on the south sides of the properties. The DNR has determined the 929.4' elevation is the high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The 929.4' elevation does reach the applicant's property and adjacent properties. A visual inspection of the site has determined there is no real lake access or water to the rear of this property. It functions as a wetland leading to Lake Minnetonka. The north .ides of the properties function as back yards and have been developed accordingly. The primary lake views and docks are located to the North Shore Drive side of the property. Please review the attached topographic map and air photo that indicate the approximate water's edge of Lake Minnetonka. A 2' high railroad tie retaining wall that is located along the side of the driveway. The ties are necessary to stabilize the ground between the driveway and the elevation of an adjacent house. The neighboring lot is 2' higher at the property line. Replacement of a the wall is necessary for maintenance purposes. A variance is only required because the wall constitutes hardcover. Review of Hardship: The primary factor that supports some degree of hardcover variance is that the 75.250' zone is reduced in size by having lake on both ends of the lot. Additional hardcover may be required to accommodate a turn around on site to eliminate vehicles from backing out to North Shore Drive. This is a change to the existing site plan that has a side loading garage that allows vehicles to maneuver before entering North Shore Drive. 2. The average lakeshore setback ordinance is intended to protect lakeshore views for adjacent properties. Lake access is generally to the south across North Shore Drive. Access to the lake is not possible due to the actual lakeshore being located further to the west. The north 101.2"1 Tlw wd Inand Anderson ,$SO NO SM. Arve V... Pap 2 ora TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: February 13, 2001 SUBJECT: 901-2661 Thomas and Ingrid Anderson 3550 North Shore Drive Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 21,174 s.f. (.49 acre) List of Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Plat Map D Air Photo E Topo Map F Survey G Survey/Site Plan H Hardcover Calculation Worksheets I Front Elevation View J Rear Elevation View K Main Floor P L Site Photos M Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: The applicants have requested variances to permita20'X27.5'gaage addition. The addition includes a second story above the garage for additional live g space within the house. Also proposed is replacement of a deck on the north side of the house and replacement of a dog kennel. The garage addition will be over the driveway off the end of the house. A small retaining wall, approximately Tin height is proposed to be replaced along the side of the driveway. All the improvements constitute an alteration to existing hardcover over 25%, although the total hardcover will actually decrease slightly on the property. The property is unique by the fact the property has frontage to Lake Minnetonka on both the north side and south side. As a result, there are two 0-75' lakeshore setbacks that are accounted for in determ'ning total allowed hardcover. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Sectiun 10.56, Subdivisic . 16 (L) (2): To permit 4,475 sT (40%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setbac!-, where 4,687 st.. (42%) exists and 2,775 s.f. (25%) is allowed. sot -rant n ..."t.vnd nnd.n 5550 N.A sm. Dn" v� Pate t or4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2001 Mabusth stated they are attempting to look at ways the amount of total hardcover on the property could be reduced. Gaffron noted the amount of total hardcover on this property is being reduced from 42 percent to 40 percent as a result of this application. Gaffron staled if a turnaround area is added, that would result in the hardcover being approximately 41 percent. Kluth inquired whether the need for a turnaround area has been discussed with Staff. Anderson stated he did discuss that issue with Weinberger, but indicated that they currently do not have a problem with backing out of the driveway. Gaffron stated there are a number of houses in this area with the same situation. Kluth noted there are some unique hardships inherent to the land. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application 401-2661, Thomas and Ingrid Anderson, 3550 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to hardcover to permit 40 percent hardcover, and granting of a variance to permit an en^roachment into the average lakeshore setback, subject to the submittal of a grading and drainage plan. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Gaffenn noted the motion was to allow 40 percent hardcover. Gaffron inquired whether any additional hardcover would be allowed to permit a turnaround area. Kluth commented the Applicants did not seem to be interested in constructing a turnaround area. Kluth stated in his view that is a veq busy road and the Applicants should be encouraged to construct a turnaround are. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to amend the above motion to permit the Applicants to increase the hardcover by additional one percent, or 41 percent, to construct a turnaround area. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February21, 2001 Hawn commented in her view the height of the structure may impact the neighbor's view of the lake. Mrs. Anderson stated it should not impact the neighbor's view since there is not a window on that side of their house. Gaffron stated there should be a minimal impact to the average lakeshore setback. Kluth inquired whether any variance would be required for the proposed deck. Gaffron stated the existing deck is being replaced Anderson stated behind the proposed garage there is a large section of driveway with a 12' by 12' dog kennel being located on it. Anderson indicated there should be some pictures included in d.e Planning Commission's packet which depict the dog kennel. Currently there is a six foot screen fence which screens the dog kennel from the street and from the adjoining property owner. Anderson stated they are proposing to remove that portion of the driveway and reduce the size of the dog kennel. Anderson indicated it is not located within the 0-75' setback. Mabusth inquired whether the existing storage shed is necessary. Anderson indicated the shed is stmeturathy sound and is necessary for storage. Anderson stated the deck at the present time is in a deteriorating condition and needs to be replaced for safety reasons. Anderson stated they have a limited amount of Ft0rage spare available in the house at the current time and are attempting to create additional storage space by adding the garage and second story but are still in need of the storage shed. Mrs. Anderson stated they utilize the shed for storage of their dock and boating equipment. Hawn inquired what the concrete slab located in the back of the house is for. Mrs. Anderson stated that 4 a patio. Anderson indicated the house is a walkout with a sliding glass door MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2001 This property is located in the LR-IC District, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, which has a one-half acre minimum lot size. The subject property consists of 21,174 square feet or .49 acre. The Applicants am proposing 40 percent hardcover in the 75-250' lakesbom setback where 42 percent current exists and 25 percent is allowed. The Applicants are also requesting a variance tv permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on the north side of the house to construct a new fence "=ding three and a half feet in height. The Applicants are proposing a six foot fencetwall system. Gaf6on stated the Applicants arc proposing to reduce the total hardcover on the property be removing part of the driveway that is not required for maneuvering vehicles. Staff is recommending the Applicant consider adding a tumaround area to eliminate backing out onto the roadway. Galfron stated this turraround area would result in less than 1 percent hardcover. The proposed building additions arc being placed over areas that currently contain hardcover. Gaffron indicated a final drainage plan has not been submitted, but there do not appear to be any issues relating to drainage at this time. Gaffron stated the retaining walls are necessary to prevent erosion. Anderson, stated they did not consider adding a turnaround area, noting they were attempting to reduce hardcover as much as possible. Anderson stated they currently back out of the driveway, which has not caused r„ty problems at the present time. Anderson commented they will consider the lition of a turnaround area. demon stated they are not proposing any changes to the drainage or elevation on their properly. Anderson indicated he will be supplying a foul drainage plan. Hawn inquired what the setback is between the adjacent property and the garage. Gaffron stated it is ten feet. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2001 height requirements, setbacks, and grading requirements for this district. The Applicants had nothing further to add to Staffs report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mabusth cautioned the Applicants that the chimneys being proposed may require a conditional use permit. Kluth moved, Berg Seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2660, Keith Waters & Associates, on behalf of Jeffrey and Leontyne Maxwell, 740 Willow Drive South, granting of a variance to lot area and lot width, subject to the new residence meeting all height requirements, setbacks, and grading requirements, and with the understanding no additional variances will be granted on this property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (416) #01-2661 THOMAS AND INGRID ANDERSON, 3550 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES, 7:12 p.m. — 7:32 p.m. Thomas and Ingrid Anderson, Applicants, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit a 20' x 27.5' garage addition. The addition includes a second story above the garage for additional living space within the house. Also proposed is replacement of a deck on the north side of the house W d replacement of a dog kennel The garage addition will be located over the driveway off the end of the house. A small retaining wall, approximately two feet in height, is proposed to be replaced along the side of the driveway. Gaffron staled the property is unique in that it has frontage to Lake Minnetonka on both the north side and south side. As a result, there are two 0-75' lakeshore setbacks that are included in the calculation for total allowed hardcover. PAGE /A/GA10 40,0fkfir" r-//-00. HARDCOVE,RjZALCULATION WORKSHEET Eytsk.j {� SETBACK EXISTING ZONE: HARDCOVER (CIRCLE ONE) -75' IN ZONE JOWR75.250' 250500' 500.1000' " A House x - S.F. IsnaN wieu, x S.F. x ` S.F. x S.F. B. Oarage x - S.F. 'C.. Driveway x /02— SF. -.. CO. A0. S! j'??G7 JA;dr /NC[HOFd �S:F. D. Sidewalk x S.F. x S.F. E. PatioOcek x S.F. x S.F. _ F. Landscape x S.F. Underlain x = S.F. By Plastic x - S.F. Or Fabric _ WCOOf cfNr. dY [AKE A /47 0. Other Soe r C k x $ F q e _ 9 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ZS8 SF. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 7.E0,1f S.F. B A + B 7Soo 1 x100 J. 44yo PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House x - S.F. L.Sth Width x - S.F. ._ x - S.F. ". c - ...S.F. B. Garage x - S.F. C. Driveway x` S.F. x - S.F. D. Sidewalx x - S.F. x - S.F. E. Patio/Deck x - S.F. .. x - S.F. F. Landscape _ x S.F. Underlain x - S.F. By Plastic Or Fabric 1 G. Other x S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE SF. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B A + B x 100 % IA16A/G . j-'V CR f 0A,� ION s/�.'���—�� HARDCOVECUIL.A' WOWhbK Li SACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 4S /I/0A fN 7S-250• 2S-590' ETB S00-1000' L[A/Sh t y ERTSITNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE Z A. House It-- Unath Width x Z , S.F. -SNbO S.F.-BW[K EDGES z = S.F.- B. Garage - x S.F. C. Driveway x - •.. S.F.-�' :. x = - S.F. D. Sid alit z _�S.F.-K5VSTnNE w, S.F. E. Patio/Deck- z _ S.F. S.F. F. Landscape x S.F. Underlain x e S.F. By Plastic. x 17 S.F.-BaosOMS Or Fabric- .._ . G. Other x S.F.-L. L4t TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S/ S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ - ' 7 97 4! S.F. B A + B x 100 % PROPOSED DCOVER IN ZONE x e - S.F. A. Home • - Length Width x x m e S.F. J S.F. :t71 ..x - S.F. 1 B. Garage x �_ S.r. '; is C C. DriveCvay - x S.F. x S.F. t D. Sidewa'k z S.F. x = S.F. `` ... E. Patio/Deck x x = m S.F. S.F. f ." r F. Landscape x m S.F. Underlain x = __'S.F. By Plastic x e S.F. ' Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - S.F. A e TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - % A ti 9 x 100 ......... 14 .. HARDCOVER CALCULATI .Vx;J1WSHEET /a-ao -nn A� FO ZONES (CIRCLE ONE) OJS' i-7%t�.. I50-500' '•C AXISMG_)jMRDC0VER IN ZONE x I S 3 8 S.F. -14005E t<aat wi t x = 12� S.F.-SHEp x 9S S. F.-ConC, AP01 x 14+44 = 13 S.F.-Kff$TOMC 4IALL-i B. Ove _ x O S.F.-PAIC14 rsOCi65 C. Driveway _ x = 2316 S.F. x SF D. Sidewalk x S,F-BRICK WAC x • 230 5.F.-inr. -WITmp' E. PatiolDeck x 203 S.F.-�^'c• SV.B-6 OC MOJS S.F. F. Landscape x 367-+92 459 S.F.-RaX c" PL 4' Underlain x = F8 ST-B^/tAFRi By Plastic x S.F. Or Fabric G. Other x = 20 S.F.-V -26 WN TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - S/ 4 6 b B S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE //� /0rJ * S.F. B A - B x 100 4c5- 3 6 COVER INZONX p. x = 1538 S.F.-H^_O-u$E uayt with PWA7-AD S.F.- ICFNOCL x 12 S.F.-SHED x 36 a s F-KEYSrO i �✓^ B. Omp 27.33 x 20.0- 547 S.F. F¢opoiED GA12ASE C. Driveway x = 12ZI ST='NEw•04IvCv, 96 L.r, x O.F w10E- _ fig—S.F.-RR, TIC WA D. Sidewalk _ K = 196 S F.,"" • "AW i5' Pp VSCD E. Patio/Deck x _ 209 S F -CeO IZ o_ _— ^^ N. 2",4 ON F. Landscape x 42 S F - PuKttL Underlain _ _ x _ _ - SF By Plastic x = Ig S.F-BOOLOERs Or Fabric 27 /lomf,f* ,yw10u5 40, G. Other l = ZA SF - A.01P.Mie TO AL HARDCOVER M ZONE - 4567 SF A ._ TOTAL PROPERV ONF�-t-' - 11,100 SF B A _ y By 0 M.iA y GARAGE fN-HT �LEy6Tdl`� H GAR ACog 6.5 DECK 1:1 I i u 'NEAtEae.H �E��u MAIN FLOOR pEcn A D D I T I o N P7�r F,WU e .w- lrvmn -ream - _ a� L� �b I n i. '�EdT 1-w AP7FA I'. 'l p� 2 _. f')IfGp I (c9 1 i - ,L4 0 fwyfir�4 2i" xmLl d �i uvt rvi Px`. 1 Ii Fh I{ r-026-z GJtA2 - - A.L tti oq, Ir+! " r 4b`-... L2 I .- CURRENT DRIVEv`IAY (PLANNED GARAGE) RUN DATE 12/27/00 BATCH 505 38 a8-117.23 34 0019 PROP ADDR 03570 NORTH SNORE OR OWNER NAME DONALD JEROME LAMONT TAXPAYER DONALD J LAMONT NAME/ADDR C/O BAD MARK LAMONT 555 HAMLINE AVE ST PAUL HIM 55116 38 05-117'�23 34 ORli ryc PROP ADDR 03598 HORN SHjMlE DR OWNER NAME L FEGERS A d ECERS TAXPAYER LOUIS FEGER AR LYN FE ERS NAME/ADDR 3518 IF RTWiMORE DRY WAYZATAA 55391 38 05-117.23 34 0055 PROP ADDR C3550 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME T C ANDERSON A I D ANDERSON TAXPAYER T C A I 0 ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 35SO NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55311 38 08-117-23 34 0062 PROP ADDR 03590 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME LOU A MARILYN E FECERS TAXPAYER LOU E MARILYN E TIGERS NAME/ADDR 3590 NORTH SNORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-217-23 34 0020 03560 NORTH SNORE OR WADE P DAVIS WADE P DAVIS 3580 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 3P 08-117-23 34 0025 0003R ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 8402 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARR NA 99006 38 08-117-23 34 0056 03597 NORTH SNORE DR S R A J S SUNDRY STEVEN R ■ JANINA S SUNIST 3587 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA HIM SS391 33 08-117 13 43 0008 03SID NORTH SHORE DR STEVEN M HART STEVEN M WART 3510 NORTH SNORE DR WAYZATA PH 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PACE 15 38 08-11 ` 23 310022 03590 NOR H WORE DR L i M FEOER 7� LOU A MAR N FEGERS 3590 NOR SNOR OR WAYZATA HIM 553 38 08-117-23 34 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED REGINALD A SPINDLER R A SPINDLER SPRING FARM 5402 BURROUGHS RD W DEER PARP WA 99006 38 OB-117-23 34 0059 01428 BALDUR PARK RD THE NELI ROTH TRUST KEW A LORI ROTH 1428 BALDUR PARK RV WAYZATA HN 55391 38 08.117-23 43 0009 03520 NORTH SNORE OR R E SWENSON A V L SWENSON ROBERT E A VALERIE L SWENSON 3520 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 30 OA-117-23 43 0010 35 OB-117-23 43 0011 PPOP ADOR 03530 NORTH SHORE OR 03540 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME ALBERT J ACXERMANN D M PETTIPIECE ET AL W/L EST TAXPAYER A J ACKERMANN DOLORES M PETTIPIECE TOTAL BATCH 5O5 00014 NAME/ADDR 3530 HIMTH SHORE DR 3540 NORTIISHORE OR WAYZATA IN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CA C^"^n MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 12 2oW Date: Mc�t1>l tJ�tkIjRONO Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Item Description: #2656 Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) - Update List of Exhibits A - Staff Memo of August 8, 1994 B - Selected Plan Excerpts: 1) 5-Year CIP ? • 7-20 +l,,, 7"2 2) Trunk Fee Schedule p. T- 2S+6- 7-3 1 Planning Commission Recommendation On February 21 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the SWMP. There were no public comments forthcoming. The Commissioners expressed some reluctance regarding approval of the Plan, partly due to their lack of prior input as well as the technical complexity of the document. Additionally, members raised questions related to implementation of the plan and how it will be accepted by the public once implementation begins. After discussion, Planning Commission voted 3-0-1 (Chair Hawn abstained) to recommend that Council proceed with adoption of the Plan, noting that the Commission has limited knowledge of the technical principles involved and is heavily relying on staff and the City's consultants in regards to the appropriateness and completeness of the Plan. Background Development of the SWMP has been a long process. None of the current Councilmembers were in office when the Plan was authori.ud in 1996. But discussions about the need to update the 1974 Surface Water Plan had been ongoing since the early 1990's. The Council authorized expenditure of $80,000 for city-wide topographic mapping in 1992-93, primarily because it was needed for the SWMP. The need for the Plan and the expected benefits are outlined in a 1994 memo to Council (Exhibit A). In July 1996 the Council authorized expenditure of approximately $108,000 for preparation of the SWMP, and later authorized an additional $20,000 to complete the wetland inventory process. A first draft of the SWMP was completed in 1997. However, the SWMP has been significantly reworked since the July 1997 draft, in response to comments and concerns raised by Council and staff during a number of work sessions held during the past 3 years. SWMP March 9, 2001 Page 2 Plan is Mandatory Aside from the benefits realized by having a plan in place, the City is mandated by Minnesota Statutes (I03B.235) to prepare and adopt a surface water management plan that is consistent with that of the Minn:haha Creek Watershed 'District, per Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) regulations, Minn Rules Chapter 8410. State statutes also require Met Council review and comment on local surface water plans. The City must revise its ordinances and CMP as necessary to implement the SWMP. Additionally, the SWMP provides the City with the necessary tools to become the defined Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) per Minn Rules Chapter 8420, which has been to date administered by the MCWD at Orono's request. Plan Objectives The general objectives of the SWMP are: • Preserve Orono's wetlands, streams and lakes, especially Lake Minnetonka. • Reduce capital expenditures needed to meet water quantity and quality standards. • Minimize existing flooding. erosion and sedimentation problems generated by surface flows. • Improve stormwater quality in waterbodies by maximizing the amount of areas available for treatment. • Protect groundwater quantity and quality by allowing for passive treatment and infiltration of stormwater. • Promote groundwater recharge by creating additional ponding areas. • Protect and enhance water recreational facilities and fish and wildlife habitat. • Preserve vegetation around stormwater detention areas by leaving them in a natural state, thereby reducing maintenance. The objectives of the Orono Surface Water Management Plan conform with the goals of the MC WD plan, and the Orono Plan conforms to all Regional, State and Federal requirements for local plans. SWMP March 9, 2001 Page 3 Plan Highlights Highlights of the Plan include: • Establishment •)f surface water management goals and policies in Chapter 2 • Discussion of Orono's physical environment in Chapter 3 • Technical background in Chanter 4 including: o Surface water system design considerations; relationships between land use and runoff quality/quantity; modeling of runoff rates, storage needs o Methods and systems for capture, conveyance and storage of runoff o Systems and design considerations for treatment of runoff • A new section on wetland management has been included (Chapter 5), discussing water quantity and quality impacts on wetlands; assessing the characteristics of 85 selected City wetlands in terms of stormwater susceptibility; suggesting strategies for wetland protection; and proposing a restoration and enhancement program for fourspecified wetlands, including a discussion of estimated costs and potential funding sources. • Chanter 6 discusses each of the 18 major drainage districts in detail, identifying areas with issues of concern in regards to water quantity and quality, and recommending specific actions or projects to address the identified problems. • Chapter 7 discusses implementation strategies: o Water quantity management system- the system of storm sewers, ditches, swales, emergency overflows and ponds to collect store and convey surface water. o Water quality management system- aholistic approach that requires waterquality monitoring, public education and involvement, and strategies for determining appropriate management alternatives for various development conditions, as well as a system of water quality ponds. A wide range of activities is suggested. noting that water quality management requires community cooperation. Note that hardcover management is only a very minorcomponent of this plan ... we will be conferring with the people at Bonestroo as to how a discussion of our hardcover standards can be added to the Plan text. o A cost estimate for completing the system is provided, including a 5-Fear Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) totaling approximately $2 million (see pages 7-20 thru 7- 25). Total long term cost of the system is expected to be around $I 1 million. o Methods for financing construction of the system are discussed, summarized as follows: SWMP March 9, 2001 Page 4 Activity System Financine Method New Development 1) Developer construction of system or components; and/or 2) Trunk Fee on a per -acre basis for regional system impacts, adjusted for land use type Expansion of Partial Trunk Fee based on impacts and site ability to obtain 60% Existing Structure nutrient removal ' Developed Areas 1) Direct assessment of contributing/benefitting propertics 2) Stormwater Utility Fee - an annual fee charged to all properties based on the amount of stormwater mnoff generated by the property A number ofgrant programs for surface water management activities or system construction are also identified. Chapter 8 includes a summary and recommendations for the Council's consideration. Appendices A thru I contain the data for each drainage area, proposed system parameters and cost estimates, wetland data, and a complete Surface Water System map. Aside from a few paragraphs that staff proposes be added (primarily in the introductory sections) to more clearly establish Orono's historic philosophy on stormwaler management as related to the protection of Lake Minnetonka, the Plan is complete. Items for Council Discussion Two significant topics appear to require further discussion by the Council prior to adoption of the Plan: Acceptance of the 5-Year CIP (refer to Pages 7-1 thm 7-25) The 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan includes the planning, design and construction of a number of stormwater management facilities including: a) construction of system improvements associated with new development on parcels expected to develop in the next 5 years; b) construction of system improvements in areas of Orono that are already developed; and c) implementation and/or construction of techniques or system improvements that are aimed at protection and/or enhancement of priority wetlands or Lake Minnetonka bays. SWMP March 9, 2001 Page 5 The 5-year CIP has a total price tag of approximately $2 million, a portion of which will be paid for by new development. Staff is relatively comfortable with this ambitious proposal; it will, however, require ongoing attention and a pro -active approachtoward project initiation and completion, as well as a clear plan for funding. Financial impacts could increase the time period for completion of the CIP. 2. Acceptance of the Trunk Fee Schedule for the various land use types (refer to pages 7-25 thru 7-30) Underthe proposed Plan, financing of stormwater facilities will be via a number of methods. Water quality and quantity projects for developing areas will be financed by Trunk Fees charged to the developer, which may involve creation of new facilities or expansion of existing systems. System improvements in developed areas may be by direct assessment of benefitted properties or by "Stonnwater Utility" fees. Funding grants from various state, federal or local agencies may also be available from time to time. While the establishment of a Stormwater Utility is left for future consideration and is not part of the SWMP, the Trunk Fee system is a key element of the Plan. Trunk Fee. The Trunk Fee is simply a fee charged to developers on a per lot or per acre basis, similar to the park fee. The numerical basis for the proposed Trunk Fee was devised based on 12 parcels City staff expects to be developed within the next 5 years. The cost of stormwater improvements needed to serve those parcels was estimated, and divided by the total acreage to get a cost per acre; this figure was then adjusted based on the type of land use, with the cost per acre increasing as density and surface runoff increases. The result is as shown in Table 7.20. Council must determine whether thf Trunk Fee schedule as presented is acceptable. Trunk Fee Impacts. Staff believes the reasoning behind the Trunk Fee is basically sound, but it has a potentially much higher impact on the development of low -density residential lots as compared to high -density lots; under the current proposal, a new 65 acre lot will pay $1 S75 as a stormwater trunk fee; but a new 5-acre lot will pay a $10,700 trunk fee. Although the trunk fee schedule charges the'Fi acre lot nearly twice as much as the 5-acre lot on a per -acre Inn is, the end result is that what may be perceived as the "environmentally friendly" 5-acre lot pays a much greater fee. This is primarily due to the added length of the conveyance system needed per contributing property, and the relatively smaller number of properties contributing to the cost of the planned local system (this is the same reason that municipal sewer costs so much more per home at rural densities than it does for urban densities). SWMP March 9, 2001 Page 6 While one might argue that a 5-acre lot in the upper watershed should have less impact on the lake than a''/l acre lot in the Shoreland, the way that 5-acre lot is managed can be a factor; 5 acres of fertilized, mowed lawn may contribute lots of phosphorus to surface waters, but an unfertilized, unmowed restored prairie situation might contribute relatively little phosphorus. The Equivalent Factor used in Table 7.20 is based on avemae runoff coefficients for the various land uses. Arbitrarily revising the Equivalent Factors to result in a desired fee per lot size would be one method of reducing the Trunk Fee impact on larger lots, but it might result in a fee structure that does not reflect the real cost of stormwater system construction, and forces small lot development to subsidize the costs of larger lot development... COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No action requested at this time. Council is requested to review the attached materials, and be prepared for a discussion of the topics of the 5-Year CIP and the Trunk Fees, as well as the S WMP in general, at your March 22 work session. �'XK. A TO: Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: August 8, 1994 SUBJECT: Benefits of Stormwater Planning Status of Development in Orono • Total land area of Orono is 10,200 acres including 1,750 acres wetland and 8,450 acres dry land. • Just over 4/5ths of Orono's total land area is zoned 2 acre or 5 acre minimum lot size. These rural zones are 60% developed, with potential for an additional 1,100 residential lots to be developed under the current zoning. • Slightly less than 1/5th of Orono's total land acreage is zoned 1/2 acre or 1 acre minimum lot size. This area is currently developed at 101 % of its zoned density due to pre-existing high density development, with a likelihood of topping out at 105- 110% of zoned density when all parcels are developed. • Overall, City is 75% developed. • Most additional development will be in rural, unsewered areas with final rural density (including wetland) of 3.2 acres per residential lot. • This low density tends to reduce the degree of stormwater impact, yet there are stormwater impacts. As each local subwatershed becomes fully developed, the residences downstream experience stormwater flows previously neither encountered nor anticipated. Current Stormwater Controls • Since the 1994 subdivision code, Orono has required each developer (typically only for subdivisions of three to five lots or larger) to construct stormwater facilities such as ponds and swales to handle the additional runoff created by the subdivision. • Whether the location of such facilities makes sense in the overall scheme of things has not always been clear. Little attempt has been made in the past to define how all area stormwater facilities interact or to define their cumulative effects. • While recent subdivisions (within the last three years) have made use of "wet" NURP ponds, subdivisions prior to that time constructed "dry" ponds, which may or may not be capable of retrofitting to accomplish the dual tasks of stormwater quantity and quality control. Memo - Stormwater Planning August 8, 1994 Page 2 • Subdivisions more than ten years old generally have minimal or no stormwater controls. These subdivisions comprise perhaps 90% of the existing development in the City, and incidently are where our existing stormwater problems occur. The City's current stormwater "system" is mainly a collection of neighborhood swales and culverts that direct runoff away from where it can do property damage, into naturally occurring drainageways, wetlands and lakes. However, the constructed facilities are often not on easements, are old and not uniform in design capacity or materials, and most do nothing to enhance water quality but in fact may act to detract from it (i.e. the storm sewer from Forest Arms lane adding tons of sediment next to the Forest Arms joint use dock). Benefits of Stormwater Planning One might argue that the City has reached 75 % of its ultimate zoned development with little or no stormwater system construction, making use of existing wetlands and drainageways. However, that development has in fact created a significant number of stormwater quantity problems for property owners downstream, which are, it seems increasingly more often brought to the City's attention for a solution. Furthermore, although Orono has been at the forefront of wetland protection, State and Federal standards will no longer accept the previously widely held notion that wetlands can be used as storm sewers. Henceforth, stormwater flows directed towards wetlands will have to first be pretreated in retention ponds. Knowing the necessary sizes and locations for such ponds and connecting drainageways will ultimately ensure that runoff water flowing into our area lakes, especially Lake Minnetonka, is of a quality to enhance rather than detract from those water bodies. There are a number of additional benefits of creating a stormwater management plan: • Development of the plan will allow the City to analyze needs and establish goals for stormwater management. • By analyzing current and future stormwater needs on a subwatershed-by-subwatershed basis, an efficient plan can be created that will minimize the public capital expenditures needed to control stormwater runoff. • The obvious benefits of controlling stornwater runoff include: Minimizing flooding impacts, wish concurrent reductions in erosion and sedimentation. Improving the quality of stormwater that enters lakes and water bodies. Memo - Stormwater Planning August 8, 1994 Page 3 Enhancement and protection of wetlands as well as fish and wildlife habitat. - Promotion of groundwater recharge. - Preservation and improvement of water and wetland recreational capabilities. • A comprehensive stormwater plan will provide a factual technical basis for requiring stormwater controls and facilities to be constructed by developers. It will provide the data necessary for proper sizing, location and design of stormwater controls to accomplish the City's stormwater management goals. • A comprehensive stormwater plan will provide a technical basis to support and justify the collection of stormwater impAct feeEfrom developers and stormwater afilLty. fees from residents and businesses should the City wish to proceed with such programs. • A comprehensive stormwater plan will detail the stormwater controls that exist and the scope and magnitude of additional controls needed under expected uses. Additionally, the plan will allow for easy manipulation and system redesign if uses change (for instan_e if areas of the City are rezoned in the future). • A comprehens,,L stormwater plan will provide accurate estimates of the cost to provide the needed controls, and will define and analyze alternatives for financing implementation of the plan. Plan Structure A comprehensive stormwater plan for the City will likely be structured as two pars, a Management PIP and a Technical section. The Management Plan section would include the following. • Detailed stormwater management goals and policies. • A review of government regulations. • Recommendations for prioritization and implementation of the plan. • Cost estimates for plan implementation. • Financing alternatives and a capital improvement program. • Requirements for new developments. Memo - Stormwater Planning August 8, 1994 Page 4 • Operation and maintenance policies. • Educatit program. The technical section will provide an extensive technical background in regard to stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, and protection of wetlands and lakes for each subwatershed, and will include: • Detailed mapping and description of the storm sewer/drainageway system and ponding areas including a definition of major and minor drainage districts. • Ordinary High Water Levels and required amount of storage in each pond will be established. • The necessary sizes and capacities of existing and proposed links in each part of the system will be determined by computer modelling to analyze stormwater flows under various conditions. Existing wetlands, ponds and water bodies will be identified and classified to determine their capability to enhance water quality. Additional quality/quantity facilities will be proposed at key locations in the watersheds where necessary. • Phosphorus removal efficiency will be an integral part of the design plan, as phosphorus is a limiting factor in Lake Minnetonka water quality. Ancillary Benefits An additional result of the processes used to analyze Orono's subwatersheds and model stormwater flows, will be the development of layers of computerized trapping information such as topography, land use, zoning, etc. Staffs ability to provide maps for various purposes will be greatly enhanced. Similarly, the availability of information will reduce the future costs of designing and developing road, sewer and stormwater projects. Finally, the City's creditability with the general public as well as developers will be sustained and enhanced by providing a proactive, well thought out, comprehensive approach to stormwater management. ch Table 7.13 System Costs by Drainage District i Dr'a)pagA . bisfhct SysteM Costs ..'Dratkage District 7. :;System Costs Browns Bay $353,000 Maxwell Say $263.000 Carman Bay $221,000 I Mooney Lake $51.000 Crystal Bay $23.000 North Arm $524,000 Forest Lake $615.000 painter Greek $1.220,000 French Lake $656,000 Peavey Lake $21l.000 Hadley Lake $95,000 Stubbs Bay $1,090,000 Lafayette Ba; $100,000 Smith Bay $21,000 Lake Classsn $2.097,000 Tanager Lake $1,237,000 Long Lake $1,971,000 West Arm $64.000 TOTAL $10,012,000 Proposed runoff storage ponds and water quality ponds are considered to be part of the system. Excavation, outlet structures, and other costs associated with these ponds are included in the cost estimates. Details on the runoff storage ponds can be found in Appendices C & D, and information on water quality ponds ;s in Appendix E. The general location of each these ponds is sh wn on system mops. .C7.5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Another primary objective of the Orono SWMP is to create a five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to layout the surface water management system in ... ovements that will be needed over the next five years. Another important aspect of the SWMP is to provide information on the costs associated with installing .he system. The identification of system improvements to be completed over the next Fve years is driven by three primary factors: or/ of Orono 7-70 Ore?Surface Wafer Management Man ynO&FIMbaoo 1. Construction of system improvements associated . Ath new development on twelve parcels identified by City staff as those parcels that are likely to be developed in this period 2. Construction of system improvements in areas of Orono that are already developed 3. Implementation tend/or construction of techniques or system improvements that are aimed at protection and/or enhancement of priority wetlands or lake bays 7.5.1 CIP Activities The' in this section summarize the costs associated with ca,.,ral expenditures, construction costs, and land acquisition costs to get surface water management features "in the ground". Most of the projects can be described as either water quality ponds or stormwater sewer trunk pipes. The information provided in the wetland restoration section j5.61 of this report is also summarized for CIP planning pi,,poses. The City has also identified actions, outside infrastructure construction, that should be addressed during this CIP period. These potential projects are considere•.-1'� be priority projects and are found in Section 7.5.2. Water Quality Orono's system has been ciesioned using a regional approach to maximize the efficiency cf the system and keep , 's low. The projects listed in Table 7. 4 represent the construc, on of ponds for water quality improvement. The location of these ponds can be determined on the system map. Land acquisition costs are included in the figures below and are based on an estimated cost of $20,000 per acre. Financing for these projects will be obtained from to mk fees as described in Section 7.6. caY of Oro 7-21 Aa? Swrace Water Management Man znwkt evww Table 7.14 Water Quality Projects for Developing Areas •"Pond �''� .•. Costs(E) A '' ,Pond ,"r,:::Costs(S)9,..` FL-Q13 26,000 NA-Q2.3 19.000 LC-Q7 15,000 PC-Q31 11.000 PC-Q23 17,000 LL-02.1 13,000 FR-09 13,000 TL-031 9,000 FR-029 27,000 LL-052.1 15.000 TL-013 140,000 LC-Q11.3 21.000 TOTAL $328,000 Water Quantity The projects listed in Table 7.15 represent installation of trunk sewer pipes and outlets for water quantity ponds, except as noted for one overland drainage swale. Under description is the subdistrict in which the pipe or pipes are located. The location of these feotures can be determined on the system map. Storm sewer easement costs are not included in these figures. Financing for these projects will be obtained from trunk fees as described in Section 7.6. Table 7.15 Water Quantity Projects for Developing Areas D1�sioNpfion_ ''�COatsj) Do's ' . Costs.(S)' r .-. CS-1 10,000 FL-13 52,000 NA-2 33,000 LC-7 3,000 PC-33 (2)' 30.000 PC-31 35,000 PC-20 (Overland Swale) 3,000 FR-9 (2)' 96.000 LC-17 6.000 FR-29 TOTAL 28,000 $311 Ind'C0te5 ihpl IWO pipes w oe InY led in these W13 bekts. Cosh rellects itw lotol tar tx,m city of Orono 7-22 Draft Surface Water Management Ran 7 Wetlands These projects have been discussed in greater detail in Section 5.6. The data below shows anticipated costs for each project. Land acquisition is typically not required, but coordination with landowners is highly recommended. Costs below include surveys, design, coordination, permits, and the restoration. Financing for wetland restoration projects could come from stormwater utility fees and/or grants and cost -sharing. Table 7.16 Wetland Restoration Projects .._Wetland _ t5ost (Sj i� YVetlagd - .i. Cost PC-L-31 62,000 PC-M-31 35.000 LL-G-26 50,000 SS-E-31 65,000 TOTAL $212,000 7.5.2 Priorities Coordination with City staff has yielded the following preliminary list of priority wetlands and lake bays. Table 7.17 Priority Resources —Pdorlty, Wateibodies. ""Priprl Wetlatld- FOesforation'Stte`s . Stubbs Bay PC-L-31 Carman Say PC-M-31 Forest Lake LL-G-26 Tanager Lake SB-E-31 The City has also identified ponds and water quality projects, not directly related to new development, which should be pursued in conjunction with the 5-year CIP. They are listed in Table 7.18 by site location within their respective drainage district. The level of priority is noted in parentheses. Included are ponds to be constructed, ravine stabilization projects, installation of pipes, and location frr, water quality techniques in roadside settings. city of av v 7-23 Omit SuAace Wafer Flanayemenr Plan ymp/amentabon Table 7.18 Priority CIP Projects d'- Description. Costs':'., Despriptlon„ Costs' (Pr)odtaaLeve)) (Sjr (Prio)ifyLevel) Carman Bay Stubbs Bay . r Pond CB-03 (1) 19,000 Pond S3-Q16 (1) 15.000 Roadside techniques along Ravine stabilization in Blaine Ave in subdistricte 9,000 subdistrict LC-23 (I) 108.000 CB-0 and CB-2 (11) Pond CB-Q9 (1) 20,000 Pond LC-Q1000 (1) 33,000 Forest Lake .[=•,. Pond SB-09.1 (11) 110,000 Ravine stabilization in 63,000 Ravine stabilization in 135,000 subdistrict FL-19 (1) subdistrict SB-9 (11) Pond FL-015 (1) 18,000 Pond SB -05 (11) 13,000 Roadside techniques in 18,000 Ravine stabilization in 68,000 subdistrict FL-0 (11) subdistrict SB-5 (11) Ravine stabilization in subdistrict FL-20 (1) 108,000 Pond SB-Q11 (11) 23.000 Maxwell Bay - Roadside techniques along 30,000 Bayside Road (11) Pond MB•Q7 (11) 47.000 Roadside techniques along 115,000 Tonkawa Road (11) North Arm - Tanager Lake - - Ravine stabilization in subdistrict NA-0, extending 72.000 at Study flow top of sub - ow at 19,0002 SW from node 596 (1) district node 9 (I) Pond NA-139 (1) 47,000 Roadside techniques along 27.000 Browns Road S (11) Ravine stabilization at north Roadside techniques along end of subdistrict NA-0, near 72,000 Shoreline Drive (11) 27.000 pond NA-08000 (11) Ravine stabilization at north 72 000 TOTAL 1,188,000 end of subdistrict NA-0 (11) For polls, coat. induce land smuisition coati, For roadside projects. cost am estansles only based on S30 per liner loot'. for ravine slablumbon. cost. aro saturates only t .nd on SM par linear foot* r Study cost. of Sa0pg per year for Four years, plus inNal purc:.ase of sampling epuip"ot $3,000 per linear root cosnt represent an average over Me Ieagul of Me project see Water quality ponds in developed areas, ravine stabilization projects, roadside technique projects, and water quality studies are typically funded by stormwater utility fees, and could possibly be supplemented by grants or cost -sharing arrangements Table 7A9 CIP Summary CIP Objective- Total Costs Sy4MP Implementation Strategies' 136,100' Water Quality - New Development $326,000 Water Quantity - New Development $302,000 Wetland Restoration Projects $212.000 Priority Projects - Developed Areas $1.188,000 TOTAL $2.028,000 I Found In sections 7.2 ord 7.3 e Does not include unknown costs in Tables 7.4.7.5.7.10 ,c9.6 SYSTEM FINANCING It is the desire and inter of the City's leadership to establish an equitable and ta,. _,—' am to fund infrastructure for both new development in the City and for areas that are already developed. The City Council has decided that as a matter of policy, the residents of Orono should not have to pay for system improvements associated with new development. On the other hand, residents of Orono should bear some responsibility for operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the existing system, as well as improvements aimed at priority wetlands and waterbodies. Funds for some activities in the CIP are available through grants or cost -sharing. See Table 7.22. Ti le timeframe for improvements depends on development and future MUSA expansions. Storm sewers and water quality improvements should be constructed and assessed as development occurs. orya ppp 7-I5 As1t51uAce Warr Management Ran IMP1157741"taawt Education and water quality monitoring programs are to be financed by the City and potentially through grants/cost sharing opportunities. 7.6.1 New Development New development requires construction of ponds and pipes to accommodate increased runoff. The City of Orono requires the developer of a parcel to pay for infrastructure needed to minimize impact associated with development of that parcel. The mechanism to have developers pay for surface water management features is through a one-time "trunk fee". In general, trunk fees are calculated by dividing the total cost of system construction, by the number of developable acres the system will serve. However, the City's approach to applying trunk fees is to do so in five-year increments to minor the typical CIP period. Therefore. the trunk fees proposed in this SWMP reflect estimated system construction costs associated with the development of twelve parcels that staff has identified as likely to be developed in this five-year CIP period. See Table 7.20. The land uses projected for these 11 parcels are representative of the type of development that may occur in Orono in the foreseeable future. Trunk fees will be revisited sometime in year four or five of this period to determine if adjustments are necessary for the next CIP period. It is anticipated thit the majority of development in the City will be in the form of 2-acre single-family residential (SFR) parcels. Therefore, 2-ocre SFR parcels were designated as the standard by which an "equivalent factor" was determined for each of the other types of development, as shown in Table 7.20. As such, the 2-acre SFR has an equivalent factor of 1.0. ary of Orono 7.26 Oran Surface Wafer Management Plan JMPknW7tR&W Other land uses generate runoff at rates that reflect their respective amounts of impervious surface. For instance, on the some two acres that may have been used for on home under the 2-acre SFR, there would be four homes and ar the '/2-ocie SFR. The four homes/driveways/walks/etc. would generate a proportionately higher amount of runoff. At the some time, one home under the 5-acre SFR acres is going to generate considerably less runoff. The following equation illustrates how the "base" trunk fee was computed. Rest of Improvements for 12 parcel! —_ -- = Base Trunb Pee Number of Acres In the 12 parcels We Trunk Pee = MGT0 Par sere Therefore, an equivalent factor, based on accepted runoff coefficients (see Section 4.1.3), was assigned 10 each land use. The base fee of $2,670 per acre was then multiplied by the pertinent equivalent factor to determine the trunk fees for each of the land use designations. Table 7.20 Trunk Fees Per Acre, Adjusted Per Land Use Adjusted Water I -Wat@T Land Use Equivalent Fee, per Quality Q��� Factor Acre ($) Trunk Fee' T:a P Is acre SFR 1.48 3,950 1780 P21751 acre SFR 1.32 3,525 1590940 2 acre SFR 1.00 2.670 1205 1470 5 acre SFR 0.8 2.140 985 1180 CorninerciaVindustrial 2.4 6.410 2885 3525 kSA of total bunk', r .:. $ per okra: ° S5%of total hunk Poe. N $ oer ocre The justification for charging a trunk fee is that a regional system will be developed to manage water quantity and qualify. The proposed system of ponds and pipes has been designed to take ultimate future development, anticipated land uses, and site characteristics into account. oryofostwo 7.27 pyT Surf" WOW Msmgerrrasr Ran Impkmc»dean So while certain features of a regional system may not be physically located on a given development site, they still convey, treat, and/or store run,-)ff from that site. 7.6.2 Expansion of Existing Structure Many expansion projects take place in fully developed areas and therefore don't require new pipes and/or ponds. But, because of increased runoff from increased impervious area, there is additional pressure on existing pipes and/or ponds. In fact, it is likely that the water quality treatment part system could not accommodate additional runoff. Therefore, the property owner should be responsible for water quality treatment. As part of the overa.l system, the City intends to update and/or expand wale., quality treatment. The equitable way for a property owner to bear the expense for his or her portion of the system upgrade is to pay a portion of the water quality trunk fee based on the square footage of the expansion. See Table 7.21. Table 7.21 Water Quality Trunk Fee Schedule 'y _ Fee Schedule Area of Expert Residential' - :�ommllndu(it=-•,; f�Olon- 0 - 1000 square feet Y. trunk fee = $460 %, trunk fee = $955 1001 - 2000 square feet M trunk fee ='$330 :$ trunk fee = $1935 > 2000 square feet Full trunk fee = $1365 Full trunk fee = $2886 Average resioenlbl water quoey trunk tee 1s $13115 per c:•e: tees bases on INN floure Commercial/lnd strlal water qua0ry trunk tee Ii $ 2aa5 U' acre: fee%boseo on Mk figure There will also be instances of expansion to private homes or businesses that are situated in lakefront settings or adjacent to wetlands. In many cases, properties in this setting discharge runoff directly into the lake or wetland- otyotra n 728 OraftSUAace Water Management Plan !mp/ementaton While this type of drainage may not tax existing infrastructure. it does put a burden on the water quality of nearby lakes or wetlands. So treatment of runoff will be required on -site using traditional or alternative methods. Be it a lakefront setting or not, the City will require that treatment of runoff from an expansion project site be coordinated as demonstrated in Figure 7.3. Is the structure situated in a lakefront settir 7 Water quality treatment is required. 60% nutrient removal is desired. City staff will determine which, if any, treatment techniques are suitable. Water quality trunk fees accepted in lieu of% removal not .,otained. See Table 7.21 7.6.3 Developed Areas YES I I NO Water quality trunk fees apply. See Table 7.21 Figure 7.3 Water Quality Requirements - Expanslon of Existing Structure Maintaining and updating the existing infrastructure will continue to be needed for developed areas. And it should be noted that -.s system features for new developments come on line they become part of the expanding existing infrastructure. The current assessment policy of the City is to finance storm drainage facilities through a special assessment against benefiting properties. All land within a drainage area is considered to be benefiting since all land contributes runoff to the surface water system. Ory of Orono 7-29 Draft Surface Water Management Plan ImpWnentanon The City is evaluating the feasibility of developing and initiating a "stormwater utility". A stormwater utility, as being considered, would come in the form of an ongoing fee to residential and commercial property owners. The funds generated from this fee would be used to upgrade and maintain the existing system. As with the trunk fee described earlier, utility rates are based on land use. Accordingly, rates for commercial, industrial, and high -density residential areas would be higher than for low - density residential areas because these areas typically have more impervious area, which increases the amount and rate of runoff, which result in the need for larger storm sewer pipes. Runoff from parking areas in commercial and industrial areas also generally contains a significantly higher amount of pollutants. This is an additional factor to consider in determining assessment rates for water qualify improvements. 7.6.4 Grants There are a number of opportunities to obtain funding. typically in the form of cost -sharing, from various state and federal agencies, and occasionally from private foundations. Table 7.22 presents a few of th a better-known grants available from certain agencies: it is not ,ntended to be a comprehensive list. It should be noted, that while some of these grants are not intended to fund construction of pipes and ponds, they can contribute to the City's overall surface water management efforts by improving habitat, educating system users, and promoting innovative techniques. Th: amount of funds available, specific project objective and/or cost -share requirements vary between grant programs and, to some extent, from year to year. Ctty of Orono 7-30 Drag Surface Wafer Management Plan rmplementa0on Table 7.22 Grant/Cost Sharing Opportunities Name of GrirnY,Progtatii� '„�.-ProJeet O.bJectNas Met Council Local Water Resources Management Plan Waterbody / wetland assessment, i ordinance development MetroEnvironment Partnership In the ground water quality efforts, Sy, ,•'.:cation prog•arns BWSR Challenge Grant Watershed planning ,"CA Clean Water Partnership / Section 319 Water quality and habitat improvement Feedlot Grants p Reduce feedlot runoff impacts DNR' Metro Greenway Naturai resource inventories, greenway corridor planning 1 —JI '{I Community Environmental Partnership Public awareness materials, clean-up - projecta J ' •� 0008eNadOn Partners enhancement, research/surveyp r projHtatects proects MCWD Cost sharing and in -kind agreements Water quality monitoring The River Network Watershed Assistance Grant Water quality and habitat improvement Audubon Society Watershed Stewardship Program Public awareness, landowner coordination, easements US Fisn &Wildlife North American Wetlands Conservation Act: Long-term conservation of wetlands and SerWce 1. Standard Grants Program, associated uplands through habitat 2. Small Grants Program protection, restoration, or enhancement. EPA Several programs addressing water quality, flooding, habitat, etc ' ONR has roverol m" gront progoms that my pertain to Mir SWMP city of 0m, Draft 5urcace Wafer Management Man 731 lmple—caeon (:)I'a1u saFETINO MAR 1 2 2WO CIIY Uf ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 12, 2001 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Gregory A. Gappa LK/lA Public Services Director's Repon 71tte Director of Public Services Orono Orchards Sanitary Sewer Change Order Nl, Hamm Sewer This item was intended to be added to the June 28, 1999 Council meeting as an agenda revision. We just discovered that this item was not added to the agenda for approval when we were looking for a signed copy of the Change Order for project closeout. This change ordet is to add the Hamm sewer service to the Orono Orchards sewer project. This work was completed in 1999 and has been paid for by Mr. Hamm. We are recommending Council approval of this change order. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Change Order Number 1, Orono Orchards Sanitary Sewer project in the amount of $50,678.50 to Widmer Inc. for installation of the Hamm Sanitary Sewer service. Bonestroo ( 0E An 11:6 Assodates (n(Ine[u 6 Mrnlletll a . City of 0rorw, 2750 Kelly Pkwy, PO Box 66C ystal Bay. MN, 55323 Date June 17 19 attiactor. Widmer Inc, 4230 Cmekview Circle PO Box 219 St Bomfactus, MN, 55375 and American Casualty Company of Reading - PA, 222 S 911, St , Mpts, MN, 55440 Bond No 190 544914 CHANGE ORDER NO. I ORONO ORCHARD SANITARY SEWER BRAFile No 139-98-101 Description of \York Provide sewer SeMicc to the Hamm property Contract Unit Total No. Stem Unit Quantity Price Amon,' Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer 1 8' PVC swulary sever, SDR 35, 0'-g' deep LF 230 S36.00 $8.28000 2 8' PVC sanitary sewer, SDR 35, 8'-10 deep LF 120 536 00 $4,320 00 3 8' PVC sanitary sewer, SDR 35. Id-12' deep LF 135 $3600 $4,960,00 4 8' PVC sanitary sever. SDR 35, 12'-14' deep LF 15 $3600 $54000 5 4' diameter sanitary MH, 8' deep, including k.1642-B casting FA 4 51,500.00 S6,0D000 6 MH depth greater than 8deep LF 6 $100.00 S600 00 7 8" g 4" PVC or HDPE compatible service wye branch 4 FA 3 $75 00 $215 00 8 4" PVC service pipe in place, SDR 26 LF 60 $8.00 $48000 9 improved pipe foundation in 6" increment depth LF 200 S2 00 5400 00 10 Mechanical trench compaction LF 500 $0 25 5125 00 I I Closed circuit TV inspection LF 500 $0.50 523000 12 Connect to existing manhole EA 1 311,50000 51,50000 Tout Pact I - Sanitary Sewer 527,38000 Contract Unit Total No. Item Unit Qua. city Price Amount Part 2 - Restoration 13 Remove bituminous pavement SY 950 S075 S71250 14 CO.. cscavAtWo(EV) CY 400 37.50 S3,00000 15 Aggregate base, Class 5, 100%crushed TN 630 $10.00 $6.50000 16 Type 31 bituminous base coarse TN 120 $30.00 S3,60000 17 Type 41A bituminous westing course TN 90 331.00 f2 79000 IS Geourctile Filter SY 1030 SI.00 31.05000 19 Bituminous material for lack coal GL 100 $001 SL00 20 Bituminous driveway restoration SY 90 $10.50 S94500 21 Sodding, roll 4' topsoil SY 1300 S3.00 $3.900.00 22 Ension control fence LF 300 S 00 S600.00 Taal Pan 2 - Restoration S23,098.50 Total Pan I - Sanitary Sewer $27,580 00 Total Pan 2 - Restoration $23.099 50 Total Base Bid S50,678.50 rw'wcirsnI os Original Contract Amount pre%sous Change Orders '1 his Change Order Re%lsed Contract Amount (including this change order) Recommended for Approval by BoNF.5FROO, RO&ENE, ANDERLYK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Approved by Contractor: WIDMER, INC. `' may► .. llxnu t.annae{nf Hondina Company lbnesrrou & Ataoe. Darcy Approved by Owner: CITY OF ORONO $424.713.50 S0.00 $50,679.50 S475,392.00 T f ni twit tAFETINO MAR 12 20M REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION t:u Y ur ORONO DATE: March 12, 2001 ITEM NO.: D Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Gregory A. Gappa Public services's Directors Report Tale Director of Public services Item Description: No Parking Zone East of Noerenberg The Council recently approved the installation of "No Parking Vehicles with Trailers, Tow Away Zone" signs for the area east of the Noerenberg Bridge. These signs are necessary because of traffic safety problems and boating safety issues in the Noerenberg Channel caused by boaters picking up vehicle drivers in the channel. This situation is the result of overflow parking from the Maxwell Bay Landing. Hennepin County requires approval of a Council resolution before No Parking Signs are installed on County Roads in a City. A resolution was sent to the County requesting installation of these signs. We have received a letter from Hennepin County with some concerns regarding the "discriminatory" nature of prohibiting parking for vehicles with trailers while allowing regular vehicle parking. The reason for this decision, to allow regular vehicle parking, is that historically there has been limited parking occurring in this area for purposes such as fishing in the Noerenberg Channel and use of the Noerenberg Gardens County Park. This regular vehicle parking has not created the safety concerns associated the recent intense vehicle with trailer parking, so we did not want to prohibit this option. City staff has discussed this situation with Jim Grube from Hennepin County. The County may be willing to reconsider their position if more detailed findings of traffic safety concerns are included in the Council resolution. We have revised the original resolution to include more findings regarding the traffic safety concerns associated with the vehicle with trailer parking. The other less desirable option that the County would accept would be to prohibit all vehicle parking in this area. We are recommending approval of the attached revised resolution requesting prohibition of vehicle with trailer parking. This resolution will then be sent to the County for their consideration. 7 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the resolution requesting that Hennepin County install and maintain "No Parking Vehicles with Trailers - Tow Away Zone"signs on both sides of County Road 51 from the Noerenberg Bridge to I,500 feet east of the County Road 511 County Road 84 intersection; and on both sides of County Road 84 from the County Road 511 County Road 84 intersection to 1,500 north of the intersection. This resolution also requests that parking for vehicles without trailers continue to be allowed in the areas that are posted for "No Parking Vehicles with Trailers - Tow Away Zone" A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON COUNTY ROAD 51 & COUNTY ROAD 84 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal organization existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City"; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has jurisdiction over County Road 51, also known as North Shore Drive; and County Road 84. also known as Old Crystal Bay Road; and WHEREAS, the City and Hennepin County have concerns regarding traffic safety on the County Roads and boater safet%, in the Noerenberg Channel, caused by vehicles with trailers parking along County Road 51 east of the Noerenberg Bridge, and along County Read 84 north of the County Road 51 intersection; and WHEREAS, this parking o. vehicles with trailers is the result of overflow from the Maxwell Bay boat landing; and WHEREAS, boats are being launched at thr Maxwell Bay boat landing, and when the parking lot is full, vehicles with trailers are parking along the County Roads cart of the Noerenberg Bridge. All of the other roads in the vicinity of the landing are posted "No Parking". therefore this is the closest available parking: and WHEREAS, this parking is creating a boating safety hazard as boaters are picking up the vehicle dri vets in the Noerenberg Channel at the County Road 51 bridge. In order to pick up the vehicle drivers on the east channel bank. the southbound boaters that are coming from the Maxwell Bay boat landing are crossing the channel and conflicting with northbound boaters in the channel creating a boating safety hazard. WHEREAS, this parking of vehicles with trailers is creating a traffic safety hazard as these combination vehicles are long and not easily maneuverable. Parallel parking of these combination vehicles is difficult and results in the obstruction of traffic on the County Roads as these vehicles with trailers are maneu•: ered and parked. WHEREAS, this parking of vehicles with trailers results in increased pedestrian traffic as the drivers are walking from the parked vehicles to r id from the Noerenberg C hannel for Page I of 2 i pickup and drop off by the boats in the channel. This pedestrian traffic is hazardous as the pedestrians are forced to walk close to moving traffic, for long distances, because of the large number of vehicles with trailers parked along the road shoulder. WHEREAS, the vehicles with trailers traveling from the parking area to the Maxwell Bay boat landing need to make a J turn along the County Roads as there is not a convenient alternate route to return to the boat landing. WHEREAS, limited numbers of vehicles without trailers have historically been parking along the County Roads in this area for purposes such as fishing in the Noerenberg Channel or use of the Noerenberg Gardens Hennepin County Park. This limited parking has not resulted in the traffic and boating safety concerns caused by the intense vehicle with trailer parking from the Maxwell Bay boat landing overflow situation NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS THEREBY RESOLVED, that based on tratfc and boating safety concerns, the City requests that Hennepin County install and maintain "No Parking Vehicles with Trailers - Tow Away Zone"signs on both sides of County Road 51 from the Noerenberg Bridge to 1,500 feet east of the County Road 51 / County Road 84 intersection; and on both sides of County Road 84 from the County Road 51/ County Road 84 intersection to 1,500 north of the intersection. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS THEREBY RESOLVED, that based on the fact that there are no significant traffic safety concerns, the City requests that parking for vehicles without trailers continue to be allowed in the areas that are posted for "No Parking Vehicles with Trailers - Tow Away Zone' Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held March 12, 2001. ATTEST: Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Hennepin Coun November 13, 2000 Mr. Greg Gappa Director of Public Services City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Request for Parking Restriction Along Cory Road 51 Dear Mr. Gappa: Recently you transmitted to Hennepin Count) a copy of City Council Resolution No. 4519 which requests that Hennepin County install "No Pa-tiag Vehicles with Trailers -Tow Away Zone" signs along both sides of County Road 51 (North SSxe Drive), between the Noerenberg Bridge and County Road 84. In the resolution, it is stated : at boating conflict occurs in the Noerenberg Channel when boaters traverse the channel on f:e wrong side when picking up vehicle drivers who park their vehicles and trailers along County Rc A 51, then proceed to the channel for pickup. While I understand the goal of eliminating the : )sting conflict via the elimination of vehicle/trailer parking along County Road 51, I consider the ;-ohibition of vehicle/trailer parking to be discriminatory because the vehicle/trailer corn -:-nations can be parked at roadside just as single vehicles can be parked. Hennepin County's resp..nsibility to area motoists, pedestrians and bicyclists is to assure the safety of County Road 51 users. The prohibition of ; _ ing along County Road 51 behveen the Noerenberg Bridge and County Road 84 woul- enhance the safety of the County Road 51 users and would he supported by the County. I recomme-" the city consider the implications of parking prohibition as a safety enhancement for the Cc _ .ty Road users and boaters using the Noerenberg Channel. �Sinncc-errely James N. GruE. , Director Transportation Department cc: Vern Genzlinger Tom Johnson Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive FegcW papr Medina, MN 55340-5421 (763) 745-7500 FAX: (763) 478-4000 TOO: (763) 475-4030 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 9, 2001 ITEM NO: 9 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moone City Ado Nstratoes Title City Administrator h2l tt Repon Item Description:Snowmobile Access -Coffee Channel Area As the Council has recently discussed, the desire of snowmobilers to access the various portions of Lake Minnetonka becomes problematic when the channels have unsafe ice or open water. During the weekend of March 3 and 4, due to unsafe ice conditions in the Coffee Channel, the Water Patrol was prohibiting snowmobilers from using the channel. As a result, the snowmobilers began using a City -owned right-of-way lane new the channel as an alternate route. The rit :of -way lane is very narrow -approximately 15 feet wide. There are homes on each side of the lane --one located 3 feet from the lane, the other with a deck adjacent to the lane. The homeowners have reported that over 200 snowmobiles used the lane during the weekend. They have sent letters requesting the City to close the lane to snowmobilers for both noise and safety reasons. The letters are attached. This is a difficult and complex issue, for which a long tens solution that balances the interests of the homeowners and the snowmobilers, as well as the public safety agencies, will require substantial time, effort, and creativity. In the short-term, we need to determine how best to address the concerns of the neighbors, while taking into account the practical consequences of the possible solutions. From staff s perspective, the two competing interests are the concerns of the homeowners regarding noise and safety, and the concerns of the Water Patrol regarding the safety of the snowmobilers. The third interest that drives a wedge between these two competing interests is the desire of the snowmobilers to continue to access the various areas of the lake even when the access conditions are unsafe. The Police Chief has met with Lt. Schilling of the Water Patrol regarding this issue. She will be prepared to discuss, at the council meeting, possible options for addressing the problem. and the practical difficulties and consequences of each option. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to direct staff regarding actions to be taken, in both the short term and the long term, to address the problems related to snowmobile access to the Coffee Channel area. 2000 Shadywood Road Wayrata MN 55391 March 4, 2001 Mayor Barbara Peterson City of Orono Post Office Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Honorable Mayor Peterson In our letter of March 2 to Greg Gappe, with copies to you and Sheriff McGowan, we said snowmobile use of the alley between our property and that of Jan Soltau at 1998 Shadywood Road was out of control for the season. It is out of control, but we hope and pray it doesn't remain out of control. Yesterday evening, Lucille's heart was racing for more than an hour. Physical anxiety over what is happening is becoming a threat not only to our well being but our lives. High speed traffic on Saturday was especially horrific. The 12-15 It wide alley next to our home was dedicated to the public a hundred years ago to enable fire trucks access , • water. It is ridiculous that that generosity might be perverted to the point where we must now sacrifice our privacy and safety to harassment by incredibly noisy recreational machines. We have invested literally everything in the dream of being here and it is turning into a nightmare. Snowmobiles were essentially not using the alley before last Sunday. They do not need to use the alley. They must not be allowed to use the alley. Opening it to snowmobile use would make it one of the most heavily used pathways on the lake because of its proximity to Coffee channel and to a gas station. This is intolerable. We have already experienced outrageous abuse. Hundreds of machi es are incompatible with safety when driven between homes only 25 feel apart. We are made fearful in our homes. We can't walk around them and our grandchildren can't play outside without fear of being terrorized or injured. We earnestly ask that closed except for emergency vehicles barricades be placed as soon as possible both at the lake and at a point allowing us exit from our driveway. This would enable sheriff snowmobiles to respond to emergencies and enable us to regain our peace of mind. Irreparable hams will be caused by delay because snowmobilers are assuming permission to use the alley has been granted. But no general use can be permitted because of risk to life and property. The life of a cbild innocently playing cannot be sacrificed. In deciding to retire here, we worried whether we could get used to the highway noise after twenty years on a quiet cul-de-sac in Northfield. We didn't imagine we'd have to worry about snowmobiles. After all, a no snowmobile sign had been in place for many years. But now this sign is being ignored and we are horrified by a potential tragedy. That exacerbates the urgency with which we make this request for action. Thank you for your immediate attention. Sincerely yours, Roger B. Kirchner Lucille M. Kirchner Cc: Greg Gappe, Director of Public Services Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan Jan Sultan Orono City Council members: Richard Flint Jay Nygard Bob Sansevere Jim White A copy of our March 2letter is attached since it was not sent to the council members. Aa 'svo �. 2000 Shadywood Road Wayzata MN 55391 March 2, 2001 Gregory A. Gappa P.E. Director of Public Services City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gappa: My wife Lucille and I are writing with regard to snowmobile use of the alley between our property and Jan Soltau's property at 1998 Shadywood Road. Thank you for discussing the problem with me on Wednesday, February 28, and suggesting we write a letter. A torrent of traffic went through on Sunday. February 25, when Hennepin County sheriffs temporarily closed the Coffee channel, and is continuing at all hours. Our neighbor has counted over 200 machines coming through this week. One snowmobiler even gave Lucille "the finger" as she closed the blinds. She has become extremely distraught and has trouble sleeping both from the noise and anticipation of more noise. The so jwmobiles come within 6 feet of our house and 7 feet of our heads when we are trying to sleep. We are afraid for the safety of our grandchildren when they visit. How can they be safe playing outside? The alley is 3 feet from our house. In the sixty years my family has owned this property (it was bought for a summer cottage by my father and grandfather in 1941 when 1 was 5 years old), we have known the alley existed. 1 understood it was there for a fire lane. The back part has been used for a driveway, the front part is lawn, jointly maintained, and rocks protect the shore. The City has not maintained it except for installation of a water drain. My 96 year old stepfather, John C. Wells, told me the City refused to help in any way in removing a diseased tree in the seventies. Jack Wells moved to Presbyterian Homes in January 1999. and in F nary we bought bus and my brother and sister's interests in the property as a place for us to retire. We moved here in June 2000 when 1 retired from 37 years of teaching at Carleton hoping to enjoy the lake as 1 remembered it from spending many summers here. 1 net er thought about snowmobiles. The City must prevent the destruction of the property and well being of two of its resident families. The fire lane is only 12-15 feet wide and machines are rapidly destroying both private and public lawns as the snow melts At a minimum, the borders of the lane should be marked immediately to stop trespass. The situation is out of control for this season. A long-term solution would be to build paths through the channel, perhaps out of plastic webbing covered with docking, and allow only emergency vehicles to use the alley. For our safety and well being, the alley must be posted Emergency Vehicles Only and enforced. Thank you for your action. Sincerely yours. Roger B. Kirchner Lucille M. Kirchner Cc: Mayor Barbara Peterson Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan Jan Soltau Page I of I file:UC:\ W INDON%'S\TEM P P3050366.1PG 316'01 Puec I of I file://C:\P'INDOR'S\TEMPT30i0067.1PG 3,6 01 e � � 1��//1 1 - �� 2 OR GGScai ,<Lyci Q��,c�,-rem z.c�.. 7^�J -- -- LP &(f Memo To: Mr. Moome From: Chief Good Date: 2/5i01 Subject: Coffey Channel - Orono Fire Lane Coffey Channel Spring Park/Orono Snowmobile Access Complaint 03/05/01 On 3/5101, Chief Good spoke with Lt. Ken Schilhing of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol. Lt. Schilling stated there are thin ice signs presently up in the area of Coffee Channel. It is an ordinance violation to circumvent the signs. He stated that in an average year there are about a dozen snowmobiles that attempt to run through Coffee Channel and end up going in the water. (These are reported - he suspects there are many more). Lt. Schilling said this is a public safety issue as it is a dangerous and potentially life threatening practice that requires the help of emergency response units from police, fire, and water patrol. Lt. Schilling stated that the enforcement of snowmobile speed limits through this area has been an ongoing problem. Some snowmobilers attempt to get through the channel by increasing speeds far beyond the posted I SMPH limit to traverse open water, and cause noise problems for the residents. He believed that up until last year, no one had really known that the City of Orono owned the fire lane property. A resident south of the channel used the fire lane for years and it has become much more well known and utilized recently. Lt. Schilling stated that the fire lane property is the only safe way to traverse the channel at this time. He said that many residents of Orono benefit from being able to cross safely. that the fire lane is not just used by "outsiders". Lt. Schilling said that fire accesses are city property and that there are certain dates that the city allow access, but Coffee Channel is not posted. (There is a "No Snowmobile" sign that was placed there by a resident, but there are no city postings). Lt. Schilling said that if the fire lane is restricted, it should allow for public safety use, however other people see snowmobile tracks and follow them. I le believed that restricting the fire lane would be difficult to enforce. (There are no restrictions on the time that snowmobiles can operate - they are permitted 24 hrs./day). Lake Minnetonka Conservation District could physically close the channel. Then all snowmobile traffic would attempt to traverse at the fire lane. Enforcement would be difficult. Lt. Schilling said that this seems similar to the Shorewood Trail issue where there was a 15 MPH posted limit up until 11:00, but it was impossible to enforce and people kept violating it so they closed the trail. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Water Patrol Unit 4141 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff December 21, 2000 Mayor Gabe Jabbour City of Orono 2750 Kelley Dr Orono, MN 55356 Honorable Mayor Jabbour: As you know, during the winter season the Coffee Channel area is always of great concern. A very dangemt condition exists in the channel. Most of the winter season, the channel has open water and some thin ice. This area connects the Crystal Bay area to West Ann. It is a very heavily traveled route for snowmobiles. This area is a critical link for the Sheriffs Water Patrol unit to be able to respond to incidents taking place anywhere in the Orono. Spring Park. Mound and Minnetrista areas. The Water Patrol Unit does not allow our personnel to use the channel to traverse from Coffee Cove / West Arm to Crystal Bay due to the dangerous conditions. The lake area's corridor to the south side of the channel connecting County Road 19 and Crystal Bay is of critical importance. This corridor, which lies between 1998 and 2000 Shadywood Road, allows safe and timely access to both sides of the Coffee Channel area. This land crossing is critical to our response function for all of the citizens and users of Lake Minnetonka and the entire area. One example — a few years ago, a fatal snowmobile crash occurred on Maxwell Bay. If units were located in the West Arm area, they would not be able to respond directly due to the Coffee Channel as a barrier. The Coffee Channel has been a topic of discussion for some time and all options to make the channel safe (including putting a wooden bridge in the channel) have been exhausted. The only safe and viable option is the land crossing. This access must be maintained and free of obstacles so emergency personnel can cross the area safely. Over the last ten winter seasons, the Water Patrol has responded to close to fifty snowmobile / ATVs through the ice in the Coffee Channel. In March 1999, a very serious accident occurred where the snowmobile hit the seawall. The operator was very seriously injured and may have died if a resident living next to the channel had not intervened. Hennepin County is an equal opportunity employer I am asking and urging the City of Orono to keep the access open and available for use by public safety agencies. 1 am also recommending that the access be open and available to the public so they won't use the channel area. Sincerely, Patrick D. McGowan Hennep' C ty Sheriff Ir- 3By: Lieutenant Kenn . Schilling Sheriffs Water Patrol KRS/kh ter---� - _ � I s c, LAKE MINNETONKA ACCESS POINT SHADYWOOD ROAD AT SUNSET DRIVE This report concerns the lake access road or "tire lane" between 1998 and 2000 Shadywood Road, Orono, prepared by Police Chief Stephany Good 3/9/01. History: The home at 2000 Shadywood Road was built in 1931. A major addition on the alley side was added in 1970.' Current resident, Roger Kirchner took ownership of the house in June 2000. The resident states the home has been in the family since 1941.' The home at 1998 Shadywood is 1981 construction. Current resident Duane Sultan took ownership of the house in The access lane has been a city -owned right-of-way since the late 1800's. Original Platt maps for the Lake Minnetonka area show public ownership of lake access roads since 1893. Property maps between 1998 and 2000 Shadywood (now within the City of Orono) indicate a 15.2 ft. access road . to the lake.' A summary citing the historic use of 'lake access roads" or "Fire lanes" is found in the City of Orono Community Management Plan' (attached.) Lake Access Policies' It is the City's intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake access corridors and foe lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance To this end, the city will follow these policies: I. Requests for vacating of dedicated lake access right-of-ways will be denied in all cases except where equal or better lake access will be granted nearby in return. 2. The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public's eight to use any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. 3. The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld 'Hennepin County records: [http:\\www2co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/main.htm]. 'Letter to Mayor Peterson from Roger and Lucille Kirchner dated 3/2/2001. stating stepfather John Wells originally owned 200 Shadywood 'Copy of city Platt map dated 1893 (Gappa), (11 should be noted that the City of Orono Community Management Plan, Table 4A-6 H5 cites this as a 13.5' lake access road). 'City of Orono Community Management Plan, page 4A-32, September 2000 'City of Orono Community Management Plan, page 4A-33, September 2000. Police Report Chronology: On 2/15100, Officer Famiok took a complaint made by David Albertson. 3124 Brooks Lane, Minnetonka Beach, of vehicles blocking the alley between 1998 and 2000 Shadywood. Sgt. Famiok met with Sgt. Brad Erickson of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol and David Albertson to discuss this complaint. Albertson said he had "lived in the area for years and has always used the alley for snowmobiling." He said "years ago the city had the alley posted as a Fire Lane." Alberston said the owner at 1998 had received a variance so that the house could be built within three feet of the alley. Alberston said that over the years someone has removed the gravel from the alley and planted grass. The area was no longer posted as a fire lane. Albertson obtained a map from the city of Orono that showed the area marked city property. Albertson said that the resident has been causing problems for him when he tries to use the alley. The resident designed a Flyer and put it on the camper parked on the alley. He said that when his brother tried to drive through on a snowmobile, the resident threw a piece of wood, put up a "No Snowmobiles Allowed" sign and strung rope between the two residences. Albertson cited 1984 City Code Sec. 6.07 regarding obstructions: "It is a misdemeanor for any person to place, deposit, display or offer for sale, any fence, goods or other obstructions upon, over, across or under any street or private road without firs having obtained a written permit from the City, and then only in compliance in all respects with the terms and eonditimis or such permit, and taking precautionary measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or device of any kind is hereby included, but not by wav of limitation, within the definition of an obstruction." Officer Famiok advised the racident at 1998, Duane Soltau, that the alleyway was owned by the city, and he could not block it. fTcer Famiok advised Soltau to remove the items that were blocking the alley, and also advised him to bring the problem to the council if it remained unresolved. Off. Famiok advised Albertson that he could not drive his snowmobile through the area. Off. Famiok forwarded the complaint to Orono city officials. On 2/28/00, Lyle Oman. Orono Building Official, responded to the complaint of a camper trailer storage at 1998 Shadywood. Mr. Oman sent a letter to Janet Soltau requesting removal of the camper under city ordinances prohibiting parking on city property and parking trailers more than 20 B. in length.° On 12/19/00, OlHcer Tomcheck took a complaint of snowmobiles driving by 1''98 Shadywood from Janet Soltau. No action was taken. On 12/21/00 a letter was written by Lt. Ken Schilling of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office to Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour stating that the Coffee Channel area is always of great concern in the 'Copy of letter dated 1/28/200 Oman to Soltau (Gappa). Page -2- winter as it always has open water and some thin ice. He stated that the alley was the only safe and timely access to both sides of the Coffee Channel. Lt. Schilling stated that the land crossing was critical in public safety response to a snowmobile crash in Maxwell Bay. He said that over the last ten winter seasons, the Water Patrol has responded to close to 50 snowmobile ATVs through the ice in the Coffee Channel and that in March 1999. a serious accident occurred where the snowmobile hit the seawall. The Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol posted "Thin Ice" across the Coffee Channel during the week of February 25, 2001. On Much 4, 2001, a letter was sent to Orono Mayor Barbara Peterson by the Kirchners at 2000 Shadywood Road citing outrageous abuse of hundreds of machines going through the alley. Noise, speed, safety and quality of life concerns are apparent. The Kirchners asked that the City to place "Closed Except for Emergency Vehicles" barricades on both ends of the alley. On March 6, 2001, letters were sent to Greg Gappa, Mayor Peterson, and the police department by Janet Soltau of 1998 Shadywood citing an impact on their privacy where as many as 300 snowmobiles went through in the previous week. Major Issues: Resident concerns: Noise, safety, quality of life, continued ownership and use of the property in question. Snowmobile concerns: Desire for safe access. Public safety issues: 1) Absent controls: Continued unenforceable noise complaints, escalating conflicts between snowmobilers and the residents. 2) Safety concerns related to snowmobilers using the channel with open water. Legal issues: Intent and use of "fire Inc" or "lake access roads." Possible options: 1) City of Orono Posts restrictions for "Public Safety Use Only." If the city restricts snowmobile use at Shadywood, snowmobiles will either attempt to cross the channel, which is of grave concern to the Sheriff s Water Patrol, or snowmobiles will go from the Shadywood access approximately one fourth of a mile north or south to public accesses at North Page -3- Arm Landing or Crystal Bay Road. This will increase snowmobile traffic alr•ig Co. Rd. $051 and Co. Rd. N 19. and possibly all the residents in between. If the city restricts the access by use of signs to limit snowmobiles, these same signs may alert more people of the city ,roperty and could potentially cause similar types of complaints of public use in this area in the ner. Enforcement of snowmobiles speeding through this area may be difficult. The city has no current means to apprehend fleeing snowmobiles. Enforcement is possible however. 2) City of Orono posts use restrictions limited hours such as between 8am-6pm. The police department can cite violators, however fleeing violations will be unenforceable. 3) City of Orono blocks or closes the lake access road at Shadywood to all snowmobile traffic. The City has the authority to restrict the use of this access lane. However, the option of closing the lane to snowmobiles is of grave concern to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water patrol who say they , pull about 10 snowmobilers out of the water in Coffee Channel each year. Closure of the Shadywood lake access road will force snowmobilers to take alternate routes. Land routes will similarly inconvenience other residents or tempt snowmobilers to speed up in order to cross the thin ice at Coffee Channel. This practice is clearly a life threatening danger. Increased speeds going through Coffee Channel will cause noise complaints which are not enforceable. 4) Continue to allow snowmobile use on the lane. Property owners should have been aware of the lake access road or fire lane at the time of purchase. These access roads have been in place for a very long time. The noise and safety problem has increased with the numbers of people using snowmobiles. This use of both the Coffee Channel and the Shadywood 'ale access road was particularly exacerbated this season because of the amount of snow and the cold weather. Snowmobile use is expected to cease for this season when the snowpack melts. (Possibly as early as this coming weekend, March 10, 11. 2001.) It is a seasonal problem and will continue to be a concern as more and more snowmobilers use Lake Minnetonka. 5) City of Orono to seek a long term solution to Lake Minnetonka snowmobile use through licensing or special permits: Consider partnerships with Hennepin County, and all Lake Minnetonka environmental, citizen, and governmental entities to discuss bridging Coffee Channel or other alternatives to recreational vehicle issues. Page -4- 6) Vacate city ownership and control of the Shadywood lake access road There are about 50 similar properties in Orono. Vacating them is inconsistent with the current City of Orono Community Management Plan and goes against an existing Supreme Court ruling. Vacating the property will set a precedent for the other 50 similar properties. The city should at a minimum reserve a legally recorded easement in property titles for use by police, sheriff, DNR, fire and state officials stating that no obstructions can be created to interfere with public safety. 7) Outlaw use of snowmobiles in Orono except for marked trails. Will create a great deal of dialogue among snowmobile users. Other considerations: Chief Good spoke with Mound Fire Chief Greg Pederson. Chief Pederson assessment of the lake access road is that it could potentially still be used as a wa::r supply resource if necessary. The chances of having to use lake water for extinguishing a fire is minimal but not impossible. He said it would require a portable pump. Chief Pederson observed that there is a hydrant in front of 2000 Shadywood and unless something happened to the water pressure, the hydrant is the most easily attainable water source. He said the alley would permit placement of equipment or apparatus staging if the fire department needed it during an emergency. Chief Pederson believed that the most likely use of the property would be for water rescue. Officer Kurt Erickson of the Orono Police Department checked with the City of Tonka Bay and learned that within the last two to four years Tonka Bay did a number of things to preserve the tire lanes in their city: 1) Surveyed and marked property lines 2) Put up signs for public use 3) Began keeping maintenance records to show brush removal and mowing, etc. Chief Good met with the Hennepin County Water Patrol on 3/5/01. Sgt. Brad Erickson, and Lt. Ken Schilling shared concerns about the safety of snowmobilers who attempt to cross through Coffee Channel. Page -5- iJA in MEL Cn, is,, src ,T%%G MAR 12 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cn,(Lj" 0H0NO DATE: March 9, 2001 ITEM NO: ID Department Approval: Administrator .Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse ' // City Administrators Title City Administrator 21 Report Item Description: Resolution Appointments for 2001 The attached resolution amends the list of appointments for 2001 to place Stephany Good into the appointments held by the Police Chief, including Transportation Committee member, DataPmctices Compliance Official, North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition Liaison, and alternate liaison to the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization. The resolution also reflects the new Planning Commission alternate members. It also deletes First USA of Murray, Utah from the list of official depositories, and adds New Century Bank of Southfield, Michigan to the list of depositories. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution amending selected appointments for 2001. A RESOLUTION AMENDING SELECTED APPOINTMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2001 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that the appointments and designations for the year 2001 are as follows: APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION Acting Mayor Planning Commission Rep. to Council Planning Commission Chair Parks, Trails, and Open Space Commission Chair Representative to Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Liaison AMM AMM Legislative Contact Lead Attorney (Civil) City Attorney Firm (Civil) Alternate Attorney Lead Prosecuting Attorney City Prosecuting Attorney Firm Lead Consulting Engineer City Engineering Firm Auditor Fiscal Agents Insurance Agent of Record Weed Inspector Assistant Weed Inspector Transportation Committee Emergency Preparedness Director Data Practices Compliance Official Southwest Sanitary Sewer District Suburban Health Nursing Service West Hennepin Recycling Commission 2001 Richard Flint Alternating Liz Hawn Andrew McDermott Ronald J. Moorse Ronald J. Moorse Barbara Peterson Tom Barrett Hinshaw & Culbertson William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney Kenneth N. Potts Kenneth N. Potts Glenn Cook Bonestroo, Rosette, Anderlik & Associates Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich and Co., P.A. Ehlers & Associates Carl Bennetsen, R. L. Youngdahl & Assoc., Inc. Barbara Peterson Greg Gappa Greg Gappa Stephany Good Stephany Good Stephany Good Ronald J. Moorse Ronald J. Moorse Lin Vee Page 1 of 4 i.,ayoes Association Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Suburban Rate Authority Westonka Senior Citizens Representatives to Long Lake and Mound Fire Departments Building Code Board of Appeals Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition Highway 12 Appointments: Official City Representative Highway 12 Aesthetic Design Review Committee Policy Committee Highway 12 Design Review Committee Housing and Redevelopment Authority Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission 2001 Barbara Peterson Lili McMillan Greg Gappa Ronald J. Moorse (Alternate) Barbara Peterson Barbara Peterson Charles Kelley Gabriel Jabbour Loren Kohnen, West Metro Services Tom Anderson, Hopkins Building Official Maureen Bellows, AIA .Architect Kenneth Roelofs, Budding contractor Vacant Position Ronald J. Moorse Stephany Good (Alternate) Stephany Good Barbara Peterson Jim Murphy Jim Murphy Andrew McDermott Ron Moorse Barbara Peterson Ronald J. Moorse (Alternate) Edward J. Callahan, Jr. J. Diann Goetten Jim Murphy Ron Moorse Barbara Peterson, Chair +iichard Flint Bob Sansevere Jay Nygard Jim White Timothy Pattrin Bob Sansevere Page 2 of 4 APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION Official Newspaper Community Development Committee Dakota Rail Trail Committee Planning Commission Alternate Members Official Depositories/Investment Vendors 2001 The Laker and Pioneer Newspaper Zoning Administrator/City Planner Planning Director Public Services Director Richard Flint Bob Sansevre Park Commission Chair, Andrew McDermott Rick Meyer Gabriel Jabbour Maureen Bellows Marc Fritzler David Rahn Gary Welsh First National Banks of., The Lakes (Navarre) Wayzata Firstar Bank of Minnesota League of MN Cities - 4M Fund Salomon Smith Barney, St. Paul Norwest Investment Services. Inc., Mpls. U.S. Banks, Mpls. Piper Jaffmy, Mpls. Dain Rauscher, Inc., Mpls. Prudential Securities, Inc., i>Ipls. Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc.. Mpis.,Scottsdale, AZ Merrill Lynch, Mitts. Telebank, Arlington, VA Charter One Bank, FSB, Cleveland. OH New Century Bank, Southfield, MI Greenwood Trust, New Castle. DE Bank & Trust of Puerto Rico. Hato Rey, PR LaSalle Bank, FSB, Chicago. IL Safm National Bank of New York, New York, NY Key Bank USA, Cleveland, OH Page 3 of 4 Official DepositoriestInvestment Vendors (cantinued) Branch County Fed S & L, Coldwater, MI New South Fed Savings Bank, Irondale, AL Peoples Bank, Bridgeport, CT State Bank of Long Lake, Long Lake Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held March 12, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk ...ee .N Barbara Peterson, Mayor Page 4 of 4 t,nt o,rn ♦sr:�� Mpq 1 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ott Y OFlONO DATE: March 9, 2001 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description:Scheduling TIF Public The Council has given conceptual approval to the use of tax increment financing to assist a proposed senior housing project. The use of tax increment financing requires that a tax increment financing district and a development district be established. This requires a public hearing process. Because ofthe length ofthe necessary hearing notice, the earliest regular council meeting at which the hearing can be held is the meeting of May 14, 2001. A Tsolution scheduling the hearing is attached for council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution scheduling a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 2001, for the purpose of establishing a development district and a tar increment district. Ron worse - Call hearing3mr, Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-1 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Orono. Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section I. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on May 14, 2001, at approximately 7:00 p.m. to hold a public hearing on: (1) the proposed establishment of Development District No. I and the adoption of a development program, and (2) the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Fl,.ancing Distrct No. 1-1 and the adoption of a lax increment financing plan. These actions ere :aken pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469,124 through 469.134 and Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development of certain designated areas and the provision of housing within the City; and Section 2. Notice ofPublic Hearing, Filing of Documents. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Development Program for Development Distrct No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. I - I and to provide notifications as required by State Law, The City Administrator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to May 14 ,2001 end to place a copy of the Development Program and the Tax increment Financing Plan on file in the City Clerk's office at City Hell and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Dated: March 12, 2001 Adopted: Mayor ATTEST. City Clerk MAR 12 2000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Utt y � UHUNO DATE: March 9, 2001 ITEM NO: /.2-/ Department Approv'0. v ..l(� Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Tom Kuehn j 6" City Administrator's Title Finance Director b,714l Report Item Description: / 2001 Liability Insurance Policy and Worker Compensation Insurance Policy Premium Tabulation and Award Recommendations, with Resolution to Not Waive the Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Attachments: (1) Liability and Worker Compensation Insurance Premiums Tabulation (2) Worker Compensation Plan Estimated 2001 Premium Quotation (3) Resolution Not to Waive the Staonory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance A comparative tabulation of the 2000 actual and 2001 renewal insurance premiums, and the 2001 budgeted amounts is presented for your review. At this time we are recommending award of all the policies as presented. The City will continue to carry an umbrella excess liability policy of$2 million and will not waive the statutory limits established under Minnesota law. The LMCIT has specifically requested that Council adopt a resolution stipulating whether the City will or will not waive the statutory limits under the law. The estimated cost for all policies and the agent of record for 2001 is $167,428 compared to $148,984 for 2000, and $131,105 for 1999. The City will place all covernge w,th the Lh;CIT program. Worker Compensation Coverage; The renewal premium quotation for worker compensation insurance reflects a gross initial premium for 2001 of $49,981, which is adjusted by our experience modification of 1.09, increasing the premium to 554,479, and finally adjusted by a premium discount of 8.63%, resulting in a net initial premium of $49,778. This is an increase of $15,186, or 43.90% greater than the 2000 initial premium. The main reason for the premium increase is a substantial increase in the cost of worker compensation claims. March 9, 2001 2001 Insurance Policy and Worker Compensation Insurance Policy Premium Tabulation and Award Recommendations, page 2 Liability Insurance Package Policy and Excess Liability The package policy and excess liability policy premiums total $110,450 for 2001, compared to $107,192 for 2000, and $95,625 for 1999. The increase from 2000 to 2001 is $2,541, or 2.4%. The premium increase is comprised of property value adjustments to offset inflation; the addition of several lift stations and two dwellings; the addition of one vehicle; and the City's overall municipal loss experience. Public officials liability coverage experienced high costs including two land use claims which had very high defense costs. As the City's loss experience is averaged over a three yearperiod it is expected the premium costs will continue to be effected through 2002. Staff recommends the award of the 2001 insurance coverage as presented in the attachment and the adoption of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: (1) Award of the 2001 insurance package effective January I, 2001 to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for the worker compensation coverage, $49,778; for the comprehensive municipal property and casualty package, $87,410; for the umbrella excess liability, $18,903; for the petrofund reimbursement, $246; for the open meeting law, $821; for the boiler and machinery, $1,530; for the surety bonds, $923; and for the golf course liquor liability, $617. (2) Adopt Resolution No__, To Not Waive The Statutory Tort Limits For Liability Insurance Purposes. wrwwnmwroocsroWWIm,r b.rd CITY OF ORONO INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM TABULATION Actual Premiums Poly_ _ _ Awarded To: 2000 Worker Compensation LMCIT $34,592 Comprehensive Municipal LMCIT Property and Casualty: Property $9,558 Vehicle Liab/Coll/UM/Equip 14,441 Inland Marine 1,882 Crime incl General Liability 58_,656 Total Comprehensive Municipal Property & Casualty $8�_537 Petrofund Reimbursement LMCIT 595 Open Meeting Law LMCIT 939 Employee Dishonesty Bond LMCIT 780 Boiler LMCIT 1,585 Umbrella Excess Liability LMCIT 18,848 Liquor Liability for Golf Course LMCIT 625 Agent of Record A. J. Gallagher 7,200 TOTAL _ $149701 (A) Umbrella $2 million, without waiver of immunity (B) Fee for service contract, agent receives no commission. TO SURA N. d 123 (A) (B) Renewal Premiums 2001 $4y778 $12,118 14,564 2,092 incl 5MM $87y10 246 821 923 1.530 18,903 617 7,200 $167,428 Insurance Premiums Budget tom $4_y570 $8y920 570 720 800 1,500 19,420 650 7,490 $154 640 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Group Self -Insured Workers' Compensation Plan /\ 145 University Avenue West St Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone (651) 2154173 (\ J Information Page RENEWAL 1. The "City" Agreement No 02-0003o2-16 ORONO, CITY OF "City'. is X City P 0 BOX 66 Joint Powers Entity CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323-0000 Other (describe) 01/01/2001 01/01/2002 2. The Agreement period is from 1201 a . to 12.01 a m at the "City's" address. 3. A. Workers Compensation Coverage. Part One of the Agreement applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of any state of the United Slates of America and the District or Columbia B. Employers Liability CoveragePart Two of the Agreement applies to work in each state listed in item 3 A The limits of our liability under Part Two are. Bodily Injury -Each Occurrence $1,000,000. Bodily Injury by Disease -Agreement Limit $1,000.000 C. Part Three of the Agreement applies to Infectious Disease Diagnostic Testing. D. Part Four of the Agreement applies to Peace Officers' Poottraumatic Stress Syndrome Benefit. E. This Agreement includes these amendment: and schedules- ____- 4. Retro-rating option selected? YES I I / NO IXI 5. Elected Officials Covered? YES Boa, ds and Commissions Covered (List) NONE 6. The premium for this Agreement will be deiurmined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Ra',s and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit. PREMIUM BASIS RATES ENTRIES IN THIS ITEM, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TOTAL PER i1D0 OF CODE ELSE HERE IN THIS AGREEMENT; DO NOT MODIFY ANY OF THE ANNUAL ANNUAL REMUNERATION NO. mcunuaoannu OTHER PROVISIONS OF THI I PREMIUM 344700. 4.11 5506 STREET CONSTRUCTION L MAINTENANCE 14167. 45000. 2.25 7520 WATERWORKS 1013. 958000. 2.81 7720 POLICE 26920. 382500. 0.40 Belo CLERICAL 1530. 455700. 1.00 9410 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 4557. 18200. 0.37 9411 ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS 67. 33900. 1.94 8831 ANIMAL CONTROL 658. 76900. 1.39 9060 CLUB-COUNTRY/GOLF 1069, Manual Premium 499G1. Experience Modificat.on 1.09 Standard Premium 54479. Managed Care Credit 0% 0. Deductible Credit OS 0. F-411810899 996.00 Premium Discount 4701. GALLAGHER A J OF MN Discounted Standard Premium 49778. 7625 WASH AVE S 300 LMC Insurance Trust Discount 0% 0. MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55439 Net Deposit Premium 49778. DATE tM 46)0111N 2� A RESOLUTION MAKING A SELECTION NOT TO WAIVE THE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE PURPOSES WHEREAS, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insur- ance Trust has asked the City to make an election with regards to waiving or not waiving its tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 ; and WHEREAS, the choices available are as follows: to not waive the statutory tort limit, to waive the limit but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, and to waive the limit and to add insurance to a new level; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby elect not to waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota, at a regular meeting held March 11, 2001. ATTEST: Dodge, Deputy City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor 4RWM6TN7IX 51MU Rn2wl rd r�---. 110 FTING MAR 1 2 2WO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Lin Vee RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1. David, Heidi and Woody Hust 45 Smith Avenue 2. Tris Struble Klohn 4455 North Shore Drive SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT U I Y L r UtlUNU DATE: March 7. 2001 ITEM NO: / 3 Reviewed: Agenda Section: Licenses 1. Applicant: Clyde Gates Event: Foot Race Location: Wayzata Central Middle School to Luce line and approximately 4'/2 miles out and back Date: April 14, 2001 Time: 8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. 2. Applicant: Rick and Gail Luzaich Event: Bar-B-Q and Picnic Location: 2490 Old Beach Road Date: June 16, 2001 Time: 1:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. SET-UP LICENSE Dan Scherven Navarre Lanes Inc. 3435 Shoreline Drive COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200 1 to December 31, 200_1 Property Address:49 C a. ZxV kNis— �lP�l•� A �� 3q•1 �tL (include city and zip) L� Mailing Address (if different): Phone: (home) c L,S� L..(11 n � l (work) _ RESmENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 �� C (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:�,�_ (over 6 months of age) Principal r` Purpos .,,rmore than 2dogs: �r„v,.,,�� i%,arl_(D �„_,,,�o-„r,•u Dogs normally kept. �( inside kennel structure COMbIERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: _ Busine : Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: nog runs/exercise areas are: _;nside _outside _both The undersigned hereby makes application ao the Orono City Counci. _ a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned ackno.Oedges that a kennel license i. permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approvalAj PPlicar.• — — — Dati I O For Ciro Use Onh• Kennelinspecrrd by Recommends. Approval_ Denial_ Dare_ KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200_ to December 31, 200_ Owner: TnS `-�4-rt.•bL- Ic IoE�n Property Address: y4556V•S1g61a-.Pr. yYla,,-A rylt Ss.3tcy (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): N/A Phone: (home) q52 N55 •qV.c) (work) W, &lz RESIDENTIAL Kennel License F $25.00� (payment must accompany applicatio Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: 3 (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: 51k. lv6 — Snit- 5eli— - Tcmt� M%% Purpose for more than 2 dogs: rccvti^f' &T--) Dogs normally kept: _Linside _kennel structure COAT` "ERCLU Kersid License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: N M _ Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary cue, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: Afte, Hours Contact: (name)_ Dog runslexercise areas are: _inside _outside _both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises .ior to license* time approval and at any other reasonable during the license duration; and the undersi med agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as pan of any kennel license approval. cy of Applicant Date -------- ---------------------- ------------ --------------- For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends: Approval Denial_ -' Date: March 5, 2001 To: Lin Vee, City Clerk /) From: Stephany Good, Chief of Policr/,� Re: Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application submitted by Clyde Gates for the annual foot race to be held on April 14, 2001. As noted on last year's permit, the following requirements must be met: — Applicant must provide enough volunteers to direct runners/traffic at intersection roads along the racy route. — Applicant must provide first aid to the runners. Providing the above conditions are met, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit #: Fee: S50.00 ,ate Received: Phone Number: r/`�7 3 City, State, Location of Parade or Date of Event: +" Jy 1 ZOO Hours of Event: D � 3 v o—.. 7'•• J0.?o a. Type of Event: u n ra //t [dG Insurance Company:.' g n C Amount: Gnv"t/ (Copy of insurance certificate, on.Avirich rile Cio,j its agents and employees are named as additional insured, must be submitted with this application) I am aware of..'I 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 or special event approved by the granting of this permit. 1 understand some events may require off -duty or reserve officers and a fee may be Approved: 0 Denied: O By: Date: March 8, 2001 To: Lin Vee, City Clerk From: Stephany Good, Chief of Police% - Re: Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application submitted by Mr. Richard Lunich to hold a Bar-B-Q and picnic at 2490 Old Beach Road on June 16, 2001. Providing all issues are met, as stated with his application (parking, music, etc.), 1 have no objection to the issuance of this permit. PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit it: t5 M `61�'S;ay� Fee: S50.00 �llSe �l Date Received: wvrk � � sa -was-o�F�s Phone N.noer: evis2-Lkn(-(62 City, State, Zip: Gm o tM 6 • ss3 q Location of Parade or Event: cp T C1 Q QL� Date of Event: 6, Hours of Event, O f1 1 o� �C. r' �-�^/-1Z7 L31^ S O✓.cv C1i i�M / - -CA S cJ 7u�v C Type of Event: _ -Ij Insurance Company:- `-�(L``I �t�t,AmoLnt IICCC�C(;Cc� (Copy of insurance certificate, on which the City, its agents and employees are named as additional insured, must be submitted with this application) I am aware ofall 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 dire(tly or indirectly from the parade or special event approved by the grat,ting of tlds permit. I understand some events may require off -duty or reserve officers and a fee may be required for these services. Signature Date Approved: 0 Denied: 0 Remarks: Other issues we've anticipated and resolved: 1. Parking- All guests will be instructed to park in the municipal parking lot adjacent to Rick's Super Value. 2 shuttie vans will bring people back and forth every twenty minutes. 2. Security - Off duty Minneapolis police officers have been hived to provide security and help guests. Six additional security officers have been hired to police entrances and exits and to verify invitations. 3. Live Music - Music will start at 1:00pm and end at 10:00pm National recording stars with Multi -million selling albums will be featured. 4. Food/Beer - Food will be served between the hours of 3:00pm to 5:00pm. Beer and wine will be served at no charge. APSOLUTELY NO liquor will be allowed. 5. Property - The property is estate size, (2.83 acres). There will be around 300 to 400 guests invited. We anticipate 100 to 150 on the property at any given time. (people will come and go all day). Date: March 8, 2001 To: Lin Vee, City Clerk From: Stephany Good, Chief of Police A�/A,,.O' Re: Set -Up License - - Navarre Lanes The police department has reviewed the ap.Aication submitted by Daniel Scherven on behalf of Navarre Lanes, for a set-up license. Past history has been reviewed of both the establishment and of Mr. Scherven and no problems have been found. I have no objection to the issuance of this license. Minnesota Depanmee: of Public Safety q. � ALCOHOL& GAMBLING FVFORCEMENT DIVISION \'ta, 444 Cedar St. Suite 133, f t. Paul. M:v '.5101 5133 {� s1 (651)296-6439 'ITY (651) 282-6515 / �r,.� www.dps.state.mn.us- d i:agamblalegamb.hm RENEWAL OF CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY PERMIT Permit Fee $150 (Renewal Date: .April 1) MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: ALCOHOL & GAMBLING ENFORCENIEN"f DIVISION 5598 PUBLIC Navarre Lanes Inc. Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive Navarre, MN 55392 W IF NAME AND ADDRESS SHOWN ARE NOT CORRECT, MAKE CH-,NGES BELOW Worker's Comp Ins. Co. K C..f— L V Pohe; N. I J'-' _' ''' b_ Policy Period I I UQ —' I' iI City/Cuunn where permit approved: H,5-n/,fJ C,'l AJJ Permit Name: �Rh,J �,( �(✓� _ " Trade Name: !.ocation address: q 2�,, FIlI Ni I U City, State. ZIP Code: oov ����gZ�•. Business Phone: "' Z e r) t - 'no By signing this renewal application, applicant certifies that then has been no change in ownership, corporate officers. bylaws, membership, partners, home addresses, or telephone in=l ers If : h:mges have occurred during :he past 12 months, please give details on the back of this renewal, then n_., below. Applicant's signature on this renews onfirmsth follouln, FallFallnEg t oo t any of the following will res, It ir_� t fines. 1. Applicant confirms that it has never had a liquor license reected by am city/wc.r,:hip/county" in the state of Minnesota. If ever rejected. please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below. 2. Applicant confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation (state of locale If a revocation has occurred, please give detail or the back of this renewal, then sign below. y. Applicant confirms that during the past five years it m 4% e.-,±loyecs have not been cited .for any civil or criminal liquor law violations. if violations have occurred, please gt'•e details on back of this renewal, then sign below 4. Applicmt confirms that Workers Compensation insurance I. in effect for the full license period. 5. Applicant confines, no club on -sale intoxica'ng liquor Iicene is held. 6. Applicant confirms business prcmtsea ar pamte from an ether business ewablishmenr Applicant Signature Date (Signature certifies all above i uunation to becorrect and per—n has been approved by city/county.) 1. City Clerk/County Auditor Signature _ " )G9 f"-f-•' /� _ Date - (Signature certifies that a consumption and mspla) permit has teen appros ed by the sty/county as stated above i P509097 (01/00) Amount Received rl MAR 12 2OW / 1, uh Fr PV {lurch 09, 2001 CITY OF ORONO Check Summary Register Page Ip/2 Nam* Cheek Date Check Aml 10100 Pdmary Oaah Paid Chke 070761 AMEM W12/2001 $20.00 Pak CKM 070782 ARCH WIRELESS W12/2001 $31.39 Paid ChM 010763 AT B T WIRELESS SERVICES Y122W1 $5016 Paid ChM 0707M RCA- FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 31122W/ $80.00 Paid ChM O70765 SCA7TRAINING B DEVELOPMENT 3I12J2001 $180.00 Paid ChM 070766 RIFFS INC Y1wool $7026 Paid ChM 070767 SLACKOWIAK B SON 3/122001 $303.50 Paid ChM 070768 BOBZIEN, SUE 31122W1 $34.00 Paid ChM 070769 SORIS. SCOTT 3/122001 $29.50 Paid ChM 070770 BOTTENBERG, WENDY 3/122001 $20.70 Paid ChM 070771 BUDGET PRINTING W122001 SW 79 Pak ChM 070772 CARGILL SALT Y122WI $2,107.98 Paid ChM 070773 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Y12/2001 $2,438.01 Paid ChM 07On4 Void 3(122001 $0.00 Paid ChM 070775 CITY OF MAPLE GROVE 3/122001 $1,258W Paid ChM 070776 CITY OF PLYMOUTH V122001 $3.696 00 Paid ChM 010777 COFFEE MILL 31122001 $303.00 Paid ChM 070778 CYS UNIFORMS 3112=01 Slag 85 Pak ChM 070779 DAMS, MARK WIMOD1 $10196 Pak ChM 070750 DCA - WIRE ONLY Y122001 SUB 55 Pak ChM 070itl DELTA DENTAL 31122001 $1."90 Pak ChM 070782 DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP 31122001 $262,43 Paid ChM 070783 E-2 RECYCLING 31122001 $5,620.12 Pak ChM 070704 EXPRESS MESSENGER Y122001 $46. SO Pak Chke 070785 FEDEX Y122W1 54672 Pak ChM 070786 GB KSERVICES Y122W1 $56336 Pak ChM O70787 GALLS INC W12/2001 $24494 Paid ChM 070786 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC Y122001 5482 Be Pak Chka 070789 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER MM001 54422 Pak Chka 070790 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER GEN W1212001 $11.55 Pak Chile 070791 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE Y121200I 54973 Pak Chk* 070792 INC SALT Y122WI $312367 Paid ChM 070793 INFRATECH 3112200I $3504 Paid ChM 070794 J-CRAFT INC 1122M' S60 22 Pak ChM 070795 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 3112aWl $3057 Pak ChM 070796 LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER 3J122001 535000 Paid ChM 070797 LAKE MTKA AREA CHAMBER OF COM Y1Y2001 $20100 Paid ChM C70795 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE. INC 31IM001 $8090 Pad Chk* 070799 LMCIT 3112RO01 $17.609 be Pak ChM 070WO LMCIT-SERKLEY ADMIN 31122W1 $43.05275 Paid ChM 070WI LONG LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3/122001 $11000 Pak ChM 070802 MCLEOD USA PUBLISHING 3122001 534000 Pad ChM 070803 MEDICA 31IM031 SB4: Pad ChM 070804 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Y122001 51350 Paid ChM 070805 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 31122W1 515000 Pad Chia 070805 MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION YIM001 i3500 Pad ChM 070W7 MN DEPT OF HEALTH Y122W1 S400 W Pad Cho 070608 MN GOVT FIN OFFICER'S ASSN Y1L2W1 S6000 Pad ChM 070809 MN STATE TREASURER V122W l SLO W Pak Chka 070810 MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC Y122001 $261 Be CITY OF ORONO Friday, March 09. 2001 Check Summary Register Page 2 of 2 Name Check Date Check Amt Pak ChM 070811 MPWA 11=001 $20000 Pak ChM 070812 MTI DIST CO. 1'12200I $550.64 Pak ChM 070813 NAVARRE HARL,. ARE 3/12 1 $174 20 Paid ChM 070814 Vold 3J121200I $0.00 Pak Chke 070815 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS W1212001 $156.00 Pak ChM 070816 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS 31122001 $3491.00 Pak ChM 070817 OFFICE DEPOT 3112/0001 $1.11579 Pak ChM 070818 OLSON. RON W122001 $2277 Pad ChM J70819 OMAN. LYLE 3/122001 $9141 Pak ChM 070820 PIONEER 3PI220n1 $57342 Pak ChM 070V1 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC 3'1212001 $1,693.35 Pak ChM 070822 PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE 312/2001 $57705 Pak ChM 070823 GWEST 3/122001 S496.65 Pak ChM 070824 GWEST INTERPRISE 3lM001 $422.47 Pak ChM 070825 ROTA. 3r12200I $100.00 Pak ChM 070826 RELIANT ENERGY 3,122001 $7749,54 Pak ChM 010527 RICKS SUPERVALUE 3117J2001 $18.10 Pak ChM 070828 SA -AG INC. Y122001 $2.804.46 Pak ChM 070829 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN 1'122001 $13.36 Pak ChM 070530 SNYDER DRUG STORES 3'122001 $174.03 Pak ChM 070831 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 3: 1212001 $3600 Pak ChM 070832 STANTON GROUP 3 12. Owl $46.00 Pak ChM 070833 STAR TRIBUNE 3 122001 $247 80 Paid ChM 070ST4 STATE OF MINNESOTA Z 17J2001 $5,508.92 Pak ChM 070835 STREICHERS 3 1212001 $2.214 12 Pak ChM 070836 TOLL GAS B MELDING SUPPLY 2IMO01 $5,46 Pak ChM 070837 TRACY TRIPE FUELS 2l22001 $2,576.95 Pak Chk$ 070836 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 212^001 $1.28622 Pak ChM 07009 VERIZON WIRELESS 3.1212001 $62103 Pak ChM 070840 WARNING LITES OF MN 1122W1 $9841 Pad ChM 070MI XCELENERGY 3*122001 $9,41998 Total Checks, $126,682.86 CITY OF ORt NO FEEay, March 04, 2001 Check Summary Register Page 1 it t Nerve Check Date Check Amt 10100 Prlmry Cash _ Pakl Chk1 051930 CITY OF WAYZATA W12001 $3,W 47 Total Checks $3,840.47 CITY OF ORONO payroll register 03106I01 6.55 AM Page 1 Pry P9e1od Ch9ck S Employe NAm4 Ch"k DALA Check Amount O48884 VOID W101 $0 00 U8885 JOHNSON, MARY ANN 30/01 358860 N8886 CODGE, RACHEL M. 30101 S90445 N8887 LESKIREN, DENISE M. 30/01 $733 79 048868 MOORSE. RONALD J. W/01 $1789.28 048889 VEE. LINDA S. WNi $t 270.14 N8890 KJEHN. THOMAS M. 30710/ 11 096.50 N8891 OLSON, RONALD J. W/01 $36.32 048892 PETTIT, SANDRA K. W101 $378.38 N8893 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. 317101 $337.22 N8894 BOBZIEN, SUE A. 317101 $743,34 UN95 BORIS, SCOTT W. Y7101 $1.021 08 048896 BUDIG. STACIE M. 7/7101 STNAI N8897 CARLSON, MICHAEL B. 3n701 $468.79 N85M CORNICK, JAMES L 3FA01 11,N3.0o 048699 DEMBCUSKI, JAY C. Y7101 $1.347.91 048900 ERICKSON, KURT R 3/7/01 31,266.23 00901 FARNIOK. CORREY L 317101 11,SV2.33 W 02 FISCHENICH. CAN T. 3,1101 $1,297.15 WN3 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. WAH $1.181,93 N8904 GOOD, STEPHANY R. 301I1 $1.977.45 048905 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P. W101 $1.367,77 048M JOHNSON, JEFFREY 3R/01 5956.23 048N7 MADSON. ADRIENNE M Y7101 $490.63 048WO MCNALLY, STEVEN A. WA/ $1.219.51 048909 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L 317M1 SSWAO 048910 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES 317MI $1,584.08 M911 PERSELL. MUM R. 3,701 $28137 048912 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B. 3f7A11 $1.288.32 048913 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 3(7101 $285.22 048914 TOMCZYK, MARK W 3/7/01 $1.279.84 048915 WITTKE. ANTHONY A. WMI $98771 048916 HENDRICKS, RONALD J WNt $72529 N8917 LEE, JOSEPH P 317N1 S2N.28 048910 SOLTERMAN, MATTHEW A WNt 11,N0.24 N89/9 BOTTENSERG. WENDY C. WMI $1,006.55 048920 DAVIS, MARC L W101 21,211.61 046921 OAFFRON, MICHAEL P 307/01 11,28033 048922 GAPPA, GREGORY A. 3ff/01 $1,68337 048923 MEYER. WILLIAM C. WNt $53924 N8924 VOID W/N $0.00 048W5 VOID WMI $0.00 N89M VOID 377101 10.00 048927 OWN, LYLE E Y 101 $140.19 M928 WEINBERGER. PAUL E WMI 11,299.60 M929 BRINKHAUS. JOHN F Y7101 11.231 92 N8930 DEBAERE, DONALD L 317/01 183855 048931 3REGORY, JAMES O YDN $1 102 N CITY OF ORONO payroll register Ol06M1 555 AM Page 2 Pay Parley Check 0 Employes Name Check Dale Check Amount 5 048932 HANSEN. STEVEN Wi01 $1,389.00 5 048933 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G. W/01 580853 5 048934 OBRIEN, RANDY L. 3 /01 8752.92 5 N8935 PALMER. GREGORY A. 30/01 $1.052.12 5 N89M RATHBUN, BARRY J. W/01 $1,24247 5 048937 SKREEN, DALE S. 3=1 $1,212.88 5 048938 ROSS, JOHN A. YD01 5%.00 5 048939 STEFFENNAGEN. RONALD E Y 101 $1,27089 ROW Total $50.231.32 CITY OF ORONO Friday, March 09. 2001 Check Summary Register Page 1 oI Na.. Check Dale Check Amt 10100 Primary Cash Paid Chk#070750 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 30I2001 $7,894.00 Pak ChM 070751 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES WQW1 S18,616.52 Pak ChM 070752 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST.457 3782001 $300.00 Pak ChM 070753 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE N2001 $0.00 Pak ChM 070754 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 3/72001 53,737.60 Pak ChM 070755 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 3772001 $1.899.65 Pak ChM 070756 PEBSCOIOBRA N2D01 $5.59 Pak ChM 070757 PEBSCOIUS CONF OF MAYORS W12WI S2,317.00 Pak Chka 070758 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT waool S10,750 92 Pak ChM 070759 UNITED WAY 302001 $24.00 Pak ChM 070760 WSCONSIN SCTF WQNI S184.62 Pak ChM 070761 AMEM 311b2001 $20,00 Total Checks $45.749,93 INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING MAR 1 2 2000 c 1 MAR 12 UIYU L"CCLAKE �I I r Lm �����_ MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE • P.O. BOX 385 • SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 • 952 471-7125 • FAX 951 411 9151 February 14, 2001 DEEP,UVEN To Whom it may Concern: EXCELSIOR The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission is about to embark upon GREENWOOD an exciting new era —,an era in which we will bring a community news show to the Lake Minnetonka area. INDEPENDENCE LMCC News will serve residents of the Lake Minnetonka area by bringing information about community events, school activities and municipal LONG LAKE developments into their homes through the medium of cable television. LMCC News will allow your organization another avenue through which you can LOREno inform and serve the public. MEDINA All your organization needs to do to take advantage of this exciting free service is to keep us at the LMCC infomred of newsworthy events that you may be sponsoring or promoting. You can do Lhis mainly by faxing or mailing any news MINN 9GN H releases you may already be supplying y y y pp ying to other media outlets to the address or fax number listed below. MINNETINWA If you are interested in this valuable service, mail or fax contact information to Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission, P.O. Box 385, Spring °"ONO Park, ME 55384.0385. The LMCC fax number is 952.471.9151. ST IONIEACIUS Sinc sNOREwooD SMINGP �r`6lir, E. Weaver LMCC Studio Manager TONKA RAT v WRIA