HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-2019 Council PacketAgenda
Council Meeting
Monday, March 11, 2019, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not
on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Agenda
Consent Agenda
1. City Council Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2019
2. City Council Work Session Minutes of February, 25, 2019
3. Claims/Bills
4. Approval of 2019 Kennel Licenses
5. Dakota Trail Cooperative Agreement
6. Hennepin County Healthy Tree Canopy Grant Program - Resolution
7. LA19-000003 – Fine Line Docks o/b/o Thomas & Kelsey Hamilton, 1795 Fox Street – Resolution
8. LA19-000004 – City Homes LLC o/b/o Joshua & Nicole Jabs, 3369 Crystal Bay Road, Variances –
Resolution
9. LA19-000005 – Steven & Kimberly Schottler, 2740 Shadywood Road, After-the-Fact, Variance –
Resolution
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage
in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to
staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home
address at the podium before speaking.
Public Works/City Engineer Report
10. Water Meter Replacement
Finance Director Report
11. Utility Rate Discussion
Planning Department Report
12. LA18-000104 – Gary Anderst o/b/o Narrows LLC, 3382 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit –
Resolution
Agenda
Council Meeting
Monday, March 11, 2019, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
13. LA19-000006 – Trident Development o/b/o University of St. Thomas, Outlot A. Stonebay; Concept
Plan Review
14. LA19-000002 – Scott Gates o/b/o Kruckeberg Real Estate, 4400 Deering Island, Concept Plan, Amend
MUSA Boundary
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator Report
City Attorney Report
15. The meeting will be closed as permitted by section 13D.03 to discuss the City's labor negotiation
strategy related to the City's negotiations with the LELS union.
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2019
03-18-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Victoria Seals)
03-19-19 Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m.
03-19-19 City Council Meeting, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m.
04-08-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
04-15-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Matt Johnson)
04-22-19 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
04-22-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
05-06-19 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m.
05-13-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
05-20-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Dennis Walsh)
05-27-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed
05-28-19 City Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m.
05-28-19 City Council Meeting, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 7
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup, and Victoria
Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Community Development Director
Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 11, 2019
2. CLAIMS/BILLS
3. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES
4. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF BICYCLES
5. APPOINTMENT OF 2019 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES
6. 2019 SEWER REHABILITATION ENGINEERING
7. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR OUTGOING PARK COMMISSIONERS,
RESOLUTION NO. 6948 & R ESOLUTION 6949
9. LOCAL TRAILS CONNECTION GRANT APPLICATION, RESOLUTION NO. 6951
10. LA18-000091 AJ HELGERSON, 2870 GOLDENROD WAY, VARIANCE –
RESOLUTION NO. 6952
11. LA18-000103 ISAAC LINDSTROM, ALL ENERGY SOLAR ON BEHALF OF
WILLIAM AND ELEANOR FERRIL, 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD – RESOLUTION NO.
6953
12. 2019 PAY EQUITY REPORT
13. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING UBS CORPORATE RESOLUTIONS,
RESOLUTION NO. 6953
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, with Item No. 8 being
removed from the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 7
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Richie Anderson, North Marina, stated a lot of City Councils would not enter into private/government
relationships, and that he appreciates the opportunity to be able to contribute to the Community Service
Dog program. Anderson stated last year at this time he agreed to sponsor Orono’s community dog and
that he will be donating a check to cover the expenses for it again this year.
Walsh thanked Mr. Anderson for his generous donation.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to accept the donation from Richie Anderson and North Shore
Marina for the Community Service Dog Program. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PRESENTATIONS
14. RECOGNIZE COMMUNITY SERVICE DOG PROGRAM
Officer Kyle Kirschner, Orono Police Department, was present.
Kirschner stated Xerxes has completed his training through Can-Do-Canines. The police department has
held over 20-plus events at the various schools, which involved hundreds of hours of community
involvement. Events were held at places like the Spring Park Nursing Home, the various schools, and
meeting with the residents in Minnetonka Beach. The City of Mound has also been very proactive in
getting to know officers.
Kirschner stated his goal at work is to attempt to have between three to five contacts per day with Xerxes
and the citizens and that the overall goal was to create positive police contact. Goals for this year include
fostering a relationship with Corner House, who conducts interviews with children who have experienced
trauma or violent incidents. While Corner House is located a little outside of Orono, it goes to show how
far this program can reach.
Walsh commented he appreciates the work the Orono Police Department has done with this program and
that Can-Do-Canines has provided essentially $425,000 worth of training and other services. Walsh
stated that was in addition to the money donated by Richie Anderson and his family to pay for the yearly
expenses to have the dog here. Walsh stated this program helps illustrate how a private/government
partnership can be effective.
15. SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICERS
Mayor Walsh administered the oath of office to Police Officers Zach Wyatt, Aleah Lang, and Troy
Carlson.
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
16. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE
Edwards reported Orono has had thirteen 1-inch plus events this winter, with a number of those being
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 7
6-plus inches. The Public Works Department has spent 1,161 hours this winter plowing snow, which
works out to 2.5 weeks of constant effort for each of Orono’s crew members, and includes 213 overtime
hours.
As far as de-icing materials go, the City has used 3,875 gallons of brine on the roads, 182 tons of treated
salt, and 137 tons of untreated salt. The treated salt is for the colder temperatures and works down to 15
degrees.
Seals asked how the City is doing on its supplies.
Edwards indicated they are getting low on salt and that the neighboring cities are in the same boat. The
City has to place its order back in March with the state, which requires the City to take anywhere between
80 to 120 percent of the order. Orono is getting close to its 120 percent limit for the year. As a proactive
measure, the City has hauled in some extra salt from Hennepin County.
Seals asked how they are doing budget-wise with the overtime.
Edwards stated they do not separate plowing overtime from winter activities and that the overtime budget
accounts for lift station failures, etc. The 213 hours is about double what Orono had last year.
Crosby commended the Orono Staff for doing such a terrific job with the roads.
Edwards stated have received some calls about mail boxes being hit but they have also received a lot of
positive calls thanking Staff for the work they have done. The graph at the bottom shows the normal
snowfall in a season from 1981 to 2010, and the typical amount of snow between October to April is 54
inches. In February of this year Orono has received 32.1 inches when in a normal year it receives 7.8
inches.
Crosby requested Staff check the fire hydrants to make sure they are clear of snow.
Edwards stated snow storage is becoming a challenge.
Seals stated she has received a number of compliments about the snow removal activities of the Public
Works Department.
Edwards noted one reason for the large quantity of salt used this year was due to the rainfalls that
occurred either prior to or during snow events as well as the wind.
Edwards reported on the following activities performed by the Public Works Department:
Routine checks on water plants
Repaired three water mains
Performed normal meter readings
Conducted one service inspection
Performed 257 weekly checks and services
Weekly checks and services on the sewer, one service inspection, Lift Station No. 32 startup and
21 facility inspections completed
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 7
Emergency roof repairs at the water plant in Navarre
38 pieces of equipment maintained or repaired
262 sign inspections
19 sign replacements
Right-of-way tree trimming
Light pole decorations
Culvert clearing for stormwater
Spent 125 manhours maintaining the ice rinks
35 Christmas trees removals and chipping
Cleared trails of snow and ice
Parks parking lot snow removal
Equipment annual services
Golf clubhouse basement mold remediation project
Seals stated she has received some complaints about Asplundh Tree Trimming because they were leaving
the debris behind.
Edwards stated they work for Xcel.
Seals stated she has also received a lot of good compliments about the efforts the City is making on the
local parks.
8. OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT APPLICATION, RESOLUTION FOR BIG ISLAND
PARK, RESOLUTION NO. 6950
Edwards stated the DNR offers an Outdoor Recreation grant and that the City Council packet should
include that grant proposal. Most of the grants require a resolution from the City Council saying they are
willing to support their part of the grant.
Seals noted this grant is in line with the master plan for Big Island and that it gives the City an avenue to
pay for trails or bathrooms, etc., on Big Island. Any improvements that are done will require City
Council approval.
Edwards stated the primary location for a bathroom was by the visitor center and the second site was the
overlook point.
Seals reported there have been some snowmobiles out on Big Island where they are not supposed to be.
In addition, some of the residents have a concern about how the City will maintain these items long-term.
Walsh stated the master plan was well thought through and that they are waiting to see what type of
grants the City is able to obtain.
Printup commented he likes the grant seeking, which has only happened in the past couple of years.
Printup stated he always thought it would be appropriate for there to be a monument of some type or a
flag honoring the veterans. Because Big Island has seen a lot of damage and there are maintenance
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 7
issues, he will not be supporting this. Printup expressed concern that this will become a black hole and
will be never-ending.
Crosby commented there are some good possibilities for improving Big Island and that security cameras
may help to deter some of the vandalism.
Walsh noted a 501(3)(c) has been formed to help raise some funds and that the City has been trying to
leverage everything they can with the public/private partnerships.
Crosby commented he likes the idea of a flag pole.
Seals stated the challenge with Big Island is that no matter what the City does, there will be a portion of
the population that is unhappy with it. It is an island in the middle of the lake and it is a logistical
nightmare. In reality it should have always been owned by Three Rivers, but that Orono has made a
promise to its residents and to the veterans. Currently the trails are not wheelchair accessible, and if the
City can make some trails that are more handicap friendly, that is a win. The City does need to be
cognizant as the Council debates the details to consider what makes the most sense and how it will be
maintained.
Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6950 , a Resolution Requesting a
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Outdoor Recreation Grant for Big Island Park.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Printup Opposed.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Seals reported this past weekend the Orono-Westonka Winter Melt event was held at the Orono Activity
Center. In attendance were over 700 kids and about 800 parents over two days and is the first tournament
the club has done. Seals stated she would like to thank the volunteers and the residents for helping with
this event and that it is a great activity center.
Johnson stated his nephew, Noah Johnson, represented the State of Minnesota on one of the top 12-13
pee-wee teams in the world for a two-week long tournament in Canada. Minnesota made it to the final
four, which was the furthest it has ever made it, and played a variety of different countries like Japan and
Czechoslovakia.
Johnson stated the Public Works Staff has been doing a great job on the roads.
Crosby thanked Staff for doing a fantastic job with the roads as well as the private contractors.
Crosby thanked Richie Anderson for his donation to the Community Service Dog Program and that it is
nice to know Orono is a community that likes to embrace the positive.
Crosby stated in light of some issues where women are being stalked or followed, he would encourage
women to be aware of their surroundings, especially when in parking lots, malls or gyms. If they feel
uncomfortable with going out there alone, they should tell someone. Everyone should be vigilant and
know their surroundings and leave with a friend whenever possible. Crosby stated the more people talk
about it and keep it in the forefront, the more likely people will have a plan of action.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 7
Walsh reported he attended the Orono Dance Team end-of-the-year banquet, which was a great time, and
that Mound-Westonka and Orono both went to state. This is the first year Orono qualified for the state
tournament and they placed fourth and fifth.
Walsh stated he would also like to acknowledge John Freefalt, who was awarded an honorary consulate
position with the U.S. Department of State. Walsh noted he had provided him a letter of recommendation
and that he will be working with the country of Latvia.
Walsh thanked the Public Works Department for their work keeping the roads plowed and Richie
Anderson for his donation to the Community Service Dog Program.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
17. APPOINTMENT OF PARK COMMISSIONERS – RESOLUTION NO. 6946
Rief noted the City Council interviewed Park Commission applicants at the work session and that tonight
they will be appointing two new commissioners.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6946, a Resolution Reappointing Rick
Meyers as Chair, Janice Berg as Commissioner, to appoint Casey Hudson and Rick Carter as
Regular Commissioners, and Jennifer Klaahsen as alternate to the Orono Park Commission.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
18. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONEERS – RESOLUTION NO. 6947
Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6947, a Resolution Appointing
Mark McCutcheon, Matthew Gettman, Christopher Bollis to a three-year term on the Orono
Planning Commission, and to appoint Mark Deopke as alternate to the Orono Planning
Commission. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Johnson recommended someone from the Planning Commission be appointed to the Code Review
Committee.
Walsh thanked Chair John Thiesse for his work as the chair of the Planning Commission this past year.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2019
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 7
ADJOURNMENT
Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:48 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Orono City Council
Work Session Minutes
Monday, February 25, 2019
Council Chambers 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals
and Matt Johnson. Representing staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief and City Clerk
Anna Carlson.
Guest: LMCD Representative, Mark Kroll, Park Commissioner Applicant: Jennifer
Klaahsen, and Planning Commissioner Applicants: Chris Bollis, Mark Doepke, Mark
McCutcheon, and Matt Gettman.
Meeting Start Time: 5:00 p.m.
1. Park Commission Applicant Interviews
2. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews
The City Council interviewed the Planning and Park Commissioner applicants until 6:10
p.m.
3. LMCD Update – Mark Kroll
LMCD Representative Mark Kroll gave an update to the City Council regarding the
LMCD Board meeting. Kroll mentioned that there was further discussion regarding the
suspension of milfoil harvesters for this summer at the LMCD Board meeting. Kroll
also mentioned that the LMCD board had discussed and issue regarding fuel sales on the
lake. The LMCD board plans to discuss the fuel sales issue further at a future Work
Session.
Meeting End Time: 6:42 p.m.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
___________________________________ __________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By:RJO Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for
services and/or products provided to the City.
2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed
the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks
111419 to 111482, totaling $220,484.95.
3. Noteworthy Payments.
Vendor
Amount
Description of Payment
#111438 In Control Inc
$66,182.00
Payment for 2018 Water Plant Scada Project.
#111443 Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District
$14,568.75
Payment for 1st quarter levy payment.
#111456 MTI Distributing Inc
$55,930.64
Payment for the purchase of a new riding greens mower for
the Golf Course and a debris blower for Parks and Golf
Course.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims
list as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the claims list as presented.
Exhibits
A. Check Register
Item No.: 3 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: Claims/Bills
Presenter: Maggie Ung
Accountant
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
SHERWIN WILLIAMS 02/27/2019 111399 0087-8 101-45210-223 Paint fo Clubhouse Basement - 10 gal Golf Course 490.98-
Total 111399:490.98-
SHERWIN WILLIAMS 02/27/2019 111419 0087-8 101-45210-223 Paint fo Clubhouse Basement - 10 gal Golf Course 480.98
Total 111419:480.98
A La Carte Chreative Group 03/11/2019 111420 40557 101-42110-352 PD/business cards Police Department 150.00
Total 111420:150.00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 03/11/2019 111421 379029655 710-49970-413 Police Copier 1/20-3/20/19 509.93
Total 111421:509.93
ASPEN EQUIPMENT 03/11/2019 111422 10200835 701-49800-403 Unit #424 Oil Sensor Task #27208 158.09
Total 111422:158.09
BUDGET PRINTING 03/11/2019 111423 8989 101-45200-489 Retirement Plaque - Parks Commissioner Parks 126.00
BUDGET PRINTING 03/11/2019 111423 8989 101-42400-437 Retirement Plaque - Planning Commissioner Building & Zoning 63.00
Total 111423:189.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 021319-2 101-42110-437 Award Certificate Frames Police Department 96.77
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 021319-3 101-42110-437 Award Certificate Frames Police Department 26.86
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 021519-2 101-42110-226 Gas for Truck #422 Police Department 66.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022219 101-42110-229 Explorer Uniform Shirts Police Department 86.59
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022219-1 101-41500-437 CLA Seminar Finance Department 100.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022519 101-41110-439 Food/Cookies for CC & WS Meetings 2/25/19 Mayor & Council 18.57
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022519-1 101-41300-489 Flowers for Funeral - D. Klitzke Administration 84.90
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022519-2 101-41110-439 Food for WS Metting 2/25/19 Mayor & Council 69.05
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022519-3 101-42110-437 Swearing In Ceremony Cake Police Department 26.99
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022519-4 101-42110-437 Missing Persons/Death Investigation Conf Refund - Police Department 150.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022519-5 101-42110-437 Missing Persons/Death Investigation Conf Refund - Police Department 150.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/11/2019 111424 022619 101-45200-416 Big Island Security Camera Parks 29.97
Total 111424:305.70
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/11/2019 111425 022119 602-49450-381 LS #9 Generator Sewer 29.12
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/11/2019 111425 022719 601-49400-381 Gas 1/22-2/19/19 Water 888.23
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/11/2019 111425 022719 602-49450-381 Gas 1/22-2/19/19 Sewer 989.69
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/11/2019 111425 022719 101-41900-381 Gas 1/22-2/19/19 Central Services 2,179.69
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/11/2019 111425 022719 101-42110-381 Gas 1/22-2/19/19 Police Department 729.59
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/11/2019 111425 022719 101-45210-381 Gas 1/22-2/19/19 Golf Course 304.27
Total 111425:5,120.59
Century Link 03/11/2019 111426 021919 101-45210-321 GC phone/internet 2/19/19-3/18/19 Golf Course 217.86
Total 111426:217.86
CHARLES CUDD 03/11/2019 111427 120618 101-22205 Esrow Refund 2017-00547 3223 Shadywood Circle 10,000.00
Total 111427:10,000.00
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/11/2019 111428 0016453 101-42110-402 #243 Service Police Department 290.52
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/11/2019 111428 0016455 101-42110-402 #249 Service Police Department 44.90
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/11/2019 111428 0016458 101-42110-402 #242 Service Police Department 159.79
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/11/2019 111428 0016461 101-42110-402 #843 Service Police Department 48.66
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/11/2019 111428 0016463 101-42110-402 #250 service Police Department 44.90
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/11/2019 111428 0016482 101-42110-402 #255 Service Police Department 56.21
Total 111428:644.98
CINTAS CORPORATION 03/11/2019 111429 4017193712 101-43000-226 Uniforms Public Works Department 63.47
Total 111429:63.47
DAVID WILLIAMS 03/11/2019 111430 397 101-43000-224 Mailbox Replacement Public Works Department 45.00
Total 111430:45.00
DELTA DENTAL 03/11/2019 111431 7567336 101-15998 0037220072 March 2019 Dental 471.55
DELTA DENTAL 03/11/2019 111431 7567336 101-21709 0037220072 March 2019 Dental 3,110.01
Total 111431:3,581.56
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/11/2019 111432 673579 101-45210-352 Multi-seasonal Job Ad Golf Course 225.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 111432:225.00
FISCHER MINING LLC 03/11/2019 111433 150491 101-43000-224 Ice Control Sand Public Works Department 594.69
Total 111433:594.69
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/11/2019 111434 3270-430929 101-42110-221 KIA Wipes Police Department 25.48
Total 111434:25.48
HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS OF 03/11/2019 111435 013119 101-42110-433 2019 Membership Police Department 520.00
Total 111435:520.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 03/11/2019 111436 01029837 101-45210-441 GC 2019 Food / Water WellLicense Golf Course 272.00
Total 111436:272.00
Hoff Barry, P.A.03/11/2019 111437 14907 101-41600-306 Contempt Matter Law/Legal Services 5,382.41
Total 111437:5,382.41
IN CONTROL INC.03/11/2019 111438 18104NA02 601-16500 2018 Water Plant Scada Project 18-009 45,063.75
IN CONTROL INC.03/11/2019 111438 18104NB02 601-16500 2018 Water Plant Scada Project 18-009 21,118.25
Total 111438:66,182.00
JAMI WITTKE 03/11/2019 111439 022519 101-42110-437 Accessories for Award Banquet Police Department 6.75
Total 111439:6.75
JESSICA WERDER 03/11/2019 111440 022519 101-42110-437 Swearing In Ceremony Cakes Police Department 33.00
Total 111440:33.00
JLR GARAGE DOOR SERVICE I 03/11/2019 111441 58745 101-42110-404 PD Garage Door - Adjust Safety Eyes Police Department 125.00
Total 111441:125.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
KYLE KIRSCHNER 03/11/2019 111442 021819 101-42110-437 Training Reimbursement Police Department 31.79
KYLE KIRSCHNER 03/11/2019 111442 021819 101-42110-212 reimb fuel for squad Police Department 27.37
KYLE KIRSCHNER 03/11/2019 111442 021819 101-42110-317 Xerxes Food Police Department 45.41
Total 111442:104.57
LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DI 03/11/2019 111443 011519 651-49910-433 1st Qtr 20193 levy pmt Storm Water 14,568.75
Total 111443:14,568.75
LAUREEN DARLING 03/11/2019 111444 384 101-43000-224 Mailbox and Post Replacement Public Works Department 90.00
Total 111444:90.00
LOGIS 03/11/2019 111445 46698 101-42110-401 Tritech Issue Police Department 156.25
LOGIS 03/11/2019 111445 46727 101-42110-310 Police Records 3/19 Police Department 7,293.00
LOGIS 03/11/2019 111445 46727 101-41900-329 Backups 3/19 Central Services 850.00
LOGIS 03/11/2019 111445 46727 101-41900-329 Internet 3/19 Central Services 218.00
LOGIS 03/11/2019 111445 46727 101-42110-329 Internet 3/19 Police Department 218.00
LOGIS 03/11/2019 111445 46798 710-49970-221 Tokens 66.00
Total 111445:8,801.25
MARGARET UNG 03/11/2019 111446 022819 101-41500-331 Mileage 1/9-2/28/19 Finance Department 51.04
Total 111446:51.04
MEDIACOM 03/11/2019 111447 022119 614-49840-329 Internet 03/2019 Cable Franchise 1,187.00
Total 111447:1,187.00
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 03/11/2019 111448 1873 101-42400-310 Inspection Services Jan 2019 Building & Zoning 8,930.50
Total 111448:8,930.50
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/11/2019 111449 00037550 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Police Department 48.05
Total 111449:48.05
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 03/11/2019 111450 P77144 101-45200-221 Tractor Blower Parts Parks 232.48
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 03/11/2019 111450 P83528 101-45200-223 Turf Sprayer Parks Parks 1,163.00
Total 111450:1,395.48
MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN INC 03/11/2019 111451 1370 101-42110-433 2019 Membership Orono PD 4910 Police Department 215.05
Total 111451:215.05
MirrorMan LLC 03/11/2019 111452 179 101-42110-580 PD Gym Wall Mirror Police Department 800.00
Total 111452:800.00
MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 03/11/2019 111453 9401 101-42110-437 ETI registration T. Wittke Police Department 625.00
MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 03/11/2019 111453 9409 101-42110-437 ETI registration C. Stensrud & T. Sonnek Police Department 1,250.00
MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 03/11/2019 111453 9470 101-42110-437 ETI registration K. Beck Police Department 625.00
Total 111453:2,500.00
MOTOROLA 03/11/2019 111454 16036541 101-42110-580 APX radios and accessories (qty 1)Police Department 8,310.50
Total 111454:8,310.50
MOUND TRUE VALUE 03/11/2019 111455 158428 101-42110-201 Squad Supplies Police Department 45.94
MOUND TRUE VALUE 03/11/2019 111455 158594 101-42110-201 Squad Supplies Police Department 32.97
Total 111455:78.91
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 03/11/2019 111456 1199938-00 225-45200-580 Riding Greens Mower 48,674.46
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 03/11/2019 111456 1199942-00 225-45200-580 Debris Blower 7,256.18
Total 111456:55,930.64
NAVARRE HARDWARE 03/11/2019 111457 315817 101-43000-224 Screws Public Works Department 6.49
Total 111457:6.49
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.03/11/2019 111458 6732000320 101-21710 Pera life 03/2019 352.00
Total 111458:352.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
NEWEGG INC 03/11/2019 111459 1301896276 710-49970-221 Monitors - PW Director 666.80
Total 111459:666.80
NORTH MEMORIAL 03/11/2019 111460 022819 101-42110-437 EMR Refresher - C. Farniok Police Department 70.00
Total 111460:70.00
NORTHERN STAR EXPLORER 03/11/2019 111461 022219 101-42110-229 Orono Police Explorers Post 3776 Renewal Police Department 33.00
Total 111461:33.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 013119 101-42110-402 01/19 Car Washes Police Department 148.50
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1603917 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #254/521 Police Department 22.02
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1604006 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #245 Police Department 31.37
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1604124 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 22.57
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1604183 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #250 Police Department 13.56
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1604190 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #251 Police Department 16.21
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1604948 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #254 Police Department 15.36
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1604962 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 31.56
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1605143 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #251 Police Department 10.68
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1605166 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #250 Police Department 10.72
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1605172 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #244 Police Department 22.42
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1605177 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #242 Police Department 9.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1605182 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 22.52
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1605284 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 19.93
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1606277 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #242 Police Department 12.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1606406 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #250 Police Department 15.67
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1606511 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #254 Police Department 24.54
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1606606 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #242 Police Department 11.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607197 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #248 Police Department 24.04
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607507 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #251 Police Department 27.93
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607540 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #255 Police Department 36.45
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607550 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #248 Police Department 12.31
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607648 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 22.69
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607747 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 15.95
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607760 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 25.75
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 03/11/2019 111462 1607995 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #257/244 Police Department 28.70
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 111462:653.45
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 03/11/2019 111463 013119 101-42110-402 01/19 Car Washes Police Department 174.75
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 03/11/2019 111463 1492085 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #234 Police Department 26.81
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 03/11/2019 111463 1492909 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #245 Police Department 28.45
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 03/11/2019 111463 1494032 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel - Squad #232 Police Department 25.22
Total 111463:255.23
OFFICE DEPOT 03/11/2019 111464 2727821940 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 100.33
OFFICE DEPOT 03/11/2019 111464 2753858420 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 58.00
OFFICE DEPOT 03/11/2019 111464 2753861750 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 18.99
OFFICE DEPOT 03/11/2019 111464 2813493850 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 64.13
Total 111464:241.45
PIRTEK 03/11/2019 111465 S2879336.00 701-49800-403 Unit #711, Hose Repair 209.90
Total 111465:209.90
PLEAA 03/11/2019 111466 2019DUES 101-42110-433 2019 Membership- H. Gehlen Police Department 35.00
PLEAA 03/11/2019 111466 2019DUES-J 101-42110-433 2019 membership-J. Werder Police Department 35.00
PLEAA 03/11/2019 111466 2019DUES-K 101-42110-433 2019 Membership- K. Herzog Police Department 35.00
Total 111466:105.00
PLUNKETT S 03/11/2019 111467 6206927 101-41900-404 City Hall Pest Control Central Services 232.54
Total 111467:232.54
PROLAWNS 03/11/2019 111468 013119 101-45200-404 2019 Park Turf Maintenance Parks 8,303.69
Total 111468:8,303.69
Pronto Heating & Air Conditioning 03/11/2019 111469 022219 101-20802 Refund Surcharge Fee M18-000131 1.15
Pronto Heating & Air Conditioning 03/11/2019 111469 022219 101-32530 Refund Permit Fee M18-000131 28.75
Total 111469:29.90
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 03/11/2019 111470 FEBRUARY2 101-41900-404 Garbage Service Central Services 440.42
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 03/11/2019 111470 FEBRUARY2 101-45200-404 Garbage Service Parks 461.98
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 03/11/2019 111470 FEBRUARY2 101-45210-404 Garbage Service Golf Course 72.47
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 03/11/2019 111470 FEBRUARY2 603-49500-442 CH Cleanup 464.20
Total 111470:1,439.07
RDO EQUIPMENT 03/11/2019 111471 P54377 101-43000-224 Unit #430 Backhoe Cutting Edge Public Works Department 252.75
Total 111471:252.75
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 03/11/2019 111472 11400.00-9 408-48800-590 CSAH 112 PH2 Landscape 18-043 906.18
Total 111472:906.18
STAR TRIBUNE 03/11/2019 111473 022419 101-41900-352 2/8/19-2/7/20 Subscription 3009532 Central Services 169.00
Total 111473:169.00
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 CM281353 101-42110-226 Uniforms Police Department 69.98-
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 CM281616 101-42110-226 Uniforms Police Department 120.00-
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1350013 101-42110-240 Batteries Police Department 59.98
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1350855 101-42110-228 Ammunition Police Department 1,995.00
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1351096 101-42110-226 Uniforms Police Department 25.98
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1351441 101-42110-226 Uniforms Police Department 78.96
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1351570 101-42110-240 Transport Hood Police Department 46.94
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1351726 101-42110-228 Uniforms Police Department 61.99
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/11/2019 111474 I1352097 101-42110-226 Uniforms Police Department 61.99
Total 111474:2,140.86
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 03/11/2019 111475 021919 101-41110-433 2019 Membership Assessment Mayor & Council 452.00
Total 111475:452.00
THOMSON WEST 03/11/2019 111476 0839862120 101-42110-311 West Information Police Department 200.94
Total 111476:200.94
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/11/2019 111477 022019 101-41900-322 1st Class Presort Central Services 235.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 2/26/2019 - 3/11/2019 Mar 07, 2019 09:25AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 111477:235.00
US Bank Equipment Finance 03/11/2019 111478 378780373 710-49970-413 Copiers 596.76
Total 111478:596.76
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 03/11/2019 111479 64446 101-41900-407 Feb 7th Missed Cleaning Central Services 103.13-
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 03/11/2019 111479 64548 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 03/11/2019 111479 64548 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50
Total 111479:2,371.87
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 03/11/2019 111480 7110 701-49800-402 UNIT #427 Actuator Repair Task #27097 381.50
Total 111480:381.50
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-42110-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Police Department 1,578.55
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-41900-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Central Services 134.93
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-42400-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Building & Zoning 70.02
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-43000-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Public Works Department 140.04
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-45200-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Parks 35.01
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-45210-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Golf Course 137.51
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 601-49400-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Water 173.36
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 602-49450-321 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Sewer 35.01
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-42110-221 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Police Department 49.99
VERIZON WIRELESS 03/11/2019 111481 9823637164 101-45210-221 Internet 2/7/19-3/6/19 Golf Course 399.99
Total 111481:2,754.41
XCEL ENERGY 03/11/2019 111482 628291061 602-49450-381 Southway LS Sewer 70.91
Total 111482:70.91
Grand Totals: 220,484.95
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the 2019 Kennel Licenses.
2019 ANNUAL KENNEL LICENSE RENEWALS – APPLICANTS
COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE
• Woof Diversified, LLC dba Woofington
Lisa Larson
3596 Shoreline Dr.
RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSES
• James & Carrie Lundberg
2485 Thoroughbred Lane
• Jane Kline & Steve Bell
4455 W. Branch Road
• Leslie & Jerad Hahn
809 Brown Rd N
• David & LuAnn Runkle
2684 Casco Pt Rd
• Jennifer Bichanich
332 W. Lake Street
• Frank Plachecki
3685 North Shore Drive
• Bianca & Jon Chance
248 Cygnet Place
2. Staff Recommendation. The kennel license applicants listed above have met the requirements and
submitted complete applications. Staff recommends approval of the 2019 commercial and residential
kennel license applications.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the above listed Kennel licenses for 2019.
Item No. 4 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: Approval of 2019 Kennel Licenses
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:RJO
1. Purpose. The purpose of the council action is to enter into a cooperative agreement with Hennepin
County and Three Rivers Park District for the design and construction of a trail extension in Navarre to
the Dakota Trail.
2. Background. In 2016 the City of Orono began
discussion with Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park
District about creating a safe connection between the Dakota
trail and Navarre via County Round 19. This trail extension
will close the gap between the Dakota and the existing
sidewalk that ends at Livingston thereby connecting the
Dakota Trail to the downtown, existing park and ride facility
and Navarre Park. To further the project, Three Rivers Park
District has agreed to take the lead in design work for the
project. To commence that work a cooperative agreement is
required.
3. Summary of Agreement Terms. The general terms of
the agreement are outlined below.
A. Each party will contribute one-third of design, right-
of-way acquisition and construction costs with a maximum
contribution of $100,000 each;
B. If the project estimate exceeds $300,000 at any point, the parties agree to discuss additional
funding and/or terminate the project with each party paying a third of the expended costs to date;
C. Three Rivers shall take the lead designing and constructing the missing trail connection;
D. Hennepin County will take the lead acquiring any permanent or temporary right-of-way;
E. Orono will designate 10 parking stalls for regional trail users; and
F. All three parties will work collaboratively to engage the public and potentially impacted
residents.
4. Cost. The cost to the City will be $100,000.
5. Funding. The funding for the project has been identified in the Capital Improvement plan from the
Parks Enterprise fund.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the City enter into the cooperative agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to enter into the Dakota Trail Navarre Connection Cooperative Agreement with Three Rivers Park
District and Hennepin County for a trail connection along Country Road 19 between Dakota rail regional
trail and Livingston Avenue.
Exhibits
A. Cooperative Agreement.
Item No.: 5 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: Dakota Trail Cooperative Agreement
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Agreement No. PW 29-44-16
County Project No. 2162100
Dakota Rail Regional Trail
Connection
Three Rivers Park District
City of Orono
DAKOTA RAIL REGIONAL TRAIL NAVARRE CONNECTION
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ______________________ day of
_____________________, 20___ by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and
corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and
the Three Rivers Park District, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the “Park District”, and the City of Orono, a body politic
and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City"
(collectively, the “Parties”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Parties share a vision for a multi-use trail connecting Lake Minnetonka
Regional Trail in Shorewood and Dakota Rail Regional Trail in Orono along County Road (CR)
19 (Shadywood Road); and
WHEREAS, the Parties have identified a need for additional parking near the Dakota Rail
Regional Trail within the City; and
WHEREAS, a concrete walk exists from the Navarre Municipal Parking Lot to
Livingston Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, no designated pedestrian facilities exist from the Dakota Rail Regional Trail
to Livingston Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a multi-use trail connecting the existing pedestrian
facilities at Livingston Avenue to the Dakota Rail Regional Trail within CR 19 right-of-way
supports the long-term trail vision to connect the Dakota Rail Regional Trail to the Navarre
Municipal Parking Lot, hereinafter referred to as “Navarre Connector” and addresses the parking
need; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to establish each party’s responsibilities relating to the
design, construction, funding and operation and maintenance of the Navarre Connector and Park
and Ride; and
WHEREAS, the County, in consultation with the Park District and the City, completed a
concept design for the Navarre Connector that indicated additional design work is necessary to
fully determine the impacts on private property and cost; and
WHEREAS, the Park District in consultation with the County and the City will complete
design to a 60 percent (%) level and identify estimated project costs and easement acquisition
needs to determine if the project is feasible to all Parties; and
WHEREAS, the County, the Park District and the City agree to cost participate in the
project for right of way land acquisition, design, construction administration, and construction of
the Navarre Connector, and each party’s cost participation shall be a not to exceed (NTE)
amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($100,000.00); and
WHEREAS, once the project is determined feasible and if a temporary construction
easement along CR 19 is determined to be needed to construct the project, the County shall
acquire the temporary construction easement without incurring extra cost to the County’s cost
participation of $100,000; and
WHEREAS, in an instant in which a permanent easement or right of way is determined to
be needed to successfully construct the project, and the cost of which would drive total project
cost to exceed each party’s cost participation NTE of $100,000, the Parties will re-negotiate the
terms of the agreement to either enter into an amendment or to terminate this agreement; and
WHEREAS, once temporary and/or permanent construction easements are obtained, the
Park District, in consultation with the County and the City, will finalize the design and construct
the Navarre Connector if the project is determined feasible by all Parties; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire one agency to own, operate and maintain the Navarre
Connector and the City is willing to accept ownership, operations and maintenance
responsibilities of the trail segment; and
WHEREAS, the City shall own, operate and maintain the Navarre Connector and Park
and Ride; and
WHEREAS, the City shall designate 10 parking stalls at the Navarre Park and Ride for
regional trail users; and
WHEREAS, at any point the project is determined to be terminated, the Parties agree to
split one-third (1/3) of the costs incurred to date for any design, acquisition, construction
administration, and construction.
WHEREAS, it is contemplated that the work will be carried out by the parties under the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1, and Section 471.59.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
I
Trail Description
The Navarre Connector is 0.17-miles long and is located from Dakota Rail Regional Trail
to the Navarre Municipal Parking Lot. The portion of multi-use trail to be constructed under this
Agreement is the 0.09-mile segment from the Dakota Rail Regional Trail to Livingston Avenue.
II
Limited Use Permit
This Agreement serves as an Irrevocable Limited Use Permit hereinafter referred to as
‘Permit’ to the City for operation of the Navarre Connector. The Permit shall be permanent,
shall be binding upon the County and its successors and assigns and shall be for the benefit of the
City and its successors and assigns. The Permit shall be non-exclusive; provided, however, this
Permit shall be prior to and superior to any other permitted use of the permitted area, hereinafter
granted. Any future permit shall be subject to and subordinate to, and shall not interfere with,
the Permit without the consent, in writing, of the City. The County, for itself, its successors and
assigns, hereby covenants that it will not construct nor grant others the right to construct any
structures or improvements within the Permit area which are inconsistent with the rights and
interests herein granted to the City.
The Permit granted herein includes the right of the City and the Park District, their
contractors, agents, and employees to locate, install, construct, reconstruct, operate, maintain,
inspect, alter and repair within the described Permit area any of the following facilities and
amenities: public sidewalk or trail, trail signage, informational kiosks, benches, bike racks,
fences, trail bridges/tunnels and any other trail related structure.
The City and the Park District shall at all times have the right to keep the Permit area
clear of all buildings, structures, fences, trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, roots and other
obstructions that may interfere with or endanger usage of the Navarre Connector.
This Permit is for public trailway purposes only. The Navarre Connector shall be open to
the general public and can be used exclusively for outdoor recreation and non-motorized
commuting including but not limited to walking, jogging, skating, biking, and uses allowed
under State and Federal law including, but not limited to, other personal driven mobility devices
(OPDMD’s) and electric personal assistive devices. In addition, motor vehicles used for
maintenance, law enforcement or other public uses will be permitted within the Permit area.
The County warrants that it will defend and indemnify the City against any loss, expense
or interruption to the contiguity of the Navarre Connector, and, further, shall, at its own expense,
take all necessary action, including, but not limited to, the use of eminent domain to obtain
property rights where County lost property rights for purposes of establishing a continuous and
contiguous trail corridor. These obligations of the County may be specifically enforced by City,
and further, all costs of such enforcement, including reasonable attorney’s fees, shall be paid by
the County.
The County warrants it 1) has legal rights to construct, maintain, and operate sidewalks,
trails and other such public ways within the Permit area, 2) has the right, title and capacity to
convey the Permit to City, and 3) that the undersigned is authorized to execute this Permit.
The County shall provide the City written documentation of any and all previously and/or
currently present hazardous materials, pollutants, or other contaminants within the Permit area.
The City shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, obligations, including
penalties and reasonable attorney’s fees, or losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits or
proceedings based upon the release or threat of release of any hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate to, the Permit area prior to the date
of this instrument.
III
Funding
The estimated total costs of the project to construct the Navarre Connector is Three
Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents. ($300,000.00), and each party agrees to pay one-third
(1/3) of the costs in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($100,000.00).
It is further understood by each party that at 60 percent (%) design stage, all Parties agree
to meet to review design, right-of-way impacts and cost, and to confirm the project is feasible for
moving forward. If it is determined the project is not feasible, the project and this Agreement are
terminated, except that each party is still responsible to pay one-third (1/3) of the costs of
incurred project costs. Any party may terminate the project at the 60 percent (%) design stage or
the final design stage by providing the other parties a written notice of termination.
It is further understood by each party that in an instant in which the total cost of the
project exceeds each party’s cost participation of $100,000.00, the Parties will re-negotiate the
terms of the agreement to either enter into an amendment to the agreement to contribute
additional funds to the project, or to terminate this agreement.
It is understood by the Park District, the County, and the City that the funds the County
and the City have set aside for the project will be available for payment to the Park District for
three years from the date of the execution of this Agreement.
IV
Design and Construction
In accordance with Sections III Funding, the Park District or its agents will prepare the
necessary plans and specifications for the Navarre Connector and enter into a contract for
construction, administer the contract, perform the required engineering and inspection in
accordance with the plans and specifications, and assume one-third (1/3) financial responsibility
for all associated work.
The Park District will pay for the initial costs associated with design, construction
administration, and construction. The City and the County will reimburse the Park District for
their share of the costs upon substantial completion. If the project is cancelled, then one-third
(1/3) of the costs incurred to date shall be provided by each Party upon project termination.
All Parties understood and agreed that if it is determined that a temporary construction
easement along CR 19 is needed to construct the project, the County shall acquire the temporary
construction easement without incurring additional cost to the County’s cost participation of
$100,000.00. The costs for the temporary construction easement and permanent easement or
right of way land acquisition are included in the total estimated costs of the project of
$300,000.00.
The Park District will obtain approval of the plans and specifications from the County
and the City. The plans and specifications shall conform to Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) Design Standards applicable to County State Aid Highways and to the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Design and construction of the
Navarre Connector will, to the extent possible, conform to design standards and guidelines
adopted by the Park District. It is further understood and agreed that the County shall have final
discretion over the design of the multi-use trail including safe crossing design, and interpretation
and execution of engineering best practices.
The party who is responsible for trail design, construction and/or reconstruction shall
provide all trail regulatory signs as prescribed by the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (Mn MUTCD), as a part of the design and construction of the Trail.
As referenced, the County will acquire all additional right of way, permits and/or
easements required for the future reconstruction of the CR19 roadway corridor. It is further
understood and agreed that any and all Park District permits that may be required shall be
granted at no cost or expense to the County or its contractors.
V
Ownership, Operations and Maintenance
It is understood and agreed by the Parties hereto that the Navarre Connector shall become
the property of the City and all routine and preventative maintenance, restoration, repair,
replacement or other work or services required thereafter shall be performed by the City to
prolong the useful life of the trail at no expense to the County or the Park District except as
provided below. The City and its agents and licensees shall have the sole and exclusive right and
authority to operate and control the Navarre Connector and to establish rules and regulations
governing its use to the extent not in conflict with ordinances of the County or the Park District.
It is further understood and agreed that the County and Park District will waive all
required permits for the City to perform any maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement of
the Navarre Connector.
It is understood that in the future a portion of the Navarre Connector may be included as
part of the development of a regional trail along CR 19 that is desired by both the Park District,
the City, and the County. The Park District may take ownership of certain portions of the
Navarre Connector at that time in order to operate and maintain a contiguous regional trail along
CR 19.
The City shall be responsible for all winter maintenance and shall assume responsibility
for all associated liabilities and any and all damage to the Navarre Connector associated with
winter maintenance activities.
The Park District may install trail information signage at Park District expense.
Where the Navarre Connector crosses a City, County or State roadway, the party with
maintenance obligations of the roadway shall be responsible for providing and maintaining
roadway crossing treatments such as pedestrian striping, road signs and/or other treatments
as prescribed by Minnesota MUTCD or as deemed appropriate by the County.
The County and the City shall retain the right to maintain, repair, replace or install any
utilities and related facilities in, on or under the Navarre Connector.
The City will patrol and police the Navarre Connector in such manner and by such persons
as the City shall deem necessary and may enforce all rules and ordinances of the City except as
provided herein.
The City shall designate 10 parking stalls in the Navarre Municipal Parking Lot for
Regional Trail use. The Park District shall provide signage that identifies the parking stalls for
Regional Trail use. The City shall maintain the parking lot in good working order and shall be
responsible for all maintenance associated with upkeep of the parking stalls.
VI
Records/Audits
All records kept by the Park District, the County and the City with respect to the Navarre
Connector shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto.
VII
Liability
Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof, to the
extent authorized by the law, and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the
results thereof. The County's, the City’s and the Park District's liability is governed by the
provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 466.
The County, the City and the Park District each warrant that they are able to comply with
the aforementioned indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program.
VIII
Indemnification
The Park District agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County and the City,
their officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees, from any liabilities, claims, causes of
action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including, reasonable attorneys’ fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Park District, its contractors,
anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions
they may be liable for related to the ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or
replacement of the Regional Trail. The Park District’s liability shall be governed by the
provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 466 or other applicable law.
The County agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Park District and the
City, their officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes
of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the County, its contractors, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they
may be liable related to the construction, ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair
or replacement of the Regional Trail. The County’s liability shall be governed by the provisions
of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 466 or other applicable law.
The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County and the Park District,
their officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees, from any liabilities, claims, causes of
action, judgments, damages, losses, costs or expenses, including, reasonable attorneys’ fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its contractors, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by it, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions it may be
liable for related to the ownership, maintenance, existence, restoration, repair or replacement of
the Regional Trail. The City’s liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statute,
Chapter 466 or other applicable law.
IX
Worker Compensation Claims
It is further agreed that any and all employees of the Park District and all other persons
engaged by the Park District in the performance of any work or services required or provided for
herein to be performed by the Park District shall not be considered employees of the County or
the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic
Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the
employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence
of any act or omission on the part of the employees while so engaged on any of the work or
services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the
County or the City.
Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County
in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by
the County shall not be considered employees of the Park District or the City, and that any and
all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the employees while so engaged and
any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part
of the employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein
shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the Park District or the City.
Also, any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the
performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City
shall not be considered employees of the Park District or the County, and that any and all claims
that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the employees while so engaged and
any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part
of the employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein
shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County or the Park District.
X
Authorized Representatives
In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the Park District
and the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the County Highway Engineer
or designated representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as
liaison between the County, the City and the Park District.
In order to coordinate the services of the Park District with the activities of the County
and the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Park District’s
Superintendent and Secretary to the Park District Board or designated representative shall
manage this Agreement on behalf of the Park District and serve as liaison between the Park
District, the City and the County.
In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the Park District and
the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City’s Engineer/Director of
Public Works or designated representatives shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City
and serve as liaison between the City, the County and the Park District.
XI
Amendment
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained
herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are
incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement.
Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement
shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement
signed by the parties hereto.
XII
Whereas Clauses
The “Whereas” clauses are incorporated herein and are hereby made a part of this
Agreement.
XIII
Nondiscrimination
The provisions of Minnesota Statute Section 181.59 and of any applicable local
ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement
of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
XIV
Survival of Terms
The parties agree that the provisions of Sections II and VIII shall survive termination of
this Agreement.
If any provision of this Agreement shall be found to be invalid or unenforceable, the
parties agree that such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement,
which shall continue in full force and effect.
(this space left intentionally blank)
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written.
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
(Seal) By:
Chair – Three Rivers Park District
Board of Commissioners
Date:
And:
Superintendent and Secretary to the
Board
Date:
CITY OF ORONO
ATTEST:
By: _________________________ By:
City Clerk Mayor
Date: ________________________ Date:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ATTEST:
By: By:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
County Administrator Assistant County Attorney
Date: Date:
And:
Assistant County Administrator,
Public Works
Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By: By:
Assistant County Attorney County Highway Engineer
Date: Date:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By:
Department Director, Transportation -
Operations
Date:
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:RJO
1. Purpose. The purpose of this council action is to gain council approval by way of a resolution to
accept a Grant from Hennepin County and conduct a Tree Inventory.
2. Background. Hennepin County Forestry division initiated a new grant this year under their healthy
tree canopy program. Orono City staff submitted an application for funds to assist in a tree inventory. A
$5000 grant was tentatively awarded. An inventory of city trees is a prerequisite in planning for and
making sound management decisions with respect to tree disease and pest mitigation.
3. Project Scope. This grant is to fund a tree inventory on city owned property including parks.
4. Cost. The grant requires a match. The cities match includes staff time, software licensing, supplies
and partial funding an arborist. The grant will fund an arborist to complete the inventory. Cost to the city
is estimated at $5000.
5. Funding. Funding for the city portion of the project will come from the Parks and Streets Operating
Budgets with the majority as in-kind staff time and software licensing
6. Way Forward.
When What
March 2019 Solicit Arborist proposals / Quotes
April 2019 Award / Grant Agreement Signed
May -November 2019 Inventory trees
7. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the attached resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the resolution accepting a grant from the Hennepin Healthy Tree Grant Program for the
execution of a tree inventory on city lands.
Exhibits
A. Resolution authorizing the grant staff application
Item No.: 6 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: Hennepin County Healthy Tree Canopy Grant Program – Resolution
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION FOR A HENNEPIN COUNTY
HEALTHY TREE PROGRAM GRANT
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, has established a Healthy Tree
Canopy Grant Program to provide awards, which may be in the form of reimbursements (“Tree
Grant Funds”) to selected eligible community tree projects; and
WHEREAS, City of Orono desires to ensure a healthy trees on city lands and recognizes that a
key step in achieving a healthy tree canopy is the inventory of the tree on city lands.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orono City Council:
1. The Orono City Council is requesting $ 5,000 from the Hennepin Healthy Tree Canopy
Grant Program and will assume responsibility for providing matching funds of 25%.
2. City of Orono agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with Hennepin County
for the specific purpose of executing the project.
3. That the Director of Public Works for the City of Orono is authorized and directed to
execute the application for the Hennepin Healthy Tree Canopy Grant and Grant Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held March
11th, 2019.
ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. This application is regarding a conditional use permit for placement of a
permanent dock in the floodplain.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and considered to be
complete on January 22nd. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on March 23,
2019.
3. Background/ Summary. The applicant plans to install a dock through the wetland area
to reach the open water of the Long Lake Creek channel. Although a seasonal dock style,
because the dock will not be removed seasonally, it is considered a structure within the
floodway and a conditional use permit (CUP) is required. The dock does not fall under
MCWD or LMCD jurisdiction. A DNR aquatic vegetation management permit has been
issued for the cattail removal. The proposed dock will extend approximately 195 feet
south from the shore with a 7’ x 20’ platform at the end.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 19th the Planning Commission
held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to
0 on a motion to recommend approval of the requested dock CUP.
5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as
Exhibit D.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. Public Comment
E. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits of 02/19/19
Exhibit A. Application Summary
Exhibit B. Narrative
Exhibit C. Survey
Item No.: 7 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: LA19-000003 – Fine Line Docks o/b/o Thomas & Kelsey Hamilton,
1795 Fox Street – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO
Exhibit D. Dock Plans
Exhibit E. DNR Aquatic Plant Management Permit
Exhibit F. MCWD Correspondence
Exhibit G. Other Jurisdictional Emails
Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
Exhibit K. Aerial Photos
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-916 78-1117; 78-1119; and 78-1606
FILE NO. LA19-000003
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, Fineline Lakeshore Service, (hereinafter the
“Applicant”) applied for a conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code on behalf of Thomas and
Kelsey Hamilton (hereinafter the “Owners”) the owners of the property addressed 1795 Fox Street
and legally described as:
Lot 2, Block 1, FOX ISLAND, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the
“Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
conditional use permit (hereinafter the “CUP”) pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections
78-916 78-1117; 78-1119; and 78-1606 to permit construction of a permanent dock in the 100-
year floodplain of Long Lake Creek; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the CUP; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested CUP as described above based on one or more of the following
findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000003. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
2. The Property is located in the RR-1B Zoning District; and is also within the Shoreland
Overlay District.
3. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
4. Applicant has applied for the following:
a. Conditional Use Permit for a Permanent Dock installed in the 100-year Floodplain.
5. In considering this application for a conditional use permit, the Council has considered the
advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed
CUP upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
The City Council may grant a CUP as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the
basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City must find that the proposed use at
the Property is or will be:
1) Consistent with the community management plan; Docks are anticipated accessory
uses on lakeshore residential properties. This criterion is met.
2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Docks are listed as allowed
accessory uses in residential zoning districts. This criterion is met.
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management. This criterion
is met.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; Not applicable.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The
permanent dock is not expected to generate an excessive demand for public
services. This criterion is met.
6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future; There are other seasonal and permanent docks in
the general area, there is no proposed change of use. This criterion is met.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is
called for in the community management plan; No change is proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
There are other seasonal and permanent docks in the general area, there is no
proposed change of use. This criterion is met.
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area
or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared
to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed permanent
dock is not expected to impair property values or impact permitted uses in the
area. This criterion is met.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; By the nature of the dock it will project
from the land, through the wetland, and into the open water of Long Lake Creek;
it will be screened from most views by the existing wetland vegetation. This
criterion is met.
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The dock will not
create a nuisance condition; this criterion is met.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that
cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or
unsafe access; This residential dock on a single family property is not expected
to generate excessive traffic or be an inconvenience to adjoining properties. This
criterion is met.
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and
to minimize environmental impact; By the nature of the dock it will project from the
shore into the creek bed. This criterion is met.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public
right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; The applicant agrees to this
requirement; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is
met.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
CUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-916 78-1117; 78-1119; and 78-1606
to permit construction of a permanent dock in the 100-year floodplain of Long Lake Creek, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The Owners shall comply with the DNR permit and all other applicable jurisdictional
regulations.
3. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 01/22/19 by Gronberg &
Associates and dock plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff,
attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B.
4. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a zoning permit for the new dock and
commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval,
or the CUP will expire on that date (March 11, 2020).
6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of March, 2019.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Fineline Iakeshore Service
il6(I'0)
oFE0.,1bFf
EBftqEEE-oF
P0 Bor 626,lr,found, MN i5364
li]"4i1-1ITlphondfnrnumber.rontafigttinelinedork,com.rnrmlfinelindoclo.com
'om Hamilton
795 Fox St.
)rono, MN 55391
7',\ k8',L 7'\ /k8'L
8'
\\\
oE
=(o
60llooo
.E(E
=
Egx$O.EQ5' .6(r')1)c
SEttsU-o-caE6c Y(L
8'
8'
a\o)
-c
li,
*e,
Eg
OJd)o?E@-,(s
sfONF
8'
8'
8'
I'
I'
8'
8'
8',
Tom F
1795 t
Orono
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. LA19-000003 FINE LINE LAKESHORE SERVICE, 1795 FOX STREET,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 P.M. – 6:40 P.M.
Thomas Hamilton, Property Owner, and Jessie Johnson, Fine Line Lakeshore Service, were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to install a permanent dock through the wetland on the south end
of this property to reach the open water of the Long Lake Creek channel. Because of the permanent
nature of the dock structure within the floodway, a conditional use permit is required. The dock does not
fall under LMCD jurisdiction. A DNR aquatic vegetation management permit has been issued for the
cattail removal. The proposed dock will extend approximately 195 feet from the shore.
Orono’s current jurisdiction over permanent docks is primarily via the City’s floodplain regulations,
which provide no significant standards pertinent to the approval of permanent docks. Both permanent and
seasonal docks fall under the zoning category of accessory structures. With the exception of the RS
District, which is Deering Island or Big Island, one cannot have a permanent or seasonal dock without a
principal residence structure.
The property is zoned RR-1B, and a zoning permit will be required to document the existence and
construction of the permanent dock and conditional use permit. The portion within the wetland is limited
to eight feet maximum width. The proposed dock is 3.5 feet wide with a 7’ x 20’ platform on the end at
the open water.
Public comments were received and are included in the Commissioners’ packets.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for construction of the proposed permanent dock
subject to the following conditions:
1. The dock may be allowed as long as it conforms to the permit issued by the DNR and is in
conformity with the rules and regulations of applicable agencies; and
2. The dock is not to be used for commercial purposes or rented.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Tom Hamilton, property owner, stated they would like to install a dock out to the creek. A call has been
received from one neighbor that has a concern with jet skis. Hamilton indicated he is just planning on
having a fishing boat and also fishing off the dock with his two children. The Dakota Bridge is in the
area. Measuring from the bottom of the bridge to the water is 48 inches, so it would not be possible to fit
a jet ski under the bridge. There are also no plans to buy a jet ski.
Libby asked what type of pilings would be used.
Jessie Johnson, Fine Line, indicated it is a metal frame dock and can be easily removed. Because the
dock would stay in year in/year out, it is termed a permanent dock.
Libby commented he has not ever really seen any boat traffic in this area. Libby asked what type of
fishing boat the owner has.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hamilton indicated he is looking at a 14-foot boat with a small 20 horsepower motor. On the other side
off of Brown Road there is a dock and he has seen people canoe or kayak down it and only one motorized
boat on that side.
Libby stated he was not aware that they can have motorized boats in that area.
Hamilton stated the DNR does allow motorized traffic and that they need to obtain a conditional use
permit for the dock.
Libby asked whether the LMCD has any governance over this dock.
Curtis stated they do not.
Johnson stated he believe the LMCD’s jurisdiction ends at the edge. The water is not very deep by the
cattails so it was determined they would need to extend the dock further out.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:38p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Thiesse asked if Orono has any ordinance regulating the size of the platform at the end of the dock.
Curtis stated Orono does not regulate structures in the water and that possibly the DNR would have
jurisdiction over that. The LMCD, the Watershed District, and the DNR have seen and weighed in on this
request.
Thiess stated his biggest concern is the size of the platform.
Olson moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000003,
Fine Line Lakeshore Service, 1795 Fox Street, granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes
5, Nays 0.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Nivin MacMillan
Melanie Curtis
RE: Hamilton
Tuesday, February 12, 2019 1:22:20 PM
A new letter.
Dear Melanie,
Thank you so much for being so helpful about the boat dock my neighbor wants to build.
Following your advice I did have a conversation with Mr. Hamilton. He assures me that he
only wants to take a small fishing boat out with his small children. So my concerns about the
noise of jet skis are alleviated. Looking at various maps it is hard for me to understand exactly
where this dock will be in relation to my property and view. I still have some reservation
about the location of the dock. When I am home I will come up to Orono to try to get a better
understanding. Again, thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Nivin MacMillan
On Feb 8, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote:
Melanie Curtis, Planner
Direct 952.249.4627
Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Email: mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us
Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us
All permitting is now done through our new online portal - LINK.
Date Application Received: 01/22/19
Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/22/19
60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/23/19
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 19 February 2019
Subject: #LA19-000003, Fine Line Docks o/b/o Thomas & Kelsey Hamilton,
1795 Fox Street, CUP
Public Hearing
Background
The applicant wishes to install a permanent dock through the wetland area to reach the open
water of the Long Lake Creek channel. Because of the permanent nature of the dock structure
within the floodway, a conditional use permit (CUP) is required. The dock does not fall under
LMCD jurisdiction. A DNR aquatic vegetation management permit has been issued for the cattail
removal. The proposed dock will extend approximately 195 feet from the shore.
Applicable Regulations:
CUP (Section 78-1117)
Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those
portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional
flood discharge. Permanent docks may be allowed as a conditional use within the floodway
following the standards and procedures set forth in City Code Section 78-1148 and further
subject to the standards set forth in Code Section 78-1119.
Wetland - Permitted Uses (Section 78-1606)
A dock not exceeding 8 feet in width, which provides reasonable access to the lakeshore, is
permitted through the wetland.
Conditional Use Permit (Sections 78-916 & 78-1119)
The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the
application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the
proposed location is or will be:
1) Consistent with the community management plan; Docks are anticipated accessory
uses on lakeshore residential properties. This criterion is met.
2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Docks are listed as allowed
accessory uses in residential zoning districts. This criterion is met.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a
permanent dock.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE # LA19-000003
19 February 2019
Page 2 of 4
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management. This criterion
is met.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; Not applicable.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The
permanent dock is not expected to generate an excessive demand for public
services. This criterion is met.
6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future; There are other seasonal and permanent docks in
the general area, there is no proposed change of use. This criterion is met.
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character
is called for in the community management plan; No change is proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
There are other seasonal and permanent docks in the general area, there is no
proposed change of use. This criterion is met.
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the
area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when
compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed
permanent dock is not expected to impair property values or impact permitted uses
in the area. This criterion is met.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; By the nature of the dock it will project
from the land, through the wetland, and into the open water of Long Lake Creek.
This criterion is met.
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This criterion is
met.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that
cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or
unsafe access; This residential dock on a single family property is not expected to
generate excessive traffic or be an inconvenience to adjoining properties. This
criterion is met.
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area
and to minimize environmental impact; By the nature of the dock it will project
from the shore into the creek bed. This criterion is met.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the
public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; The applicant will be
informed of this requirement; and
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion
is met.
Additional standards for floodway conditional uses (Sec. 78-1119). A conditional use must not
cause any increase in the stage of the one percent chance or regional flood or cause an increase
in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected.
Accessory structures, as identified in section 78-1118(1), may be permitted, provided that:
(1) Structures are not intended for human habitation;
FILE # LA19-000003
19 February 2019
Page 3 of 4
(2) Structures will have a low flood damage potential;
(3) Structures will be constructed an placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the
flow of flood waters;
(4) Service utilities, such as electrical and heating equipment, within these structures
must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly
floodproofed;
(5) Structures must be elevated on fill or structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with
the FP1 or FP2 floodproofing classifications in the state building code. All floodproofed
structures must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral
movement and designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls.
(6) As an alternative, an accessory structure may be internally/wet floodproofed to the
FP3 or FP4 floodproofing classifications in the state building code, provided the
accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and does not exceed 576 square
feet in size. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a
registered professional engineer or meet or exceed the following criteria:
a. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of
two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure, with a total net
area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area
subject to flooding; and
b. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of
all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to
the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding
will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings.
(d) Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of
protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minn. Stat. §
103G.245.
(e) A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway must not cause an increase to the
one percent chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal
conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream.
(f) Floodway developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel
and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system.
A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally,
a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are
observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official
controls to change the status of conditional uses.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
Orono’s concurrent jurisdiction over permanent docks is primarily via the City’s floodplain
regulations, which provide no significant standards pertinent to the approval of permanent
docks. Both permanent and seasonal docks fall under the zoning category of accessory
structures, so with the exception of the RS District, one cannot have a permanent or seasonal
dock without a principal residence structure. This property is zoned RR-1B.
There are no specific Building Code construction standards for docks. The City will require that a
zoning permit be issued to document the existence and construction of the permanent dock and
FILE # LA19-000003
19 February 2019
Page 4 of 4
action of this CUP. The portion within the wetland is limited to 8 feet maximum width; as
proposed the dock is 3.5 feet wide with a 7’ x 20’ platform on the end at the open water.
Permanent docks (i.e. those docks with permanent pilings which cannot be removed without
heavy equipment) sometimes result in requests by property owners for winter de-icing, to avoid
ice damage. The proposed dock will be located in a fairly well protected area, so the potential
for ice damage or the need for de-icing is relatively minimal. There appear to be other
permanent docks in the area, and the city has received no documented problems or issues.
Another potential concern would be whether the work is in a sensitive habitat or spawning area,
and whether the permanent dock might affect navigation or winter vehicular traffic on the lake.
Other than the aquatic vegetation management covered under the DNR permit, neither of the
above concerns appear to apply to this application.
Public Comments
Public comments were received and are attached as Exhibit G.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the CUP, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested CUP?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for construction of the proposed
permanent dock subject to the following conditions:
1. The dock may be allowed as long as it conforms to the permit issued by the DNR and is in
conformity with the rules and regulations of applicable agencies; and
2. The dock is not to be used for commercial purposes or rented.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application Summary
Exhibit B. Narrative
Exhibit C. Survey
Exhibit D. Dock Plans
Exhibit E. DNR Aquatic Plant Management Permit
Exhibit F. MCWD Correspondence
Exhibit G. Other Jurisdictional Emails
Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
Exhibit K. Aerial Photos
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. This application is regarding a request for a number of variances in order to
build a new home on the property.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on January 23, and
considered to be complete on February 8th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires
on April 9, 2019.
3. Background/ Summary. The subject property is nonconforming with respect to area
and width, the 75-foot and average lakeshore setback from the lake bisect the lot.
Variances for lot area, lot width, height, hardcover, driveway width in the 75-foot setback
are requested in addition to a 75-foot setback, and rear yard setback variances for the
house and deck. The height variance is in response to a desire to correct ‘unnatural’
grades at the rear of the lot. In the past, to support a different house and detached garage,
the rear yard was graded to create a low flat area, requiring retaining walls. The applicant
is proposing to restore the grades to better flow into the neighboring lots. Since a
buildings’ height limitation is based on the “existing grade”, and this grade correction has
not occurred, a height variance is necessary.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 19th the Planning Commission
held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to
0 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances.
5. Public Comment. No comments from the public were received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans + Revised HC
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits of 02/19/19
Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative
Item No.: 8 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: LA19-000004 – City Homes LLC o/b/o Joshua & Nicole
Jabs, 3396 Crystal Bay Road, Variances – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. Site Photos
Exhibit H. Aerial Photos
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-1; 78-350; 78-1279; 78-1282; 78-1680; 78-1601; AND 78-1700;
FILE NO. LA19-000004
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2019, Joshua Jabs and Nicole Jabs, a married couple
(hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for a number of variances from the City Code for the property
addressed 3369 Crystal Bay Road and legally described as:
Lot 14, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for the
following variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code to facilitate the redevelopment of the
Property with a new residence:
• Lot Width and Lot Area Variances: Section 78-350 to allow construction of hew home on a
substandard lot with 0.13 acre or 6,041 square feet in area where 0.5 acre or 21,780 square
feet in area is required; and 48 feet in width where 100 feet in width is required; and
• Rear Yard Setback Variance: Section 78-350 to permit the new home to be constructed 23.7
feet from the rear lot line (deck is proposed 15 feet from the rear lot line) where a 30 foot rear
setback is required; and
• 75-foot Hardcover and Building Setback Variances: Sections 78-1279; 78-1680 & 78-1700 to
permit the proposed home to be set back 70 feet from the ordinary high water level where a
75 foot setback is required for both buildings and hardcover; and
• Driveway Width Variance: Sections 78-1282; 78-1680; and 78-1681 to permit an 11.5 foot
wide driveway within the 75-foot setback where an 8 foot maximum width is allowed and a
minimum width serving the garage corresponding with the 25 foot wide garage door; and
• Defined Building Height Variance: Sections 78-1 and 78-350 to permit the restored grade of
946 foot spot elevation/contour to be considered “highest existing grade” for the purpose of
building height determination.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the variances; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000004. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 0.13 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 48 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]:
1. Lot Width and Lot Area Variances.
2. Rear Yard Setback Variance.
3. 75-foot Hardcover and Building Setback Variances.
4. Driveway Width Variance.
5. Defined Building Height Variance.
6. In considering this application for the proposed variances, the Council has considered the
advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed
variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on
values of property in the surrounding area.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed variances are in harmony with the
purpose of the Ordinance. The Property includes difficulties in its small size and width,
manipulated topography, and proximity to the lake. The property is also challenged by
Crystal Bay Road which runs through the lake yard. The average lakeshore setback is
proposed to be met protecting views of the lake for adjacent properties.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The proposed variances to develop a nonconforming lot of record
are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot, in the
proposed location within the lake, and rear yard setbacks, appears to be somewhat
reasonable as the Property’s diminutive size and it’s orientation with respect to the
lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties create difficulties. The
hardcover level, grade correction, and encroachments proposed within the lake
yard appear to be reasonable.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The uniquely small size, location with respect to the lake and roadway, and
required setbacks prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood.
The proposed hardcover level and necessary grade correction are unique to the
Property.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home designed
to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78.” This condition is not applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located.” This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residence is an allowed use in
the LR-1C District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” The Property’s substandard size and
orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties
create difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood.
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The Property’s substandard size and orientation with respect to the
lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties create difficulties which also apply
to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. However the past grade manipulation
of the installation of retaining walls is unique to this Property.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting lot area, lot width, rear yard and lake
setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the
Applicants. The hardcover, driveway width, and proposed building height variances are
also necessary to the preservation of this same property right.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the
requested hardcover, driveway width, height, lot area, lot width, rear yard and lake setback
variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The variances for lot width, lot area, and
lakeshore setback are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
Applicants. The additional variances are also necessary as the Property has considerable
practical difficulties affecting development.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants the
following variances to allow redevelopment of the Property as contemplated in the proposed
plans:
• Lot Width and Lot Area Variances supporting redevelopment of a substandard lot with 0.13
acre or 6,041 square feet in area where 0.5 acre or 21,780 square feet in area is required;
and 48 feet in width where 100 feet in width is required; and
• Rear Yard Setback Variance of 23.7 feet from the rear lot line (deck is proposed 15 feet from
the rear lot line) where a 30 foot rear setback is required; and
• 75-foot Hardcover and Building Setback Variances to permit the proposed home to be set
back 70 feet from the ordinary high water level where a 75 foot setback is required for both
buildings and hardcover; and
• Driveway Width Variance to permit an 11.5 foot wide driveway within the 75-foot setback
where an 8 foot maximum width is allowed and widening to a minimum width serving the
garage corresponding with the 25 foot wide garage door; and
• Defined Building Height Variance to permit the restored 946 foot elevation contour to be
considered “highest existing grade” for the purpose of building height determination, all
subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the survey and hardcover calculations dated
01/17/19 by Gronberg & Associates and building plans dated 01/23/19 submitted by the
Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be
completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on
that date (March 11, 2020).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
6
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of March, 2019.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. LA19-000004 CITY HOMES, 3369 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES, 6:40
P.M. – 6:54 P.M.
Kristi, Alexander Design Group, and Joshua Jabs, property owner, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to construct a new home on the
property. Variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover, driveway width in the 75-foot setback are
requested in addition to 75-foot setback and rear yard setback variances for the house and deck. The
applicant is also proposing to restore the grades to better flow into the neighboring lots. As a result, a
variance is requested to the defined height calculation. The lot is nonconforming with respect to area and
width and the 75-foot setback from the lake bisects the lot.
The applicant’s request for hardcover, setback, and height variances results in the property’s inability to
conform to all of the lot of record standards above.
The existing home to be removed encroaches into the 75-foot sand average lakeshore setbacks. The new
home is proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback and will encroach approximately five feet into
the 75-foot setback with the covered stoop and the home will encroach about two feet. The home is
proposed with a 23-foot rear setback where 30 feet is required, and the proposed deck is shown at 15 feet.
The proposed hardcover level of 39.9 percent is a 322 square foot increase from the existing conditions.
The increase is primarily resulting from the increased building coverage. The proposed home is nearly
twice the size of the existing home. However, when you include the existing detached garage, the overall
proposed building coverage level is only increasing by 355 square feet. the applicant is not maximizing
the proposed building coverage due to the limiting setbacks and hardcover.
The proposed driveway has an 11.5-foot width at the street and a 25-foot wide garage access and parking
area. The hardcover regulations specify a minimum width to match the garage doors serving the home.
Another code provision, however, specifies an 8-foot maximum width in the 75-foot zone. The two code
provisions are in conflict with each other and Staff is not sure whether that provision is intended to apply
in this situation since the home is so close to the lake.
Building height is measured from the highest “existing grade” from where the footprint exists on the lot.
The existing topography appears to be the result of grade manipulations to facilitate the rear yard
detached garage. The retaining walls along the rear property line created a flat area inconsistent with the
adjacent neighboring properties and inconsistent with a ‘natural grade’. The applicant proposes to fill in
this area and return it to the original grades. The highest “existing grade” from which the height
calculation is based is 939.3’ rather than 946’, which is the highest grade in the proposed grading plan.
The defined building height based on 939.3’ highest existing is 36.7’, which is 6.7 feet taller than what is
permitted. The applicant is requesting variance approval to allow him to restore the grades and use the
highest “existing adjacent grade” of 946’, which would be more consistent with the immediate
neighborhood and make the height calculation conforming.
Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the size, shape, location of the roadway and lake, and
the shape of the lake justifying the variances. Orono has adopted various ordinances over the past few
years to address these inadequacies on small and narrow lots but, however, not all lots can be addressed
by those code changes.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
No public comments have been received.
Staff recommends approval. If the Planning Commission is in agreement with Staff, a recommendation
for approval should be made.
Ressler asked for clarification on the height variance.
Curtis noted the retaining walls and stairs coming down from the trail area and surrounding the rear yard
are based on the existing condition and extend into the neighboring property. Based on existing
conditions, the southwest corner of the house is 939.3’, which is technically the existing grade that would
be used for the height calculation. The applicant is suggesting the existing grade is an artificial condition
and that he would like to restore the original grade and level out the rear to make it consistent, which
would make that area 946 feet.
Curtis displayed some photographs of the site.
Landgraver asked if it is recreating the slope.
Curtis indicated it is in order to create a slope that is more natural.
Thiesse asked if the proposed survey is correct.
Curtis stated the applicant will need to speak to that, but that they do have to join into the existing wall on
the other property. Curtis stated the elevation at the corner says 940.5’ at the bottom of the wall and
940.1’ is what is shown.
Thiesse asked if they want to use 946’ as their grade.
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Kristi with Alexander Design Group stated the discrepancy in the hardcover relates to the deck and that
they have actually lowered that number slightly.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Thiesse commented it is a nice looking house.
Landgraver stated every home in this area likely has some type of variance.
Ressler stated he does not remember any other homes in the neighborhood having more than three stories.
Thiesse stated the home next to this one is relatively high.
Curtis illustrated the adjacent home and the proposed residence.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Thiesse stated it appears to be more than three stories on the street side.
Curtis stated if Commissioner Thiesse is referring to the top area as more than three stories, that is an
access point to the deck and the height is measured from the midpoint. Orono no longer regulates the
number of stories, which resolves that concern, but it is calculated into the height.
Landgraver commented it is a difficult lot to work with, which is a practical difficulty, but that he would
like to see the hardcover reduced somewhat if possible. Landgraver noted they are under the structural
coverage limit.
Libby asked whether the City Engineer has reviewed the drainage on the site.
Curtis indicated he has not at this time.
Libby stated his only concern would be the drainage.
Curtis noted grading and drainage would be reviewed at the time of building permit.
Landgraver moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000004, City
Homes, 3369 Crystal Bay Road, granting of variances subject to the recommendations of Staff.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 01/23/19
Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/08/19
60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/09/19
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 19 February 2019
Subject: #LA19-000004, City Homes LLC o/b/o Joshua & Nicole Jabs, 3396 Crystal Bay Rd,
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to build a new home on the
property. The lot is nonconforming with respect to area and width, and the 75 foot setback from
the lake bisects the lot.
Variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover, driveway width in the 75-foot setback are requested
in addition to a 75-foot setback, and rear yard setback variances for the house and deck. In the
past, to support a different house and detached garage, the rear yard was graded to create a
low flat area, requiring retaining walls. The applicant is also proposing to restore the grades to
better flow into the neighboring lots. As a result, a variance is also requested to the defined
height calculation.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following approvals in order to
redevelop the property:
1. Lot Area Variance;
2. Lot Width Variance;
3. Rear Yard Setback Variance;
4. 75-foot lake setback;
5. Hardcover Variance;
6. 75-foot setback Driveway Width Variance; and
7. Height Variance.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE # LA19-000004
19 Feb 2019
Page 2 of 6
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 & 78-1279 - Setbacks:
LR-1C Required Existing Proposed
Front 30’ from the Crystal Bay Road 35’ 36’
Rear 30’ 33’ 23.7’ House
15’ Deck
East Side 7.5’ 10.8’ 7.5’
West Side 7.5’ 11.2’ 7.6’
Lakeshore 75’ 69’ ±70’
Average
Lakeshore
The existing home encroaches up to 2 feet into the average lakeshore
setback; the proposed home will conform to the average lakeshore
setback.
Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 6,041 s.f. (0.13 acre)* 48’ @ 75’ / 48’ @ OHWL
*As with other lots on Crystal Bay Road, in evaluating lot area and hardcover, we ignore the
square footage of the improved drive lane of Crystal Bay Road, in this case 1,028 square feet of
Crystal Bay Road.
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
6,041 s.f. (0.13 acre)* Allowed: 2,000 s.f.
Proposed: 1,567 s.f.
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 1 6,041* s.f. 1,510 s.f.
(25 %)
2,089 s.f.
(34.5%)
2,501 s.f.
(41.4%)
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area & Lot Width Variances (Section 78-350)
Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet
the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard
properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped
without variances if specific standards are met; such as:
1. All setback requirements can be met;
2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can
be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and
FILE # LA19-000004
19 Feb 2019
Page 3 of 6
3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage
restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed
25 percent of the entire lot area.
4. All other zoning district standards can be met.
The applicant’s request for hardcover, setback, and height variances results in the property’s
inability to conform to all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area and width variances are
required in order to redevelop the property. The ability to develop the property consistent with
other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width
variances are not granted.
Rear Yard Setback Variance (Section 78-350)
The property’s ±130 feet of depth is challenging, particularly due to the applied average
lakeshore setback at approximately 70-feet from the OHWL, the 75-foot lake setback, and the
30-foot rear yard setback. The required setbacks leave an approximate 36 foot deep building
envelope which is not unreasonable, however is inconsistent with the two neighboring
properties and many of the rebuilds in the immediate neighborhood.
Hardcover; 75-Foot Setback Variances (Sections 78-1680 & 78-1700)
The existing home to be removed encroaches into the 75-foot and average lakeshore setbacks.
The new home is proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback and will encroach
approximately 5 feet into the 75-foot setback with the covered stoop, the home will encroach
about 2 feet.
The proposed hardcover level of 41.4% is a 412 square foot increase from the existing
conditions. The increase is primarily resulting from the increased building coverage. The
proposed home is nearly twice the size of the existing home. However, when you include the
existing detached garage, the overall proposed building coverage level is only increasing by 355
square feet. The applicant is not maximizing the proposed building coverage due to the limiting
setbacks and hardcover.
Driveway Width Variance (Sections 78-1282; 78-1680, 78-1681)
The Code permits certain hardcover improvements within the 75-foot lake setback. An 8 foot
wide driveway is permitted in this area. Crystal Bay Road is a narrow roadway; its 20 foot width
does not allow for reasonable on street parking. The applicant has proposed a driveway with an
11.5 foot curb cut and a 25 foot wide garage access and parking area. The hardcover regulations
in the code specify a minimum width to match the garage doors serving the home which is
reasonable. Section 78-1282 which specifies an 8 foot maximum width appears to be in conflict
in this circumstance with Section 78-1681 which requires specific minimum widths. Based on an
aerial photo analysis, many of the properties along Crystal Bay Road have driveways exceeding 8
feet in width within the 75-foot setback.
Height Variance (Sections 78-1 & 78-350)
The Code limits building height to a 30-foot maximum based on existing adjacent grade
elevations. The existing lot topography appears to be the result of grade manipulations to
facilitate the rear yard detached garage. The retaining walls along the rear property line created
a flat area inconsistent with the adjacent neighboring properties and a ‘natural grade’. The
applicant proposes to fill in this area and return to the original grades. The highest “existing
grade” from which the height calculation is based is 939.3’ rather than 946’ as is the highest
FILE # LA19-000004
19 Feb 2019
Page 4 of 6
grade in the proposed grading plan. The defined building height based on 939.3’ highest existing
is 36.7’ (6.7’ taller than permitted). When using the applicant’s restored highest grade of 946’
the defined height calculation is conforming at 30 feet.
Building height means the vertical distance between the highest existing ground level or ten
feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat
roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-
type roof, or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic
changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be
considered in determining building height.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The small lot
includes difficulties in its small size and width, manipulated topography, and proximity
to the lake. The lot is also challenged by Crystal Bay Road which runs through the lake
yard. The average lakeshore setback is proposed to be met protecting views of the lake
for adjacent properties.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to
develop a nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the
home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the lake, and rear
yard setbacks, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property’s reduced
size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and
adjacent properties creates difficulties. The hardcover level, grade correction,
and encroachments proposed within the lake yard appear to be reasonable.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The uniquely small size, location with respect to the lake and roadway, and
required setbacks prevent a residential footprint consistent with the
FILE # LA19-000004
19 Feb 2019
Page 5 of 6
neighborhood. The proposed hardcover level and necessary grade correction
are unique to the property; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances
are requested in order to permit construction of a home designed to fit the
character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residence is an allowed use in
the LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size and
orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties
creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same
neighborhood.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property’s substandard size and orientation with respect to the
lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also
apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. However the past grade
manipulation by installing retaining walls is unique to this property.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area, lot width, rear yard and
lake setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the
applicant. The hardcover, driveway width, and proposed building height variances are
also necessary to the preservation of this same property right.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
requested hardcover, driveway width, height, lot area, lot width, rear yard and lake
setback variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning
chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for lot width, lot area, and
lakeshore setback are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant. The additional variances are also necessary as the property has considerable
practical difficulties affecting development.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
FILE # LA19-000004
19 Feb 2019
Page 6 of 6
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties
attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size, shape, and location of the roadway and lake
affecting the property which justify the variances allowing development. The City adopted
ordinances over the past few years to address inadequacies in the small, and/or narrow existing
properties, and disproportionate distribution of lot area within the 75-foot setback for hardcover
on Tier 1 lots.
Engineer Comments
The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed plan. A thorough review will be conducted at
the time of building permit.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning staff recommends approval variances as requested as they are supported by practical
difficulties. If the planning commission makes the same conclusion, approval may be
appropriate.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. Site Photos
Exhibit H. Aerial Photos
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J Barnhart Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. This application is regarding variance approval for a screen porch.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on January 23, and
considered to be complete on February 1st. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires
on April 2, 2019.
3. Background/ Summary. In 2016 the applicants built the screen porch addition to the
home which exists on the property today, without proper permits. Following a stop work
notice for the unpermitted construction, in 2017 the applicants applied for and received
an after-the-fact approval of lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and 75-foot
hardcover variances allowing the porch to remain, subject to engineering review and a
building permit (File #17-3979). There were delays and the variance expired. The
applicants have reevaluated and revised their project. They have reduced the size of the
proposed screen porch eliminating two of the variances, although an average lakeshore
setback variance is still necessary.
The applicants’ current request is for average lakeshore setback variance approval to
construct a 26’ x 26’ screen porch as much as 14 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 19th the Planning Commission
held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to
0 on a motion to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance.
5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as
Exhibit D.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. Public Comment
E. PC Staff Report
Item No.: 9 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: LA19-000005 – Steven & Kimberly Schottler, 2740 Shadywood
Road, After-the-Fact Variance – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J Barnhart Approved By: RJO
References
PC Exhibits of 02/19/19
Exhibit A. Application Summary
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey
Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit E. Porch Plans
Exhibit F. Public Comments
Exhibit G. Site Photos
Exhibit H. Aerial Photos
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-1279
FILE NO. LA19 -000005
WHEREAS, Steven Schottler and Kimberly Schottler, a married couple
(hereinafter the “Applicants”), are the owners of the property located at 2740 Shadywood Road and
legally described as:
That part of Tract “D”, Registered Land Survey No. 420, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the southwesterly 7.00 feet, except that part lying
northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the southwesterly line of said Tract “D”,
21.51 feet southeasterly from the most westerly corner of said Tract “D”, to a point on
the north line of said Tract “D” 7.57 feet east from the northwest corner of said Tract
“D”.
Together with a perpetual easement for driveway purposes over, under, and
across the southerly 98.53 feet of the easterly 7.50 feet of: That part of Tract “D”,
Registered Land Survey No. 420 Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of
the southwesterly 7.00 feet, and lying northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on
the southwesterly line of said Tract “D”, 21.50 feet southeasterly from the most
westerly corner of said Tract “D”, to a point on the north line of said Tract “D”, 7.57
feet east from the northwest corner of said Tract “D”, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2019, the Applicants have made application to the City
of Orono for an after-the-fact variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow
a 26’ x 26’ roofed, screen porch addition to be constructed up to 14 feet lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback line in the place of an existing unpermitted screen porch constructed in 2016
without proper approvals; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, by 5 to 1 vote, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the variance; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000005. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 1.0 acre in area.
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance:
a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, the effect of the proposed variance upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance” Construction of a screen porch addition on the residential
property is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Neighbors have indicated that the
screen porch encroachment into the average lakeshore setback does not block their views
of the lake; therefore this criterion is met.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The variances permitting the construction of the screen porch within
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
the average lakeshore setback in a residential zone, all while not blocking views are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The request to permit construction of the screen porch lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the cove and the unnatural curve
of the shoreline causes the extreme setback. The encroachment lakeward of the
average lakeshore setback line is supported by neighbors. The adjacent property
owners have indicated that they will not be adversely impacted. This criterion is
met.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The visual impact on neighbors’ lake views resulting from of the addition is minimal;
the home location, and the surrounding home locations were not created by the
Owner. This criterion is met.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The location of the screen porch addition in the existing location does not alter the
character of the locality. This criterion is met.
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic
considerations have not been the only factor in the variance approval determination.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78.” This condition is not applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located.” This condition is not applicable, as a screen porch is an allowed use in the LR-
1B District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” The home on the Property and the neighboring
homes are mostly in line and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street property lines resulting
in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the average lakeshore setback line. This
condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met.
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The home on the Property and the neighboring homes are mostly in line
and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street property lines resulting in a narrow area for
improvements conforming to the average lakeshore setback line. This condition applies
to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” There is an existing home on the Property which
includes limited lake yard area to construct a conforming screen porch. This criterion is
met.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” The proposed screen
porch is not out of character with the neighborhood. The unique shoreline and the cove
area in front of the Property provide additional visual separation from the lake. This
criterion is met.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The requested variance would not be for
the sole convenience of the Applicants. This criterion is met.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an
after-the-fact variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow a 26’ x 26’
roofed, screen porch addition to encroach as much as 14 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback line; subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. Council approval is based on the survey dated 01/18/19 by W. Brown Land Surveying,
Inc., and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached
to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plans which are not in
conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council
review.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
3. Approval of the variance is conditioned upon submittal of a complete building permit
application including plans, specifications and appropriate fees; or submittal of a
demolition permit and removal of the illegal screen porch within 90 days of variance
approval (Monday, June 10, 2019). Framing inspection must be approved one year from
variance approval (by March 11, 2020).
4. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of March, 2019.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
SH
E
E
T
BO
O
K
/
P
A
G
E
JO
B
N
O
.
DR
A
W
N
SC
A
L
E
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
DA
T
E
BE
N
C
H
M
A
R
K
SI
T
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
RE
M
A
R
K
S
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
EM
A
I
L
:
W
B
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
@
A
O
L
.
C
O
M
W.
B
R
O
W
N
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
W.
B
R
O
W
N
L
A
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
Wo
o
d
r
o
w
A
.
B
r
o
w
n
,
R
.
L
.
S
.
M
N
R
E
G
1
5
2
3
0
01
-
1
8
-
2
0
1
9
Da
t
e
d
:
80
3
0
C
e
d
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
.
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
2
8
.
W
B
Bl
o
o
m
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
M
N
5
5
4
2
5
Bu
s
:
(
9
5
2
)
8
5
4
-
4
0
5
5
Fa
x
:
(
9
5
2
)
8
5
4
-
4
2
6
8
CE
R
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
E
O
F
S
U
R
V
E
Y
F
O
R
:
ST
E
V
E
S
C
H
O
T
T
L
E
R
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
N
Le
g
e
n
d
RE
MA
R
K
S
A ve
r
a
g
e
La
k
e
s
h
o
r
e
Se
t
b
a
c
k
SHEET
BOOK/PAGE
JOB NO.
DRAWN
SCALE
REFERENCE
DATE
BENCHMARK
SITE ADDRESS
REMARKS
REVISIONS
EMAIL: WBLANDSURVEY@AOL.COM
W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC.
W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Woodrow A. Brown, R.L.S. MN REG 15230
01-18-2019Dated:
8030 Cedar Avenue So., Suite 228.W
B
Bloomington, MN 55425
Bus: (952) 854-4055
Fax: (952) 854-4268
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR:
STEVE SCHOTTLER
SCALE IN FEET
N
Legend
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. LA19-000005 STEVE SCHOTTLER, 2740 SHADYWOOD ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE, 6:54 P.M. – 7:05 P.M.
Steve Schottler, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated in 2016 the applicants built a screen porch addition to the home which exists on the property
today without proper permits. Following a stop work notice for the unpermitted construction in 2017, the
applicants applied for and received an after-the-fact approval of lake setback, average lakeshore setback,
and 75-foot hardcover variances allowing the porch to remain. There were delays and the variances
expired. The applicants have re-evaluated and revised their project and have reduced the size of the
proposed screen porch, thus eliminating two of the variances. An average lakeshore setback is still
necessary.
The applicants are currently proposing a 26’ x 26’ screen porch on the lakeside of the home 76 feet from
the OHWL, as much as 14 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback.
This request has neighbor support. Due to the position of this home and neighboring homes in relation to
both Shadywood Road and the lake, Staff finds there are practical difficulties supporting the average
lakeshore setback variance for the reduced 26’ x 26’ screen porch.
Staff recommends approval.
Landgraver asked if Staff could display a picture of the neighboring home. Landgraver asked if the porch
would alter the average lakeshore setback for the neighbors.
Curtis indicated it would pull it out towards the lake and that the lots are tucked in there due to the cove.
Landgraver commented any time there is an encroachment into the average lakeshore, it creates a
creeping forward of the adjacent properties and that he is just trying to get a sense of how that would be
impacted.
Thiesse stated that is the reason for the 75-foot setback.
Steve Schottler, Applicant, stated the ultimate goal was to modify the project. Last year they went
through the process with the City and then hired a structural engineer. After getting approval on those
plans, a number of contractors said that what the structural engineer wanted them to do was virtually
impossible and that it would cost two to three times more than if the structure was just taken down. The
thought was then to rebuild it. In doing that, it affected the previous variance and Staff recommended that
a new application be filed, which is why he is back here now.
The porch has been shortened six feet so it is even further from the lake, which eliminated the variance to
the 75-foot setback. This is a unique situation in that the cove is on one side and the lake is on the other
side. One neighbor is 65 feet from the lake and the other is 95 feet, which is where this property gets
caught. Schottler stated they would like to rebuild it the right way but just a little bit smaller.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
There were no public comments.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:01 p.m.
Libby commented the meandering the shoreline makes it difficult to measure it from a straight line and
that the support of the neighborhood is an important consideration. If there are no objections from the
nearby neighbors, that would tend to make him favor the variances. Libby stated under the circumstances
and due to the unique situation with the location of the house, he would tend to favor the variances.
Ressler stated he would be in support of it considering the way the lakeshore goes and that the proposal
does not look like it is an aggressive change in the average lakeshore setback line.
Olson stated he is in support of it, especially since the project is smaller than what was originally
approved.
Landgraver commented it is an improvement over the first project, and while he has a concern with the
creeping forward in the average lakeshore setback line, he is in support of it.
Thiesse noted the applicant has improved upon what was approved last year, but that because the
variances have expired, it should perhaps be considered a blank sheet. Thiesse stated because the
Planning Commission approved variances previously, that might be the way to go.
Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000005, Steve
Schottler, 2740 Shadywood Road, granting of an after-the-fact variance to the average lakeshore
setback. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 01/23/19
Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/01/19
60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/02/19
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 19 February 2019
Subject: #LA19-000005, Steven & Kimberly Schottler, 2740 Shadywood Road,
ATF Variance
Public Hearing
Background
In 2016 the applicants built the screen porch addition to the home which exists on the property
today, without proper permits. Following a stop work notice for the unpermitted construction,
in 2017 the applicants applied for and received an after the fact approval of lake setback,
average lakeshore setback, and 75-foot hardcover variances allowing the porch to remain,
subject to engineering review and a building permit (File #17-3979). There were delays and the
variance expired. The applicants have reevaluated and revised their project. They have reduced
the size of the screen porch eliminating two of the variances, although an average lakeshore
setback is still necessary.
The applicants propose a 26’ x 26’ screen porch on the lakeside of the home 76 feet from the
OHWL, as much as 14 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-330 &78-1279 - Setbacks:
LR-1B Required Existing Proposed
Rear / Street 30’ 31.3’ house No change
NW Side 10’ 50.2’ No change
SE Side 10’ 46.5’ No change
Lakeshore 75’ 81’ 76’
Average Lakeshore 20’ encroachment 14’ encroachment
Application Summary: The applicants are requesting approval of an average lakeshore setback
variance in order to allow construction of a new the elevated screen porch lakeward of the
average lakeshore setback.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE # LA19-000005
19 Feb 2019
Page 2 of 5
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
46,050 s.f. (1.0 acre) Allowed: 9,210 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 3,297 s.f. (7.1%)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay
District Tier
Total Area in Zone Allowed
Hardcover
(2016) Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 1 46,050 s.f. 11,512 s.f.
(25 %)
5,726 s.f.
(12.4%)
6,253 s.f.
(13.6%)
Applicable Regulations:
Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
The existing illegal screen porch was constructed encroaching up to 20 feet lakeward into the
average lakeshore setback. The applicants’ revised request results in a 14 foot encroachment.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
Construction of a screen porch addition on the residential property is consistent with
the intent of the ordinance. Neighbors have indicated that the screen porch
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback does not block their views of the lake;
therefore this criterion is met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances permitting the
construction of the screen porch within the average lakeshore setback in a residential
zone, all while not blocking views are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the
FILE # LA19-000005
19 Feb 2019
Page 3 of 5
screen porch lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be
reasonable as the cove and the unnatural curve of the shoreline causes the
extreme setback. The encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback line is supported by neighbors. The adjacent property owners have
indicated that they will not be adversely impacted. This criterion is met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The visual impact on neighbors’ lake views resulting from of the addition is
minimal; the owners home location, and the surrounding home locations were
not created by the Owner. This criterion is met.; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The location of
the screen porch addition in the existing location does not alter the character
of the locality. This criterion is met.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may
be granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as a screen porch is an allowed use in the LR-
1B District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The home on the Property and the
neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street
property lines resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the average
lakeshore setback line. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties.
This criterion is met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The home on the Property and the neighboring homes are mostly in
line and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street property lines resulting in a narrow area
for improvements conforming to the average lakeshore setback line. This condition
applies to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. There is an existing home on the Property
which includes limited lake yard area to construct a conforming screen porch. This
criterion is met.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The
proposed screen porch is not out of character with the neighborhood. The unique
shoreline and the cove area in front of the Property provide additional visual
separation from the lake. This criterion is met.
FILE # LA19-000005
19 Feb 2019
Page 4 of 5
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The requested variances would not be
for the sole convenience of the Applicants. This criterion is met.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The requests has neighbor support. Additionally, due to the position of the home, and neighboring
homes, in relation to both Shadywood Road and the lake, Staff finds there are practical difficulties
supporting average lakeshore setback encroachment for the reduced 26’ x 26’ screen porch.
Engineer Comments
The City Engineer has not reviewed this project as there are no changes to the grades on the site.
Public Comments
Public comments have been received supporting the applicants’ request. The comments are
attached as Exhibit F.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
If the Planning Commission identifies practical difficulties supporting the new screen porch
encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, a motion for approval would be
appropriate.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application Summary
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey
Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit E. Porch Plans
Exhibit F. Public Comments
Exhibit G. Site Photos
Exhibit H. Aerial Photos
FILE # LA19-000005
19 Feb 2019
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit I. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is for council to reject all bids for water meter replacement
and direct a revised plan for upgrading City water meters.
2. Background. The city’s existing meter reading system was installed in 2003. The life expectancy of
the batteries within the meter transmitter unit (MTU) within the system is 15-20 years. The city is already
experiencing increasing numbers of battery failures which is making collection of data for water billing
purposes more difficult. Additionally as mechanical meters age they begin to underreport. By the time
they reach the end of their life meter under report by an average of 10%. Since the City’s last meter
swap out meter technology and associated hardware and software has developed significantly. New solid
state meters retain their accuracy throughout their life (20years) and the newer radio transmitters,
receivers and software allow for more efficient meter reading and integration with billing software. New
transmitters and receivers will facilitate monthly meter readings if the city decides to go that way.
Currently the city reads and bills quarterly.
3. RFP Project Scope. This project changes out the city’s water meters (Approx. 1100). The total
project is planned over a 5 year period. The project also includes meter reading hardware and software
upgrades.
4. Bids Received. The City solicited and received bids from 3 companies for a full meter change out. .
Staff reviewed the bids and all three met the parameters laid out in the RFP. The lowest was from Ferguson.
Contractor Bid
Core & Main $ 449,235
Ferguson Waterworks $ 347,128
WinWater $ 376,605
5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Water Enterprise Fund. The 2019 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) programmed $ 90,000/ year for 5 years.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommend council reject the bids and direct staff to negotiate an
alternate meter change out plan. The RFP review occurred concurrently with revisions to the water rate
study. During the process staff concluded that an alternate meter replacement plan over an eight year
time frame would be more advantageous to the city. Changing out the meters over a longer timeframe
minimizes the water rate increases and allows the city to maximize use of those meters that still have
reasonable life left in them.
7. Revised Meter Replacement plan. The revised plan would see approximately 130 meters replaced
in 2019; 340 in 2021; 200 in 2024; and 430 in 2027. In 2019 the city would procure a vehicular meter
reader and software to improve efficiency, customer service and offer the option for monthly billing.
Under the revised plan the estimated cost for 2019 will be $60,500.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to reject all bids and direction to staff to pursue the revised meter replacement plan.
Item No.: 10 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: Water Meter Replacement
Presenter: Adam Edwards
City Engineer/Dir of Public Works
Agenda
Section:
City Engineer/ Public
Works Director
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the 2019 water rates.
2. Background. The City updates its utility rates annually. Fees for Sewer, Storm Water and
Recycling were previously set when the 2019 City Fee Schedule was approved on December 10th
2018. Staff has been working establishing water rates for that will provide for long-term
sustainability for the Water Fund. The rates are being proposed with an emphasis on a user
sustained system that will not require bond sales (borrowing) or special assessments for
infrastructure maintenance and replacement. The following factors have been considered in the rate
proposal:
• Emphasis on self-sustainability
• Institution of Best Practices
Establish 25% Operating Reserve
Establish 25% Capital Reserve
• Elimination of borrowing and special assessments
• Age of the distribution system
• Elimination of Lease Revenue
• Increased Administration Charge
Prior to a rate Study and the establishment of a tiered water rate schedule in 2009, the water rates
were increased based an inflation factor of approximately 3% and depreciation was not factored into
the setting of rates. After 2009, the rates were increased with a portion of the depreciation included
in the rates. Infrastructure replacement anticipated as part of the 2009 rate study were to be funded
in part by issuing bonds (debt). In recent years, the rates have been being set with the idea that
depreciation would be fully covered by the water rates. By fully covering depreciation, the fund will
accumulate money that can be used for future capital needs.
The 2019 (and future) rates that are being proposed are sufficient to create two reserve accounts.
The first is a working capital reserve that would be set at 25% of operating expenses. This is an
identified “Best Practice” of the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GASB). The reserve
will help guarantee adequate cash reserves in the Water Fund. The other is capital reserve fund that
will be set at 25% of capital expenditures. This reserve is designed to provide the additional funds
required above the historical costs recovered through depreciation. This is needed because
depreciation is based on historical costs and not the actual replacement costs of the infrastructure.
Without the capital reserve, the City will require additional funding sources for infrastructure
replacement. In the past, this has been Special Assessments, or issuing debt (bonding). The rates
being proposed are designed to avoid both the need to issue more debt and to avoid using special
assessments to fund infrastructure replacement. The cash reserves will be phased in over the next
three years.
The water system in the Navarre area was developed in the 1970’s and is approaching 50 years old.
Current estimates indicate that 60% of the distribution lines in the Navarre system will require
replacement through 2045. Within the next five years (2020 – 2025) it is estimated that a total of
Item No.: 11 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: Adopt 2019 Water Rates
Presenter: Ron Olson, Finance Director Agenda
Section:
Finance Director’s
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO
$1,300,000 will be needed. The longer rate increases are delayed, the larger the increases need will
need to be in order to fund the necessary improvements.
There have been some additional factors that are impacting the need for significant rate increases.
One was the decision to move revenue from cellular communication leases on the water towers out
of the Water Fund. Another was the increase in Administrative charges to a level the covered actual
administration costs being funded by the General Fund. In total, between the reduction in revenue
and the increase of expenditures, these changes impacted the Water Fund by $200,000. Because
only around one-third of residences are connected to the water system, it is a matter of fairness that
the fund be self-supporting and not be subsidized by property tax dollars.
The projections included with this memo illustrate a seven year timeline. With a 30% increase for
2019, the water fund would still require an additional $20,000 in order to reach its funding goals.
Depending on the rate increase for 2020, the fund would need between $100,000 and $125,000
additional dollars. These additional funds could be obtained through an inter-fund loan from the
Sewer Fund. Beginning in 2021, the fund would be able to begin to repay the loan. At the end of
the seven year period, the fund is projected to be self-sufficient.
There are several possible factors that could positively impact the fund. One is the current
discussions with Minnetonka Beach regarding the possibility that the City would provide them with
water from our Navarre system. This would significantly increase the number of customers served
without requiring the costly installation of new infrastructure. There are also a number of potential
developments that would connect to the northern water system. The addition of new customers to
either Navarre or the northern systems would positively impact fund revenues. This would stabilize
the rate structure and likely would reduce the size of future rate increases.
Because there are significant factors currently in play for the water system, staff is recommending
that the Council approve a water rate increase for 2019 of 30% for tier 1 (0-10,000 Gal), 40% for tier
2 (10,001-25,000 Gal), and 50% for tier 3 (>25,000 Gal). Staff will review the rates as part of the
2020 budgeting process to include the impact of the possible customer base increases. If there are no
significant changes to our customer base, the 2020 rates will likely need to be in the 25% - 30%
range that is included in the current projections. Staff will continue to review and update current
cost projections of projects included in the CIP. Staff is also currently updating the fixed assets
included in our accounting system to make sure that they match the assets included in the Cartegraph
system.
While this memo is focused on the Water System, staff is also updating fixed asset information and
continually fine-tuning the CIP for the Sewer and Storm Water Funds. This information will be
incorporated into the budgeting process for 2020. It is anticipated that future budgets for all
Enterprise Funds will incorporate the best practices of both working capital and operating reserves.
The goal for all Enterprise Funds would be for self-sufficiency without the need for debt or special
assessments.
3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a 30% increase in the base water rates as
presented in Exhibit A. Staff also recommends the institution of the GFOA’s best practices for
operating and capital reserves.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to increase the 2019 water rates by 30%, the institution of a working reserve of 25%
Of operating expenses, and capital reserve of 25% of capital expenses.
Exhibits
A. Water Rates
B. Water Fund Projections
C. Water CIP (Updated as of March 2019)
D. GFOA Memos
CITY OF ORONO
Utility Rates
2019
MUNICIPAL SEWER RATE Min water bill Area
#1 242.73
By Units: 1st 156.80 per qtr. Add'l units: 138.60 per qtr. #2 242.73
#3 242.73
By Flows: base: 15.00 per qtr. per connection
use: 5.80 per qtr 1,000 gallons Min sewer bill 2016 $166.43
2017 $174.10
2018 $181.91 2019 $ 191.14
MUNICPAL WATER RATES
Navarre Hwy 12 Chevy Chase
Area #1 Area#2 Wayzata Area#3
Base Fee/Residental 50.00/qtr 50.00/qtr 50.00/qtr
Water Usage (Per 1,000 gal)tier (0-10) $ 5.24 5.24 tier (1-15) 5.24
Tier(11-25) $ 7.33 7.33 tier (15-25) 7.33
Tier(>25) $11.00 11.00 tier (>25) 11.00
Unconnected Property Charge $50.00 n/a n/a
Bulk Sale-Mtka Beach
Base 50.00
Use 5.24
Bulk Sale - contractor 50.00 plus are rate per/1,000 gallons
STORMWATER UTILITY CHARGE
one-residential unit $24.34 per quarter or $97.36 annual
non-residential unit $ Based on “Residential Equivalent Factor”
Fees
Septic Inspection Fee: $45.00/yr
Fed.Mandated Safe Drinking
Water Testing Program: $ 1.59/qtr (rounded from $6.36/yr) min septic: $137.28
Penalty for Late payment 8% of all charges after 30 days 2015 $143.60
Water Turn- On/Turn-off $50.00 2016 $153.15
Water System Repair (Property owner responsibility) 2017 $161.48
Labor - at current rates $ per hour, Regular time 2018 $169.52
$ per hour, overtime
Parts At cost
Recycling
Quarterly charge $10.00/qtr
Annual charge $40.00/yr
U:\FINANCEt\UTILITY\2019\2019rates.wtr.wpd
Exhibit A - Rates
Increases 601-_____-___12/31/2019 Base Charge Increase 11%or Flat Base Rate 50.00$ Active
2019 - 30%Rate Increase from Prior Year 30%30%25%3%3%(if rate increase year to year differs)(if rate increase year to year differs)(if rate increase year to year differs)
2020 - 25%Inflation - 5 Yr Forecast 2%Tier 1 to 2 Rate Increase 40%active
2021 - 25%Tier 2 to 3 Rate Increase 50%active
2022+ 3%12/31/2019 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 12/31/2022 12/31/2023 12/31/2024 12/31/2025
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated Amount Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated Amount Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Total Estimated Service Revenue 825,015.60 0.36 1,124,832.03 0.20 1,353,290.04 0.03 1,387,558.74 0.02 1,418,205.50 0.03 1,454,561.16 0.03 1,492,007.50
Estimated Misc. Revenue 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
Estimated Assessment 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00
Supplemented Revenue 20,000.00 100,000.00 - - -
Total Estimated Revenue 865,402.60$ 1,245,219.03$ 1,373,677.04$ 1,407,945.74$ 1,438,592.50$ 1,474,948.16$ 1,512,394.50$
Budgeted Expenses w/ Dep.929,710.00 Budgeted expense 962,556.20 Budgeted expense 992,891.32 Budgeted expense 1,029,221.15 Budgeted expense 1,054,151.57 Budgeted expense 1,069,788.60 Budgeted expense 1,085,738.38
Less Depreciation 207,400.00 Less Dep.225,800.00 Less Dep.241,400.00 Less Dep.262,700.00 Less Dep.272,300.00 Less Dep.272,300.00 Less Dep.272,300.00
Budgeted Expenses - Cash 722,310.00$ 736,756.20$ 751,491.32$ 766,521.15$ 781,851.57$ 797,488.60$ 813,438.38$
Gain / (Loss) - Non-cash basis (64,307.40) 162,275.83 360,398.71 358,337.59 364,053.93 384,772.56 406,269.12
Debt Service (Cash Expense)157,000.00 155,000.00 267,000.00 277,000.00 100,430.00 98,570.00 101,550.00
CIP Amount (Cash Expense)428,700.00 242,014.98 249,275.43 296,845.00 264,456.30 272,389.99 280,561.69
Gain / (Loss) - Cash basis (442,607.40)$ 111,447.85$ 105,910.28$ 67,579.59$ 291,854.62$ 306,499.57$ 316,844.43$
Beg. Cash
537,000.00$
Operation Reserve Goal 25% of Expenses 92,971.00$ 192,511.24$ 248,222.83$ 257,305.29$ 263,537.89$ 267,447.15$ 271,434.59$
Capital Reserve 25% of expenses -$ -$ 62,318.86$ 64,188.42$ 66,114.08$ 68,097.50$ 70,140.42$
Total Cash Reserve Required 92,971.00$ 192,511.24$ 310,541.69$ 321,493.71$ 329,651.97$ 335,544.65$ 341,575.02$
Cash Balance 94,392.60$ 205,840.45$ 311,750.73$ 379,330.32$ 671,184.94$ 977,684.51$ 1,294,528.94$
Surplus (Deficit) for reserve amt 1,421.60$ 13,329.21$ 1,209.05$ 57,836.61$ 341,532.98$ 642,139.86$ 952,953.93$
Flat Rate 45.11 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Tier 1 4.03 5.24 6.81 8.51 8.77 9.03 9.30 9.58
Tier 2 5.06 7.33 9.53 11.92 12.28 12.64 13.02 13.41
Tier 3 7.59 11.00 14.30 17.88 18.41 18.97 19.54 20.12
2025 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2025 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)
Water 7 Year Forecast
2019 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2020 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2021 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2022 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2023 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)
Exhibit B - Water Fund Projections
Increases 601-_____-___12/31/2019 Base Charge Increase 11%or Flat Base Rate 50.00$ Active
2019 - 30%Rate Increase from Prior Year 30%25%25%3%3%(if rate increase year to year differs)(if rate increase year to year differs)(if rate increase year to year differs)
2020 - 25%Inflation - 5 Yr Forecast 2%Tier 1 to 2 Rate Increase 40%active
2021 - 25%Tier 2 to 3 Rate Increase 50%active
2022+ 3%12/31/2019 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 12/31/2022 12/31/2023 12/31/2024 12/31/2025
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated Amount Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated Amount Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Consumption
Per Level Rate Calculated
Amount
Total Estimated Service Revenue 825,015.60 0.32 1,089,684.64 0.20 1,309,355.80 0.03 1,342,306.48 0.02 1,371,595.67 0.03 1,406,553.04 0.03 1,442,559.13
Estimated Misc. Revenue 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
Estimated Assessment 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00 10,387.00
Supplemented Revenue 20,000.00 125,000.00 - - -
Total Estimated Revenue 865,402.60$ 1,235,071.64$ 1,329,742.80$ 1,362,693.48$ 1,391,982.67$ 1,426,940.04$ 1,462,946.13$
Budgeted Expenses w/ Dep.929,710.00 Budgeted expense 962,556.20 Budgeted expense 992,891.32 Budgeted expense 1,029,221.15 Budgeted expense 1,054,151.57 Budgeted expense 1,069,788.60 Budgeted expense 1,085,738.38
Less Depreciation 207,400.00 Less Dep.225,800.00 Less Dep.241,400.00 Less Dep.262,700.00 Less Dep.272,300.00 Less Dep.272,300.00 Less Dep.272,300.00
Budgeted Expenses - Cash 722,310.00$ 736,756.20$ 751,491.32$ 766,521.15$ 781,851.57$ 797,488.60$ 813,438.38$
Gain / (Loss) - Non-cash basis (64,307.40) 127,128.44 316,464.48 313,085.33 317,444.10 336,764.44 356,820.76
Debt Service (Cash Expense)157,000.00 155,000.00 202,000.00 257,000.00 100,430.00 98,570.00 101,550.00
CIP Amount (Cash Expense)428,700.00 242,014.98 249,275.43 296,845.00 264,456.30 272,389.99 280,561.69
Gain / (Loss) - Cash basis (442,607.40)$ 101,300.46$ 126,976.05$ 42,327.33$ 245,244.80$ 258,491.45$ 267,396.07$
Beg. Cash
537,000.00$
Operation Reserve Goal 25% of Expenses 92,971.00$ 192,511.24$ 248,222.83$ 257,305.29$ 263,537.89$ 267,447.15$ 271,434.59$
Capital Reserve 25% of expenses -$ -$ 62,318.86$ 64,188.42$ 66,114.08$ 68,097.50$ 70,140.42$
Total Cash Reserve Required 92,971.00$ 192,511.24$ 310,541.69$ 321,493.71$ 329,651.97$ 335,544.65$ 341,575.02$
Cash Balance 94,392.60$ 195,693.07$ 322,669.12$ 364,996.44$ 610,241.24$ 868,732.69$ 1,136,128.75$
Surplus (Deficit) for reserve amt 1,421.60$ 3,181.83$ 12,127.43$ 43,502.73$ 280,589.27$ 533,188.04$ 794,553.73$
Flat Rate 45.11 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Tier 1 4.03 5.24 6.55 8.19 8.43 8.68 8.94 9.21
Tier 2 5.06 7.33 9.17 11.46 11.80 12.16 12.52 12.90
Tier 3 7.59 11.00 13.75 17.19 17.71 18.24 18.78 19.35
2025 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2025 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)
Water 7 Year Forecast
2019 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2020 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2021 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2022 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)2023 (2013-2018 Avg Consumption)
Exhibit B - Water Fund Projections
As of: 5 Mar 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Water CIP Planning Period Table A-6
Project 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
North Wellhouse Scada Upgrade
Navarre Plant Control Upgrade $55,200
North Water Tower Maintenance $62,500 $70,000 $70,170 $70,341
North Water Plant Painting $21,000 $31,085
South Water Plant Painting $78,000 $115,459
Navarre Plant Salt Brine Tank Rehab.$400,000
Well #1 Inspection and Maintenance (every 10 yrs)$20,000
Well #2 Inspection and Maintenance(every 10 yrs)$20,000
Well #3 Inspection & Maintenance (every 10 yrs)$20,000
Well #4 Inspection & Maintenance (every 10 yrs)$20,000
Well #1 Rehabilitation (every 20 yrs)$150,000
Well #2 Rehabilitation (every 20 yrs)$150,000
Well #3 Rehabilitation (every 20 yrs)$150,000
Well # 4 Rehabilitation (every 20 yrs)$150,000
Well #3 Screen $92,000
South Tower Repaint and Rehabilitation $350,000 $60,000 $65,000
Watermain replacement Old Crystal Bay Road W/Road
West Lafeyette Main Replacement (w/Road)
Water Main Replacement (CSAH15/19) W/Road 169,855$
Watermain replacement CSAH 19 S of CSAH 15 $181,000
Water Valve Replacemetns (4 / Year)$24,000 $24,600 $25,215 $25,845 $26,492 $27,154 $27,833 $28,528 $29,242 $29,973 $30,722 $31,490 $32,277 $33,084 $33,911 $34,759 $35,628 $36,519 $37,432 $38,368
Watermain Replacement $100,000 $0 $104,000 $0 $108,160 $0 $112,486 $0 $116,986 $0 $121,665 $0 $126,532 $0 $131,593
Water Meter Replacement (every 15yr)$55,000 $100,890 $58,000 $118,000 90,000$
Totals $439,855 $24,600 $181,305 $375,845 $269,992 $185,154 $47,833 $682,528 $357,242 $358,133 $177,266 $143,976 $32,277 $215,070 $254,081 $156,424 $35,628 $183,051 $57,432 $350,301
5-Year CIP
Exhibit C - Water CIP
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
D
-
G
F
O
A
B
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By:RJO Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. To consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) consolidating a bar with live
entertainment (Narrows Saloon) with a restaurant serving liquor (The Lakeroom).
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received as complete on December 20th,
2018. The 60-Day review period has been extended and will expire on April 19, 2019.
3. Background. The City Council has approved Conditional Use Permits for the Narrows Saloon
and the Lakeroom over the years, summarized in the following table.
One of the conditions included in the original permit for the Lakeroom was that both entities hold
separate liquor licenses. The property owner now desires to remove that condition. Doing so
would require a Conditional Use Permit expansion of either the Lakeroom (to allow live
entertainment) or the Narrows (to expand the space).
The applicant also desires to alter the hour restrictions for the Lakeroom, to allow that business to
be open the same hours as the Narrows (to 1:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday)
Since a Conditional Use Permit is issued to the property, not the property owner, any future bar
and restaurant could work under this conditional use permit, so long as all of the conditions are
met. A concern is this or a future owner could expand the live music aspect of the business,
potentially impacting the adjacent neighborhoods without public comment.
Finally, last August, the council agreed to relocate the dumpster enclosure onto city property,
away from the outdoor patio.
In response to these requests, staff has prepared a resolution that incorporates the requested
changes, retaining the remaining conditions into one permit. This new conditional use permit
documents the size of the stage and the music receiving area, so those areas could not be
expanded without City Council approval. The attached Planning Commission staff report
outlines the request in greater detail.
If the Council denies the application, the Lakeroom and the Narrows may still operate under the
previously issued conditions.
Item No.: 12 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: LA18-000104 – Gary Anderst o/b/o Narrows LLC, 3382 Shoreline
Drive, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
Resolution # Description Date Case #
4530 Class II Restaurant and live entertainment 10/9/2000 2604
5440
Amendment to 4530, expansion of Class II restaurant into dry
cleaner and hair salon, add outdoor patio 3/27/2006 05-3121
5937 Health and Sport Club (since expired) 5/24/2010 10-3466
6353
Class II Restaurant (Lakeroom), amending previous CUP for
outdoor patios 12/9/2013 13-3615
6457 Amend 6353 for vestibule design 10/27/2014 13-3615
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By:RJO Approved By: RJO
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 19th, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to
approve the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioners supported the request, noting in many ways it is similar to how Lord Fletchers
operates.
5. Public Comment. No formal comments have been received in support or opposition to the
request, though staff has fielded a phone call, questioning the noise impacts. Staff and the Police
Department have not fielded a noise complaint on the business in the last 2 years.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. PC Staff report
C. PC Minutes 2/19/19 (draft)
D. Resolution exhibits (interior layouts, dumpster enclosure)
References
PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2-19-19
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A CLASS II RESTAURANT THAT INCLUDES
LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND A BAR AMENDING AND RESTATING
PREVIOUSLY ISSUED CONDITIONS
PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-644(4)
FILE NO. LA18-0000104
WHEREAS, Narrows LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, represented by Gary
Anderst, single (hereinafter the “applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 3382-3386 Shoreline Drive
within the City of Orono (hereinafter “City”) and legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North along
the West line of said Lot a distance of 105.50 feet; thence along a line bearing North 74 degrees 24
minutes East to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 112.00 feet East of the West
line of said Lot 5; thence South along said parallel line to the South line of said Lot 5; thence West
along said South line to the point of beginning.
(hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicant represents Orono Liquors which currently operates the
Narrows Saloon, a Class II Restaurant which has, to date, operated in the easterly 60 feet of the principal
building per a Conditional Use Permit granted by the City Council via Resolution 4530 adopted on October
9, 2000; and
WHEREAS, Orono Liquors has also been developing a separate restaurant space in the
western 40 feet of the principal building, now known as The Lake Room, a Class II restaurant authorized
by City Council resolution 6353, on December 9, 2013.
WHEREAS, the City amended resolution 6353 to reflect changes to the vestibule design
and door configuration on October 27, 2014 via resolution 6457.
WHEREAS, the City supported modifications to the dumpster enclosure location at a
meeting on August 27, 2018. The City Council supported the applicants request to install a 3 bay dumpster
enclosure to the north side of the current city parking, design consistent with original approval (Resolution
6353), with one bay reserved for City use.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2018, the applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit to
modify and combine conditions imposed by resolutions 4530, 5440, 6353, and 6457.
WHEREAS, these modifications include combining the saloon and restaurant spaces into one
entity, modifying the hours of operation for the restaurant, and recognizing a modification to the placement of
the dumpster enclosure.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons
desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby grants the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following
findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA18-000104. The analysis contained within staff
memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned
meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by
reference.
2. The Property is located in the B-5 Zoning District.
3. In considering this application for conditional use permit, the Council has considered the advice
and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding
area.
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the
evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
1) Consistent with the community management plan; The use of the property for a
restaurant/ bar is consistent with the Commercial designation.
2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Class II restaurants are a conditional use
in the zoning district.
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The property is
served by municipal services, no issues have been identified or are anticipated.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; There is adequate
services to support the intended use.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The business is
not anticipated to generate demand of public services beyond a typical amount for the
type of business.
6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to
be used in the future; The use is consistent with a commercial use. Building design and
applicable regulations are added to address noise concerns.
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for
in the community management plan; This is true. The immediate neighborhood is a
suburban commercial corridor, restaurants/ bars are expected.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area,
unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The immediate
neighborhood is a suburban commercial corridor, restaurants/ bars are expected.
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have
a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the
impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; Not expected to impact adjacent uses
beyond what should be expected for a commercial use in a commercial zone. Excessive
noise has been mitigated with the building design and regulatory conditions.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities
likely to disturb surrounding uses; Use is contained within a building. Exterior patio is
not a use requiring screening.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust,
electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The plan and regulations are
intended to address nuisances listed.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a
demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access;
Access to the site is via county roads. City parking lot provides parking.
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to
minimize environmental impact; Not Applicable to this site.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-
of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lights added beyond previously
approved and
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This statement is true.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional
Use Permit amending and restating certain conditions to Resolutions 4530 and 6353, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. This approval is based on the building interior and patio layout plans by b2 dated 1.10.19 and
attached hereto as Exhibit A, Lakeroom internal layout plans (upper and lower) attached
hereto as Exhibit B, and dumpster enclose plans attached hereto as Exhibit C. The interior
arid outdoor seating layout and dumpster enclosure location for the Saloon and new restaurant
shall be substantially as shown on the attached Exhibits, and any deviation that the City
Administrator determines is in conflict with the intent of this approval, shall require further
review by the City Council.
3. The outdoor seating layout and landscaping for the Saloon and restaurant shall follow the same
general design and landscaping as depicted in Exhibit A, B, and C for the new restaurant use.
4. It is the Council's intent that all reasonable precautions shall be taken to eliminate noise
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from operation of the Narrows Saloon, the new
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
restaurant, and their outdoor seating areas. Therefore, the following noise-reduction measures
shall be adhered to:
A. Because the Saloon does not have a vestibule for its doorways accessing the Shoreline
Drive side of the building, primary access to the Saloon shall be from the shared
vestibule at the rear of the building during the times that live entertainment is occurring.
B. Exterior access doors to the Saloon shall not be propped open for any reason when live
entertainment is occurring.
C. Applicant shall provide evidence that the HVAC systems provided in the building shall
be sufficient to handle all anticipated loads and not require access doors to be propped
open for ventilation pw-poses in any season.
D. Applicant shall not have live music piped to either of the outdoor seating areas. Any
amplification, speaker system or other sound emitting devices in the outdoor seating
areas, such as for providing soft dinner background music shall be kept at a low volume
so as to not become a nuisance, and shall cease at 11:00 p.m.
E. All other noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance
and so as to not become a nuisance.
5. Per the conditions of Resolution No. 4530, live entertainment shall end at 12:30 a.m. each
night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each night. Except as modified herein, all terms
and conditions of Resolution No. 4530 shall remain in full force and effect.
6. Hours of operation for the new restaurant shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Sunday through Saturday. Liquor service to the outdoor seating areas shall be subject to
review with each annual liquor license application. This is amends the hour restrictions
outlined in Resolution 6353.
7. Applicant shall work with City staff to devise a plan for establishing handicap parking stall
within the city lot. No motorcycle parking will be allowed on the sidewalk at the front of the
building, and such notice shall be posted on the premises. The City prohibition on motor
vehicle parking in the municipal lot between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. shall be
also posted on the premises.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
6
8. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs. No signs
can be located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City of
Orono.
9. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business have a valid liquor license with the
City of Orono. The liquor license shall reflect outdoor service on the patios.
10. Dumpster enclosure. Dumpster enclosure may be moved to the location permitted by City Council
on City property. Dumpster enclosure shall be constructed and approved prior to relocating the
dumpster from the subject property, subject to a maintenance agreement agreed to by the City
Council.
11. The maximum area for a stage and or live entertainment production shall not exceed 15 feet by 12
feet. The maximum area to receive live entertainment shall not exceed 60’ 2-3/8” by 50’ 5-7/8th”
inclusive of bar and stage area. An expansion of one or both of these parameters shall require an
amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
12. Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by
opening the restaurant within 6 months of the date of Council approval or this conditional
use permit will expire on that date (September 11, 2019).
13. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
14. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result
in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of March, 2019.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Date Application Received: 12-20-2018
Date Application Considered as Complete: 12-20-18
60-Day Review Period Expires: April 19, 2019 (extended)
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: February 19, 2019
Subject: #LA18-000104, Gary Anderst o/b/o Narrows LLC, 3382 Shoreline Drive,
Conditional Use Permit
Public Hearing
Background
Gary Anderst represents the owner of the property, Narrows LLC. Narrows LLC operates the
Narrows saloon and is in the process of opening up the Lakeroom. A steakhouse type restaurant.
In 2000, the City has issued a Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Restaurant (a restaurant
providing liquor and live entertainment (The Narrows).
In 2013, the city issued a CUP (via resolution 6353) to permit the creation of a new Class II
restaurant, (the Lake Room). The Conditional Use Permit included a requirement that the new
restaurant hold a separate liquor license from the Narrows Saloon.
Since the original CUP in 2000, the City has granted a number of Conditional Use permits for the
property, summarized in the table below.
Reso # Description Date Case #
4530 Class II Restaurant and live entertainment 10/9/2000 2604
5440
Amendment to 4530, expansion of Class II restaurant into dry cleaner
and hair salon, add outdoor patio 3/27/2006 05-3121
5937 Health and Sport Club (since expired) 5/24/2010 10-3466
6353
Class II Restaurant (Lakeroom), amending previous CUP for outdoor
patios 12/9/2013 13-3615
6457 Amend 6353 for vestibule design 10/27/2014 13-3615
Resolutions 4530, 5440, and 6353are attached as Exhibits F, G, and H.
Since the most recent Conditional Use Permit in 2014, the original property owner passed away;
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting to consolidate the Narrows business and
the Lakeroom restaurant into one business, to allow one liquor license. A secondary request is
to adopt a new Conditional Use Permit to consolidate the conditions imposed previously.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the Conditional
Use Permit.
FILE #LA18-000104
February 19, 2019
Page 2 of 6
his brother has continued work on developing the Lakeroom restaurant. The now-owner
questioned the need for a separate liquor license. Consolidating both businesses into one liquor
license is considered expansion of one of the businesses, requiring at least an amendment to the
CUP.
Application
The applicant proposes a new conditional use permit intended to replace existing conditional
use permits on the property with one, consolidating their approvals, conditions, etc. into one
document.
In the past the use of the property for a bar featuring live music has generated concerns from
the neighborhood and City Council related to noise. Many conditions were imposed on the
business to address these concerns. Some of these issues may have been a function of a
substandard ventilation system that required doors to be propped open for fresh air and to
ventilate smoke and heat. That ventilation system has been replaced to meet the design
requirements of the space, and the bar no longer allows smoking, consistent with State
regulations. Regardless, much of the physical changes to the building have been completed,
including door systems.
The City has not received a noise complaint about the Narrows for some time.
Reviewing the history of CUP’s issued for the businesses, there seems to be a benefit for both
the city and the business to consolidate and review the conditions imposed, and consolidate
them for clarity.
Narrows
The current configuration of the Narrows saloon is shown in the attached Narrows seating plan,
labeled as exhibit D. The Narrows Bar is 28’4” x 56’3” (1,593.56 sq. ft.). That configuration seats
128 persons as shown. 128 people are not the capacity of the space. A stage is located within
the bar area, along the east wall. The stage is 12’ by 15’, (180 sq. ft.)
The Narrows space includes an exterior patio, shown on Exhibit B. This patio allows seating for
24-30 patrons, and includes a fencing enclosure and a fire pit.
No expansion of the Narrows space is proposed at this time.
Lakeroom
The Lakeroom restaurant includes seating on two levels, plus the patio to the north. The patio
appears to support 30-36 patrons, and is shown on Exhibit B.
Hours of operation
Hours for live entertainment were stipulated by Resolution 4530. Live entertainment shall end
at 12:30 a.m. each night and the Saloon shall close at 1:00 am each night. No expansion of the
Lakeroom, beyond that authorized by Resolution 6353, is proposed.
Hours for the restaurant were stipulated in Resolution 6353. The restaurant shall be limited to
the hours of 8:00 am to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and
Saturday.
FILE #LA18-000104
February 19, 2019
Page 3 of 6
The owner requests that the hours of operation for the restaurant side be permitted to be
extended to 1:00 p.m., to be consistent on both sides.
Parking.
As noted with resolution 6353, applicant shall work with city staff on a plan to establish a
handicapped parking spot within the city lot. No motorcycle parking is permitted on the public
sidewalk. These requirements will remain in the proposed resolution. Staff and the applicant
established a spot near the patio entrance, but this may need to be adjusted as the parking lot is
adjusted.
Dumpster Enclosure.
The original site plan for the Lakeroom showed a proposed trash enclosure approximately 15
feet north of the outdoor patio area. The owner requested and received Council approval to
relocate the dumpster enclosure to the north side of the city parking lot. The Dumpster
enclosure shall be built prior to relocating the dumpster to the new location.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-646 - Setbacks:
B-1 DISTRICT Required Existing and Proposed
Front 35’
16.5’ – lot line
6.5’ – Highway easement
2’ – sidewalk easement
Rear 35’ 29’
West Side 15’ 3.4’
East Side 15’ 8.2’
Section 78-646- Lot Area/Width:
B-1 DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width
Required 20,000 s.f. (0.46 acres) 100’
Actual 13,656 s.f. (0.31 acres) 112’
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
13,656 s.f. (0.31acre) Allowed: 2,047 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 5,367 s.f. (39.3%)
Proposed: No Change
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
FILE #LA18-000104
February 19, 2019
Page 4 of 6
Tier
Tier 3 13,656 s.f. 4,780 s.f.
(35 %)
13,656 s.f.
(100%)
13,656 s.f.
(100%)
No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed beyond what has already been
approved. It should be noted that hardcover standards are difficult to meet in minor retrofit use
applications.
Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916)
The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the
application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the
proposed location is or will be:
1) Consistent with the community management plan; The use of the property for a
restaurant/ bar is consistent with the Commercial designation.
2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Class II restaurants are a
conditional use in the zoning district.
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The property
is served by municipal services, no issues have been identified or are anticipated.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; There is
adequate services to support the intended use.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The
business is not anticipated to generate demand of public services beyond a typical
amount for the type of business.
6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future; The use is consistent with a commercial use.
Building design and applicable regulations are added to address noise concerns.
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character
is called for in the community management plan; This is true. The immediate
neighborhood is a suburban commercial corridor, restaurants/ bars are expected.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
The immediate neighborhood is a suburban commercial corridor, restaurants/ bars
are expected.
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the
area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when
compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; Not expected to
impact adjacent uses beyond what should be expected for a commercial use in a
commercial zone. Excessive noise has been mitigated with the building design and
regulatory conditions.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Use is contained within a building.
Exterior patio is not a use requiring screening.
FILE #LA18-000104
February 19, 2019
Page 5 of 6
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The plan and
regulations are intended to address nuisances listed.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that
cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or
unsafe access; Access to the site is via county roads. City parking lot provides
parking.
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area
and to minimize environmental impact; Not Applicable to this site.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the
public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lights added
beyond previously approved and
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This
statement is true.
A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally,
a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are
observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official
controls to change the status of conditional uses.
Analysis
Consolidating the Narrows and the Lakeroom Conditional Use Permits does require some
discussion. Recall that Conditional Use Permits issued to the property, not the property owner,
and consolidation of the two businesses could permit expansion of the live entertainment portion
of the business, to the possible detriment of the neighboring property owners. Staff proposes to
codify the size of the Narrows and the stage as follows:
The maximum area for a stage and or live entertainment shall not exceed 15 feet by 12 feet.
The maximum area to receive live entertainment shall not exceed 28’4” x 56’3” (1,593.56 sq.
ft.). An expansion of one or both of these parameters shall require an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit.
Working with the property owner, Staff proposes consolidating conditions imposed previously
into this revised resolution, in addition to new and modified conditions. These proposed
conditions are provided in Exhibit I, and show all the conditions for Resolutions 4530, 5440, and
6353. Changes are highlighted by strikethrough for deletions, and by underline, for additions.
The conditions are subject to change pending City Attorney review.
Public Comments
To date, Staff has received one phone call with questions, but no written public comments have
been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission have issue with the proposal to combine the businesses
that cannot be mitigated by conditions?
2. Does the Planning Commission have concerns with consolidating the two businesses into
one CUP?
3. Does the Planning Commission have concerns with lengthening the hours of operation for
FILE #LA18-000104
February 19, 2019
Page 6 of 6
the restaurant side to 1:00 p.m. daily?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. General Layout (RR and Patios)
Exhibit C. Lakeroom Floor Plans (Upper and Lower)
Exhibit D. Narrows Floor Plan and seating layout
Exhibit E. Property Owners List/ Map
Exhibit F. Resolution 4530 (New Saloon, live music)
Exhibit G. Resolution 5440 (Expansion)
Exhibit H. Resolution 6353 (New Restaurant)
Exhibit I. Proposed Conditions
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3
5. LA18-000104 GARY ANDERST, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE, AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:05 P.M. – 7:30 P.M.
Gary Anderst, Applicant, was present.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting to consolidate the Narrows business and the Lakeroom
restaurant into one business to allow one liquor license. A secondary request is to adopt a new conditional
use permit to consolidate the conditions improved previously.
In 2000, the City issued a conditional use permit to permit the creation of a new class II restaurant (the
Lakeroom). The conditional use permit included a requirement that the new restaurant hold a separate
liquor license from the Narrows Saloon. Since the original conditional use permit in 2000, the City has
granted a number of conditional use permits for the property as outlined in Staff report. Consolidating
both businesses into one liquor license is considered an expansion of one of the businesses requiring at
least an amendment to the conditional use permit. Consolidation of the two businesses could permit
expansion of the live entertainment portion of the business, to the possible detriment of the neighboring
property owners.
In addition, the applicant is requesting that the hours of operation for the restaurant side be permitted to
be extended to 1 p.m. in order to be consistent on both sides. Currently the restaurant is allowed to be
open from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday. No
change is proposed to the hours for the live entertainment. Staff feels this request is reasonable.
Staff proposes to codify the size of the Narrows and the stage as follows: The maximum area for a stage
and/or live entertainment shall not exceed 15 feet by 12 feet. the maximum area to receive live
entertainment shall not exceed 28’4” x 56’3”. An expansion of one or both of these parameters would
require an amendment to the conditional use permit. At this time the applicant is not proposing to expand
the Narrows space.
In the past the live music has generated concerns from the neighborhood. A number of conditions were
imposed on the business to address those concerns. The City has not received a noise complaint about the
Narrows for some time.
Staff has been working with the property owner regarding his application. Staff proposes consolidating
conditions imposed previously into the revised resolution, in addition to new and modified conditions.
The Lakeroom is not yet open but it will be opening in the near future.
Landgraver asked why there was a requirement for separate liquor licenses.
Barnhart stated his understanding is that one liquor license has to go to one business and that it is
currently two businesses.
Olson asked if there are two separate tax ID numbers.
Barnhart stated that would be his assumption.
Thiesse noted if there is only one license and one business loses the license, both would lose it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 3
Barnhart stated only one liquor license is being proposed, which would allow patrons to bring drinks from
one area of the structure into the other area, and if there were two separate liquor licenses, they would not
be able to do that.
Gary Anderst, Applicant, stated as it relates to the liquor license request, it is not so much the cost of the
license but rather the compliance. Movement of liquor after it is purchased is one issue but it is also the
storage. If one side ran out of something, they cannot borrow some from the other side. The liquor is
also purchased from two different accounts. Currently there is a separate tax ID for the Lakeroom but
both the Lakeroom and the Narrows are operating under one general ledger and are two separate
businesses within the same property.
As it relates to the hours, Anderst indicated they can work with the current hours contained in the
conditional use permits, but that the issue relates to special events. Anderst stated they do not plan on
being open to 1 p.m. every Monday through Thursday but that they already have had requests for special
events like Christmas parties, which may occur during the week. One thought was to have one time
frame for when the businesses will be open. Anderst stated they did not want to reduce the saloon hours
and normally the music is done by 10 p.m. on a weekday night, with the saloon usually closing down
shortly after that. Changing the hours was to be more or less consistent with the hours for the Narrows.
Anderst stated he understands there is a risk of losing the license for both businesses if it is combined but
that there are also compliance issues that have to be dealt with.
Anderst stated they have been working a long time in order to make this happen and that they are
optimistic it will be a successful business and is something that is needed in the community.
Landgraver asked if there are two subsidiaries.
Anderst indicated there is Orono Liquor, which has the liquor license, and then there is the Lakeroom,
which is an LLC, and then there is the Narrows, LLC, which owns the buildings. They are proposing to
operate the businesses under Orono Liquor.
Libby asked if there has been any thought or design created so they can be two contiguous businesses. If
there is only one liquor license, would they be able to have overflow from one area to area.
Anderst stated right now the building is not designed to do that. There is a common vestibule but a
separate entrance to each business currently. There is also a second level to the Lakeroom, which is for
special events.
Libby asked what the seating capacity is.
Anderst indicated the occupancy currently is approximately 160 and that hopefully the downstairs will be
used for overflow if the Lakeroom gets busy.
Libby asked if there is any liquor license that would allow them to serve liquor in the dining room.
Anderst stated he has chosen not to apply for a liquor license for the Lakeroom at this time.
Libby asked if a single liquor license would be a blanket one for both places.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 3
Anderst indicated that is correct.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Landgraver stated the last time the City looked at this there was a major concern about the noise, but no
one has come forward to express a concern about that tonight.
Thiesse stated the one patio has been open for a few years now and there has not been a complaint about
the noise.
Libby noted there is not very many residential properties near this building.
Olson stated the noise from downstairs likely would not carry very far.
Thiesse asked if a future buyer could combine the two sections to make a larger music venue.
Barnhart indicated they would need to go through the conditional use permit process.
Ressler stated he is completely supportive of the application and that he does not have a problem with the
proposed hours, especially since it is near a busy intersection and road, which likely blocks out a lot of the
noise. When combining the liquor license, Ressler stated the one thing he would look at is whether there
is one business or two businesses and that it would be nice to be able to go from one section to the other
section but that he is not here to design the layout of the building.
Olson commented the business concept is similar to Lord Fletcher’s.
Ressler indicated he is in support of it.
Landgraver moved, Ressler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000104,
Gary Anderst, 3382 Shoreline Drive.
Landgraver noted the closing time will need to be cleaned up in a couple of spots in the resolution.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By:RJO Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. To informally consider a concept plan for a proposed RPUD 75-90 unit apartment
building.
2. Background. The applicant proposes purchase of the 3.69 acre parcel and developing a 2 1/2
story residential apartment building at the NW quadrant of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd
West. The building would be developed as an RPUD, and use a style and material pallet similar
to the Stonebay project across the street. The project would include surface and underground
parking. Vehicular access will be via Kelley Parkway. More complete analysis can be found in
the Planning Commission staff report, dated February 19, 2019.
At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided some elevation renderings. The
building features stone and lap siding. Units have either a patio or balcony.
The proposed project is consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan in land use and density,
though a formal approval of the project may not occur until the Met Council has approved the
Comprehensive Plan. Based on the review completed thus far, the project is consistent with the
RPUD requirements, including the 30 foot defined height limit. No flexibility is requested.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 19, 2019, the Planning Commission
reviewed the project and provided feedback. The Planning Commission minutes are attached as
Exhibit C. The Planning Commission took no formal action, as this was a concept plan.
Commissioners supported the project, questioning the building height issue, expected rent
amounts, and parking
4. Public Comment. No comments for or against the project have been received. Future steps will
include a public hearing.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend.
Exhibits
A. Plans
B. Planning Commission staff report
C. PC minutes (draft)
D. Narrative
E. Staff comment letter
References
PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2/19/19
Item No.: 13 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: LA19-00006, Trident Development o/b/o University of St. Thomas,
Outlot A. Stonebay; Concept Plan Review
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
Date Application Received: January 23, 2019
Date Application Considered as Complete: February 1, 2019
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: February 19, 2019
Subject: #LA19-000006, Patrick Brama Trident Dev. o/b/o University of St Thomas, Outlot
A, Stonebay, Concept Plan review
Background
The subject property is located at the NW corner of Wayzata Blvd West and Willow Drive North.
This parcel is Outlot A of Stonebay, and was originally contemplated for office uses. The City
had reviewed at some level a possible bank, and a possible gas station on the site, but not
project was built. The most current draft of the Comprehensive Plan guides the property for
High Density Residential, 20-25 units per acre. The developers are working on behalf of the
current property owner, the University of St. Thomas. The developers propose the construction
of a 2-2.5 story market rate apartment building on the property. Site improvements include the
apartment building with between 75 and 90 units, underground parking, and surface parking,
trails, and landscaping.
Review Process
The concept proposal is the first step in the RPUD process. Of note, this proposal is based on
the formal acceptance by the Met Council of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides
the subject property for high density residential (20-25) units per acre. The project cannot
proceed beyond concept review until the Met Council has accepted the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan.
Following Met Council acceptance of the Comp Plan, the project will require master plan
approval, zone change (to RPUD), and platting (from the Outlot designation). All of these
actions require a public hearing, and notice to all property owners within 500 feet. Many of
these actions will occur concurrently.
Analysis
Access. Access to the site is planned via two curb cuts onto Kelley Parkway. There are no curb
cuts on the north side of Kelley Parkway to have the intersections line up. There is no proposed
vehicular access onto Wayzata Blvd or Willow Drive. Any intersection with these roads would
not be supported by staff, Hennepin County, or the Comprehensive Plan.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comments regarding a proposed multi-
family residential structure.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests feedback on the proposed
apartment building concept.
FILE #LA19-000006
February 19, 2019
Page 2 of 4
Pedestrian movement. The developer shows an extension of the trail along the west side of
Willow Parkway, south to the Willow Drive/ Wayzata Blvd intersection, where a cross walk is
planned. A trail is planned as part of the Wayzata Blvd “turnback” project. This trail will likely
be located in the County ROW, south of the subject property. There is also currently a sidewalk
along the south edge of the Kelley Parkway ROW, adjacent to this property. Internal pedestrian
connections with the sidewalk and trails is suggested.
Parking. City code requires 2 parking spaces per residential dwelling unit. With 75-90 units,
150-180 parking spaces would be required. Preliminary drawings show 117 parking stalls under
the building, and 61 surface stalls. The number of stalls support up to 89 units. Entrance to the
underground parking is located in the west end of the building, facing north.
Building
The building is L shaped with the slightly longer edge fronting Wayzata Blvd West. The
apartment units are a mix of studio +, 1, 1+, 2, and 3 bedroom units. Possible floor plan is
attached as Exhibit B. The units are proposed to be market rate.
The building meets the prescribed setbacks from all streets. Building elevations have not been
finalized, but the applicant anticipates the use of a material and color palette consistent with
the Stonebay development, shown on Exhibit D.
Building Height. Lately, building height has been an issue with multifamily projects. The
applicant has reviewed the history relative to this issue and proposes to meet the 30 foot height
limit established by the City Council. The calculation of building height includes siting the
building within the existing grade. Grading plans are typically not completed for concept plans.
The building height, design, and color will be reviewed in near final form as part of the Master
Plan approval process.
Utilities. The property will be served by city water and sanitary sewer. Stormwater will be
collected on site and sent to the sub-regional pond, as was anticipated by the original Stonebay
development. Current treatment and retention rules will apply and will be reviewed by the City
Engineer and watershed district.
Landscaping. A Minimum landscaping plan has been developed. The RPUD standards spell out
with some specificity landscaping requirements. The landscaping plan developed as part of the
master plan will be reviewed for consistency.
RPUD analysis. The full excerpt of Section 78-626 which regulates the RPUD process is attached
as Exhibit F. A summary follows:
Section Standard Flexibility Requested?
1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or
tied to adjacent RPUD
No. Part of the Stonebay
RPUD
2 Uses. Allowed: Multifamily
residential
FILE #LA19-000006
February 19, 2019
Page 3 of 4
3 Sewer availability No. Sewer is available and
the density is greater than 1
unit or 2 acres
4 Density. Each development in the
RPUD district shall have a
density within the range specified
in the comprehensive plan for the
specific site.
No, assuming approval of
2040 Plan
5 Incentives. The city may utilize
incentives to encourage the
construction of projects which are
consistent with the city's housing
goals.
None requested
6 Floor Ratio Ration, up to 1.0 No. Not final, but
approximately 0.62
7a Setbacks No. Setbacks met
7b Height, stories, roof style No. Height will meet 30 feet,
3 stories or less, and a
residential style roof is
proposed.
7c Outside storage No. None proposed.
11 10% Private Recreational Area
(Active and/or Passive)
No, none yet shown
12 Common Ownership No. Property to remain in
common ownership
13 Signage No. Signage plans not yet
developed
14 Landscaping No. Landscaping Plans not
yet developed
15 Architectural Standards Plans not developed, but are
anticipate dot be based on
Stonebay palette.
16 Flexibility from standards None requested at this time
17 Traffic Studies Not suggested
18 Building Permits Expected
19 General regulations applicability Expected
20 Lighting No. Lighting plan not yet
developed
21 Trails No. Shown
Though additional information is necessary to complete a comprehensive review (Landscaping,
Lighting, Signage, Building elevation, etc.), the applicant is not requesting flexibility from current
standards.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-622 - Setbacks:
DISTRICT Required Proposed (approximate)
Front (Willow) 35 40
Rear 35 40
FILE #LA19-000006
February 19, 2019
Page 4 of 4
Street (Kelley) 35 50
Street (Wayzata Blvd West) 50 55
Parking Lots 20 50
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
Does not apply as lot is greater than 2 acres.
Section 78-626 (6) Floor Area Ratio
Total Lot Area Total Floor Area (excluding
below Ground parking)
Floor Area Ratio
160,848 s.f. (3.69 acre) 100,218 sq. ft. Allowed: 1.0
Proposed: 0.62
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 4
RPUD 160,848 s.f. 80,828 s.f.
(50 %)
None
71,077 s.f.
(44 %)
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Commission have any issues or concerns with this proposal?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Site Plan/ Floor Plan
Exhibit C. Narrative
Exhibit D. Design Palette
Exhibit E. Staff Comment Letter dated February 1, 2019
Exhibit F. Section 78-626 RPUD Standards
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 4
6. LA19-000006 TODD CUSHMAN/RICK BRAMA, PID 33-118-23-11-0060, NORTHWEST
QUADRANT OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BOULEVARD, CONCEPT PLAN, 7:30 P.M. – 8:00
P.M.
Roger Fink, Trident Development; Todd Cashman and Rick Brama, Applicants, were present.
Barnhart stated the City has received a sketch plan proposal for a proposed 2 to 2.5 story apartment
building consisting of between 75 and 90 units, underground parking, and surface parking. The L-shaped
building would be located south of Kelley Parkway, north of Wayzata Boulevard, and west of Willow
Drive.
Access to the site is planned via two curb cuts onto Kelley Parkway. There are no curb cuts on the north
side of Kelley Parkway to have the intersections line up. There is no proposed vehicular access onto
Wayzata Boulevard or willow Drive. Any intersection with these roads would not be supported by staff,
Hennepin County, or the Comprehensive Plan. There is an existing sidewalk along Kelley Parkway. The
developer shows an extension of the trail along the west side of Willow Parkway, south to the Willow
Drive/Wayzata Boulevard intersection where a crosswalk is planned. The color palette would be similar
to the Stone Bay development.
Staff has not done any analysis of the height of the building. The applicant is aware of how the height
calculation is done and has not requested any deviation from that.
The site plan shows both surface and underground parking. The number of stalls shown currently can
support 89 units. The proposal does include a mix of apartment styles, ranging from one to three
bedrooms and a studio unit. The proposal meets the height requirement, the setbacks, and the zoning use
for this site. MUSA is available and the density is within the guidelines.
The concept proposal is the first step in the RPUD process. The density for this site was changed from
office use to residential at 20 to 25 units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal would be
contingent upon the formal acceptance by the Metropolitan Council of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Following Metropolitan Council approval, the project will require master plan approval, a zone change to
RPUD, and platting.
Landgraver asked if the holding pond needs to be expanded or modified to handle additional runoff and
whether that has been scheduled to happen.
Barnhart indicated the senior housing project sends its stormwater runoff into the pond. Staff’s
understanding is that some modifications will be necessary to meet the new rules and regulations. The
water retention rules have changed since 2000 or 2001, which is why some modifications will likely be
necessary. That level of detail will be looked at the time the grading and drainage plans are completed.
Landgraver asked who would pay for the cost of the stormwater pond expansion.
Barnhart indicated it would be the applicant. The runoff would need to either be retained on site or the
applicant will need to acquire additional land to handle the runoff.
Landgraver asked who would pay for it 15 years from now.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 4
Barnhart indicated it would likely be the City’s responsibility but that he would need to verify that. The
stormwater sewer system is similar to the City’s road system and ultimately the City will need to maintain
that.
Roger Fink, Senior Vice President of Trident Development, stated they are based out of St. Cloud and
were formed approximately 13 years ago. The company’s business model is to design these properties for
long-term ownership and that they intend to build a portfolio of income properties. Trident has a sister
company also officed in St. Cloud by the name of Lion Contracting, who has built all the properties that
Trident has developed over the last 13 years.
Trident has constructed approximately 900 apartment units ranging from Chanhassen and the other
suburbs of the metropolitan area. Trident also specializes in the senior living/senior housing market and
have constructed over 1,000 units.
Fink stated they would like to name this development Crystal Bay Luxury Apartments or Crystal Bay
Luxury Homes. An analysis of the community itself, as well as the pricing and unit costs, has been done
to some degree and it is felt that this development will attract a wide variety of professional singles and
young couples, empty nesters, and transitional homeowners. Trident also expects to see a population of
millennials who prefer rental housing. The household income brackets are anticipated to range between
$31,000 to $65,000. The lower brackets would probably qualify for the studio apartments and occupants
of the two-bedroom units would need to earn around $65,000. Fink noted this is not an income qualified
project, but that Trident does verify income and employment of all renters.
Trident will be opening a brand-new property this month in Maple Grove and this development will
probably have similar amenities, such as 9-foot ceilings, a kitchen appliance package, hardwood cabinetry
with pulls and handles, a functional center island, washer and drier, luxury vinyl flooring throughout most
of the unit, granite countertops, LED lighting package, self-contained air and heat systems, window
treatments on all the windows, a private balcony, two panel decorative interior doors, and a curved wall
feature in some of the interior units.
Outside the units in the common areas will be a spacious lobby. All floors will be serviced by elevators.
The building will also include a fitness center, community party room, interior trash and recycling space
located in the underground parking garage, bicycle storage, a game room, lockers, and outdoor patio
space with seating and a fire pit. Another popular amenity is a package handling system with the tenant
being notified by email or text of a package delivery. The building will have secured controlled building
entry points as well as a surveillance camera system.
It has also been Trident’s practice to hire a third-party professional management company and they will
be relied upon to enforce the rules, perform background/credit checks, and employment/income
verifications.
Fink stated they are excited to bring this development opportunity to Orono and that in their view they
can meet or exceed all of the City’s performance standards.
Libby commented this is a 21st century rental housing development and is commiserate of other well-
thought of developments. Libby noted there is good demand for housing in this area and that Mr. Fink
has made it quite clear that this is not low-income housing. As it relates to the studio units, Libby
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 4
commented he has seen an escalated spiral for rental rates in the Twin Cities area, and asked whether the
rent would be about 50 percent of the gross monthly income of someone who is making around $31,000.
Fink indicated they have recently updated some proforma market rates for another property in
Minneapolis and that they brought this development into line with those rents. Trident has not done a unit
by unit pricing for this project yet but it likely would range around $2 per square foot or $1,100 for a
studio apartment.
Libby commented that is comparable with other communities.
Fink stated as the units get larger, the rent per square foot will decline to around $1.75 for the larger units
and $1.80 for the two-bedroom units.
Ressler asked whether this project would help with the City’s density numbers.
Barnhart indicated it would help the City meet their goals.
Ressler noted there are not a lot of places where this type of development can be built in Orono. Ressler
stated in his view it is a nice plan and does not appear to be overbuilt.
Landgraver asked whether the outdoor amenities have been determined yet.
Fink indicated they are still developing that aspect.
Landgraver asked how critical the third floor is in terms of the economics.
Fink indicated it is critical.
Landgraver noted traffic on Kelley has gotten somewhat better since the road improvements and asked
whether the existing residents on Crystal Bay will be up in arms due to any additional traffic on Kelley.
Barnhart stated the former school configuration improvements on County Road 6 did contribute to traffic
being backed up on County Road 6, which has been somewhat solved. The engineers have also discussed
improvements to this intersection to line it up on the other side, and so the situation will continue to
improve. The City would prefer to have traffic on Kelley rather than Wayzata Boulevard.
Landgraver asked whether there will be sidewalk all the way to the school on Kelley or to Old Crystal
Bay on one side of the road. Landgraver commented that if this development has families with children,
they will likely want to walk to school.
Barnhart indicated the sidewalk is located on the south side.
Olson indicated he does not have any additional questions at this time.
Libby asked if he knows what radius the tenants will be drawn from.
Fink stated he is not sure he has a good answer to that right now and that a market analysis will look at
that.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 4
Ressler asked what traffic levels the City anticipates between residential and commericla.
Barnhart stated he recalls a study for a proposed apartment building on Shadywood and that the
residential development generated less traffic than most desirable commercial developments.
Thiesse commented he likes the layout of the site and the way the building fits into the neighborhood. If
the easterly connection to Kelley were skewed to the west, it would generate less backup onto Willow for
right turns and provide better safety and sightlines.
Fink stated he did notice that and that they will look into it. The big unknown at this time is the water
table, which would impact the underground parking.
Thiesse noted the next road to the west is Old Crystal Bay Road and that the proposed name might
generate some confusion.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
February 1, 2019
Patrick Brama VIA EMAIL
3601 18th Street South, #103 PatrickB@tridentdevelopmentmn.com
St. Cloud, MN 56301, MN 55311
Re: Concept application #LA19-000006
The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the status of your application for
a concept review for property located at the NW corner of Willow and Wayzata Blvd in Orono. Our preliminary
review indicates that your application is complete.
Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 19, 2019. The
meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Please make sure that you or your representative is available to attend the meeting.
You will be emailed a staff report regarding your application prior to the meeting date; alternatively, the staff
report and agenda will be made available the Friday prior to the meeting on the City’s website at
www.ci.orono.mn.us. Search for the Planning Commission materials under Agendas and Minutes.
At this stage, I have some preliminary comments that if addressed, might be helpful as your project enters public review.
Elevations. The narrative describes in general detail the architecture of the building. Elevation drawings will be
beneficial. Though it is expected that the building materials continue the character established by the Stonebay project
across the street, strong support for the project is unlikely without some level of elevation drawings.
Parking. The site plan shows 61 parking spaces, yet the text indicates 59 surface stalls. Formal plans should include
dimensions to ensure all spaces are 9 feet by 20 feet with a 24 foot wide aisle. Our requirement is 2 spaces per dwelling
unit. The narrative suggests between 75 and 90 units, so 150-180 spaces would be required. The plans and narrative
indicate 178 spaces.
Trail. The plan shows a trail connecting Kelley Parkway to a crossing at Willow, in the SE corner of the site. The
developer should be advised that a trail is being proposed as part of the Wayzata Blvd “turnback” project and the
Developer will be asked to pay for their corresponding segment, credited against park dedication.
Landscaping. The narrative suggests landscaping is under development. Staff recommends developing a landscaping
plan that places an emphasis on natural groupings, and a variety of seasonal color and texture.
Building Height. In past projects, the height of the building has been a central issue. With no building elevations and
preliminary grading plan, no analysis of the building height can occur, and no comments can be provided. Staff
understands the developer is not requesting, or expecting, and flexibility from the height limits.
Density. This project is based on the recent proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan that supports residential
development at densities of 20-25 units per acre, from the current, in place guidance of Office. It is important that I
note that this proposed change has not yet been approved by the Metropolitan Council. The City will be unable to
favorably act on a formal development proposal until the Met Council approves the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed number of units 75-90 fall within the desired density range.
Fees. I have provided an estimate of fees associated with this project, assuming 75 units and 75 SAC units. Final
numbers will be determined at the time of Final Plat approval and Building Permit issuance.
Park dedication is applied on a per unit cost, and the City Council establishes a minimum and maximum land value
range due to the wide range of land values in Orono. The minimum land value range is $3,250.00. Park dedication
for 75 dwelling units is $243,750.00. Full methodology is attached.
Utility fees. Sanitary sewer and water connection charges are based on a per unit costs. Assuming 75 SAC units,
where the Met Council determines the number of SAC units, the Water connection charge is $318,000 ($4,250 x
75 SAC units) and the sanitary sewer is $391,875 ($5,225 x 75 SAC units).
The City charges a Storm Water Trunk fee, which is based on a density number applied to the number of acres. For
attached family development with a density of 43 units per acre or more, the charge of $8,490 per acre, or $31,328
($8,490 x 3.69).
Next Steps. Following Planning Commission and City Council feedback, as well as Met Council approval of the 2020-
2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property will need to be rezoned, platted, and the Master Development Plan approved.
I will be your primary contact through the review process, please direct all information or questions to me. I can
be reached at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORONO
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO
1. Purpose. To informally consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by expanding the
MUSA boundary.
2. Background. The applicant seeks Council consideration to expand the MUSA boundary to serve
Deering Island with sanitary sewer. The City of Mound would provide the connection and
treatment of the sanitary sewer.
The Comprehensive Plan does contemplate the expansion of the MUSA boundary, via 6
priorities. The subject parcel appears to satisfy the 1st priority, as the island is completely
surrounded by the lake. Full analysis is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff
report. The City most recently expanded the MUSA (subject to Met Council approval) for the
1003 Wildhurst property, citing that parcel’s proximity to the Lake.
A formal amendment may not proceed until the Met Council has approved the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 19th, the Planning Commission
reviewed and where in support of the request.
Some members questioned if the expansion opens the door for higher densities. The answer is
yes, but only if the City Council wants that. That would be a pretty drastic deviation from the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposal have been received.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff requests feedback.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend.
Exhibits
A. PC Minutes (draft) 2-19-19
B. PC Memo
C. Map
D. Narrative
References
PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2/19/19
Item No.: 14 Date: March 11, 2019
Item Description: LA19-000002 – Scott Gates o/b/o Kruckeberg Real Estates, 4400
Deering Island, Concept Plan, Amend MUSA Boundary
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3
7. LA19-000002 SCOTT GATES, 4400 DEERING ISLAND, MUSA SERVICE FROM
MOUND TO DEERING ISLAND, CONCEPT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, 8:02
P.M. – 8:30 P.M.
Scott Gates, Applicant, was present.
Barnhart stated this is a request to modify the Comprehensive Plan once it is approved by the
Metropolitan Council. The modification is to expand the MUSA boundary by including Deering Island,
which is a 2.79 acre island within Lake Minnetonka and is located on the west side of the city limits of
Orono. The property owner also owns a lot in Mound most proximate to Deering Island.
The property owner would like to extend sanitary sewer services underneath the channel from Mound to
Deering Island. The Comprehensive Plan does not include Deering Island as part of MUSA. The City of
Mound has provided a preliminary response related to the request and is included within staff report.
Mound would serve the island and bill the property owner directly.
Orono’s Comprehensive Plan does contemplate expansion of MUSA and contains some priority
properties for that expansion. The City has a lot of discretion on changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
The first guideline is to look to serve properties that are adjacent to the lake. The 2040 Comprehensive
Plan includes six priorities as guides for considering modification to the MUSA.
The first priority is the property must abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which this property does.
The existing home must have a failing or non-conforming septic system and replacement drain field sites
are not available. In the City’s sewered areas, the City has to maintain a general density of 3.0 units or
more. Orono’s density ratio is currently above three units, and if the Comprehensive Plan is amended, it
would drop it slightly to 4.11 percent.
Additional information as to the status of the system and alternative sites is necessary prior to formal
application. Based on the information provided, it does appear that the island fits Priority 1 and condition
two can be satisfied. Condition 3 cannot be fully met.
At this time the applicant is looking for feedback on the proposed modification to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Landgraver asked if electric or other utilities already run out to this property.
Barnhart indicated they do.
Libby asked if natural gas is provided to the property.
Barnhart indicated he does not know the answer to that.
Scott Gates, Applicant, stated they did not plan to do this up front, but in working on the construction of
the Mound property, the discussion came up with Mound staff about running sewer out there. Some
research has been done on it, including looking at the costs. Running a sewer line to the property would
be more expensive short-term but long-term it has some positive benefits. Gates indicated he has spoken
with Orono staff and everyone agrees it is a net environmental benefit.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 3
Deering Island has a slightly higher elevation and is approximately 12 feet above sea level. The property
consists of 2.77 acres, but there is a pretty limited area to put a septic system since much of the property is
wooded. Overall extending the sewer line has a lot of benefits.
Gates stated while it is not a certainty at this point, in their preliminary review of it, it makes sense to look
at it further. Extending the water line will also be looked at in conjunction with this project. The property
owner intends this to be a family compound and the property cannot be subdivided. Currently there is a
small cabin on the property that has been there for a number of years.
Gates stated they would also have to enter into an agreement with the City of Mound and obtain some
additional permits, but that he does not believe that will be a problem since Mound staff suggested it.
Thiesse asked if this is strictly to discuss a proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan.
Barnhart indicated that is correct.
Landgraver asked if there is any intention to rent out the island.
Gates stated not to the best of his knowledge at this point and that the intent right now is to use it for
family and friends.
Libby asked how big the sewer line would be.
Gates indicated it looks like it would be a pressurized two to four-inch line but that it has not been fully
engineered at this point. Minimum coverage would be ten feet below the bottom of the shore. Gates
stated boring under the lake would be similar to boring a line in under the ground.
Landgraver asked if there are other private islands in the City that might be interested in doing this.
Barnhart stated the City does have some sewer lines that go beneath the lake currently, both city-owned
and private, and that there potentially are other islands. The RS zoning district is a 5-acre lot size.
Deering Island is smaller than that, which means it cannot be subdivided.
Thiesse asked if an RPUD is a possibility.
Barnhart stated it would be a pretty drastic deviation from current practice.
Thiesse stated to his understanding the chain of islands in Mound have sanitary sewer. The biggest
concern is, once sewer is there, what will happen with the property twenty years down the road.
Ressler asked who will pay to maintain it after it is installed.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only looking at expanding the MUSA.
Gates stated his understanding is it would be treated as a residential service from the street in Mound.
Ressler stated it is a good idea in general to minimize risk for pollution to the lake. Since there does not
appear to be any future costs incurred by the City, there does not appear to be really any downside to it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 3
Barnhart noted the City has built up their density in certain areas, which allows the MUSA to be
expanded to more sensitive areas.
Ressler asked if sewer has been run out to Big Island.
Barnhart indicated it has not, and that if anyone is interested in doing that, they would need to incur the
expenses for that.
Libby asked what is existing on the island.
Gates indicated he is not sure.
Libby stated he is a strong proponent of municipal rather than private, but that it is environmentally more
sound to do this.
Landgraver asked to what point the property owner would be responsible to.
Thiesse indicated it would be the property line off the street.
Landgraver asked if this property would require a separate connection since there is a common owner of
both the peninsula and the island.
Barnhart indicated that is correct and that there would be an easement required.
Libby asked whether the property would be required to have a stop valve.
Gates stated he does not know the exact engineering requirements but that it will all be done in
conjunction with Mound engineers and the applicant’s engineers. Gates noted a septic system costs more
to install on an island, which also helps mitigate some of the costs.
Thiesse asked if an easement would be required for the portion under the lake.
Barnhart stated it likely would be considered public land and that an easement would not be required but
Staff would need to check into that.
Gates stated the LMCD has authority over the lake surface and not underneath the lake bottom.
Thiesse stated in his view it is a good deal and that he does not see any downside to the City of Orono.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
Date Application Received: January 17, 2019
Date Application Considered as Complete: January 17, 2019
60-Day Review Period Expires: N/AS
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: February 19, 2019
Subject: #LA19-000002, Scott Gates o/b/o Kruckeberg Real Estates, 4400 Deering Island,
Concept Plan, Amend MUSA boundary
Background
Deering Island is a 2.79 acre island within Lake Minnetonka, and is located on the west side of
the city limits of Orono. The nearest land mass is in the City of Mound, and the owner of
Deering Island owns the adjacent parcel in Mound.
Deering Island currently consists of a cabin type building with an accessory structure. Much of
the edges of the island are treed, though, based on aerial photography, there are open spaces in
the interior of the island.
The property owner desires to extend sanitary sewer services from Mound to Deering Island.
The City of Mound has provided a preliminary response related to the request, attached as
Exhibit D. Mound would serve the island, and bill the property owner directly. The City of
Orono would not extend pipe or sanitary sewer service of any kind to the island.
Applicable Standards. The timeline to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan has expired, the
City must wait until the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been accepted by the Met Council and
put into effect by the City Council before an amendment can be formally considered.
The proposed amendment is to the comprehensive plan. The City Council has a large amount of
discretion when considering a change to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission
and Council are asked for initial feedback before undertaking the time and expense in planning
and engineering the connection.
2040 Comprehensive Plan
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes 6 priorities as guides for considering modification to the
MUSA: (These priorities are identical in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan).
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting Planning Commission and City Council
feedback on a potential applicant to expand the MUSA boundary to allow for sanitary sewer
connection on Deering Island.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests feedback on the proposed change
to the Comprehensive Plan and the MUSA boundary.
FILE #LA19-000002
February 19, 2019
Page 2 of 3
Table 4B-12: MUSA Expansion Priorities
Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes
Priority 2
Properties that abut City-protected tributaries, and all other properties within the
Shoreland Overlay District
Priority 3
Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed
prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available
to replace said system.
Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space.
Priority 5
Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985
that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said
system.
Priority 6 New or existing development not covered by priorities 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
The Comprehensive Plan provides additional guidance. If at least one of the following Conditions
are met:
Conditions*
Expansion of the MUSA on the established prioritized basis noted above will occur only
when one of the following conditions is found:
1. When an area of existing homes has failing or non-conforming septic systems and
replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing
homes.
2. When an individual home has a failing or non-conforming septic system, does not
have an alternate drain field site, is adjacent to existing sewer lines, and is not part
of a neighborhood that could be better served by a neighborhood sewer lateral
project.
3. When a new or existing residential development meeting all required development
standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners
agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development, but only
when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in
the City’s sewered density as calculated by the Metropolitan Council.
*These Priorities and Conditions are subject to change pending Met Council review and
approval.
Predicted Density, Based on Net Density Table 3B-4, 2040 CMP
4400
Deering
(2.79 acres,
1 unit)
Net
Residential
Acres
(NRA)
Lowest
Guided
Density
Predicted
# of units
(C x D)
Calculated
Density
No Change 214.2 891 4.16
With
Amendment 217 0.5 892 4.11
Serving the property will decrease the City’s sewered density, but not below the 3.0 units per acre
required by the Met Council.
FILE #LA19-000002
February 19, 2019
Page 3 of 3
Septic System Status
Additional information as the status of the system and alternative sites is necessary prior to
formal application.
Analysis
Based on the information provided, it does appear that the island fits Priority 1; and Condition 2
can be satisfied, though additional information on alternative sites will be needed prior to
consideration of a formal amendment. Condition 3 cannot be fully met; not parcel greater than
1/3 of an acre could meet this standard.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the request is supported by the guidance of the
Comprehensive Plan?
2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Area Map
Exhibit C. Narrative
Exhibit D. Mound Letter
Exhibit E. Orono Comment Letter
MUSA EXTENSION –DEERING ISLAND
4400 Deering Island
Orono, MN 55364
Hennepin County
PROPERTY DATA:
3.02 +/-acres Island on Lake Minnetonka
Includes an appx. 1,100 sq ft 2BR one level home
Electric is run from mainland
Water (well) and sewer (septic system)
Zoning is “Seasonal Recreation” thru City of Orono
MUSA EXTENSION PROPOSAL –DEERING ISLAND
The 4400 Deering Island property is now under common ownership with the property directly
across the channel to the West at the end of Shorewood Lane in Mound, MN.
The island has a private well and septic system at present. The septic system is older and was
planned to be upgraded by the new owner at some point.
The Mound property is currently undergoing reconstruction, and during meetings with the City of
Mound a suggestion was made by Mound staff that city services could possibly be run to the island
during construction of the Shorewood Lane property.
Mound staff, including Planning and Public Works have indicated a willingness to provide City
utility services to Deering Island, provided the City of Orono agreed and approved.
It was identified that a requirement of approval would include extending MUSA boundaries to
include Deering Island.An informal conversation with the Met Council indicated such an extension
would be possible.
In speaking with City of Orono staff,it appears an extension of City services to the island would be
consistent with Orono’s policy of providing lakeshore properties with municipal sewer (and water).
The owners representatives have investigated feasibility of this project and found it possible, and
potentially favorable.The island is appx.475 feet from shoreline to shoreline from the owners
Mound property. Extending services would involve directional boring, under the lake bottom, an
estimated appx. 650 feet in total.
It appears costs will be higher than replacing existing septic (and possibly well),but considering the
other benefits and long term value the higher cost may be justified.
The first step in this process would be Orono approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
extend MUSA boundaries to include Deering Island. Once approved by Orono application would be
made to Met Council. Our understanding in speaking with Met Council and others is this is a
relatively simple process,often a simple administrative action,however, due to their ongoing 2040
Comp Plan amendment process, it may take significant additional time than normal.
Boring contractors have indicated a preference in doing this work during winter conditions.The
new construction on the Shorewood property is expected to be complete and new landscaping
installed by fall 2019. If this boring project cannot be undertaken until winter 2019, it will require
disruption of that new landscaping, and as such completing the approval process as quickly as
possible is a priority.
Once approved by the City of Orono and Met Council,the following actions would also be
completed;a joint agreement between Orono and Mound to provide Mound municipal services,a
permit from the DNR, a SAC(/WAC) fee determination would be made, and construction permits
would be obtained.
The owners respectfully ask the City of Orono to consider this request for MUSA extension at it’s
earliest convenience, and, if approved, submission of a Comp.Plan Amendment to extend MUSA
boundaries to include the Deering Island property be submitted for approval to the Met Council.
Scott Gates
Owners Representative
612-670-7268
scottagates@msn.com