Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2018 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, February 12, 2018, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us 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 Approval of Consent Agenda 1. Council Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2018 2. Council Work Session Minutes of January 22, 2018 3. Claims/Bills 4. Approval of Residential Kennel License Renewal 5. Approval to Accept Monetary Donation To be used towards Purchase of Automated External Defibrillator (AED) 6. Approval to Dispose of Bicycles 7. Approval to Dispose of Forfeited Vehicle 8. 2018 Sanitary Sewers Inspection 9. Parks Mowers Replacement and Addition 10. Hire Accountant 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 Safety Report 11. Approval of Community Service Dog (K-9) Public Hearing 12. #17-3983 — Eric & Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, Vacation — Resolution 13. #18-3992 — Revolution Design Build o/b/o Kevin & Patty Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, Variance — Resolution 14. #18-3993 — Michael Hayes, o/b/o Weldon & Marcia Gilbertson, 684 Tonkawa Road, Variance — Resolution 15. #18-3994 — David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Road, Subd/Preliminary Plat/PRD-CUP — Resolution 16. #18-3997 — Rehkamp Larson, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, Variances — Resolution 17. #18-4000 — Jeff Martineau on Behalf of Barbara Garcia, 1335 Arbor Street, Variances Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, February 12, 2018, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Planning Department's Report (Planning Commission Representative - Chad Olson) 18. #18-4002 - John Patch, o/b/o Berkshire Partners, 2745 Kelley Parkway, Concept Plan Apartment Building 19. #17-3984 - City of Orono Text Amendment: Rental Licensing, Vacation Rental Prohibition Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report City Attorney's Report 20. Closed Meeting: The meeting will be closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege (section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b)) to discuss the following lawsuits: a. Johnson/Feldshon v. City of Orono (27 -CV -17-1030) b. Fred Johnson v. City of Orono (No Court File at this time) Adjournment Upcoming Events 2018 02-19-18 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 02-20-18 Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Aaron Printup) 02-26-18 City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 02-26-18 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 03-05-18 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 03-12-18 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 03-19-18 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Victoria Seals) 03-20-18 City Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m. 03-20-18 City Council Meeting, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 04-09-18 City Council Meeting, Monday 7:00 p.m. 04-16-18 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. (Wendy Dankey) 04-23-18 City Council Work Session, Monday 5:00 p.m. 04-23-18 City Council Meeting, Monday 7:00 p.m. Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 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, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were Finance Director Ron Olson, City Engineer/Public Works Director Adam Edwards, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, 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 JANUARY 8, 2018 0��% WR MyLIY/.4111M 3. APPROVAL OF 2018 TOBACCO LICENSE RENEWALS 4. APPROVAL OF 2018 KENNEL LICENSE RENEWALS ��17Z1�►[I� �.1tIZlII�U i_� Q I►`[!i 7117U i111S:7 3f•Y1] 11111 y [17ti�[I � 6. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2018 SQUAD CARS 7. #425 — DUMP/PLOW TRUCK REPLACEMENT 8. PICKUP TRUCK REPLACEMENTS 9. BRINE MAKER PROCUREMENT 10. WATERTOWN ROAD PHASE 2 REHABILITATION PAY REQUEST NO. 5 — FINAL Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS None FINANCE REPORT Ron Olson, Finance Director, provided an overview of the City's financial status for 2017. Olson stated in a typical year, some of the prior year's bills will still be processed in the new year until February sometime. There are approximately $150,000 in outstanding invoices at this time. In addition, the City does not receive its final portion of the City's tax levy until the end of January, which is between $100,000 and $210,000. Page 1 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. FINANCE REPORT — Continued Olson stated overall the City's revenues were up in 2017 and the City finished the year at approximately 104 percent of budget, which is approximately $154,000 more than budgeted in permits and fees. Collection of taxes will probably finish at around 98 percent once the final tax payment is received. In 2017, the City had 74 new homes versus 34 homes in 2016, which resulted in the increased revenues and pass-through charges. Olson reported the Orono Golf Course continues to perform better than budgeted and is expected to be around $46,000 over what was budgeted for revenue in 2017. Approximately five years ago the golf course revenues were around $100,000. In addition, building permit revenue was probably at a record high for the City in 2017. As it relates to expenditures, the City is currently at 98.95 percent of budget. Once all outstanding invoices are paid, the City will be around 100 percent of budget. Olson noted some departments were over budget in 2017, such as administration, and that is attributable to the interim city administrator. Law and legal services as well as code updates, lawsuits, and central services related to the building repairs at the Public Works building attributed to that increase. Currently the police department is at 95 percent of the budget but will finish the year at around 96 percent. Special services came in at $41,000 over budget but are related to the pass-through charges. Olson noted some numbers are not completely finalized but that overall the City's expenditures are in line with what was budgeted for 2017. Olson reported the City's auditors were at the City last Thursday and Friday doing preliminary field work and that the audit work will continue for the next few months. Walsh asked if the numbers will be finalized by the end of February. Olson indicated by the end of February the expenditure numbers will be pretty firin by that time. Walsh suggested having another update at the end of February. Olson stated they have also interviewed five people for the finance position and that they hope to hear back from the one candidate that they offered the position to tomorrow. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD (CSAH 112-CSAH 6) DESIGN UPDATE Edwards stated over the past several months the City has been working with the School District in order to come up with some viable solutions for Old Crystal Bay Road. Edwards stated at this time the consulting engineer has come up with a preliminary design and that they would like to get some initial guidance from the City Council on cost sharing and partnering with the School District. David Martini, Consulting City Engineer, addressed the City Council regarding the proposed improvements for. Martini reviewed the present condition of the roadway, noting that there are currently 11 access points along the roadway, which leads to some of the issues that they have been dealing with. Page 2 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD (CSAR 112-CSAH 6) DESIGN UPDATE — Continued The key challenges with the roadway include densely spaced driveways and intersections, pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, and congestion at the high school and middle school. Martini indicated they have a very good idea of some traffic flow issues down at the southern portion of the corridor as well as up by Highway 6. Those issues include vehicle stacking at certain times of the day at both ends of the roadway. In coming up with the new design, traffic control options were looked at to alleviate the stacking and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and included a through stop control, an all -way stop control, and traffic signals. The preferred alternative is to add turn lanes at key locations, eliminate some access points and combine other access points. Two possible areas have been identified where the access points can be closed and an analysis has been completed of changes to the internal circulation done on the campus. Martini stated at the south end of the corridor, they are looking at adding a left turn lane for northbound traffic and a turn lane for southbound traffic. There will be two lanes of traffic bringing people into the parking lot without having to take turns. The stretch between Wayzata Boulevard and the access into the parking lot is an area where some new sidewalks would be constructed and a trail has been proposed along the west side. As it relates to the northern section, the existing conditions consist of two 4 -way stops. The goal with the new design is to create a primary access point that lines up with some key points at the school. In addition, a concrete median is being proposed between the two 4 -way stops, which accomplishes a separation of the traffic and takes up dead space when the road is widened out. Also being proposed is a new crosswalk that would line up between the entrances to the middle school and high school. That new crosswalk would have a push button with a flashing light. Martini stated on the east side of the road there is the existing trail and on the west side some new sidewalks are being proposed to help funnel the pedestrians to the new crosswalk. Crosby asked how wide the median would be. Martini indicated the median would be 10 to 12 feet wide. At the north 4 -way stop, some turn lanes would be added as well as a through left turn lane into the middle school and then a left turn lane and a right into the high school. In addition, on the high school side of the road, some minor adjustments are being proposed to the parking area to provide some more separation away from the intersection and to improve internal circulation. As it relates to the south 4 -way stop, on the west side it is being proposed that the existing access location be closed off and slid south to line up with the access corridor that goes into the high school. That then creates the need to have a new access point into the middle school which would be constructed as part of the project. Martini stated ultimately what this will lead to is some improved traffic operations. Martini indicated the blue lines on the map depict the proposed conditions and the orange lines depict the existing traffic conditions. With the proposed design, the stacking will occur in the turn lanes and will be localized around the intersections. Other benefits with the new plan include the establishment of key primary intersections, a reduction from 11 full access points to five, and improved traffic operations without the cost of traffic signals. Martini stated overall the plan efficiently accommodates all traffic movements at key intersections and provides pedestrian crossing connections between school entrances. Page 3 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD (CSAR 112-CSAH 6) DESIGN UPDATE — Continued Crosby asked if they would be flashing stop signs. Martini indicated that type of detail has not been finalized at this stage but that the sign will likely be flashing. Seals asked if the proposed school circulation changes include ways to pull vehicles off of Old Crystal Bay Road, such as requiring all right turns at certain times of the day. Seals asked what the school is specifically doing with their internal flow. Dankey stated in front of the intermediate school there would be two lanes plus additional parking. It would be one way in and one way out. Vehicles can only go in on the right side, through the parking lot and then out. Dankey noted the circle on the map depicts all the new parking spots. Edwards stated a lot of the traffic changes will be on the school campus, which helps eliminate the need for stoplights. Edwards illustrated on the overhead how the traffic flow will be at the high school and middle school. In addition, the entrance to Okay Kids will be relocated and there will be consolidation of the access points. Martini stated by separating the primary access points out, the stacking will not interfere with the movements at the intersections. In addition, the circular movements will now occur on the school campus rather than having the vehicles come back out on Old Crystal Bay Road. The future connection onto Wayzata Boulevard will also help improve the traffic flow. Martini stated the challenges associated with the project are construction staging so it results in minimal impact during school months, one year versus a two-year project, and bidding the project as one package versus phasing school projects. As it relates to costs, the road improvements are estimated at $1.3 to $1.4 million. The new sidewalks are estimated at $55,000, the lighting at $100,000, and the pedestrian signal at $25,000. The school site reconfiguration is anticipated to be around $740,000. The total city costs are estimated at $1,555,500. Martini noted the City is also planning some utility work as part of this project which are not included in these costs. Walsh stated due to the deteriorating condition of the pipes, it would be very advantageous to replace those as part of this project rather than digging up the road later. Martini concurred that based on the condition of the utilities, it would be necessary to dig up the road at some point regardless. Edwards stated the numbers up on the screen have been grouped into different categories. The left column talks about the total costs, including the costs for the campus improvements. The costs have been anticipated at $2.1 million for pavement, $189,800 for sidewalk, $100,000 for lighting, $25,000 for the pedestrian signal, utilities at $650,000, and engineering at $626,020, which includes the feasibility study, design/engineering, and construction oversight. The second column reflects just the City's costs and the third column reflects the school's cost. Edwards indicated they are looking to cost share 50 percent on the sidewalk, lighting, pedestrian signal, 8 percent of the construction costs, and 10 percent of the construction costs. Edwards stated there is another cost sharing possibility on the stormwater. Page 4 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD (CSAR 112-CSAH 6) DESIGN UPDATE — Continued Seals asked if the City has enough in their utility funds to do the improvements. Edwards indicated they do. Seals asked how much money the City currently has in MSA funds. Edwards stated there is approximately $700,000 in the account currently but that he is estimating there will be between $300,000 to $400,000 in that account after the improvements to Leaf Street. Edwards stated the City typically receives $200,000 in MSA funds a year. Walsh asked how much of the engineering fees would come out of the utility fund versus the MSA fund. Edwards noted part of those construction fees would be paid for by the school. Edwards stated what the City has done on other projects for the engineering fees is distribute it by percentages of the overall construction. Edwards stated if utility costs are 30 percent of the project, then that is how much would be taken from the utility funds. Edwards stated as the design is refined, there will be opportunities to attribute some of the work to the utilities rather than the road, such as the excavation of the existing utilities. Dankey asked if there has been any money budgeted for curb and gutter. Edwards stated there is $250,000 estimated for stormwater and that they would need to refine whether that would include curb and gutter. Edwards noted there may be a potential cost share with the school on that item and that they will need to take a further look at the design to see where curb and gutter might be needed. Printup asked when the negotiations will be firmed up with the School District. Edwards stated tonight they are asking for Council authorization so Bolton & Menk can continue with a more detailed design. That motion should be contingent upon the school board doing the same. Edwards stated as they go through the design process, they will negotiate who pays for what. Edwards stated in order for the project to go forward, the City needs to approach it as a partnership. Walsh asked when the design needs to be completed in order to bid the project this year. Edwards stated they are looking to go out for bids in April, with the awarding of the bids in May and construction starting in June. Martini stated they need February and March for design, go out for bids in April, and awarding of bids in early May. Martini stated the length of the project will depend on whether or not a traffic control plan can be developed for people going in and out of the school. Martini stated they are pretty limited in what they can do in the right-of-way during school. Walsh stated the project will likely be two years and that the sewer and water needs to be done. Edwards stated excavation takes the most time. Page 5 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD (CSAR 112-CSAH 6) DESIGN UPDATE — Continued Dankey asked if the current project on the school campus uses more of the southern half of the road or the northern half. Edwards stated most of the construction traffic comes in the back way off of Old Highway 12. Edwards stated traffic and construction coordination plans will need to be developed. Martini noted there will also be different sporting events that will need to be coordinated with the roadway project. Printup stated he is happy to see the cooperation between the City and the school and that he is comfortable with the project because there is this partnership between the City and the school. Walsh stated the infrastructure issues will only continue to get worse and that it is getting to be time where something needs to be done. Martini stated with proper maintenance, the road should last a long, long time. Crosby moved, Dankey seconded, to approve Bolton and Menk to commence design of the Old Crystal Bay Road for a total fee not to exceed $247,500, contingent upon the Orono School Board's approval to continue a partnership with the City on the project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals and Printup had nothing to report. Crosby stated he is proud his daughter will be graduating from college and that he would encourage everyone to keep striving in life so their goals will be met. Dankey commented she is excited about the snow and the opportunity to use her snowmobiles. Walsh stated the police chief has reported that the streets are getting plowed but that given the cold temperatures and the wind, the roads will be icy. Walsh commented it is nice to see the school and the City working together on this project. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None Page 6 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 22, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Seals moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:58 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Carlson Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 7 of 7 Minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session Monday, January 22, 2018 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Aaron Printup, Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals and Wendy Dankey. Representing staff were Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Meeting Start Time: 6:00 p.m. 1. Short Term Rental Regulation Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart began the discussion by reviewing the potential drafts of the ordinances that would prohibit rental of residential property for periods less than 30 days. Staff had developed two options for the council to review, Option A addresses requirements of the City Council discussed in November. Option B is the same as Option A, except the licensing requirement has been removed. Of the two options, Barnhart mentioned that staff would advocate for Option B. He added that the main issues are still there in terms of the enforcement but would like to address those issues further through discussion. Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen addressed some of his concerns regarding the proposed short term rental licensing ordinances. Tallen added that his main concern is that by making violation of the ordinance a criminal offense under City Code, as opposed to an administrative violation, that the City would be creating enforcement issues that would be very difficult to overcome. Police Chief Correy Farniok discussed the process of enforcing violations. Farniok mentioned that it is not easy to enforce noise violations due to the difficulty of monitoring the duration and timing of the noise. The group discussed the options and their views for regulating short term rental licensing. The group also collectively discussed the various options the city could do to control the issue. Barnhart noted it might be appropriate to revisit the nuisance regulations. Mayor Dennis Walsh directed staff to bring the two options forward at the next City Council meeting so the council could revisit the options and make a decision. Meeting End Time: 6:47 p.m. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 3 Item Description: Claims/Bills Date: February 12, 2018 Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda Consent Agenda Finance Director Section: 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 108962 to 109045, totaling $394,157.83. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment Payment for'/2 of the annual Workers' compensation #109003 League of MN Cities $51,414.00 premium and a deductible for an insurance claim. December 2017 payment for inspection services. #109007 Metro West $6,837.00 Total billing for 2017 was $91,345.50. Inspections #109036 Town & Country $11,990.00 Payment for installation of a fence at the brush site. Fence 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 Prepared By: jw ju Reviewed By: JIV Approved By: -TV City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WA 02/12/2018 108962 20641 101-43000-404 Repair Christmas Lights- Navarre Outlets Public Works Department 478.16 Total 108962: 478.16 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/12/2018 108963 349601476 101-41900-413 CH Copier Lease 1/20/18 - 2/20/18 Central Services 1,467.36 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/12/2018 108963 349619940 101-42110-413 Police Copier 1/20/18 - 2/20/18 Police Department 340.40 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/12/2018 108963 INV155806 602-49450-401 PRINTERS 01/10/2018 - 02/09/18 Sewer 53.31 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/12/2018 108963 INV155806 101-41900-401 PRINTERS 01/10/2018 - 02/09/18 Central Services 106.62 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/12/2018 108963 INV155806 101-42110-401 PRINTERS 01/10/2018 - 02/09/18 Police Department 106.62 Total 108963: 2,074.31 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 02/12/2018 108964 8054731/18 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 305.82 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 02/12/2018 108964 805473 1/18 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 428.14 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 02/12/2018 108964 8054731/18 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 71.36 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 02/12/2018 108964 8054731/18 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 214.07 Total 108964: 1,019.39 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 02/12/2018 108965 96064 101-42110-240 chargers and Accessories Police Department 2,328.50 Total 108965: 2,328.50 APACHE GROUP 02/12/2018 108966 172773 101-41900-223 Basthroom Hand Towels Central Services 895.30 Total 108966: 895.30 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 02/12/2018 108967 15556 101-41900-319 ACA E -File Fee Central Services 180.00 Total 108967: 180.00 ARC 02/12/2018 108968 54MN190000 101-41900-201 Mincrofilm Scanning and Prints Central Services 83.95 Total 108968: 83.95 BARBARA STEINER 02/12/2018 108969 02072018 101-22205 Escrow refund -15-01109,16-88,17-09 1050 Edgewo 2,500.00 Total 108969: 2,500.00 BRAUN INTERTEC 02/12/2018 108970 B114251 435-48967-304 Fox street Imp 562.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Payee Total 108970 CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE Total 108971: CCE Registration Office CCE Registration Office CCE Registration Office CCE Registration Office Total 108972: CCP INDUSTRIES INC. CCP INDUSTRIES INC. CCP INDUSTRIES INC. Total 108973: CECE S SIGNS Total 108974: CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 02/12/2018 108971 379772 101-42400-208 02/12/2018 108971 AC 01-22-18 101-41110-439 02/12/2018 108971 AC 01-31-18 225-45200-304 02/12/2018 108971 AC 1-22-18 101-41110-439 02/12/2018 108971 CF 1-29-18 101-42110-402 02/12/2018 108971 DK 1/17/18 101-41900-221 02/12/2018 108971 DK 1-12-18 101-41900-221 02/12/2018 108971 DK 1-18-18 101-41900-221 02/12/2018 108971 RO1-22-18 101-41300-489 02/12/2018 108971 SCOTT 1-9-1 101-41900-489 02/12/2018 108972 CFO989-FEB 101-43000-437 02/12/2018 108972 CFO989-FEB 101-43000-437 02/12/2018 108972 CFO989-FEB 101-43000-437 02/12/2018 108972 CFO989-FEB 101-43000-437 02/12/2018 108973 IN01934346 101-43000-226 02/12/2018 108973 IN01934346 601-49400-226 02/12/2018 108973 IN01934346 602-49450-226 02/12/2018 108974 7621 101-43000-402 Description Department NFPA 13: Standard for Installation of Sprinkler Syste Building & Zoning cookies for cc meetings Mayor & Council Facebook Survey Boost Charge 02/12/2018 1-22-18 WS Food Mayor & Council carwash for #235 Police Department Computer Equipment Central Services Tech Equipment Central Services Tech Equipment Central Services Flower for New Baby Administration Air Compressor Central Services CCE Shade Tree Short Course/ Clint Schuman CCE Shade Tree Short Course/ Brian Clark CCE Shade Tree Short Course/ Jason Goehring CCE Shade Tree Short Course/ David Goman Rain Jackets Rain Jackets Rain Jackets graphics for Truck #427 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 City of Orono 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 Lift Station Generator 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 LS Generator 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 LS 12 Generator 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 LS 14 Generator 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 601-49400-381 Orono Water Treatment 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 City of Orono Public Works Department Public Works Department Public Works Department Public Works Department Public Works Department Water Sewer Public Works Department Sewer Sewer Sewer Sewer Sewer Water Sewer Invoice Amount 119.95 7.98 10.00 54.52 10.00 89.95 18.06 42.99 66.90 Ann nn 849.37 210.00 210.00 210.00 210.00 43.26 43.27 A] n� 129.80 �n nn 70.00 19.69 19.69 20.36 16.98 29.18 651.81 85.96 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 101-41900-381 City of Orono Central Services 1,252.06 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 601-49400-381 City of Orono Water 208.68 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 City of Orono Sewer 626.03 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 101-41900-381 City of Orono Central Services 869.79 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 101-42110-381 City of Orono Police Department 711.64 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 101-45210-381 City of Orono Golf Course 311.64 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 LS 21 Generator Sewer 20.37 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 LS 28 Generator Sewer 19.69 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/12/2018 108975 10741575-4J 602-49450-381 Lift Station Generator Sewer 19.69 Total 108975: 4,883.26 CENTURY LINK 02/12/2018 108976 01/11/18 CH 601-49400-321 Internet Water Plant 12/4 - 1/3 Water 236.33 CENTURY LINK 02/12/2018 108976 952473-1909 101-45210-321 GC phone/internet 01-19-18 Golf Course 202.19 Total 108976: 438.52 CHAD STENSRUD 02/12/2018 108977 1/21/18 REI 101-42110-226 clothing reimb Police Department 156.43 Total 108977: 156.43 CHRISTINE MATTSON 02/12/2018 108978 1-27-18 PIES 101-41300-489 Food Items-EmployeeRecognition Event Administration 90.00 Total 108978: 90.00 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/12/2018 108979 0015373 101-42110-402 Test Tail Lights Police Department 108.40 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/12/2018 108979 0015375 101-42110-402 Minor Service/ Oil Change Police Department 43.16 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/12/2018 108979 0015384 101-42110-402 Minor Service/ Oil Change Police Department 51.40 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/12/2018 108979 0015400 101-42110-402 Minor Service/ Oil Change Police Department 61.28 Total 108979: 264.24 CITY OF LONG LAKE 02/12/2018 108980 00201415 101-42260-318 1st Qtr 2018 Fire Service Fire Protection Services 97,341.25 Total 108980: 97,341.25 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 01/24/2018 108879 4/2017 101-41900-382 Water/Sewer Central Services 364.34 - CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 01/24/2018 108879 4/2017 101-41900-382 Water/Sewer Central Services 241.66 - CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 01/24/2018 108879 4/2017 101-41900-382 Water/Sewer Central Services 165.10 - CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 01/24/2018 108879 4/2017 601-49400-382 Water/Sewer Water 293.23- City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Page: 4 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Water 293.23 Sewer 1,064.33 Central Services 4,500.00 Public Works Department 4,500.00 Total 108879: 1,814.23 Public Works Department 955.55 City of Orono Utilities 01/24/2018 0 4TH QTR/20 101-41900-382 4th qtr ub City of Orono Utilities 01/24/2018 0 4TH QTR/20 101-41900-382 4th qtr ub City of Orono Utilities 01/24/2018 0 4TH QTR/20 101-41900-382 4th qtr ub City of Orono Utilities 01/24/2018 0 4TH QTR/20 601-49400-382 4th qtr ub Total 0: CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 02/12/2018 108981 1710644 101-41900-301 2017 Audit Payment 1 Total 108981: CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC 02/12/2018 108982 11031 601-49400-405 Service work/ Plant Repair Total 108982: DELTA DENTAL 02/12/2018 108983 7163019 101-21709 0037220072 Dec 2018 Dental DELTA DENTAL 02/12/2018 108983 7163019 101-15998 0037220072 Dec 2018 Dental Total 108983: DIAMOND MOWERS INC. 02/12/2018 108984 0105138 -CM 701-49800-403 Credit Memo for Coupling Spline DIAMOND MOWERS INC. 02/12/2018 108984 0136448 -IN 701-49800-403 mower repair parts Total 108984: DOMINOS PIZZA 02/12/2018 108985 5189 101-42110-439 pizza for Police Total 108985: DVS RENEWAL 02/12/2018 108986 176834 101-42400-441 Tabs #210 DVS RENEWAL 02/12/2018 108986 6024945044 602-49450-441 Tabs #713 DVS RENEWAL 02/12/2018 108986 901415 101-43000-441 Tabs #427 DVS RENEWAL 02/12/2018 108986 919015 101-43000-441 Tabs #708 Total 108986: EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 02/12/2018 108987 0116627 -IN 101-43000-224 Road Signs Page: 4 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Invoice Amount 1,064.33 - Central Services 364.34 Central Services 241.66 Central Services 165.10 Water 293.23 Sewer 1,064.33 Central Services 4,500.00 Public Works Department 4,500.00 Water 1,814.23 539.00 28.36- 42.40 14.04 Police Department 88.49 88.49 Building & Zoning 16.00 Sewer 16.00 Public Works Department 16.00 Public Works Department 16.00 64.00 Public Works Department 955.55 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Page: 5 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 108987: ECM PUBLISHERS INC 02/12/2018 108988 548690 101-41900-352 Publish Ordinance #201 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 02/12/2018 108988 567621 101-42400-340 ph add -land use apllications Total 108988: EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC 02/12/2018 108989 75847 322-47000-319 continuing disclosure report EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC 02/12/2018 108989 75847 321-47000-319 continuing disclosure report EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC 02/12/2018 108989 75847 323-47000-319 continuing disclosure report Total 108989: FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 02/12/2018 108990 0272781 601-49400-227 flange kit for resale FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 02/12/2018 108990 0272782 601-49400-227 water meters Total 108990: G & K SERVICES 02/12/2018 108991 6006881646 101-43000-226 uniforms G & K SERVICES 02/12/2018 108991 6006884131 101-41900-401 mats G & K SERVICES 02/12/2018 108991 6006884132 101-41900-401 mats Total 108991: George Bloom 02/12/2018 108992 01-25-18 RE 999-10015 Utility Billing Refund Due to Error Total 108992: GEPHART ELECTRIC CO INC 02/12/2018 108993 154114 602-49450-406 Fixed Breaker at GS #4 Total 108993: HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP 02/12/2018 108994 1008213528 101-43000-226 safety glasses Total 108994: HEALTH PARTNERS 02/12/2018 108995 78756167 101-21706 healthpartners Feb 2018 HEALTH PARTNERS 02/12/2018 108995 78756167 101-15998 healthpartners Feb 2018 HEALTH PARTNERS 02/12/2018 108995 78756167 101-42110-135 healthpartners Feb 2018 Page: 5 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Invoice Amount 955.55 Central Services 131.12 Building & Zoning 101.32 1,025.00 1,025.00 1,025.00 Water 306.74 Water 1,469.43 Public Works Department 63.73 Central Services 10.80 Central Services 21.92 Sewer Public Works Department 44.28 6,044.50 Police Department 626.00 City of Orono Invoice Amount 50,702.00 Central Services Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Central Services 51.00 102.00 Building & Zoning Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Administration Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 108995: HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/12/2018 108996 1000010269 101-41900-311 network support 01-2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/12/2018 108996 1000104042 101-41900-319 network support 2/2017 Total 108996: JACKIE YOUNG 02/12/2018 108997 01-31-18 CH 101-42400-319 pc meeting 01/18 JACKIE YOUNG 02/12/2018 108997 01-31-18 CH 101-41300-319 CC meeting 1-18 JACKIE YOUNG 02/12/2018 108997 01-31-18 CH 101-45200-319 Park Meeting 1/18 Total 108997: JAY MCCOY 02/12/2018 108998 01-18-18 REI 101-42110-437 01/18 Expense Reimb Total 108998: Jessica Sletten 02/12/2018 108999 01-31-18 RE 999-10015 Refund for Overpayment Total 108999: JH LARSON COMPANY 02/12/2018 109000 S101666162 601-49400-405 fuses JH LARSON COMPANY 02/12/2018 109000 S101666162 101-43000-403 fuses Total 109000: L-3 COMMUNICATIONS 02/12/2018 109001 0309331 -IN 101-42110-440 Flashback System, Camera, In Car Video Total 109001: LANO EQUIPMENT 02/12/2018 109002 03-532134 701-49800-403 Bobcat Door Spring Total 109002: LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 02/12/2018 109003 10002807 703-49960-151 WC insurance 1/1/18 - 12/31/18 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 02/12/2018 109003 3285 703-49960-379 Private Data Claim Total 109003: Page: 6 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Invoice Amount 50,702.00 Central Services 51.00 Central Services 51.00 102.00 Building & Zoning 190.00 Administration 330.00 Parks 165.00 685.00 Police Department 1,905.00 2,500.00 233.49 233.49 Water 46.70 Public Works Department 53.90 100.60 Police Department 4,661.00 2,500.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount LOGIS 02/12/2018 109004 44620 101-42110-310 Police Records 12/17 Police Department 6,499.00 LOGIS 02/12/2018 109004 44620 101-41900-329 internet 12/17 Central Services 198.00 LOGIS 02/12/2018 109004 44620 101-42110-329 internet 12/17 Police Department 198.00 LOGIS 02/12/2018 109004 44620 101-41900-329 Backups 12/17 Central Services 925.00 LOGIS 02/12/2018 109004 44739 101-41900-416 Cisco Licensing Central Services 201.58 LOGIS 02/12/2018 109004 44739 101-42110-416 Cisco Licensing Police Department 201.58 Total 109004: 8,223.16 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/12/2018 109005 20586177 101-42110-212 Fuel Police Department 1,313.52 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/12/2018 109005 20586178 701-49800-221 Diesel Fuel 538.10 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/12/2018 109005 20586179 101-42110-212 70149800212 Police Department 1,339.38 Total 109005: 3,191.00 MEDIACOM 02/12/2018 109006 FEB 18 CHA 614-49840-329 Internet 2/1/18 - 2/28/18 Cable Franchise 620.50 MEDIACOM 02/12/2018 109006 FEB 18 CHA 101-41900-329 Internet 2/1/18 - 2/28/18 Central Services 310.25 MEDIACOM 02/12/2018 109006 FEB 18 CHA 101-42110-329 Internet 2/1/18 - 2/28/18 Police Department 310.25 Total 109006: 1,241.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 01/23/2018 0 SAC 12/17 101-20809 SAC 12/2017 14,910.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 01/23/2018 0 SAC 12/17 101-39610 SAC 12/2017 124.25 - Total 0: 14,785.75 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 02/12/2018 109007 1357 101-42400-310 Inspection Services Dec 2017 Building & Zoning 6,837.00 Total 109007: 6,837.00 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/12/2018 109008 00016877 101-43000-415 cylinders Public Works Department 26.97 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/12/2018 109008 00016879 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Police Department 14.88 Total 109008: 41.85 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 02/12/2018 109009 P64781 701-49800-403 Gauge 21.45 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 02/12/2018 109009 P65105 101-45210-402 Parts Golf Course 128.24 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 02/12/2018 109009 P65106 101-45210-402 Parts Golf Course 5.90 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 109009: Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 02/12/2018 109010 2018 CONF 602-49450-437 Conference Registration: R Obrien Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 02/12/2018 109010 2018 CONF 602-49450-437 Conference Registration: G Palmer Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 02/12/2018 109010 2018 CONF 602-49450-437 Conference Registration: B Clark Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 02/12/2018 109010 2018 CONF 602-49450-437 Conference Registration: D Goman Total 109010: Minnesota Sportsmen, Inc 02/12/2018 109011 1282 101-42110-433 Membership 01-18 Total 109011: MINT ROOFING 02/12/2018 109012 618497 101-42110-404 Roof Repairs Total 109012: MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 01/23/2018 0 12/2017 101-34210 Sales Tax 12/17 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 01/23/2018 0 12/2017 101-37910 Sales Tax 12/17 Total 0: MN NATIVE LANDSCAPE 02/12/2018 109013 16697 234-45680-404 Saga Hill Restoration Total 109013: MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 02/12/2018 109014 2732218 101-21710 Pera life 02/2018 Total 109014: MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGE 01/30/2018 0 MS4 FERMI 651-49910-433 MS4 general stormwater permit Total 0: MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGE 01/30/2018 108919 MS4 PERM[ 651-49910-433 MS4 general stormwater permit Total 108919: MOTOROLA 02/12/2018 109015 13200331 406-48720-575 APX radios and accessories (qty 10) Department Sewer Sewer Sewer Sewer Police Department Police Department Storm Water Storm Water Page: 8 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Invoice A-- 155.59 -- 155.59 390.00 390.00 390.00 33.00 40.00- 40.00- 40,455.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 109015: 40,455.00 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 149825 101-42110-240 Blk Nylon Collar Police Department 5.99 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 149834 101-42110-240 Adjustable Nozzle Police Department 12.99 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 149883 101-42110-240 Cord Reel & 15A1 25V Connector Police Department 57.48 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 149965 101-42110-240 Cleaning Supplies Police Department 53.96 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 150013 101-42110-240 Med Bags Police Department 80.91 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 150021 101-42110-240 PD1 Garage Police Department 30.98 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/12/2018 109016 150032 101-42110-240 PD1 Garage Police Department 29.98 Total 109016: 272.29 MTI DIST CO 02/12/2018 109017 1151368-00 101-45210-404 Aluminum Baskets & Bolts Golf Course 39.52 MTI DIST CO 02/12/2018 109017 1151368-01 101-45210-404 Aluminum Baskets & Bolts Golf Course 68.22 Total 109017: 107.74 NAPA Auto Parts 02/12/2018 109018 3270390745 701-49800-402 Fix Brake Line 35.09 Total 109018: 35.09 NEOPOST USA INC 02/12/2018 109019 15305688 101-41900-201 ink cartridge Central Services 191.50 Total 109019: 191.50 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1300912752 101-41900-201 Antenna Central Services 28.14 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301029389 602-49450-221 Wireless Adapter Sewer 14.99 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301040883 101-43000-221 Intel i7 Dell 320 Gig Public Works Department 330.00 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301041159 101-41900-221 Flexible Kit Phone Mobile Central Services 10.87 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301041185 101-41900-221 Dell Desktop Computer Central Services 393.41 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301045168 101-42110-570 PD Computers (3) Police Department 1,214.28 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301048250 101-43000-221 Chargers for Ipads Public Works Department 7.99 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301048250 601-49400-221 Chargers for Ipads Water 7.99 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301048250 602-49450-221 Chargers for Ipads Sewer 7.99 NEWEGG INC 02/12/2018 109020 1301048922 101-43000-221 Phone Charge Public Works Department 14.37 Total 109020: 2,030.03 NORA PASSE 01/24/2018 0 01162018 101-22205 escrow refund#2017-00816 4166 Highwood Rd 700.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Page: 10 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Central Services 622.27 Central Services 61.35 Central Services 19.96 Police Department 45.34 Total 0: 59.76 1,004.67 Central Services 155.50 OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 1005025490 101-41900-201 TONER OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 1012466160 101-41900-201 Binders OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 1012466630 101-41900-201 Office Supplies- Cover OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 9969669380 101-41900-201 Shelving OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 9969671380 101-41900-201 Pens OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 9969671390 101-41900-201 Air Freshners OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 9974854560 101-42110-201 Paper & Folders OFFICE DEPOT 02/12/2018 109021 9974857050 101-42110-201 Notebook Total 109021: OPTUM 02/12/2018 109022 96679 JAN 18 101-41900-319 HSA account maintenance fee Total 109022: PERMITWORKS LLC 02/12/2018 109023 2018-0036 101-41900-416 2018 Annual permit Works Support Total 109023: PIRTEK 02/12/2018 109024 S2635363 701-49800-403 hydraulic hose Repairs Unit 451 Total 109024: RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS 01/24/2018 108831 17-33816 651-49910-201 Utility Bill Forms RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS 01/24/2018 108831 17-33816 601-49400-201 Utility Bill Forms RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS 01/24/2018 108831 17-33816 602-49450-240 Utility Bill Forms RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS 01/24/2018 108831 17-85512 101-41900-201 Withholding Forms Total 108831: RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS 02/12/2018 109025 18-30232 101-41900-201 Checks Total 109025: ROGER PEITSO 02/12/2018 109026 JAN 18 REIM 101-42400-331 Jan 18 Expense Reimb Page: 10 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Department Invoice Amount 700.00 Central Services 140.46 Central Services 35.13 Central Services 20.40 Central Services 622.27 Central Services 61.35 Central Services 19.96 Police Department 45.34 Police Department 59.76 1,004.67 Central Services 155.50 155.50 Central Services 4,485.00 4,485.00 65.26 65.26 Storm Water 895.06 - Water 410.24 - Sewer 410.24 - Central Services 162.00 - Central Services 355.54 355.54 Building & Zoning 55.64 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 109026: SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 02/12/2018 109027 1742 101-45210-402 Replacement Warning Lights Golf Course SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 02/12/2018 109027 1742 101-45200-402 Replacement Warning Lights Parks Total 109027: SCHWAAB INC 02/12/2018 109028 253875 JAN 101-41900-201 Excel Mark Pads Central Services Total 109028: SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 02/12/2018 109029 252 101-41900-201 business cards Central Services Total 109029: SOJOURNER 02/12/2018 109030 2018 ADVOC 101-42110-319 Advocacy Services 2018 Police Department Total 109030: STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 02/12/2018 109031 00207719 101-42110-404 repair Lock at City Hall to PD1 Police Department Total 109031: STAR TRIBUNE 02/12/2018 109032 01-21-18 BIL 101-41900-352 Feb 18 - Feb 19 Subscription Central Services STAR TRIBUNE 02/12/2018 109032 12-17-17 INV 101-41300-208 1/4/18 - 4/5/18 - Subscription acct 1913693 Administration Total 109032: SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 02/12/2018 109033 JAN 18 MEM 101-43000-437 2018 Membership Application Public Works Department Total 109033: TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 02/12/2018 109034 DEC 2017 S 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services -12/2017 Law/Legal Services TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 02/12/2018 109034 JAN 18 CHA 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services -01-2018 Law/Legal Services Total 109034: TITAN MACHINERY 02/12/2018 109035 10425105 701-49800-403 Rear Fender For Loader Page: 11 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Invoice 55.64 308.25 308.25 6,700.00 144.80 144.80 169.00 47.45 376.38 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 109035: Town & Country Fence 02/12/2018 109036 1171059 408-48800-580 Install Chainlink Fence Total 109036: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/12/2018 109037 PO BOX 86 101-42110-322 Service Fee for PO BOX 86 Police Department Total 109037: VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 55606 101-42110-407 Nov 2017 Cleaning Services Police Department VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 55606 101-41900-407 Nov 2017 Cleaning Services Central Services VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 56756 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 56756 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 57221 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 57222 101-42110-407 Cleaning Credit for Nov 17 Service Charge Police Department VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/12/2018 109038 57222 101-41900-407 Cleaning Credit for Nov 17 Service Charge Central Services Total 109038: VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 02/12/2018 109039 6147 101-43000-402 Work for 12/29/17 Public Works Department Total 109039: VERIZON DIRECTORIES 02/12/2018 109040 9799368030 101-42110-321 Monthly Bill Dec 07 - Jan 06 2018 Police Department Total 109040: VESSCOINC 02/12/2018 109041 71863 601-49400-405 supplies Water Total 109041: WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 02/12/2018 109042 0036888-280 603-49500-316 Recycling 1/2018 Total 109042: WILLIAMS TOWING 02/12/2018 109043 6528009 101-42110-436 tow 2006 ford econoline Police Department Page: 12 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Invoice 376.38 11,990.00 11,990.00 92.00 92.00 1,435.50 1,435.50 1,039.50 91.67- 9,144.32 155.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 1/23/2018 - 2/12/2018 Page: 13 Feb 08, 2018 10:35AM Payee Check Issue Date Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Number Number Department Invoice Amount Total 109043: 155.00 WSB 02/12/2018 109044 4 101-42400-319 navarre area pan Building & Zoning 892.00 Total 109044: 892.00 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 02/12/2018 109045 0168186 -IN 701-49800-403 broom for Bobcat 1,196.00 Total 109045: 1,196.00 Grand Totals: 394,157.83 AGENDA ITEM Item No. 4 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: Approval of Residential Kennel License Renewal Presenter: Anna Carlson, Agenda Consent Agenda City Clerk Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Kennel License Renewal. 2018 ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE RENEWAL — APPLICANT • Jane Kline & Steve Bell 4455 W. Branch Road 2. Staff Recommendation. The kennel license applicant listed above has met the requirements and has submitted a complete application. Staff recommends approval of the residential kennel license renewal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the above listed Residential Kennel license renewal for 2018. Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: JIV AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 5 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: Approval to Accept Monetary Donation to be used towards Purchase of Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Presenter: Correy Farniok Agenda Consent Agenda Police Chief Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to accept a donation from Richard Noland. 2. Background. The Police Department has received a $175 donation from Richard Noland. Noland would like the money to go toward the purchasing of an AED (Automated External Defibrillator). 3. Project Scope. Apply the $175 donation toward the purchase of an AED. 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to accept the $175.00 donation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approval to accept the donation of $175.00 to be used toward the purchase of an AED. Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: jl�a Approved By: -19a AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 6 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Bicycles Date: February 12, 2018 Presenter: Correy Farniok Agenda Consent Agenda Police Chief Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of bicycles. 2. Background. The Orono Police Department has 7 bicycles that have been turned in to the department. The bikes were found or abandoned within the city. The following bicycles have not been claimed. All of the bicycles and have been in the department's possession for more than 60 days. The police department considers the bicycles as abandoned property and would like to dispose of them by donating them to Mound True Value. Mound True Value will repair the bicycles and give them to WeCan (Western Communities Action Network, Inc.). WeCan will give the bicycles to children and young adults in the community that are in need of a bicycle. The bicycles that cannot be fixed/used will be destroyed by Orono Public Works. 3. Project Scope. Disposal of a bicycles. 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the disposal of bicycles. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the dispose of a bicycles. Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: jl�a Approved By: -19a AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 7 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Forfeited Vehicle Presenter: Correy Farniok Agenda Consent Agenda Police Chief Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of forfeited vehicles. 2. Background. The Police Department has a forfeited vehicles that can be disposed. All vehicles were seized and forfeited by the Orono Police Department from drivers that had multiple violations for Driving While Intoxicated. The police department would recommend vehicle be sent to an auto auction. 3. Project Scope. Disposal of a forfeited vehicle. 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe VIN#5NMSH73E77H114363 (Auto Auction) 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the disposal of a forfeited vehicle. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to dispose of a forfeited vehicle. Vehicle will be sent to an auto action. Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: jl�a Approved By: -19a AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 8 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: 2018 Sanitary Sewer Inspection Presenter: Scott Oberaigner Agenda Consent Agenda Public Works Utilities Supervisor Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve a sanitary sewer televising proposal for the 2018 sanitary sewer inspections. 2. Background. As part of the preventative maintenance program, the City cleans and inspects 20% of the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning and inspections will be completed this summer (June -July) with Public Works Employees. The inspection/ Televising will occur immediately after the cleaning. The Sewer department solicited proposals. 3. Project Scope. The sanitary sewer inspection project will consist televising approximately 31,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe. 4. Cost. The City solicited and received 3 quotes. Listed below. The lowest quote from a qualified contractor was $17,670 from American Environmental. Contractor Quote American Environmental $ 17,670 Hydro Klean $18,016 Ritter & Ritter, Inc $ 20,847 5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Fund Project Total CIP Amount Estimated Fund Balance EOY 2018 Sanitary Sewer Enterprise $17,670 $47,270 $1,797,833 Fund 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend acceptance of the quote to televise the city sewer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal from American Environmental for sanitary sewer televising for $17,670. Prepared By: SO Reviewed By: Approved By: -TV AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 9 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: Parks Mowers Replacement and Addition Presenter: Jason Goehring Agenda Consent Agenda Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to proceed with replacement the golf course fairway mower 601 and the addition of a mower for Big Island. 2. Background. The golf course fairway mower has been in service for 19 years and is nearing the end of its useful life. Mower 601 is in poor condition and has enough reel stock for one more sharpening before all new reels would need to be installed. This mower is used to mow the fairways at the golf course 3 days a week. The addition of the Big Island mower will be used to mow bi-weekly within the recreational area and outside of any conservation easements on the island. All mowing will be guided by the Big Island Nature Park Management Plan. 3. Project Scope. Replace the golf course fairway mower and purchase a mower for Big Island. 4. Cost. The City received three quotes for each mower, listed below. Based on the condition of the existing fairway mower, the trade in value is expected to be minimal. Company Model Cost MTI Distributing Toro Reelmaster 3550-D $47,926.54 Frontier Ag and Turf John Deere 7500A Precision Cut $53,054.43 Turf Werks Jacobsen LF510 $47,905.49 Company Model Cost Bob's Repair Hustler X1 60" $7,050.00 Minnesota Equipment John Deere Z930M 72" 337 hours $6,994.00 MTI Distributing Toro Z Master 74950 60" $7,400.00 5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Equipment Fund. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budgeted $30,000 for the fairway mower and $7,000 for the Big Island mower. 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the purchase. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve replacement of Fairway Mower 601 with a Toro Reelmaster 3550-D from MTI Distributing and the purchase of a Hustler X1 60" from Bob's Repair for Big Island. Prepared By: JG Reviewed By: Approved By: -TV AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 10 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: Approval to Hire Accountant Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda Consent Agenda Finance Director Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to appoint Margaret Ung to the position of Accountant with a starting date of 02/13/18. 2. Background. The selection process for the Accountant position has been completed. A total of 22 applications were received. After an initial review of the applications, six applicants were selected to be interviewed. These interviews were conducted by the City Administrator and the Finance Director. The top candidate for the position is Margaret Ung. Margaret has a Bachelor's of Science in Economics from the University of Minnesota. She is currently working toward a Bachelor of Arts degree in Accounting at Metropolitan State University. Margaret is coming to the City from the law firm of Winthrop & Weinstine. Her duties include Bank Reconciliations, Fixed Assets, working with Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable. Margaret will be an excellent addition to our staff. 3. Cost. Starting compensation for Margaret will be $60,245. This is a full time position and is eligible for full city benefits including enrollment in the Coordinated Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). 4. Funding. Funding for this position is included in the 2018 Finance Department budget. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the hiring of Margaret Ung at the starting salary of $60,245. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the appointment of Margaret Ung to the position of Accountant at a starting salary of $60,245 with a starting date of February 13, 2018. Prepared By: jg1W Reviewed By: 1b)X1 Approved By: �bV AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 11 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: Approve of Community Service Dog (K-9) Presenter: Correy Farniok Agenda Public Safety Report Police Chief Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to proceed with a partnership with Can Do Canine to establish a Community Service K-9 program for the Orono Police Department. 2. Background. The Orono Police Department has made it a goal to integrate creative and functional ways to engage the community. By doing so we have been able to create lasting bonds with our community members and local businesses while giving a high level of service that our community expects. We pride ourselves on helping people within our community to the best of our abilities and are always looking to find ways to improve. One area of improvement is a partnership with Can Do Canines. Can Do Canines would work with providing a community service dog as a member of our department. What is a Community Service dog? These dogs are far different than the standard police K9 drug detection and apprehension species. Community Service dogs are not "alpha" dogs but rather like most other household pets that our specifically tested and trained for socialization. These dogs are meant for large gatherings and meeting many people without the worries of it being a danger to the public. Community Service dogs do not need annual training or certifications to ensure the quality of work is good. They naturally use their comforting skills to put people at ease. Integrating and Use of Community Service dog As a department we deal with many different stressful calls that involve people in some type of distress such as: mental health crisis, domestic disputes, car accidents, medicals, juvenile situations at the schools and many more. These calls typically involve people that are emotionally heightened due to the incident. Although, our officers do a great job of trying to help alleviate some of the initial stress it is difficult to do in all cases. Community Service dogs are specifically trained to recognize those who are distressed and just need some general soothing. Community Service dogs would offer another tool for us as we go about our daily work. We respond to many cases that involve mental health crisis. In the past few months there have been four different juveniles that I believe would benefit from seeing our police Community Service dog to help ease their fears and anxiety. Our Community Service dog would also be used as an integral part of our community policing effort. The mild nature of Community Service dogs, would allow our officers to bring him anywhere as long as the business/residence would allow us. This would include schools, churches, community events, rotary meetings, assisted living residences etc. The list is almost endless on how much this type of dog could be used. Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: Correy Farniok Approved By: -Sb96Z AGENDA ITEM A Community Service dog could also benefit our officers who deal with many stressors each day. In the past several months our department has gone through several critical incidents. During these times a Community Service dog could have assisted our officers during those difficult times. A written policy has drafted based on language used for more traditional K9 programs; however, there are some obvious differences that would be omitted or added based on the Community Service dog we are using. A Sergeant could be the supervisor overseeing the handler(s) and monitoring the work the dog is engaged in each week. A process has been completed to determine the primary handler and the two assistance handlers. The Community Service dog would live with the primary handler at his/her residence. The Community Service dog would also spend time at the police department and would be there to greet tours and other groups that would stop by for a visit. 2. Project Scope. Establish a Community Service Dog (K-9) program for the Orono Police Department 3. Cost. Service Dog Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5 Year Total Medical and Vet Expense $ 304 $ 304 $ 304 $ 304 $ 304 $ 1,520 Food and Treats $ 600 $ 650 $ 700 $ 750 $ 800 $ 3,500 Squad Set -Up $ 300 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 300 Extra Needs ($100 per month to cover other item for the do $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 6,000 Total $ 2,404 $ 2,154 $ 2,204 $ 2,254 $ 2,304 $11,320 *additional costs would be for a police badge and outer clothing for the dog to wear when out in public. 4. Funding. Can Do Canines would provide the dog to the City of Orono (Orono Police Department) at no charge, however they would like for us to promote a fundraising campaign to recover some of the cost for the dog and training. Mound Crime Prevention Fund has also approved $2500 to cover cost to establish this program. The Crime Prevention Fund (Minnetrista and Orono) has this on their next agenda to consider a donation to this program as well. 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that we partner with Can Do Canine to establish a Community Service (K-9) program for the Orono Police Department. Prepared By: Correy Famiok Reviewed By: Correy Farniok Approved By: T -)a AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to recommend the establishing a partnership with Can Do Canines in implementing and establishing a Community Service (K-9) program and to accept the donation of Xerxes a 3year old black lab as our Community Service dog. Exhibits A. Canine Policy (Draft) B. About Can Do Canine Prepared By: Correy Famiok Reviewed By: Correy Farniok Approved By: 'J)V ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT "Dedicated to fairness, service, pride and duality" POLICY: 7003.0 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2018 REVIEW DATE: APPROVED BY: Title: Canine Team Distribution: Sworn Personnel Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the management and use of canines for a variety of operational purposes. 7003.01 Procedures: Supervision of the canine team a. During routine patrol shift, canine teams will be under the direct supervision of their respective shift supervisor. b. The on duty sergeant is authorized to call in an off duty canine team when needed. c. A specific canine supervisor will be assigned to oversee training and administrative functions of the canine program. The canine supervisor will be responsible for maintaining training and canine usage records prepared by each handler. 7003.02 Public Education: a. Police canines and handlers will participate in public education demonstrations as directed. b. The canine handler shall be responsible for ensuring the location for the canine demonstrations provides a safe environment for the canine and spectators 7003.03 Mutual Aid request: Mutual aid request for canine shall be directed to the canine or duty supervisor and shall be consistent with the department's mutual aid policy. Canines Page 2 VLIIII9M 7003.04 Canine handlers/department personnel will be responsible for the following: a, Ensuring the overall safety, health and wellbeing of the canine both on duty and off duty, b, Prohibiting the public from having contact with the canine. c. Speaking to the canine supervisor if they are not able to care for the canine or leaving the canine in the care of others. d, Immediately contacting the on -duty supervisor or the canine supervisor regarding property damage or injury caused by or related to the canine whether on duty or off duty. c. Submit police reports and photographs of any injuries or damage caused by the canine. f. When practical, the canine handler should be the person who takes the photographs of the damaged property or injuries. g. Immediately contacting the on -duty supervisor or the canine supervisor regarding any injures or health problems with the canine. h, Logging all canine activities, including, calls for service, training hours and demos in the canine activity database. 7003.05 Miscellaneous: a. Canines shall not be used for breeding, participate in shows, field trials or exhibitions unless authorized by the canine supervisor or chief of police. b. Canine handlers shall maintain their canines both on and off duty in a safe and controlled manner, c, Canine handlers will maintain an appropriate clean kennel, administer food and water, and maintain inoculations and general medical attention to the canine, -- a T e City of Orono -shall provide food -,-vet services, and alternative housing for all city owned canines. e. Canines purchased by the Orono Police Department are the property of the police department during assigned service and may revert to non -city ownership upon retirement from service. f. A memo of understanding will be drafted and placed in the canine handlers file. The memo will contain information specific to the canine assignment including; the canine handlers work schedule, compensation for training hours, and compensation for care / maintenance. 7002.05 Violent Prisoner: Should a prisoner become violent, an officer shall not attempt to subdue the individual alone. A lone officer shall summon additional police personnel for this purpose. ■ When subduing violent prisoners, at least two officers shall be present. When necessary, restraints shall be used for the protection of the prisoner and others. Use of restraints shall be documented in the Daily Log and the Booking Sheet. ■ If a violent person, a person booked on a violent charge, a suicidal or potentially Canines 7003.0 Page 3 suicidal person comes in wearing glasses, remove the glasses from the person. Enter the glasses into property inventory. 7002.06 f a 7 11 Er �s (s �l � 3 3 i 1 1 i 3 3 ww 3 FF A C s .wmcnm :wwxwncwwz.x�.w-.�mwwm«Www+umw�mw�vavzrccrw�euaxam+xwum.ci zimuww.v�.mwvawvn.mw�nwww:.n .w�mvmvamnaa:amzwewwwmrewemer�mmrzw.wm.'n.�sw+u MISSION Can Do Canines is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for people with disabilities by creating mutually beneficial partnerships with specially trained dogs. VISION We envision a future in which every person who needs and wants an assistance dog can have one. ABOUT CAN DO CANINES Can Do Canines is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that trains and places five distinct types of assistance dogs with people who have disabilities, free of charge. We train assistance dogs to help with hearing loss, mobility challenges, seizure disorders, type 1 diabetes, and childhood autism. The organization is funded entirely through contributions and fundraising events, receiving no funds from government sources. Contributions are fully deductible to the extent permitted by law. A Minnesota based organization, we placed our first assistance dog in 1989 and have since graduated more than 600 similar assistance dog teams. We employ 32 staff, have-mor-e-tham 700 active volunteers, and operate on a four -acre campus that includes a 20,000 -square -foot facility that can house up to 50 dogs at one time. Many breeds have been trained to be assistance dogs, ranging from a 4 -pound Poodle to a 95 -pound Doberman, but the most common graduates are Labrador Retrievers. Some of our dogs in training are donated by breeders, some come from our own breeding program, and whenever possible, homeless dogs are selected from animal shelters or rescue organizations. Dogs are raised and partially trained by more than 250 dedicated Puppy Program Volunteers until they are 16 months old. Also helping with the puppy training are more than 110 inmate handlers in one of five Minnesota and Wisconsin based prisons. They are then returned to our facility for final training by professional staff before they are placed with an applicant who is disabled. Can Do Canines offers ongoing training and support to each team for the life of the dog. Learn more at can-do-canines.org. AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 12 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #17-3983, Eric & Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, Vacation — Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. Purpose. This application is requesting to vacate the abutting unimproved platted right of way with lake access. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The 60 -day rule does not apply to the application timeline. 3. Background. Applicants Eric and Liz Vogstrom of 2618 Casco Point Road are requesting to vacate the unimproved right of way that is directly abutting their property to the north. The right of way was originally a product of the Winship's Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians according to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant uses the right of way to access their dock. The boundary line of the right of way was the subject of a dispute as recently as spring of 2017. The City had the property line located, iron spikes replaces, and 4 x 4 posts installed to delineate the boundary. The City has a rain garden and storm sewer within the right of way near the intersection with Casco Point Road. To vacate a right of way, the City must find the vacation is "in the interest of the public" MN Statue 412.851 The council on November 13, 2017 approved a resolution (#6810) in support for preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right of way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access from Casco Point Road to Carmen Bay on Lake Minnetonka. Approving this request would appear to conflict with this resolution. From reviewing the Comprehensive plan vacating this right of way seems to go against the policies that are set in place today for the preservation of lake access and open space. The challenge with vacating rights of way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the city desire access to the lake, or have utility needs in the future, the cost to acquire Lake Frontage will be premium. Vacation reduces options for the city in the future, and the importance of access to the lake is outlined in the comprehensive plan. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. The Commission voted unanimously Prepared By: ��C) Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: -Sb9a AGENDA ITEM on a motion to deny the request to vacate the right of way. 5. Public Comment. Staff received two written comments that were reviewed at the planning commission. Both comments requested denial of the request to maintain the public access to the lake. Staff received a comment from the adjoining neighbor to the right of way. The letter and submitted pictures are attached for your consideration. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the request to vacate the right of way. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to adopt or amend the denial resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. Public Comments Exhibit F. League of Minnesota Cities Memo Vacation of City Streets References 1) PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Area Map/ Site Plan Exhibit C. Annotated Plan Exhibit D. Original Plat Exhibit E. Project Narrative Exhibit F. Comprehensive Plan Table 4A-8 Exhibit G. Comments received from the public Exhibit H. Property Owners List Prepared By: ��C) Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: -Sb9a A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST TO VACATE A DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OF WINSHIPS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 SPRING PARK 2ND DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 17-3983 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, married, (hereinafter the "Applicant") owned the property located at 2618 Casco Point Road, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: The North 80.00 Feet of Block 3, Winships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for vacation of a dedicated unimproved public right- of -way abutting the above mentioned properties; and WHEREAS, the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is seen as Spring Street on the Original Plat of Winships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park Second Addition, and attached as Exhibit A WHEREAS, on October 13, 2018 in accordance with MN Statute 412.851 a written notice of the petition was served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended recommended denial of the vacation; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the 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 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS, the Orono Council finds the vacation as proposed does not meet the standards for a right of way vacation with consideration of the following findings: 1. The property is unimproved right of way to the shore with the purpose for pedestrian use. The Council finds that vacating the right-of-way as requested will impact the present or future public accessibility to the lake. 2. The City of Orono asserts that there is a public benefit to retaining the right of way that potentially provide public access to the lake from other right -of - Page ] of 2 ways further back from the lake. 3. The City of Orono has storm sewer facilities within the portion of right-of- way to be vacated. 4. Electric, gas, telephone and cable utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and none have objected to the vacation nor indicated they have existing facilities within the easement area. 5. The City Council finds that this right-of-way identified as a pedestrian access to the lake in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. 6. The City Council finds that: a) The vacation would affect access for use of the lake for the public. The property owner's legal access to their property will not be affected by the City maintaining the unimproved right of way. b) The City has identified the right of way in the Comprehensive Plan as a pedestrian access to Lake Minnetonka and has used parts of the right of way for storm water utilities. c) The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves a public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of unimproved right-of-way as described above, and as shown Exhibit A, is hereby denied by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 12th day of February 2018. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 10/13/2017 a yAeAnh, I �p �' �'aY"`*� !,�., A•� '"�' two F _` * -►y'� � �A .. r_ :,� 1,� ` •1. wry -' 4 L .400 4 CJI a� PARCEL ID: 2011723240038 I OWNER NAME: E J Vogstrom & E A Vogstrom PARCEL ADDRESS: 2618 Casco Point Rd, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 0.64 acres, 27,983 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,300,000 SALE DATA: 12/2013 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,154,000 TAX TOTAL: $15,516.94 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,361,000 1 inch = 100 feet Comments: This data (i) is furnished AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 Hennepin County Property Map Y 427.65 IP-0,OF 14 215.33 N89°3&W ; DOC 4681295 �u 2 -92 (35) N89'29'W :T,S S(42 ASTERCN.30 Date: 10/13/2017 (34) I 115.5'1 313.55 �Qk C;OE40 (43) � 262.24 N89"35'W 216.42 Sed +o U a c a 4 e 0 91,1 .0 40 40 4th 4 .e j d0 I 40 � 1118.1 � .• �s 95.24 :$� 8 7 6 5 0` 4 _ 1 13 11 10 9 -------- �— 1 72 , $ 14112 40 . 88.2 , ••,40 , , 15b. (3� 25 R , 16: 12©.6 � iN 18; � -19 ' 20c�i ��------. 1 J r 08.714� 4� 4Q 1 Inch 100 feet PARCEL ID: 2011723240038 Comments: OWNER NAME: E J Vogstrom & E A Vogstrom PARCELADDRESS: 2618 Casco Point Rd, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 0.64 acres, 27,983 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,300,000 SALE DATA: 12/2013 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 accuracy; (ii) is funnishedwith no PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore warranty of any kind; and(iii)is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: $1,154,000 damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $15,516.94 COPYRIGHT © HEN NEPIN ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 COUNTY 2017 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,361,000 �U,��9\V\S\DN O� �O�\_ top lee /47 OM(S OF XWNM OF DEM HMEM COUNTY, MINNMTA. I %M amMy mpmd the wl"coff of ed. In thIs Office A.D.T.V 0 effect *A go" fa tme am ....... AMP, 7d 4 %Axe.. -Z-7r zv, -c dceA.4 &.—' 'a"I -) z - ,v =4e Ae,,-1 Z z _e C72z� elk— % _lea ov 6.,,v d. qt(Cj 4(o y-yrw V AV , 2�tzj 44,,4. Vd.1 2. a4v--,. - z 1 cy 1 y —Z�, ct 1.1�iz WI 4"-* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. #17-3983 ERIC AND LIZ VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, 6:35 P.M. — 6:48 P.M. Eric Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicants are requesting vacation of an unimproved right-of-way that is directly abutting their property. The right-of-way was originally a product of the Winship's Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians. The applicant uses the right-of-way to access their dock. Oakden stated in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, it notes that less than 1 percent of Orono's lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned and not available to the public for lake access purposes. In addition, the Council recently approved a resolution in support of preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right-of-way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access. Approving this request would conflict with the recent support for parks and open space. In addition, based upon a review of the Comprehensive Plan, vacation of the right-of-way seems to go against the policies that are set in place for the preservation of lake access and open space. The City Engineer has reviewed this request and made the following comments: 1. The City's policy is not to approve vacation of City fire lanes/lake access points per the Comprehensive Plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. This is lake access point #39 with the listed purpose of providing walking access to the lake. These lake access points are classified under the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan in the Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition, the City Council just adopted a Resolution in Support of the City of Orono Keeping its Open Spaces, Playgrounds, Parks and Trails in Perpetuity. If the vacation is approved, the west end of the right-of-way has a city storm pond in it that would need protection. The options are that that right-of-way not be included in the vacation or the City could obtain an easement over the pond, associated pipes, and access way from the road to the pond. Staff received two written comments in opposition to this request. Planning Staff recommends denial of this application because it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the decision would be final. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Eric Vogstrom, Applicant, stated he purchased the property in 2004 and constructed a house on the lot. Vogstrom indicated he spoke with Mayor Walsh about this last fall and the Mayor had suggested that he look into vacating the right-of-way because he felt it made sense in this situation since the area is pretty heavily wooded. Vogstrom indicated the property is at an angle and that he has been experiencing problems with snowmobilers cutting across his property to get to the lake. Vogstrom stated he has three small children and a dog and that the snowmobilers could pose a danger to them. Thiesse asked if he would continue to use as it he currently is. Vogstrom indicated he would continue to use it to access his dock. Schwingler asked if the applicant has erected any signs in an attempt to keep the snowmobilers out of his property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Vogstrom indicated it is the neighbors who use it and that the sign does say no motorized vehicles. Vogstrom noted the people who submitted the letters live further down the road and that currently nobody uses it outside of the snowmobilers. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Leskinen stated historically and in the City's Comprehensive Plan it is pretty clear the City does not vacate lake access points. Leskinen stated the use will not change, and if the snowmobilers are going now, they will likely continue to do so. Leskinen stated the argument could be made that if the snowmobilers are using it, it is a public access. Thiesse stated if motorized vehicles are not allowed in that area, the City should be monitoring that. Landgraver stated he does not see any compelling reason for vacating the right-of-way since these lake access points are a scarce commodity and are owned by the residents of Orono. Thiesse commented the vacation would preclude other people from using the access point. Lemke stated he does not see a hardship. Thiesse stated it also does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. Thiesse stated while it may or may not set a precedent, he is not interested in giving away City land. Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays Date Application Received: September 27, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: October 12, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: December 11, 2017 60 -day Extension Period Expires: February 9, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner u,0 Date: January 16, 2018 Subject: #17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2816 Casco Point Road, Right of Way Vacation, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the City of Orono to vacate an unimproved platted right of way with lake access. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. Background Applicants Eric and Liz Vogstrom of 2618 Casco Point Road are requesting to vacate the unimproved right of way that is directly abutting their property to the north. The right of way was originally a product of the Winship's Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians according to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant uses the right of way to access their dock. The applicant has included a narrative with the application attached as Exhibit E. Applicable Regulations: MN State Statute 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water, written notice of the petition or proposed resolution must be served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 60 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. At least 15 days prior to convening the hearing required under this section, the council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources to review the proposed vacation. The commissioner must evaluate: (1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so; (2) the present and potential use of the land for access to public waters, and #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 (3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. The commissioner must advise the city council or its designee accordingly upon the evaluation. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof, and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record. " The notice shall then be recorded with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any vacation proceedings. MN State Statue 462.358 Subd. 7. Vacation. The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the some manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways under a home rule charter or other provisions of law. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve". Orono City Code. Sec. 78-9. - Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this chapter; except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, and telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter (4A-32) Less than 1% of Orono's lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned, and not available to the public for lake access purposes, save for the DNR Maxwell Bay Access, Hennepin County's North Arm Access and the City's Summit Park on Long Lake. Hennepin County's Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park, while abutting Lake Minnetonka, has deed restrictions that disallow use for docking or launching boats. With shoreland abutting a dozen separate bays in Lake Minnetonka, Orono has a commitment to maintaining access via the dedicated access corridors. Orono's lake accesses are enumerated in Table 4A-8. (See Exhibit F) Lake Access Policies #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 It is the City's intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake access corridors and fire lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance. To this end, the City will follow these policies: 1. Requests for vacation of dedicated lake access right-of-ways will be denied in all cases except where equal or better lake access will be granted nearby in return. 2. The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public's right to use of any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. 3. The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld. Part 4E Parks, Open Space and Trails (4E): The Comprehensive Plan, in the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Chapter has the platted road is listed as a lake access point. Engineer/ Public Works Director/ Park Commission staff Comments 1. The city's policy is not to approve vacation of city fire lanes/ lake access points per the Comprehensive Plan. This is lake access point #39 with the listed purpose of providing walking access to the lake. These lake access are classified under the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan (4E) in the CMP. The council just passed "A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF ORONO KEEPING ITS OPEN SPACES, PLAYGROUNDS, PARKS, AND TRAILS IN PERPETUITY" Seems like vacating this lake access point would fall afoul of this resolution. If we do go ahead with a vacation, the west end of the ROW has a city Storm Pond in it that would need protection either; Do not include the western end of the ROW in the vacation, or Obtain an easement over the pond, associated pipes and access way from the road to the pond. Staff Analysis The council recently approved a resolution in support for preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right of way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access. Approving this request would conflict with the recent support for parks and open space. From reviewing the Comprehensive plan vacating this right of way seems to go against the policies that are set in place today for the preservation of lake access and open space. The challenge with vacating rights of way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the city desire access to the lake, or have utility needs in the future, the cost to acquire Lake Frontage will be premium. Vacation reduces options for the city in the future, and the importance of access to the lake is outlined in the comprehensive plan. Public Comments Staff received two written comments to deny this request. See Exhibit G for the submitted comments. Issues for Consideration 1. Does this request follow the Comprehensive Plan? #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 2. Does this request meet the requirements for approval? 3. Would approving this action set precedent for future lake access vacations? 4. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommend denial of this application because it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission/ Council finds evidence for approval the west end of the area has a storm pond and city pipe located within the area will need to be addressed to stay protected; staff suggests some sort or utility/ access easement recorded. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Area Map/ Site Plan Exhibit C. Annotated Plan Exhibit D. Original Plat Exhibit E. Project Narrative Exhibit F. Comprehensive Plan Table 4A-8 Exhibit G. Comments received from the public Exhibit H. Property Owners List To the Orono City Council: I am writing to ask the city to decline the request of Eric and Liz Vogstrom to vacate the fire lane located between our properties. My family has lived at 2600 Casco Point Road for almost forty years. We purchased the land and built our home in the area because of the location. I grew up in Orono (class of 1956) and have always loved living here. A major incentive for my wife and me to purchase the land was the fact that it abutted a fire lane. We knew that the fire lane added significant value to the land. We also knew that the fire lane was and is public property and that the city of Orono prohibited any motor vehicles and that the fire lane had restricted hours of use. Vacating the fire lane (i.e. donating a valuable lakeshore property to Mr. Vogstrom) would be an affront to common sense and contrary to the City of Orono's written philosophy. The city has spent millions of dollars to provide the residents with open space and park land. To donate a large lakeshore lot to benefit only Mr.Vogstrom is simply wrong. In Mr. Vogstrom's request to the city to vacate/donate the public property to him, he wrote that he has "fertilized it" and "mowed it" and "maintained it". Mr. Vogstrom has done all of that. He has also taken the liberty to dig trenches in it in order to run high voltage power lines, low voltage power lines, invisible fencing, irrigation pipes and lighting. I invite any council member(s) or citizens of Orono to visit the fire lane and see for themselves. The "nature path" that Mr. Vogstrom wrote about in his letter to the city existed before he built his house. The fire lane used to be a nature path. The fire lane as it was and how my wife and children used it is long gone. The natural vegetation on the path has been bulldozed and replaced by Kentucky blue grass. The large amount of fertilizer Mr. Vogstrom uses has caused large algae blooms. Many yards of black dirt have been hauled in to raise the grade so Mr. Vogstrom can run his motorized vehicles on it. The city placed boulders on the fire lane to prevent this but Mr. Vogstrom simply moved them. I know that the city has been responsive to resident concerns in the past, and I hope that it will support this request NOT to give the fire lane to Mr. Vogstrom. I would also ask the city to repair the fire lane and certify the costs to Mr. Vogstroms property taxes. There is no other way. I should also mention that the house is for sale. Thank you for reading this. Respectfully, Paul and Mary Ellen Kaster rote INFORMATION MEM O LEA NNOF Vacation of City Streets CITIES Learn how to divest the city of dedicated public streets, alleys, and other public ways and grounds, such as dedicated parks and docks that are no longer needed. Understand steps in the formal vacation process provided by law for this purpose. Contains a checklist for action and sample resolutions for city council action. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.imc.org 4/27/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved I. Vacation by resolution of council in RELEVANT LINKS: statutory cities Minn. Stat. § 412.851. Vacation is a legislative act, and the city has wide discretion to abandon or A.G. Op. 377-A-15, (Feb. 6, 1962.). maintain a street or other public grounds. State statute governs the In re Schmeidel's Estate, procedure for vacating a street, alley, public grounds or public way in 137 N.W. 1110 (Minn. 1912). A.G. Op. 396-G-16, statutory cities. A city may also choose to vacate a portion of a street, alley, (Sept. 18, 1958). A.G. Op. public way or public grounds. As streets are the most commonly vacated 396-G-16, (May 4, 1954). property, this memo refers only to streets in discussing proper vacation procedures. Unless otherwise noted, the information in this memo is equally applicable to all vacations of alleys, public ways, and other dedicated public grounds. Minn. stat. § 462.358, subd In addition, a separate state statute allows cities to use the street vacation 7. process to vacate any publicly -owned utility easement or boulevard reserve not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes, or for boulevard reserve purposes. A boulevard reserve is defined as an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street where the area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve." A. Procedure for vacation by resolution See Appendix A, Checklist There are several procedural steps a city must follow to vacate a street. for Street Vacation. Leeper v. Hampton Hills, Failure to follow the procedures set out in the statute may invalidate the Inc., 187 N.W.2d 765 (Minn vacation. Use of a dedicated public street may not be discontinued through 1971). State v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 131 N.W. any procedure other than a formal, lawful vacation. It is normally not 330 (Minn. 1911). possible for a city to simply abandon a street. While potentially Rein v. Town ofspring Lake, 145 N.W. 2d 537 cumbersome, the formality of the process protects a city from allegations it (Minn. 1966). has abandoned a street through minimal use or non -user. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.imc.org 4/27/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: Setting a Public Hearing on a Street Vacation, LMC Model Resolution. Vacating a Street, LMC Model Petition. Declaring Sufficiency of Petition and Setting a Public Hearing, LMC Model Resolution. A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (Oct. 22, 1958). A.G. Op. 377-A-15, (Feb. 5, 1962). A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (Oct. 22,1958). A.G. Op. 396-G-1, (March 9, 1955). A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (July 22, 1953). A.G. Op. 396-C- 18, (Sept. 28, 1953). 1. Starting a street vacation There are two methods for commencing a vacation. Council on its own motion may start the vacation process. However, a resolution for a vacation commenced by the city council on its own motion must be passed by a four-fifths vote of all members of the council. A majority of the owners of land abutting the street to be vacated may also initiate a vacation by petition. However, since the language of the statute is permissive, the city council is not required to vacate a street simply because a valid petition is received. The decision to act on a petition is a discretionary act of the council. Once the city receives a petition for a vacation, the city must confirm that the petition sufficiently complies with the requirements of the law. Specifically, the city must confirm that the petition has been signed by the correct number of abutting property owners. a. When is a property considered to abut a proposed vacation? A property owner is considered to "abut," if their land is touching, reaching, joining, bordering on, or contiguous with the street to be vacated. b. What constitutes a majority of abutting landowners? The requirement that a "majority of owners of land" sign the petition means that a majority of individuals having property interests in the land abutting the street to be vacated must sign the petition. This requirement does not mean owners representing a majority of the abutting property. For example, if there are four property owners abutting a street to be vacated, three must sign the petition. In this scenario, it would not matter if one of the four owners owned 90 percent of the land abutting the street. Despite the substantial property interest of one of the abutting owners (representing a majority of abutting property on the street), three property owners must still sign the petition. Married persons often own property as "joint tenants" or as "tenants in common." Normally, a joint tenancy creates two property interests. A tenancy in common may create two or more property interests. These interests are counted separately as owners for the purposes of determining the number of abutting landowners. For example, on a street with four abutting properties, each held by two persons as joint tenants, the number of ownership interests is eight (even though there are only four properties). The signatures needed to constitute a majority of abutting owners on this street would be five. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 3 c. What constitutes an ownership interest in abutting land? A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (Oct. An ownership interest in land does not include mere easement interests and 22, 1958). A.G. Op. 396-G- 16 (July 22, 1953). implicates actual fee ownership. While easement holders may not sign a petition for vacation as abutting property owners, the city should carefully consider the concerns of easement holders—particularly easement holders with water, sewer, and electrical lines—prior to granting a vacation. d. Is a city with property abutting a vacation considered an "owner of land" for the purposes of signing the petition? A.G. Op. 396-C-18, (August A city that has a fee ownership interest in land abutting a street to be 5, 1948). A.G. Op. 346-G-1, (Mar. 4, 1963). vacated may choose to join in signing a petition for vacation. 2. Public hearing and notice requirements Whether initiated by the council or by petition from the abutting owners, the city must conduct a public hearing to solicit public input on a proposed vacation prior to granting a vacation. a. Notice requirements Public Hearing on Vacation Notice of the hearing must be published in the city's legal newspaper and of a Street, LMC Model Notice posted at least two weeks prior to the hearing. Newspaper publication must Minn. stat. § 645.11. be once a week for two weeks. In addition, written notice of the hearing must be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least 10 days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. Certified mail is not required by the statute. Unfortunately, the statute does not define who is considered to be an "affected" property owner entitled to notice. The implications of the term "affected" are broader than the term "abutting" used elsewhere in the statute. As a result, the group of "affected" owners comprises a group larger than the abutting owners, but smaller than the general citizenry of the city who will receive published notice of the vacation. Etzler v. Mondale, 123 The Court has established that when platted streets are vacated, due process N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1963). concerning vacation of plats requires, at minimum, that notice be sent to all owners or occupants of land pursuant to Minn. stat. § within the platted area. Owners and purchasers of platted land are 505.14. Batinich v. Harvey, 277 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. presumed to rely upon access to the areas dedicated to public use in a plat 1979). and are deemed to be "affected" owners. Cities may adopt a more generous standard as appropriate to their fact situation. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 4 In unplatted areas, there is no similar guidance from the Court. However, the vacation statute and due process still require the city to send notice to all property owners "affected" by the vacation. Since the term is undefined in statute, the city must develop a reasonable policy regarding notice. The location of the individual street and the character of the surrounding property should be taken into account in determining sufficient notice. A.G. op. (June 20, 1988) An informal Minnesota Attorney General letter stated that, for due process (informal opinion). reasons, it may be prudent to extend the notice requirements beyond fee title owners of property to mortgagees and contract for deed vendors who may be significantly affected by a vacation. b. Notice to the commissioner of Natural Resources Public Hearing Vacating a If the street or any part of the street terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent Street Near Water, LMC Model Notice. to any public water, written notice must also be served by certified mail upon the commissioner of Natural Resources at least 60 days before the public hearing. After notice is served on the commissioner, at least 15 days prior to convening the public hearing, the city council or its designee must consult with the commissioner to review the proposed vacation. This consultation should be documented by the city. The notice of the hearing and the consultation do not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. The commissioner must provide the city with its evaluation of the following: • The public benefits of the proposed vacation. • The present and potential use of the land for access to public waters. • How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. After receiving the commissioner's evaluation, the city should respond to the commissioner's concerns in its formal findings of fact granting or denying the vacation. c. Conducting the public hearing See also LMC information The fundamental purpose for holding a public hearing is to provide due memo, Zoning Guide for Cities, section v -C -2-b on process—a chance to speak and be heard—to all persons affected by the conducting a public bearing. proposed vacation. Public hearings should include complete disclosure of what is being considered, and a fair and open assessment of the issues raised by the vacation. A public hearing must also include an opportunity for affected landowners and the interested public to see and hear all available information and to ask questions, provide additional information, express support or opposition, or to suggest modifications to the proposal. The primary focus of a public hearing should be to solicit public comment, not to persuade the public towards a particular viewpoint. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 5 If the council does not agree with sentiments expressed at the public hearing, the council can incorporate its position on the issues raised into its findings of fact in the formal resolution approving or denying the vacation. B. Standards for granting a vacation Schaller v. Town of Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only Florence, 259 N.W. 529 (Minn.1935). upon a finding that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." This Application ofBalawin, 15 means the public must benefit, in some manner, from the vacation. The N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the (Minn. 1925). A.G. op. vacation. A private benefit derived from the vacation does not bar the 396-G-16, (Sept. 18, 1958). vacation, so long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. Mere long-term, non-use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with a finding that the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing vacations, Minnesota courts have emphasized that the future benefit to Application ofBalawin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). maintaining the dedicated property should be given consideration. For Petition of Krebs, 6 N.W.2d example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation 803 (Minn. 1942). because the potential future use of the public grounds as public lake access was not properly taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial of a petition for a vacation, because preservation of the underutilized property would help lessen the effects of future population growth in the area. Kangas v. Blueberry Tp., The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a 264 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1978). Rader v. East side result, a reviewing court will only set aside a vacation if it appears that the Twsp., C3-87-744 evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the council (unpublished opinion). proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. 1. Adoption of a resolution granting or denying a vacation Vacating street on Vacations must be approved by city council resolution. A vacation Council Initiative., LMC Model Resolution. commenced solely on the initiative of the city council requires a four-fifths majority vote in favor of the resolution. A vacation commenced by petition Vacating a Street Upon of a majority of abutting land owners requires a simple majority of the Petition, LMC Model quorum present at the meeting to pass a favorable resolution. As previously Resolution. discussed, the resolution should include the city's reasons for granting the vacation and detailed, written findings of fact. When a city denies a petition for a vacation, the city should also adopt a resolution setting forth the city's reasons for the denial and written findings of fact. As previously discussed, detailed findings build a record necessary to support the city's decision and refute allegations that the decision was arbitrary or capricious. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 6 After a resolution granting a vacation is adopted, the city clerk must prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings containing the following: • The name of the city. • Identification of the street vacated. • A statement of the time of completion of the vacation. • A description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice must be presented to the county auditor, who will enter the notice in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." The notice must then be recorded with the county recorder. The county auditor in your county may have a preferred form for the notice of completion in your jurisdiction. It is advisable to check with your county auditor regarding the preferred format at the beginning of a vacation proceeding. Provided that all the other elements of a valid vacation proceeding exist, mere failure to file the notice will not invalidate the vacation. II. Home rule charter cities Minn. stat. § 410.33. Many home rule cities have charter provisions that establish a process for the vacation of city streets. If a charter is silent on the issue, the general statutory provisions previously discussed may be used. See Handbook, The Home Home rule charters may supplement, but not contradict state statute. The Rule Charter City. general rule is that when a charter provision is in conflict with state law, the statutory provision prevails and the charter provision is ineffective to the extent that it conflicts with state policy. Minn. stat. § 440.13. Minn. Unique statutory provisions favoring petitioners and property owners in Stat. § 440.135. home rule charter cities of the fourth- and third-class must also be considered. As discussed below, these provisions only apply in certain limited circumstances. Third- and fourth-class charter cities should consult their attorney regarding the applicability of these provisions to their fact situation. In addition, the League of Minnesota Cities recommends that special attention be given to due process and notice issues, despite the statutes' silence on these issues. A. Fourth-class charter cities Minn. stat. § 440.13. A home rule charter city of the fourth class, (i.e., cities with a population of 10,000 or less), notwithstanding any contrary charter provision, must follow a separate statute in vacating any street or highway "wherein one end of the street or highway, or part thereof proposed to be vacated does not connect with any other street or highway" (i.e., a "dead-end" street). League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 7 The statute provides stringent protections to property owners in home rule charter cities of the fourth class who live on such "dead-end" roads. These roads may only be vacated when all the owners of lands abutting both sides of the street or highway have signed a petition requesting the vacation. A.G. op. 396-C-1 (May 22, The Minnesota Attorney General has limited the application of this statute 1961). A.G. Op. 396-C-18, (May 16, 1958). to "streets and highways." As a result, the Minnesota Attorney General does not believe the protections of the statute apply to property owners on dead-end alleys. Presumably, such protections do not apply to property owners on other types of dead-end public grounds or public ways. This unique statute for fourth class charter cities does not require a public See discussion and sample hearing or published notice of the vacation in the manner otherwise forms to modify in section required under the general vacation statute. However, the League I -A-2 above. recommends the city provide notice to the affected public of the proposed vacation for due -process reasons. Etzrer v. Mondale, 123 In addition, the League recommends the city hold a public hearing N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1963). providing affected parties an opportunity to comment on the vacation. While the statute does not explicitly require notice and a hearing, Minnesota courts have imposed such due process considerations in the past under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The statute also does not require a finding of public benefit as discussed above. However, the permissive language of the statute does not require the city to vacate the street or highway upon receipt of a lawful petition. The city's refusal to grant a vacation in such circumstances will be upheld by the courts unless it appears that the evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the city proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. Public Hearing vacating a Finally, if the dead end road terminates at or abuts upon any public water, Street Near Water. LMC Model Notice. the petitioners who are requesting the vacation must serve notice of the petition by certified mail upon the Commissioner of Natural Resources at least 30 days before the council hearing on the matter. The notice is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the Commissioner. B. Third-class charter cities Minn. stat. § 440.135. A home rule charter city of the third class (i.e., a city with more than 10,000 in population, but less than 20,000) possesses an additional unique power of vacation. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: Upon the petition of any one owner, natural or corporate, of any real estate abutting a street, a city council may vacate a street, segment or portion of a street so long as the street to be vacated is no longer than the distance intervening between any two adjacent intersecting streets. If the street to be vacated terminates at or abuts upon any public water, the petitioners requesting the vacation must serve notice of the petition by certified mail upon the commissioner of Natural Resources at least 30 days before the city council hearing on the matter. The notice is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. The vacation of any street or segment under these provisions cannot destroy or interfere with the right of any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control of any electric light or telephone pole or lines existing upon such street at the time of the vacation, or with any sewer or water pipes, mains or hydrants thereon or thereunder to enter upon such street or portion thereof vacated for the purpose of repairing the same or otherwise attending thereto. City council action on the petition for vacation under this unique statute may be taken at any regular or special meeting duly called for considering the vacation. The statute does not require a public hearing or published notice of the vacation. However, the League recommends the city provide notice to the affected public of the proposed vacation for due process reasons. In addition, the League recommends the city hold a public hearing on the Etzrer v. Mondale; 123 vacation, providing affected parties an opportunity to comment on the N.w.2a 603 (Minn. 1963). vacation. While the statute does not require notice and a hearing, Minnesota courts have imposed such due process considerations in the past under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Approval of the vacation under these provisions must be by resolution. A copy of the resolution, duly certified by the city clerk, must be recorded in the office of the county recorder in the county where such city is located before the action is effective. A.G. Op. 396-C-1 (Nov. 23, The Minnesota Attorney General has limited the application of the statute 1953). to "streets" quoting the narrow language of the statute. As a result, the attorney general does not believe the procedure for vacation of streets under Minn. Stat. § 440.135 can be used to vacate alleys. Presumably, it also does not apply to other types of public grounds or public ways. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 9 III. Vacation of platted lands upon court order A. Introduction Minn. scat. § 505.14. Minnesota Statutes provide an additional method for vacation of platted streets, alleys or public grounds through the court system rather than through petition to the city council. It is difficult to imagine any circumstances under which a city would itself utilize this procedure to vacate a street under its exclusive jurisdiction. However, cities may need to familiarize themselves with this procedure in the instance where a member of the public chooses to pursue a court-ordered vacation (as opposed to a petition to the city council). It is important to note that these provisions may be inapplicable in certain charter cities. The statute explicitly states that the district court cannot vacate or alter a platted street dedicated to the public use in any city organized under a charter or special law that provides a method of procedure for vacation by the municipal authorities of the city. B. Procedure for obtaining a court-ordered vacation Minn. stat. § 505.14. A person seeking vacation of a platted street may use either the provisions Petition of Krebs, 6 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1942). discussed previously for a petition to the city for a vacation or may choose to apply directly to the district court for a vacation. Petitioners are not required to petition the city for the vacation first, before approaching the courts. A petitioner seeking a vacation from the district court must provide Batinich v. Harvey, 277 personal notice of the petition to the mayor of the city where the street to N.W.2d 355 (Minn., 1979). be vacated is situated. The petitioner must also provide additional personal and published notice to land owners within the platted area and to the commissioner of Natural Resources, if the land terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water. Upon proper petition and notice, the district court has broad power to "vacate or alter all or any part, of the plat, and adjudge the title to all streets, alleys, and public grounds to be in the persons entitled thereto." In addition, the district court may determine damages and award compensation to all persons owning or occupying land affected by the proposed vacation. When the lands to be vacated are "streets or alleys connecting separate plats or lying between blocks or lots or providing access for the public to Application ofAvant-Garde, any public water," the court cannot grant the vacation unless the facts Inc., 481 N.W.2d 379 (Minn.Ct.App.1992). indicate that the land to be vacated is "useless for the purpose for which it was laid out." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 10 This standard has been extended to include parks and other public grounds by the courts. Church ofsts. Peter and The standard of uselessness is a more stringent standard than the public Paul of Lake George v. Lake George Tp., 89 benefit standard for a vacation by resolution of a city council. A petitioner N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 1958). must prove that the land to be vacated has no present or future use In re Verbick, 607 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). consistent with the land's original purpose as a public way or ground. IV. Property interests after a vacation A. Reversion and ownership Mccuen v. Mccaruel, 263 when a street is lawfully vacated, the easement granting the public the N.W.2d 64, (Minn. 1978). right to travel the street ceases to exist, and the title to the land under the street reverts to the underlying fee owners of the property for their exclusive use and enjoyment. The reversion occurs by operation of law, and the city is not able to direct or convey ownership of the fee title upon vacation. The law presumes property owners along the vacated street each hold a grant of soil to the center of the street where their property abuts the street. As a result, upon vacation, title to half of the street usually reverts to each abutting property owner. In re Robbins, 24 N.W. 356 The one-half ownership rule is based on the presumption that adjoining (Minn. lsss). Edgewater Cottage Assn, Inc. v. landowners equally furnished land for the roadway use. However, this rule Watson, 387 NW 2d 216 does not apply where evidence shows the street was laid out wholly on one (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). of the abutting owner's land. In this instance, where one owner furnished all of the land for the street, that landowner (or the landowner's successor in interest) will receive all of the land back upon vacation. In a few rare instances, the city may actually own the underlying fee title to the vacated public way or grounds. In these instances, upon vacation the city becomes the fee owner and may keep or dispose of the property as it deems in the best interests of the city. B. Compensation to the city for loss of the street to be vacated A.G. Op. 396-G-16 (Sept. 9, As a general rule, a municipality has no proprietary interest in a public 1965). A.G. Op. 396-G-16 (Apr. 10, 1947). street. Rather the city holds an easement in favor of the public granting a right to travel the street. As a result, the city does not hold a fee interest in the street and cannot ask a petitioner to pay compensation for the loss of the street to the city as a condition to granting a vacation. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 11 C. Re-establishing a vacated street A.G. Op. 396-G-16 (Apr. Once a city street is vacated, the vacation means a permanent loss of the 10, 1947). city's interest in the street. In order to reopen or re-establish a vacated street, the city would need to follow the legal procedures set out in statute for opening city streets at a cost to the city. In order to reopen a street, the city would need to either negotiate an easement with the abutting property owners or use eminent domain proceedings. Both proceedings would likely require the city to pay fair market value for the easement. If the city anticipates a future need for the street, the city should not grant a petition to vacate the street. V. The 60 -day rule Minn. stat. § 15.99. The 60 -day rule is a state law that provides that a city must approve or deny a written request relating to zoning, watershed district review or soil conservation district review within 60 days or it is deemed approved. The underlying purpose of the rule is to keep governmental agencies from taking too long in deciding land -use issues. Advantage Capital The 60 -day rule is written broadly to include all requests related to zoning. Management v. City of Northfield, 664 N.W.2d 421 The Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that a request is related to (Minn. Ct. App.2003). 500, zoning when the request must be reviewed under the city's specific LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. regulatory structure for zoning (i.e., the city's zoning code). Following this 2013). logic, the Court determined that the issuance of building permits is not subject to the 60 -day rule, because the issuance of building permits fell under a different regulatory structure than the city's zoning code. Similar to building permit applications, it seems unlikely that petitions for vacation would be subject to the statute. VI. Peculiar damages resulting from a vacation In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 An abutting landowner who suffers peculiar damages from the vacation of (Minn. 1925). Underwood v. Town Bd. of a public street is entitled to compensation. Normally, peculiar damages Empire, 14 N.W.2d 459 must amount to a loss of access or some other unique injury. In order to (Minn. 1944). In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 obtain compensation for the injury, an abutting landowner does not need to (Minn. 1925). prove the vacation completely obstructs all access to their property. Oliver v. State, 760 NW 2d. 912 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). However, the abutting landowner must establish damages that are unique from those suffered by the general public. A non -abutting property owner who suffers inconvenience or re-routing as a result of a vacation is not entitled to damages. Steernerson v. Fontaine, The issue of damages does not prevent a city from vacating the public way 119 NW 400. (Minn. 1908). or street. An abutting property owner must bring suit in district court to recover compensation for their damages. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 11 Appendix A: Checklist for Street Vacation by Resolution of City Council The following is a suggested checklist that may be useful to the clerk or other city officers to ensure every step in the vacation process is done as required. No checklist of this kind is legally required, but the form may be helpful. This list can be duplicated on two sides of one piece of paper so that one copy can be placed in the file for the vacation or in some other convenient place. Some of the steps will be omitted in some vacations, others in different vacations, but these can be crossed off when not applicable in the individual case. Additional steps may also be added to the list; for example, in cities where a home rule charter imposes additional procedures. Steps to Follow Completed by Date Whom Petition requesting vacation received Resolution verifying sufficiency of petition and ordering hearing date and preparation of notice OR (if no petition) Proposed resolution for vacation and preparation of notice Affidavit of mailing written notice by certified mail upon the commissioner of Natural Resources (at least 60 days before the hearing) Affidavit of consultation with the commissioner of Natural Resources on the vacation (must occur at least 15 days before the hearing) and materials received Affidavit of publication of notice of hearing (must occur for two consecutive weeks prior to hearing) Affidavit of mailing notice to affected property owners (must occur at least 10 days prior to hearing) Minutes of public hearing showing testimony and findings League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 12 Steps to Follow Completed by Date Whom Resolution granting vacation with supporting findings of fact Resolution denying vacation with supporting findings of fact Notice of completion of proceedings to county auditor Marked "entered in the transfer records" notice of completion received back from county auditor(s) League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 13 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 13 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #18-3992, Revolution Design Build o/b/o Kevin Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, Variance — Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. Purpose. This application is requesting an average lake shore setback variance for a single family home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 1, 2017; it was considered as complete on December 1, 2017. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on January 29, 2018. A 60 day extension was given and will expire on March 30, 2018. 3. Background. Mr. Kevin Kretsch and Mr. Rob Aldecocea with Revolution Design and Build have submitted an application for an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicants are currently building a new home located on the site and propose a new deck for the home. The overall footprint of the new deck is less compared to the original deck. The existing deck was encroaching into the average lakeshore setback roughly 17 feet and the new proposed deck will encroach roughly 11'6" feet into the setback. The previous deck was a two level deck that sat 7 feet and the second level was 5 tall both with a 3 foot deck railing. The new proposed deck will be 9'6" tall with a 3 foot deck railing. The new deck will be roughly 2 feet taller than the taller section of the previous deck. This home received a variance in September 11, 2017 for retaining walls in the 75' lake yard to stabilize the shoreline. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16, 2018 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. The Commission voted unanimously on a motion to approve the request. 5. Public Comment. One written comment was received for the Planning Commission to consider, with a concern about builders asking for a variance for a deck after the home is already under construction. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval for the requested variance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Prepared By: 'Io Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: 5bV AGENDA ITEM Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report References 1) PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Exhibit D. Survey and 3D Sketch Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Resident Comments Exhibit G. Map and Property Owners List Prepared By: 'Io Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: 5bV CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. 18-3992 WHEREAS, on December 1, 2017, on behalf of the property owner, Revolution Design and Build (hereinafter the "Applicant'), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3155 Casco Circle and legally described as: Lot 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow for the construction of a deck within the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the 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 12, 2018, 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 #18-3992. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 0.69 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 123' feet at the 75 foot lake yard setback. 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 variances: a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for 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. ANALYSIS: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance .... The proposed deck will be slightly taller than the previous deck but is proposed to have a smaller encroachment of 11'6" into the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has worked to mitigate the encroachment by proposing a deck that does not encroach as much compared to the previous deck. The deck will not interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors meeting the intent and purpose for the average lakeshore setback with is a sightline setback for the lake. This criteria is met. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a deck in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. This criterion is met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The neighboring home to the east is set back further from the lake than most of the surrounding homes resulting in the unique average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.This criterion is met. 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 improvements to a residential structure is an allowed use in the LR -1C Zoning 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 abuts Lake Minnetonka with both abutting neighbors setback over 130 feet from the lake. The proposed deck is angled away from the neighboring homes as to not interfere with the sightline of the lake. 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 subject house if located closest to the lake in the area of Casco Circle, which gently curves. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The applicant states that the variance is necessary. A deck lakeward of the home is a customary improvement in this area. 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." Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The topography and location of the adjacent home to the east create practical difficulties affecting the Property; The applicant was working within the footprint of the existing encroaching deck but is slightly taller creating a new encroachment; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow the construction of the deck within the average lakeshore setback, 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 dated 11/08/2017 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 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 construction and commencing construction of said project. An inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 12, 2019). 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. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of February, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN KRETSCH OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CASCO ,1-Rv 1 om ......, "a ca ' � 1n5.nL 83°07 t&/ e�•4t�o'"�� POWER Ro OP OLE BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY Top t ALK 3.7 1&7 t 4� ! I } EXISTING NW COR LOT 40! q I ~ GARAGE' } ! 4 I } 6.9 (C) 113BLACKTOP5 DRIVEWAY [962 10' WIDE UNDERGROUND I ! ,::•EASEWNT PERDOC. I4a NO. 3642578 t V (964.3) I 4.3 GARAGEFLOC 1 psl-fq } 3 srar� LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38. a denotes iron marker set 0 denotes iron marker found (908.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum --917. -- : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of three existing buildings, underground easement, spot elevations, topography and major trees on the lakeside of the house, and the adjacent houses & lakeside topography, and the location of all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. I 1 EXISTING(M) I ! r $ BORDER hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportury was prepared 6y me, or under my direct supervision, and that am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. �fEe - SCALE 1++=�G+ f )f f f ! SlS'rEPPM 7-17-7 srAR1YAr, wuLs N•n GawEs sN,rZwn 7-17-t7 uvsm i GARAGE 5 f STONES fel TME E1 -a-17 rEvrsm Rage ELEVATIONS - 1 Wux} PATO {n .............. ----__,--956/ +m 24a 5 12e n SNOOP q ' (F) {qgz ii EXISTING cu- I a }' 7 z [d', - y4� 4A 9ca31�*s.. .. �.. �} Q HOUSE . ° s'•`• O! a(96291 m,a } Z ! f » } FLOOR - (964.07 N 1 } x [.n ! I a f aa1 ! ! °oa } EXISTING Q C {IQ (v (966.4] O' # 3165 FL S FLOM t� { p (9623) I ! r $ HOUSE hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportury was prepared 6y me, or under my direct supervision, and that am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. �fEe - SCALE 1++=�G+ f )f f f ! SlS'rEPPM 7-17-7 srAR1YAr, wuLs N•n GawEs sN,rZwn 7-17-t7 uvsm 1 tJ1 5 f STONES fel #3155 }s� fs�ea] E1 -a-17 rEvrsm Rage ELEVATIONS - 1 WOOD{A} 1 STEPS 4 (958.3) .............. ----__,--956/ 1 EXISTING } kae99 7.7 �3aetii a u9 r _ • HOUSE �._...i f / / �.: DECKLA '� fsssll 75' } (959.4]" _ �_ r '� ✓ / // E' LY L } 1 �26fi._.....»..... — r Crl ! IASH C"� R O N B T� R / A N it i� lir li 1VL] Lli�E.T1"S.11i L! ASSOCIATES, I R CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS & SITE PLANNERS 445 N04TH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356- 952-473-4141 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportury was prepared 6y me, or under my direct supervision, and that am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. �fEe - SCALE 1++=�G+ 0-2'-" A°01i10N"` � {�JTE°' S1OMW °1 �''""'v 7-17-7 srAR1YAr, wuLs N•n GawEs sN,rZwn 7-17-t7 uvsm DATE 5-8-17 to -Is -1T aamasm HOUSE AD= E1 -a-17 rEvrsm Rage ELEVATIONS - _ r� �. .............. ----__,--956/ T• °,/L0. _ • ... -A! ;'s .•" :.:.," L ... v f / / �.: '� fsssll 75' -� W' LY LME OF EDT 39-.. ..... SETBACK• �LNE��- / // E' LY L 953 EXTENDED - � � �1 � /f...Ex . OF_. _3S � � � � � I/ '. I ! I / •j / / i LAGSr / I % x{94361 PATIO r/ /r �— ` rear Luh auc 10 -y - � ` M1� -� j -3ol.929.4 CONTOUR l - y + LINE (O-H.W.) x ^ LAKE MINNETONKA EAST UPPER LADE DATE DESCRIPTION pro t] j(,T /^e h jNT T� I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report SCALE G i 1 111 l7 AND D was prepared y me, or under my direct supervision, ill -20' A S S'O C I A T E S, INC . tandhe t that I o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the S#ate of Minnesota. DANE _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND 5-8-17 - SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS •� ` 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE fi'�`,r..f Oz.s ..,r - LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 17-176 952-473-4141 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 17-176 AS -BUILT (EXISTINGI SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 "=30'-0" CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : KEVIN R E T S C H Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all part of 1 11 adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract lanVacated OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART Avenue fand thel shorelineeofsaid Lake Minneto ka,ewh the OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE lies between the southerly extension of the west line HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38. o denotes iron marker set * : denotes iron marker found (9o8.3) : denotes 105.00....existing spot elevation, CI 1'CL mean sea level datum CASC� o ' ���� � 910.€3 denotes proposed spot elevation, ... •. � 83�fl� mean sea level datum {966.07 M, denotes existing contour line, or° {961 mean sea level datum r, toe,6.9p 966.3 965.a f / '•. I '` 930 denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 60•4��—� I I� fj } T9�� This survey intends to show the boundaries of the 1a� w;o above described property, the location of three f \NW CON � L�r�ERc rxx�'.' I 1, y I : , existing buildings, to be removed, underground LOT 40 E b� r >5 96497 rl easement,. spot elevations, topography and major 42 7s' a i 6 trees on the lakeside of the house, adjacent houses n - m & lakeside topography, and the proposed location 47 o'' of a proposed house, driveway and grades thereon. 1 + f 24-- 1 rI It does not purport to show any other 1 _ / ' improvements or encroachments. r10I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (per architect, verify) J r ( Jl.....f y w 1) Garage i -- -- " I l //PROPOSEDI ` 2) Top of foundation } L + DRIVEWAY (F) 4 3) Main floor IP j LA O67 ,e67 ' !T 4) Basement } _`, 9'S4� (.E}YEI�D PORCYI :. � m 1 i�-1• lQ IJS EXISTING HDE -,� acuczn } 0- —! PROPOSED f Ly1 i A #3165 l...• - - r POW HOUSE LEvn{FLOW 96413 9 i #3155— } (R) a f. q- s EXISTING 5 . Omce � Av RAGE } 3iF10WSE 4 PATIO iC)..... ,, BAOK ,r 1` :� y } / DECK } * T o Io / TO BE los / ` �_ — •� •'•%-`--- (955.9) _ ,... y_ i_ ._ }..{ l.J %-e: .... � ... •..1 4 / f, , �, / J is 75' WILY LME 103 = 1j SETBACK OF LOT 39••..,,_,. { / {G63.r1 _• EXTENDED � I� / // �, .;".-OF L O3B ()TONP LAOS PATIO 4--`_ �•- 9QI.3� �+±`r � -.- � � J / ~v r � � r� r � _ f 'r� y � �— �»693 WEE 3- } 30 929.4 CONTOUR LINE (O.H.W.) MAKE MINNETONKA 1717 EAST UPPER LAKE DATE DESCRIPTION C"� R O N B T� R / A N it i� lir li 1VL] Lli�E.T1"S.11i L! ASSOCIATES, I R CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS & SITE PLANNERS 445 N04TH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356- 952-473-4141 hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportury was prepared 6y me, or under my direct supervision, and that am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. �fEe - SCALE 1++=�G+ 0-2'-" A°01i10N"` � {�JTE°' S1OMW °1 �''""'v 7-17-7 srAR1YAr, wuLs N•n GawEs sN,rZwn 7-17-t7 uvsm DATE 5-8-17 to -Is -1T aamasm HOUSE AD= E1 -a-17 rEvrsm Rage ELEVATIONS - _ uae No. 17-1766 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 _ 17-176B PROPOSED SITE PLAN Z SCALE: 1"=30'-O" 18110 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD WAYZATA, MN 55391 952.594.5037 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD.COM MN LIC. BC631863 ISSUE DATE: 12/ % REVISIONS: ' DRAWN BY: SLL/RGA © Copyright Revolution Design and Build 2D17 These plans are the copyrighted property of Revolution Design and Build. All rights to the intellectual principles described within the documents remain the property of Revolution Design and Build. As these drawings may or may not be construction drawings, it is the responsibility of the General Contractor to review all drawings and specifications for discrepancies and/or omissions prior to the start of construction, including the verification of all dimensions, code compliance issues, performance of all structural calculations, and confirmation of all other elements relevant to standard construction practices regarding the project. z UJ 17- z - c�yy� 'l' J — 'L]^J LULO J z 2 UU cc O z 0 ZI1 o 0 LLT CJ J U o O ❑ LUVJ W LuU W ' ^ CL LJ J z 1-0 T-- IL rl �e- I Cr] SHEET Simi A EXISTING EXTERIOR PHOTO CEXISTING EXTERIOR PHOTO C EXISTING EXTERIOR PHOTO CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN KRETSCH OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line Q of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38. CASCO� 07, 00 E 105.00 ............. � I o denotes iron marker set N(Mao) WH pelf denotes iron marker found POWER (so&,3) denotes existing spot elevation, POLE BLACKTOP mean sea level datum DRIVEWAY f wrily ° 917 denotes existing contour line, WALK E i � o ss mean sea level datum gg3.P l8 -P �_��_�„EXISTING Bearings shown are hosed upon an assumed datum. { `LO 40 GARAGE” This survey intends to show the boundaries of LOT ao { ;� j f the above described property, the location of ! j 5.9 (C) three existing buildings, underground easement, y f 5 1f 5 ! 1f BLACKTOP y 1a.s 4 spot elevations, topography and mayor trees AY (9ez.. ON ��,$Te v on the lakeside of the house, and the adjacent ✓.�. { (D) 1 G) houses & lakeside topography, and the location l I f1 of all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does f I ••°'• 10' WIDE UNDERGROUND "EEAAS�zs. aRtDOC. not purport to show any other improvements f I �� ` or encroachments. l (984.3) 4.5 GARAGE 1 FLOOR- S EXISTING � 39 ` (M) i GARAGE Eg) C WAd,I(I PAllar� 24' S 11.5S1 5 SK � � ........� EXISTING ' '` { I a aaoo ) 72 40 $ •...� o HOUSE '•' ' J f o _ t FLOOR- N 01 Q �#31 65 'o FLE_ a) f If EXISTINGI /C (00 �e (—.4) a I ' o (9522) HOUSE J ssi'ePPw 5 (958.2) 1 to s 5A #3155 LOWER N ( s ! (ci ) 4 LEVFL I9sea) J 5 4 {458.3} TM(N) .( EXISTING ! (9m.9 � P'P 429 Rei wL(N) Hous€ +.....:� #3145 DECK —Z Y� / I (957.8) rr 5d.3 - � . - (955.41 c f : !7'� . } •i ; ': i•.,'. r•& ..... / / / / / / f . •:� A •-yam, ' NMI) 75A SETBACK // / W' LY LINE � LINE / / E' LY L -_ aF LOT 39--....... �.-�� �°% / 0F_. _3S EXTENDED v +' "f• f.Exizr'+xD LAGSr PATW J �El�-� 929.4R + �- rte• ; LINE (0 -H -W-) x ^ LADE MINNETONKA EAST UPPER LAKE DATE IoescRwTwn pr v 1yT L f D /'e I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report SCALE G 1V �+RG AND was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, 1+1-20' ASSOCIATES, INC . t and that A a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND 5-8-17 SURVEYORS, & SITEOw DRIVE NNERS LONG LAKE, MN. 55358 t 952-473-4141 Mork S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 17 176 17-176 AS -BUILT (EXISTINGI SITE PLAN Z SCALE: 1 "=30'-0" 18110 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD WAYZATA, MN 55391 952.594.5037 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD.COM MN LIC. BC631863 ISSUE DATE: 12/04/17 REVISIONS: ' DRAWN BY: SLL/RGA (0 Copyright Revolution Design and Build 2017 These plans are the copyrighted property of Revolution Design and Build. All rights to the intellectual principles described within the documents remain the property of Revolution Design and Build. As these drawings may or may not be construction drawings, it is the responsibility of the General Contractor to review all drawings and specifications for discrepancies and/or omissions prior to the start of construction, including the verification of all dimensions, code compliance issues, performance of all structural calculations, and confirmation of all other elements relevant to standard construction practices regarding the project. z z- c�yy� 'l' J - U) L] J UJ z LOUJ O z 0 ZIY o C6 LLJ CJ J U o O ❑ LOU 0 Cr) W aU Ir W ' ^ CL LJ J zC0 IL C0 SHEET Al ■ EXISTING HOUSE Q I I I f FOOTPRINT �+ I I J I AVERAGE 5ET6AGK I I = rI +I +I I I j! rf I +I ", 1 jI I t, 7- �J / EXISTING DEGK / FOOTPRINT F_-___ — si — — — — I L__1 — — —c EXI5TING HOUSE 1- FOOTPRINT NFW 6LA55 RAILING PROPOSED DECK I I EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT J PROPOSED DECK PLAN Z, SCALE: 1/4"=V-0" (DASHED LINES) PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=V-0" P R� EXISTING STRI (DASHED M EXISTING LEAN-TO FOOTPRINT (SHADED AREA) 'INC LEAN-TO -PRINT (DASHED LINES) PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=V-0" AVERAGE SETBACK LIN PROPOSED DEGK RAILING W/ 6LA55 BALUSTERS N N AVERAGE SETBACK I EXISTING LEAN-TO STRUCTURE (DASHED LINES) I �I EXISTING DEGK STRUCTURE (DASHED LINES) PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=V-0" 181 10 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD WAYZATA, MN 55391 952.594.5037 REVOLUTION DESIGNBUILD.COM MN LIC. BC631863 ISSUE DATE: 12/04/ � 7 REVISIONS: DRAWN BY: SLL/RGA © Copyright Revolution Design and Build 2017 These plans are the copyrighted property of Revolution Design and Build. All rights to the intellectual principles described within the documents remain the property of Revolution Design and Build. As these drawings may or may not be construction drawings, it is the responsibility of the General Contractor to review all drawings and specifications for discrepancies and/or omissions prior to the start of construction, including the verification of all dimensions, code compliance issues, performance of all structural calculations, and confirmation of all other elements relevant to standard construction practices regarding the project. UU z Uj co o� z- _ LO UJ z LOUj o z 0 If o 0 L) LLJ J Ir >= 0 U o LL CD 0 � LU VJ a Ua. w CL z LO _jIL CL �e_ a uco SHEET A1.2 mi 1 PROPOSED DECK - PERSPECTIVE RENDERING PROPOSED DECK - PERSPECTIVE RENDERING ■ r � �_ d.i II'�ji II• I! 2 — - � I PROPOSED DECK - PERSPECTIVE RENDERING CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN KRETSCH OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0 SCO CIRC'LE N 83°07' flfl" E 105.0©........... <aea.D7 M" A , saes ,mssA I Yee NOT C0� 14' . {...... • li, C7 I " E SEDMq�qT �'„�y� 11 yyti ast.sl i S r 42� 8 FJD 6 { J / 24.7' t j10 Mw ! 3 i1 8& r f �� f ' S a � I• 0 {..... I -+. l FASTNG 1 HOUSE I 7#3145 N r }'� 54.3, i WILY UNE OF LOT 39•-....., EXTENDED PROPOSEDI DRIVEWAY / (F) V) 9fi4tsr7 .. a GOYE4ti4 o i sr.G ,.asc 1e.33 � rO35 N �iD Y 7�ugvCD 5 0 PROPOSED ,.. T � iiousE rr + #3155 (A) l - �'] -5�_ _ E ♦ AGE g ` (c) .l f BACK 1 PArly � V DECK (UY-. C) To BE NIMED _ 1 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARC, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38. o denotes iron marker set • denotes iron marker found (9o8.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 910.8 denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum --917-- denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum 930 denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of three existing buildings, to be removed, underground easement, spot elevations, topography and major trees on the lakeside of the house, adjacent houses & lakeside topography, and the proposed location of a proposed house, driveway and grades thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (per architect, verify) 1) Garage = 953.8 2) Top of foundation 3) Main floor = 965.6 4) Basement = 957.0 EXISTING HOUSEFLOOR y #3165 {gyy9 {1 _ �- t�y166] i LAGSTONF�./ PATIO f r � T VERY OAK �-t. 1f�'Y ����•^4' �rrrrr � l��l�r rrr --�-�.J "rte r rrl� T�� Jrr..r93 -~_is?i935�5'}�J�; , 929.4 CONTOUR 1 LINE (a.N.w) LAKE MINNETONKA EAST UPPER LAKE C G R O N B E R G ANDsprcertify A C� Cy fl f'f T A rP L� : INC. —ASSOCIATES, S it C 1 A 1 E j,� �Y4,, ENGINEERS, LAND Alllil �;r SURVEYORS 8E SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH SITE DRIVE LONG LAKE:, FAN. 55356 952-473-4141 hereby Y Y. plan. or report that this suer was prepared a me, Li under my direct supervision, that am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of hiinnesoto. SCALE 1,r=2D= -SI21-17 AIldT7dLr1 xrars zoc.areo, s77oWW rN DNAWwc 7 17 PROPOSED STAIRWAY. WA s "0 GRADES SHOWN 7-17-77 REVISED DATE 5-8-17 a-tr7 10-12-17 PROPOSED HOUSE AMCCONSULTING "� " ELcvATaNs .Hae No. 1T-17BB Marx S. f;ron6ergr Knnescta License Number 12755 5 IM;R.$) SETBkCK� f ,�� •�/ '/ /`� �. f/LLfkT 38 EyXINIDED / / // ///.• i LAGSTONF�./ PATIO f r � T VERY OAK �-t. 1f�'Y ����•^4' �rrrrr � l��l�r rrr --�-�.J "rte r rrl� T�� Jrr..r93 17-176B PROPOSED SITE PLAN Z SCALE: 1 "=30'-0" 18110 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD WAYZATA, MN 55391 952.594.5037 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD.COM MN LIC. BC631863 ISSUE DATE: 12/ % REVISIONS: ' DRAWN BY: SLL/RGA © Copyright Revolution Design and Build 2017 These plans are the copyrighted property of Revolution Design and Build. All rights to the intellectual principles described within the documents remain the property of Revolution Design and Build. As these drawings may or may not be construction drawings, it is the responsibility of the General Contractor to review all drawings and specifications for discrepancies and/or omissions prior to the start of construction, including the verification ofall dimensions, code compliance issues, performance of all structural calculations, and confirmation of all other elements relevant to standard construction practices regarding the project. z O � U) 'l' J — 'L]^J u J UJ z UJ O z 0TIr .i. O CJ w L UU LL O CI LOU 0 w a U Ir W ' ^ IL LJ J Cr) � L0rl SHEET A1.3 -~_is?i935�5'}�J�; , 929.4 CONTOUR 1 LINE (a.N.w) LAKE MINNETONKA EAST UPPER LAKE C CRp1K1F! G R O N B E R G ANDsprcertify A C� Cy fl f'f T A rP L� : INC. —ASSOCIATES, S it C 1 A 1 E j,� �Y4,, ENGINEERS, LAND Alllil �;r SURVEYORS 8E SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH SITE DRIVE LONG LAKE:, FAN. 55356 952-473-4141 hereby Y Y. plan. or report that this suer was prepared a me, Li under my direct supervision, that am o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of hiinnesoto. SCALE 1,r=2D= -SI21-17 AIldT7dLr1 xrars zoc.areo, s77oWW rN DNAWwc 7 17 PROPOSED STAIRWAY. WA s "0 GRADES SHOWN 7-17-77 REVISED DATE 5-8-17 a-tr7 10-12-17 PROPOSED HOUSE AMCCONSULTING "� " ELcvATaNs .Hae No. 1T-17BB Marx S. f;ron6ergr Knnescta License Number 12755 17-176B PROPOSED SITE PLAN Z SCALE: 1 "=30'-0" 18110 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD WAYZATA, MN 55391 952.594.5037 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD.COM MN LIC. BC631863 ISSUE DATE: 12/ % REVISIONS: ' DRAWN BY: SLL/RGA © Copyright Revolution Design and Build 2017 These plans are the copyrighted property of Revolution Design and Build. All rights to the intellectual principles described within the documents remain the property of Revolution Design and Build. As these drawings may or may not be construction drawings, it is the responsibility of the General Contractor to review all drawings and specifications for discrepancies and/or omissions prior to the start of construction, including the verification ofall dimensions, code compliance issues, performance of all structural calculations, and confirmation of all other elements relevant to standard construction practices regarding the project. z O � U) 'l' J — 'L]^J u J UJ z UJ O z 0TIr .i. O CJ w L UU LL O CI LOU 0 w a U Ir W ' ^ IL LJ J Cr) � L0rl SHEET A1.3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. #18-3992 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF KEVIN AND PATTY KRETSCH, 3155 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, 6:48 P.M. — 6:55 P.M. The applicant was not present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for a new deck to encroach 11'6" into the setback. The applicant is currently constructing a new home on the property and are proposing a new deck for the home. The new deck will be shorter than the previous deck and slightly taller. The overall footprint of the new deck is less compared to the original deck. The existing deck encroached into the average lakeshore setback by roughly 17 feet. The taller height of the deck is what triggers the new encroachment. Because the new deck is not being built in the exact same location and is higher than the existing deck, the non -conforming protections do not apply. While the new deck will be slightly taller than the previous deck, it will have a smaller encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has worked to mitigate the encroachment by proposing a deck that does not encroach as much compared to the previous deck. The deck will not interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors. Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback variance request. Oakden noted Staff received an email from an Orono resident who expressed concerns about the deck. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Thiesse noted the two neighbors have submitted letters in support of the deck. Landgraver stated it is being moved further away from the lakeshore and that they are reducing hardcover in that area, he would be in favor of it. Leskinen agreed the applicant is reducing the encroachment going out and that the deck does not appear to be obstructing any views of the neighbors, which is the objective of the average lakeshore setback. Leskinen stated since it is not obstructing any views, she would be in favor of it. Lemke stated the glass railing is also less obtrusive than the current wood railing. Landgraver asked why this was not caught at the time the application was submitted for the retaining walls. Oakden indicated this is a different builder who is now constructing the home. Oakden stated the house application was just received this month and the deck was noticed after the variance was granted for the work to the shore. Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-3992, Revolution Design Build on behalf of Kevin and Patty Kretsch, 3155 Casco Point Road, granting of an average lakeshore setback variance for a new deck. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: December 11 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 1, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: January 29, 2018 60- Day Extension Period Expires: March 30, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLO Date: January 16, 2018 Subject: 18-3992, Revolution Design and Build o/b/o Keven Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, Variance request Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for a new deck to encroach 11'6" into the setback. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval Background Mr. Kevin Kretsch and Mr. Rob Aldecocea with Revolution Design and Build have submitted an application for an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicants are currently building a new home located on the site and propose a new deck for the home. The new deck will be shorter than the previous deck and slightly taller. The overall footprint of the new deck is less compared to the original deck. The existing deck was encroaching into the average lakeshore setback roughly 17 feet and the new proposed deck will encroach roughly 11'6" feet into the setback. The previous deck was a two level deck that sat 7 feet and the second level was 5 tall both with a 3 foot deck railing. The new proposed deck will be 9'6" tall with a 3 foot deck railing. The new deck will be roughly 2 feet taller than the taller section of the previous deck. This home received a variance in September 11, 2017 for retaining walls in the 75' lake yard to stabilize the shoreline. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 and 78-1680 Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1C Required Proposed Rear 30' 37.2 West Side 10' 25.2 East Side 10' 10.5 Lakeshore 75' 122' Average Lakeshore 132/ 137 feet 122 feet (12' encroachment) Section7 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100 Actual 30,622 s.f. (0.69 acre) 123'@ 75' 130'@ OHWL Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier FILE # 17-3992 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Tier 1 30,622 s.f. 7,463.5 s.f. 6,635s.f. 6,198s.f. (25 %) (21.67%) (21.91%) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback (Section 78-1279): Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Though the new deck is smaller than the existing deck, it is not being built in the same location (higher) so non -conforming protections do not apply. 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. 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 deck will be slightly taller than the previous deck but is proposed to have a smaller encroachment of 11'6" into the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has worked to mitigate the encroachment by proposing a deck that does not encroach as much compared to the previous deck. The deck will not interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors meeting the intent and purpose for the average lakeshore setback with is a sightline setback for the lake. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a deck in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. FILE # 17-3992 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The neighboring home to the east is set back further from the lake than most of the surrounding homes resulting in the unique average lakeshore setback applied to the Property; c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners. d. 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 deck as an accessory to single family dwelling are 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 abuts Lake Minnetonka with both abutting neighbors setback over 130 feet from the lake. The proposed deck is angled away from the neighboring homes as to not interfere with the sightline of the lake. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The subject house if located closest to the lake in the area of Casco Point, which gently curves. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that the variance is necessary. A deck lakeward of the home is a customary improvement in this area. 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 variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The topography and location of the adjacent home to the east create practical difficulties affecting the Property; The applicant was working within the footprint of the existing encroaching deck but is slightly taller creating a new encroachment; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. FILE # 17-3992 January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 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. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. 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 Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback variance request. Public Comments Staff received an email for an Orono resident who provided comments of concerns 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. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Exhibit D. Survey and 3D Sketch Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Resident Comments Exhibit G. Map and Property Owners List AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 14 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #18-3993, Michael Hayes o/b/o Weldon and Marcia Gilbertson, 684 Tonkawa Road, Variance — Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. Purpose. This application is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for a single family home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 6, 2017; it was considered as complete on December 29, 2017; therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on February 27, 2018. 3. Background. Mr. Michael Hayes has submitted an application for an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant currently has a home located on the site and proposes to build an addition to two of the existing decks that face Lake Minnetonka. One deck, off of the master bedroom, currently encroaches into the ALS 2 feet, the addition would increase the encroachment to 6 feet. The other deck, off of the living room, encroaches 26 feet. The living room deck is requesting a 7 foot addition creating a roughly 35 foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16, 2018 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. The Commission voted unanimously on a motion to approval the variance request. 5. Public Comment. No comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the variance request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. Additional public comment Prepared By: ��O Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: -bV AGENDA ITEM References 1) PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Neighbors Acknowledgement Exhibit E. Existing & Proposed Survey/Pictures Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Prepared By: ��C) Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: -bV CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. 18-3993 WHEREAS, on December 1, 2017, on behalf of the property owner, Michael Hayes (hereinafter the "Applicant"), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 684 Tonkawa Road and legally described as: The Southeastedy Half of Lot 5, and the Northwesterly Half of Lot 6, EXCEPT the Northwesterly 15.00 feet of the Southeasterly Half of Lot 5, Patten's Point First Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow for the construction of a deck within the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the 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 12, 2018, 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 #18-3993. 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. The Property is located in the LR -1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.68 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 87 feet at the 75 foot lake yard setback. 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 variances: a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for 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. ANALYSIS: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance .... The proposed deck addition will add 7 feet on the living room deck creating a 96.9 foot setback from the lake and the master bedroom deck will add 3.75 feet to the existing deck creating roughly 105 feet setback from the lake. The deck will marginally interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors meeting the intent and purpose for the average lakeshore setback with is a sightline setback for the lake as the most impacted neighbor, to the north is blocked by the corner of the house, this neighbor would see only the new deck. This criteria is met. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variance resulting in a permit for construction of a deck in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. 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 owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The neighboring home to the north is set back further from the lake than most of the surrounding homes resulting in the unique average lakeshore setback applied to the Property This criterion is met c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.This criterion is met. 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 improvements to a residential structure is an allowed use in the LR -1 B Zoning 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 abuts Lake Minnetonka with the abutting neighbor to the north sits behind the footprint of the home creating an angled average lakeshore setback which is unique to the property. 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 shape of the lot with the angled average lakeshore setback line and a curved shoreline is unique to this lot. 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." The applicant states that the variance is necessary. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The topography and location of the adjacent home to the north create practical difficulties affecting the Property CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow the construction of the deck within the average lakeshore setback, 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 dated 12/21/2017 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 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 construction and commencing construction of said project. An inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 12, 2019). 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 1211 day of February, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor INVOICE NO. 86985 The Gregory Group F.B.NO. 1094-50 d.b.a. Y, 11/ 935 w,, f'a \ 30' SCALE: 1" _ LOT SURVEYS COMPANY INC. _ *• Q 3 �, �. / I X936. 1\, - 0 Denotes Found Iron Monument Established in 1962 '�' \4 `y 4 LAND SURVEYORS `la Lry %' � Ih/ / trd \\I '44 O Denotes iron Monument 9� 9 REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA ` �` ;6{ate •`I,LDlt� / ` ` \ �i9� x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 7601 73rd Avcnue North (763) 560-3093Tom_ Minneapofis, Minncsota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522 i � '<0 _ >��p�/ 'p 11 . s �8 � `o, � * � s !/ J �o , �S urur jars rrtifira t r W { /trd 24 utryt 1 \ -9s*Osc EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FOR: MICHAEL HAYES HOMES G -' ` ��`� • \+ 1 \! PUMPr .. 1 ; Q \\ t �C s\\ \ \ t a Prop" located in Section 5 Township 117, Range 23 � W 1 \ ' \ ` \ \ P �Y P g ��,0 / ,�'�-. ` ��� ExishagHardcover Hennepin County, Minnesota. / -a\' k I �'3 Lot area to OHW = 29,808 sqft o k 2 12' y Se1Z1 g5 Er 14 Decks at house =158 sq ft Address: 684 Tonkawa Road, Orono, MN 1 i s - _ 1 a� 1 3 / / 3 \� /\` \ 11, 1 945.9 Residence = 2,844 sq ft I / / , 951'2 Poach = 73 sq ft x71.909 , �� S c 1 trc l� Driveway walks -3, q 359 s ft 1 r 2 / o� 51.2 Garage 671 sq ft 972 / o ` �9 1.9 �Z� 5y 951.4 Deck at Garage =153 sq ft / Total _= 7258 sq ft \\ 1/Q�� ���a 4� Percentage = 24.35% / r 9 .3 / I ooao 1 I �> ¢ Of 2 376 sq ft of walls on pmperty . { 975.1 \ \ s\ 9B f Sla g5� / 7. f 9`` 61 1��� � 75'Ffom OHW Hatdcover 1 „tret 6 Q�5 �ap� 75'to ORW area _- 6,408 sq ft .8 1973 r °' g' gy \ �, (� Steps 122 sq ft �^� l 1 �at0 Paver Landing - 44 sq ft IIy� Rip rap - 653 sq ft 2 o / tr4 12 map N� 9 . Total - 819 N ft 1 Percentage = 12.78% / e 981.8 16 181 w a\ l c _�_ 1 _ / 131 sq ft of walls in 75' lake setback. / t,o� G� Legal Description: The Southeasterly Half of Lot 5, and the Northwesterly Half of 2 / trd 22 1 II 97 4 In 979.5 11� wsell i 9 ~ :9 GP Lot 6 EXCEPT the Northwesterly 15.00 feet of the Southeasterly Half of Lot 5, F0 I 7, 0 / N\ 0 \ s got\ 9 .5? Parten's Point First Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota, trd 9 ! Oy 1 • s ' The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. 85.6/ N \" �\ r 2 I rj�l 1 `Da y R g N \-r ! I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of 0V19. I c'N g�P 0 A � _wa 1 0 11 `0 N Minnesota. 3®g c�� ! 1 j Surveyed this 26th day of October 2017. 11 � f 6i Signed Q `9 G'�' 1 !r J RECEIVED Gregory a Minn. Reg. No. 24992 / oLs 984.0 I ft 28 2017 Rev Drawn By I I- 16- 17 lake Setback and hardcover 12-2 1 - 1 7 avj lake5hore setback hne File Name CITY OF ORONO pp1=6-p5fb109450inv86985.dwg To # 39 93 `17 .231 RECEIVED DEC 0 6&4i CITY OF ORONO I� dy Iw .7 I I rl -' 5� 97 4 X31 0 RCLmoivaY DEC 0 6 ZO17 CITY OF ORONO Hennepin County Property Map Date: 1/12/2018 l S%. T L . st ` ry .4111 y b O r. F , ` 1 inch = 100 feet PARCEL ID: 0511723330011 OWNER NAME: Weldon W Gilbertson Etal PARCEL ADDRESS: 684 Tonkawa Rd, Orono MN 55356 PARCEL AREA: 0.68 acres, 29,405 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,125,000 SALE DATA: 03/2009 SALE CODE: Warranty Deed ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,105,000 TAX TOTAL: $14,511.02 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,155,000 Comments: This data (i) is furnished AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2018 �M1 5 ON 5y r i5D i N14AW '.. r " onz w �� ' � fi76 iDNK'AWA I .hKAW 569 747NKAWA; fi RD TONKdHA RD itr" 1 � I z J . i . 7aD TONKAWA kHAWA _ _ RD , Y Ll MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. #18-3993 MICHAEL HAYES ON BEHALF OF WELDON AND MARCIA GILBERTSON, 684 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCE, 6:55 P.M. — 7:03 P.M. Michael Hayes, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant is proposing to build an addition to his two existing decks. One deck, located off of the master bedroom, currently encroaches in the average lakeshore setback by two feet. The addition would increase the encroachment to six feet. The other deck, located off of the living room, encroaches 26 feet. The living room deck is being proposed to have a 35 -foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed deck addition will add seven feet on the living room deck, creating a 96.9 -foot setback from the lake. The master bedroom deck will add 3.75 feet to the existing deck, creating roughly a 105 -foot setback from the lake. The deck will marginally interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors, meeting the intent and purpose for the average lakeshore setback. The view of the most impacted neighbor to the north is somewhat blocked by the corner of the house. They would be the only neighbor that can see the new deck. Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback variance request. Both neighbors have signed off on the project. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked what the adjacent lakeshore setbacks will look like if this is approved. Thiesse noted the neighbor to the south is already in front of the deck and the other property is behind but higher than this property. Oakden illustrated the lakeshore setbacks on the two adjacent properties. Thiesse asked if there is a piece of the house that is protecting the property from the north. Oakden indicated that is correct. Landgraver commented the one neighbor would receive an advantage if the average lakeshore setback variance is granted in this case. Michael Hayes, Applicant, stated this is not a large deck and would only be 14 feet out from the house. Hayes noted there is some bad topographical coming down from the street to the lake and that the property drops like 60 feet between those two points. Due to that topography, people tend to build up higher or lower to keep the driveways down. The house on the north side is fairly new, which is the side the new deck will be on. Hayes indicated he did speak with the neighbors about the project and that they will not really see the deck because of the little jut of the house. The deck is currently 10 to 12 years old and would be removed. Hayes indicated he would rather work off of good footings and good construction but that they will not be touching the stucco house. Hayes stated he will take the same plate and bring it out a little further. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated this has the same criteria as the last application. Leskinen stated the only difference is that they are growing the encroachment and not reducing it but there is no visual impact to the neighbors, which is the reason for the average lakeshore setback. Leskinen moved, Schwingler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-3993, Michael Hayes on behalf of Weldon and Marcia Gilbertson, 684 Tonkawa Road, granting of a variance, based on Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: December 61 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 29, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: February 27, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Duston Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLo Date: January 16, 2018 Subject: #18-3993, Michael Hayes o/b/o Weldon and Marcia Gilbertson, 684 Tonkawa Road, Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background Mr. Michael Hayes has submitted an application for an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant currently has a home located on the site and proposes to build an addition to two of the existing decks that face Lake Minnetonka. One deck, off of the master bedroom, currently encroaches into the ALS 2 feet, the addition would increase the encroachment to 6 feet. The other deck, off of the living room, encroaches 26 feet. The living room deck is requesting a 7 foot addition creating a roughly 35 foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is requesting these addition to make the decks more useful for the family. The applicant has written a narrative explaining in more detail the reasons for this requested variance. (See Exhibit C). If approved, the decks would be 250 and 92square feet. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 - Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1B Required Proposed Rear 30' 183' Side (North) 10' 10.5 Side (South) 10' 9.9 Lakeshore 75' 96.9 Average Lakeshore 97/ 145 feet from lake , 98 feet is furthest encroachment Section 78-330 — Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acres) 140' Actual 29,808s.f. (0.68 acre) 87' @ 75' 87' @ OHWL Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 —Hardcover Calculations: 18-3993 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 7,452 s.f. 7,258 s.f. 7.428 s.f. Tier 1 29,808s.f. (25 %) (24.35%) (24.91%) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback (Section 78-1279): The average lakeshore setback is proposed to increase from the existing 26 foot encroachment to 35 foot encroachment. The master bedroom deck is proposed to increase the encroachment from 2 feet to 6 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The closest point to the lake will set 96.9 feet from the OHWL of the lake. 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 deck addition will add 7 feet on the living room deck creating a 96.9 foot setback from the lake and the master bedroom deck will add 3.75 feet to the existing deck creating roughly 105 feet setback from the lake. The deck will marginally interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors meeting the intent and purpose for the average lakeshore setback with is a sightline setback for the lake as the most impacted neighbor, to the north is blocked by the corner of the house, this neighbor would see only the new deck. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in a permit for construction of a deck in a residential zone 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 owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The neighboring home to the north is set back further from the lake than most 18-3993 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 of the surrounding homes resulting in the unique average lakeshore setback applied to the Property;and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners. 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 deck is an allowed use in the 1.11-16 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 abuts Lake Minnetonka with the abutting neighbor to the north sits behind the footprint of the home creating an angled average lakeshore setback which is unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The shape of the lot with the angled average lakeshore setback line and a curved shoreline is unique to this lot. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that the variance is necessary. 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 variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The topography and location of the adjacent home to the north create practical difficulties affecting the Property 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. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement 18-3993 January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 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 Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback variance request. 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 feel that the increases to the size of the decks are appropriate given the setback constraints? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Neighbors Acknowledgement Exhibit E. Existing & Proposed Survey/Pictures Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 15 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #18-3994, David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Road, Subd/Preliminary Plat/PRD-CUP — Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. Purpose. This application is regarding a preliminary plat application for a subdivision of the property to create a total of 3 lots for single family homes where one lot currently exists with PRD flexibility. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete December 12, 2017. The 120 -Day review period will expire on April 11, 2018. Background. This application was presented as a sketch plan in 2017 (File # 17-3964). The applicant is proposing subdivision of the single lot into three lots. The northerly lot would be accessed off of Togo Road where the current home exists; two additional lots are proposed to access off of Northern Avenue on the south. The lots will be served by City sewer and water. City Code requires that each sewered lot provide 0.5 acres minimum of contiguous dry buildable area. The lots, as proposed, meet the minimum acreage requirement, however the acreage is not contiguous. The preliminary plat also reflects reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 2 and 3 off of Northern Avenue. The contiguous area requirement protects a homeowner's ability to use the property and to build a reasonable structure without impacting the wetland or a steep slope. The preliminary plat drawing illustrates the proposed building pad areas for all three lots. It does not appear that the contiguous acreage standard can be met for Lots 2 and 3. The LR - 1C side and rear yard setbacks will be met; all lots provide the minimum 100 -foot lot width measured at the front setback. In conjunction with preliminary plat approval, the applicant is requesting the flexibility through the Planned Residential District (PRD) process. The mechanism for establishing a PRD is the conditional use permit process to establish an overlay district accommodating the desired flexibility for contiguous lot area and reduced front yard setbacks. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16th, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the preliminary plat and CUP for creation of the PRD. The Commission requested clarification regarding the tree removals. In response, the applicant has provided a tree preservation plan (Exhibit E). Prepared By: VY1GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: _bV AGENDA ITEM 5. Public Comment. No additional comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the PRD overlay. The applicant's tree preservation plan also indicates the required 1 tree per 40 feet of frontage will be met along Northern Avenue; there are no trees proposed along Togo Road. Staff recommends the landscaping requirement be met on both Northern and Togo frontages and has included this recommendation in the attached draft resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. Tree Preservation Plan References 1. Council Memo & Exhibits #17-3964 Sketch Plan 10/09/17 2. PC Exhibits #18-3994 Preliminary Plat 01/16/18 Exhibit A. Applications & Narrative Exhibit B. Existing Survey Exhibit C. Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit D. Wetland Delineation and NOD Exhibit E. Preliminary Stormwater Report Exhibit F. Soils Report Exhibit G. Additional Plans: a. Preliminary Grading Plan b. Preliminary Utility Plan c. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan d. SWPPP — Existing & Proposed Conditions & Narrative Exhibit H. Conservation Design Plan by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC 12/12/17 Exhibit I. City Engineer Comments 01/08/18 Exhibit J. Aerial Photos Exhibit K. Sketch Plan Meeting Minutes Exhibit L. Neighborhood Meeting Information Exhibit M. City Code Sections Exhibit N. Map Exhibit O. Property Owners List Prepared By: VY1GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -bV CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT AS A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3635 TOGO ROAD FILE NO. 18-3994 WHEREAS, David Knaeble, an individual (hereinafter the "Developer"), has an interest in the property within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") addressed 3635 Togo Road and legally described as: That part of Lot 6, Block 10, Townsite of Langdon Park described as follows: commencing at a point on the west line of said Lot 6 distance 150.0 feet north of the southwest corner thereof; thence at right angles east 50.0 feet; thence at right angles south 146.6 feet, more of less to the southerly line of said Lot 6; thence easterly along said southerly line of Lot 6, 214.0 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence north to the northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence west along the north line of said Lot 6, 124.0 feet, more or less, to a point 140.0 feet east of the northwest corner of said Lot 6; thence south parallel with the west line of lot 6, 250.0 feet; thence west parallel with the north line of Lot 6, 140.0 feet; thence south 120.0 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Including adjoining Northern Avenue vacated and subject to the easements described in book 1472 of Deeds, page 21. Abstract property, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on December 12, 2017, the Developer filed a preliminary subdivision and conditional use permit applications with the City for preliminary approval of a three lot residential plat of the Property to be processed as a Planned Residential Development (hereinafter "PRD"); WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended approval of the application; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the 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 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the preliminary plat and PRD 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 #18-3994. 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 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 2.44 acres in total area; 1.73 acres dry, buildable and 0.71 acres wetland. 4. The Property is guided 2008-2030 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) for Low - Medium Density (2-3 units per acre). The project has a prescribed density of 1.22 units per acre based on the gross area; 1.73 units per acre upon removal of the wetland acreage. The proposal is less dense than the prescribed maximum density contemplated within the CMP. 5. The Property is wooded with somewhat bowl -shaped topography due to the 0.71 acre centrally -located wetland. There is an existing home and detached garage located in the northern portion of the property, which may remain following the subdivision; the setbacks are met. There is an existing 20 foot drainage and utility easement on the eastern property line accommodating an existing sewer line. 6. The Developer is requesting flexibility to allow for noncontiguous lot areas and reduced front yard setbacks through Planned Residential District (PRD) authority. 7. The preliminary plat reflects flexibility in reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 2 and 3 off of Northern Avenue. Development as a PRD will allow for relaxing the normal front yard setback of 30 -feet to 20 -feet as proposed for Lots 2 and 3. 8. A delineated wetland near the center of the Property impacts buildable areas of the two proposed southern lots. All lots will be served by City sewer and water. City Code requires that each sewered lot provide 0.5 acres minimum of contiguous dry buildable area. All lots, as proposed, meet the acreage requirement, however the acreage for the two southern lots is not contiguous. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a. Proposed Lot 1 will be conforming with just over '/2 acre in dry, contiguous area and 123 feet of frontage on Togo Road. This lot will conform to the LR -1 C setbacks of 30 feet on the front; 10 feet on the sides; and 30 feet on the rear. b. Proposed Lot 2 will be the western lot, and have 100 feet of frontage on Northern Avenue. It will have a total of 0.52 dry acres; only 0.35 acre are contiguous. This lot contains a 0.42 acre portion of the wetland and the dry acreage is noncontiguous. The buildable area, including the additional flexibility requested for a 20 foot front yard setback, will be approximately 85 feet deep by 80 feet wide. MCWD-approved buffer averaging will result in a wider wetland buffer on Lot 2 than on Lot 3 to accommodate a reasonable building envelope; the buffer on the northern portion of the lot will be approximately 45 -feet in width. The remaining wetland and LR -1C setbacks will be met. c. Proposed Lot 3 will be the eastern lot, and have 113 feet of frontage on Northern Avenue. This lot contains a 0.28 acre portion of the wetland; 0.30 acre contiguous area; and 0.53 acres of dry acreage is noncontiguous. MCWD-approved buffer averaging will result in a 15 foot wide wetland buffer on Lot 3 to accommodate a reasonable building envelope; the buffer on the northern portion of the lot will be approximately 45 -feet in width. The buildable area, including the additional flexibility requested for a 20 foot front yard setback, will be approximately 70 feet deep by 84 feet wide. The remaining wetland and LR -1 C setbacks will be met. 9. A 20 foot right-of-way dedication is shown along both Togo Road and Northern Avenue. Both are local roads, suggesting the need for 50 feet of right-of-way (25 feet on each side of Togo, 50 feet north of the rail line for Northern). However, dedication of 50 feet of right- Wetland Dry Contiguous, Dry Total Buildable 3635 Togo 0.71 acre / 1.73 acre / North 0.98 acre/ 42,686 s.f. 2.44 acres / 106,267 s.f. Road 30,875 s.f. * 75,392 s.f. South 0.75 acre / 32,709 s.f. Existing Lot 1 NA 0.51 acre/ 0.51 acre / 22,337 s.f. 0.51 acre/ 22,337 s.f. 22,337 s.f. Lot 2 0.42 acre 0.52 acre / 0.35 acre / 15,355 s.f. 0.94 acres / 41,357 s.f. 22,870 s.f. Lot 3 0.28 acre 0.53 acre / 0.30 acre / 13,071 s.f. 0.82 acre / 35,822 s.f. 23,437 s.f. Northern Avenue ROW Dedication 0.098 acre / 4,283.6 s.f. Togo Road ROW Dedication 0.056 acre / 2,468 s.f. 9. A 20 foot right-of-way dedication is shown along both Togo Road and Northern Avenue. Both are local roads, suggesting the need for 50 feet of right-of-way (25 feet on each side of Togo, 50 feet north of the rail line for Northern). However, dedication of 50 feet of right- CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. of -way would make the proposed southern lots (Lots 2 and 3) unbuildable. The Developer has shown a 15 -foot right-of-way dedication beyond the existing Northern Avenue consistent with the Staff recommendation during the sketch plan review. 10. The Property is within Hardcover Tier 3 allowing 35% impervious surface. Per the tier assignment methodology established in Zoning Code Section 78-1701, all proposed lots will remain within Tier 3. Each lot can be developed well within the hardcover limitation of 35%, as in each case the entire lot including the wetland and buffer areas would be creditable toward hardcover. 11. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all individual property boundaries in the plat will be required. 12. The City has no current plans for trails or parks that specifically require dedication of land from this property. The Comprehensive Plan does not suggest the need for parks or trails in this area, therefore, park dedication will be satisfied with a cash donation as required by City Code. 13. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat application materials and provided comments in a letter dated January 8, 2018. The Developer should prepare a final plat application which responds to and incorporates these recommendations. 14. The Developer will protect all the trees on the site as shown on the Tree Protection Plan and will plant the required boulevard trees on both Northern Avenue and Togo Road frontages. 15. The Property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The Property was served with City water in both Togo Road and Northern Avenue. 16. The City Council finds that the unique configuration and natural characteristics of the Property including the central location of the wetland, are sufficient justification to support the granting of a conditional use permit for Planned Residential Development of the site. 17. All proposed lots will contain suitable building areas meeting all established setback, requirements to allow the construction of single family residences. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby grants Preliminary Plat Approval and a Conditional Use Permit for development as a Planned Residential Development CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. for a 3 -lot plat per the Preliminary Plat survey/drawing David Knaeble dated 12/12/17 and Bennetts Woods Plans dated 12/12/17 and attached hereto as Exhibits A through H, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The Developer shall implement and adhere to the provisions of the Conservation Plan by Jacobson Environmental dated December 12, 2017. 3. The Developer shall establish covenants providing for a Homeowners Association which will be responsible for all future maintenance activities related to the stormwater facilities and the Conservation Plan. 4. Existing grade for all lots for building height determination shall be the proposed grades as shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan dated 12/12/17 attached as Exhibit B. The grading plan as approved establishes new existing grades for building pads. 5. Development Fees a. Park Dedication - The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan element of the Orono Comprehensive Plan does not specify the need for a neighborhood park at this location. A Park Dedication Fee in lieu of land would be appropriate per City Ordinance. The Park Fee is determined as 8% of the fair market value of the land being subdivided, but must be between a minimum of $3,250 and a maximum of $5,550 per residential dwelling unit. For the proposed lots, the Park Fee would be based on only the 2 new lots. The City's Assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land for establishing the amount of the fee. Park Fee Due $11,100. b. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. The development is subject to the 2018 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of $6,050 per acre. For the 1/2 -acre zoning districts, any lot exceeding 0.5 gross acres, including wetland, shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 0.5 acre parcel. Therefore $6,050 x 1.5 [3 lots x 0.5 = 1.5 total acres] = $9,075.00. 6. Utilities. The property is within the MUSA. Sewer and water service is available to the Property. According to the as -built record sewer plan, the Property has one stub on Togo Road and two stubs at Northern Avenue. The property was fully assessed for 294 feet of front footage, which includes both Togo and Northern frontages. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. a. At the time of building permit for each of the new lots a Met Council SAC fee in the amount of $2,485.00 and $50 sewer permit fee will be due for each lot. b. One additional water unit is due with the creation of two new lots. The 3rd water unit charge is $4,240.00 per the 2018 Fee Schedule. 7. City Engineer Approval. Approval is subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer in his comment letter dated January 8, 2018 and any forthcoming comments as may be warranted. 8. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions, to ensure that the proposed plat will accomplish the intended purposes: a. Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including proposed revisions, if any, to existing service facilities. b. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Final Plat Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the stormwater management plans. c. Sufficient detail to meet the recommendations of the City Engineer. 9. Drainage and Utility Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the final plat 10' along all exterior property lines, and 5' either side of interior property lines, and such easements shall be increased to accommodate drainage and utilities where required, subject to City staff approval. 10. Developers Agreement. Developer shall execute a Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements on the Property to ensure all site improvements are installed to the City's specifications and satisfaction. Said Developers Agreement may contain additional conditions not noted in this Preliminary Plat Approval resolution. No land alterations can take place until erosion control is established and the City is in receipt of a final grading. No improvements can begin until the City Engineer has approved all improvement plans. No improvements can begin until 24 hours after the final plat has been recorded with Hennepin County. A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully executed Developer's Agreement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed site improvements. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. No building permits will be issued until all drainage facilities and improvements have been installed. FINAL SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Planning Department at least 4 weeks prior to the desired regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Monday of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by David Knaeble dated 12/12/17 attached hereto as Exhibit A, except as modified herein. b. Dedication of Drainage and Utility Easements 10' along exterior property lines and 5' along the interior property line, with exceptions and additions as noted herein. c. Dedication of Drainage and Utility Easements over all stormwater facilities. d. Dedication of Drainage Easements over areas shown as wetlands. e. Dedication of Drainage Easements over all drainageways. f. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required:. a. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. The Developer must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. c. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction of improvements, and a cash escrow which covers engineering inspections and other city costs. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to be provided in the Letter of Credit. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. Plat approval fees to be paid: Total due: $24,915.00 a. Final plat fee: $500.00 b. Park Dedication Fee: $11,100.00 c. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: $9,075.00 d. Municipal Water Connection Charge: $4,240.00 4. This Approval shall be effective until February 12, 2019 per the provisions of Zoning Code Section 82-117. If Final Plat Approval is not granted by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of February, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 441 3 b0-LIL M ,OC,70.00 N I I'> m z' 0 o G 00 OSZ m yrsK I --l&_---_— _ m— 01 0 0 0 o G 00 OSZ m yrsK --l&_---_— ISL P�o � IJrvs41 ess az \ \ 3 „os,zo.00 s 1'.. _ z m �$ z 4 oA5 y' o m �o sohoz m "F z s g Bmg N$ m"els$ 4l _ q 99 Ohm-Hn'^ o `9g m m H y S S p g y o ayyo"»o_ 3 0� Z S o 6 0$8oao_�o �o m a n n= Ll om - ov I I N m y I I I � >a m , S � z RmR I -mo o PROJECT ¢ m g 1_ m BENNETTS WOODS $��o mm�"�S� 6 sw51 m$Roca 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 H M DAVID KNAEBLE 22T SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 w 5 I I I � I I I I i li oy I G o ova Fy I' W N O II m toxin _ i m O h� _ l m, _ m -- -- —----Xo Dp yy Y' 1 0 0� �m 00 OSZ „02,ZO � oN Z mD y CMZ cn m eC i �1 m D m o L I ++ + .065; °8 O F O o a Z E G) g Z P9 W O m o � N g A 3 v o+ mag r_N G Z m G) M F _ � a S m PROJECT ¢ BENNETTS WOODS51 $��o GI 5 m m ==>a ao= Seo m 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 s� N,"° rY/ Z _ AV a DID KNAEBLE n 5 O Z{ K o `a&g 22T SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 15 n I I I I bO L I L M „O 70.00 N "m4 om 29. O z 0.00 0 Z p D �� F5- lou.E _62. I� m 00 OS �_� 62 N ,I I 1.� � L D 1 cn �o�- m m �� al F I I I I I w 0 Ppom =m pan \- "n �o ~\ PH � - - C o �m "m4 om 29. z m PROJECT gm BENNETTS WOODS��o 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 3 s nen"o m. DAVID KNAEBLE 22T SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 w n I I I I bO L I L M ,OC,ZO.00 N oosLA — �I — o i m c3 N O t� --- e o m w yaP a� o 00 oSZ „02,a0 D 1 Tmz cn m Nn m s O p � a a aM e PROJECT ¢ BENNETTS WOODS $��o `oo H3m� 3 a yZ $Roca 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 z < = m ;a DAVID KNAEBLE 22T SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 15 I I I � I I I I G o.00 r' m _ N Eij ----------- a O _ O N 9 5v, �9 - Z t` N `r , C . ` 00 O N 01 O AM qVY \ oc o & FW 1 Y if mac" O _o ! o9 y= $Nm=N� "S3 ° Q 0 z 031 $ a 1 1 1 € PROJECT ¢ g m g=<a9m BENNETTS WOODS sire�PAO 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 H � 8" DAVID KNAEBLE ox a.F�, O o M 22T SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 5 I I I � I I I I M �I G bOLll m0 O a 0 N O v, I Q Ion OOOSZ „OC,ZOoN4,1 �3'I g m c*, z I D 1 y1 C I � 3 1 y m m I.. o '. - - , , , , , ,IT, fs- V , l 1 r� t � Zb"Z99 3 os,z .06 \ 00 Hey 6 \ g O —o n mN m NFA `2 � IIS\Y M Y .. O F O ga 6� z w—o if m�cgm O J ! o y= $ym=Nm m9 a -. z o ; > - z m z. PROJECT ¢ N o m g=<a9m BENNETTS WOODS s� a f�=my Haa= 3 0 m$Roca 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 00 g J;mg�a DAVID KNAEBLE g 5 Z O 22T SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 w 5 009° gm mH .Zml- O ii mm W m^ OZ : g" r'$ A NNmogAm " Fil Z off« o Ria . mRn Rm: m�n"mom°nm i'ii ?'o- r W -cew fa ° p _�Aamf Ao iLWJ� 59 i gn�o r�'J a; v o�'3ya o - GHml Z �wrvl,ez T �m�a m 8m °2 o ogo mfr oe -I g2121 — I m m� i� EXISTING UNDISTURBED ROADWAY yg m gi x o. m IM IM z nl--w p 9so�N m PH r 3 a o� =a o g� p"off xa a $g N4A � �f 3 mo -N _ O as„M� my F Rm vg .boy m g o� rn C1 o OmzzF„c^5z ozy ti o z hyo mn--_ OF nN zDo p g➢mo�A om<a zo mf N yo N ¢ °gmN39 z E"�9ss II X amps �g A `�'t"spm 3 go g ^$ oigo"o l\'SII-I Sag°€ IM cl IM Z a ma 9N �R�R II I.I. n = II�II- m� Gm 5 yPm G IIi. Ilfl� =T __ m-11 � I Ill o of og A� ,Aim �s ii ITi-111_1 � � a m =m oa"-000= o g pi M- o o c gz9n RRDJEDT BENNETTS WOODS s��o M o ca 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 sN m DAVID KNAEBLE s > o ag q 1 v N `a 22] SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 sym 4 a�3: §F '$- s� `� °� _�� s £g p groom �m a� ms€"' �____•°��° �- $ $ � a gam�9s =N cB p e" sod - Fs €s=gs sg"A < mwti_=sm _ s" o =s�>ga��g��;€gF�" �s g ��_= o a �^m �Oaoho nE m ms �w agggn� � g °gn�ann _ $ E o� S �'- z :m"y9c= _ meU 5 m �m m. o f E " d i -Mo- - -H 0. 11 O , �A ��° � �n ��" °nP o-zs� �°��h,yno ^g � - s� �^$s_ saN' =ae "aa � = � � 4= �€9 oas e��� -9��m� � osg=9�3:a�=Ami _ so"' � �ag� gNa3 a n - €= e � =s � ° �yfg�m000a�msa y � � ��.°s �0 a� msa� ai m z c o� a na,5 oa a _ 1-M j < g==yy= �m pYNs;- 4f offg-"� z;a_ eema 3eoD8go� y o €� _ o€^»,szzp $ a �m _nam «c� € _ Mm so= g m s=a z ^Hmm a= o s g€ °� $ a fig=_ a»=� g� zr 9s�= RX fag 9� 9fs oE9 ° `o °s -.0— am ° 1-15H aea r n gym° H- a � s ig somaN—M Wim$=�9a ° � � s s -� s 9m =m a g s ao m o m a^ mo F gym z o s Mie _ = o - g '➢� _ Ha mm;� RMi a= Isom ° �� - m" D a m 9 1 m _ g� - �na�9o= I mea �§ - " u, P12 ia o Mai='€ ? $ �� H = �_�a 3g�o f K mmc s9�� 'g - MH b9. i 'tsg�� 9 e o g _ g e§3 AN aig€a - 0 _ A >� 1� € sa � ° e a Nms ann =sof 9 IN o= a g�f Ami ���n a m�°'; ws �s �y ods m "spm _ s 3 n Nis �' smF € e �a g A"� �=o"H m o9a s 3�u p - - m: s o m as snuu-? aim ons maego€o`g"�� `O e a n7 m➢ $�� F &s A� - �o �M Sa ° ➢^9 o, 9$ ^3H e � sHu", €� sma $s a r _, H -n g€ e 3 s� a �$ Rg jos o s. 01 %s s9�.>� �� � � a M 04; g a- �o Adam a� H p4a s9 . �o Vis,== °� _� € m m dao a ms 3" 9e =� g no xg € ao s� _� �ya> >^ °j�mm sgPAN O N; 2M, 9§ � � s "e= ao �o ��� _ m�^�^ g NON o -ogg mg a �`lb- =�sg n g £ H € o o= � "� a goa m y= - _ = o 9� ANH H m u goo== oe g€� a ymrg� m �� �s g � $= g� a ?Pnm° i;s a` 4g° � €-. 44 =s aae m�e m 9£K o $ �° a.A gree _s4s 9� o m= s„y o 9! g € so PIN "Rw94$ � 9'A sq =o�n'na 'n Hz W �e Im - zF ° m P :oa �g m s A _a�no"`a a n7 3€sg €�e o= a 000 o nm ss°� am=7=o a �=�;m H� $➢ o $ 'ag m 9a.§ 10�_° cmc a= ns^� ➢ € a 0 j odos; os's �R aha mF a3 - ego -s g o. a € qs g s �-m9°; a= m gin°' g9 c 9 -s m M91 M, =m a y€ate 5� A 9m 0-H Ae a yc o� ° xnoENm O ”3� v gm$oocc z mN `m y z 3p - _»z i H Az n 8 > a _ �j m ya zm m ag coo p £ i' m� y _g nm ti Ng�� Z f% am-=�z , om >m �n :D _ o' m i+ O A 6 _ Z Oc°9 vH- Z Z � Ao z n�P a €P = z K ,,s g o o �� y o"gmw_ $5m z �m_c,�c R N > of; mo z H yms Dn y m m ~ No o g=9° PROJECT BENNETTS WOODS s��o z m $R 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 s®� n>-sa DAVIDKNAEBLE , "m 227 SUNNVRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 15 �� to"tll M „os,zooao Iv cri J w - � o ro r, 0°00 �' m Z p O w m r m Z ;, o m cv I ; o i ^ � Z (n 1 s m 0C r r' I L7 1 00"osZ c 3 z m�h IN "oe ,opo p PROJECTBENNETTS WOODS N � O mm ` J yD MP 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 z A_ n.;==N DAVID KNAEBLE a g O2 m w Y'av ^ 22] SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 o �� m o sF z' m�h IN "oe ,opo p PROJECTBENNETTS WOODS N � O mm ` J yD MP 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 z A_ n.;==N DAVID KNAEBLE a g O2 m w Y'av ^ 22] SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 o �� N 89°42 30' E 1 23.41 MLAs Rho TOGO ROAD F Fxo 10.00 20' ROW DEDICATION 1 n 123.41' 10' DA. U EASE. 7 I I — — —7ES -41 z EXISTING HOUR #363QCHIMNEYO EXISTING HOUSE C,� - No #3645 O g XISTING _ n BUILDING #3655 LOT 1, BLK 1 22,337 SF -TOTAL 22,337 SF -DRY 24z e,� „EXIST NG ,� I I GARAGEw IV (J7 30' RSB O O I O 123.41' 61.71_ 6171' F__ — n N 89°42'30" E 140.00 o� z 4/ O E WETL N Aj I ATED O / Y OT WETLAND BUFFER INFO 30' AVG. BUFFER AREA =14,898 SF ^ _ PROP. BUFFER AREA =15;259 SF � O. J 5 M I 2 / / XISTING WETLAND �� n LOT 2, BLK1 MANAGE 2_ 0. 41,357 SF -TOTAL ( ( (301 BUFFER AVG.) 3�I ^ 22,870 SF-ORY 50"00 (7,5'.5 SF -DRY NORTH) LOT 3, BLK1 d 'z S 89°57 30 W (15,355 SF -DRY SOUTH) 35,822 SF -TOTAL °° m 23,437 SF -DRY c D � w I n n EXISTING - (10,365 SF -DRY NORTH) m GARAGE (13,071 SF -DRY SOUTH) WEST LINE OF LOT 6CD l CD o O o WET' ANTAKE 10'BUFFER (7 OTHERS SETBACK 10'BUFFER SETBACK to NG Im AGE I SOUTH LINE ml I �Im OF LOT 6� =r - D EXISTINHOUEXISTING #3640 364 s HOUSE # NOISE IN TAR DRIVEWAY #3630 4,6FROM Eg FZE NER I 2 W &lUEASE. 13.48' V A T E D 100 V +.. — — — 8" CIP WATER MAIN L ami m � � 5F AVENUE COR 1000 Anon EXISTING HOUSE #3601 PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES: 1. PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: BENNETTS WOODS 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF WAYZATA STATE OF MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: THAT PART OF LOT SIX (6), BLOCK TEN (10), TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 6 DISTANCE 150.0 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EAST 50.0 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTH 146.6 FEET, MORE OF LESS TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 6 214.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6,124.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 140.0 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 6,250.0 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 6, 140.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 120.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IN AND FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. INCLUDING ADJOINING NORTHERN AVENUE VACATED AND SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1472 OF DEEDS, PAGE 21. ABSTRACT PROPERTY. 3. SITE ADDRESS: 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 4. PROPERTY OWNER: MARY SCHOMMER, 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 5. SUBDIVIDER: DAVID KNAEBLE, 227 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 6. ENGINEER: CIVIL SITE GROUP, 4931 W 35TH ST, SUITE 200, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 7. SURVEYOR: MARK GRONBERG, RLS # 12755, GRONBERG AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN 55356 8. CURRENT ZONING: LR -1C, ONE -FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 9. THE GROSS LAND AREA IS 106,256 1- SQUARE FEET OR 2.44 +A ACRES. ZONING NOTES: CURRENTZONING: LR-lC,ONE-FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: LR -1C, ONE -FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING REGULATIONS MIN. LOT AREA: 21,780 SF (0.5 ACRES) [CONTIGUOUS DRY -BUILDABLE] MIN. LOT WIDTH: 100 FEET (MEAS. AT FSB) MIN. LOT DEPTH: NA MAX. HEIGHT: 30 FEET SETBACKS: FRONT YARD: 30 FEET SIDE YARD: 10 FEET REAR YARD: 30 FEET WETLAND NOTES: MINNEHAHA CREEK WETLAND BUFFER RULES MANAGE 3 WETLAND: 20 FEET MANAGE 2 WETLAND: 30 FEET MANAGE 1 WETLAND: 40 FEET PRESERVE WETLAND: 75 FEET 'BUFFER AVERAGING IS ALLOWED CITY OF ORONO WETLAND BUFFER RULES CITY OF ORONO REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET SETBACK FROM BUFFER TYPE: MANAGE 2 WETLAND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS: MINIMUM LOT AREA THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL NOT BE PROVIDING THE REQUIRED 0.5 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS DRY - BUILDABLE AREA, BUT WILL BE PROVIDING 0.5 ACRES OF NON-CONTIGUOUS DRY -BUILDABLE AREA. FRONT SETBACK IN AN ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL TREE IMPACTS AND TO MATCH WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 30 FEET TO 20 FEET. SITE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE D & U EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE WETLAND BUFFER AREA GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECA.1_ORG (800) 252. 166 TOLL FREE (651) 454.0002 LOCAL it 15'-0® / #2177 PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES: 1. PROPOSED NAME OF SUBDIVISION: BENNETTS WOODS 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF WAYZATA STATE OF MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: THAT PART OF LOT SIX (6), BLOCK TEN (10), TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 6 DISTANCE 150.0 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES EAST 50.0 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTH 146.6 FEET, MORE OF LESS TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 6 214.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE NORTH TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6,124.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 140.0 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 6,250.0 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 6, 140.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 120.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IN AND FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. INCLUDING ADJOINING NORTHERN AVENUE VACATED AND SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1472 OF DEEDS, PAGE 21. ABSTRACT PROPERTY. 3. SITE ADDRESS: 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 4. PROPERTY OWNER: MARY SCHOMMER, 3635 TOGO ROAD, ORONO, MN 55391 5. SUBDIVIDER: DAVID KNAEBLE, 227 SUNNYRIDGE LANE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 6. ENGINEER: CIVIL SITE GROUP, 4931 W 35TH ST, SUITE 200, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 7. SURVEYOR: MARK GRONBERG, RLS # 12755, GRONBERG AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN 55356 8. CURRENT ZONING: LR -1C, ONE -FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 9. THE GROSS LAND AREA IS 106,256 1- SQUARE FEET OR 2.44 +A ACRES. ZONING NOTES: CURRENTZONING: LR-lC,ONE-FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING: LR -1C, ONE -FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ZONING REGULATIONS MIN. LOT AREA: 21,780 SF (0.5 ACRES) [CONTIGUOUS DRY -BUILDABLE] MIN. LOT WIDTH: 100 FEET (MEAS. AT FSB) MIN. LOT DEPTH: NA MAX. HEIGHT: 30 FEET SETBACKS: FRONT YARD: 30 FEET SIDE YARD: 10 FEET REAR YARD: 30 FEET WETLAND NOTES: MINNEHAHA CREEK WETLAND BUFFER RULES MANAGE 3 WETLAND: 20 FEET MANAGE 2 WETLAND: 30 FEET MANAGE 1 WETLAND: 40 FEET PRESERVE WETLAND: 75 FEET 'BUFFER AVERAGING IS ALLOWED CITY OF ORONO WETLAND BUFFER RULES CITY OF ORONO REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET SETBACK FROM BUFFER TYPE: MANAGE 2 WETLAND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS: MINIMUM LOT AREA THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL NOT BE PROVIDING THE REQUIRED 0.5 ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS DRY - BUILDABLE AREA, BUT WILL BE PROVIDING 0.5 ACRES OF NON-CONTIGUOUS DRY -BUILDABLE AREA. FRONT SETBACK IN AN ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL TREE IMPACTS AND TO MATCH WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THIS PROJECT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 30 FEET TO 20 FEET. SITE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE D & U EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE WETLAND BUFFER AREA GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECA.1_ORG (800) 252. 166 TOLL FREE (651) 454.0002 LOCAL it 15'-0® G m OO M P >il Engineering• Surveying- LerMscepe A,lut tura 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 SC Louis ark, MN 55476 civilsitegioup — 612-615-0060 ol 0 0 w J O m z W U) O Z F_ o Y F— xo ❑ W °a Z F W K 0L I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNES�OT��A..,� Q David J. Knaeble GATE 12/12)17 LICENSE ND, 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT C1.01 N 89°4230 123.41 MBA REo — TOGO ROAD FxN "oT R TOGO x A oa F xo' 10.00 EOF=935.5 T I I I z �a E )STING U XISTING EXISTING HOUR E' HOUSE - HOUSE O 4a-� #4635 I #3601 [EXISTINGUSE645 XISTING O BUILDING ° #3655 N Kn Gree° a 24.2 6},9 I G IFI v EARA GARAGE'- G ARAGEw / Iv 24-2 � eea o°" --- ------------- I +s r r + + + . e�V + + + +� I r'ti_ ++++++++++ i3 89°42' 0" E 140.00 ++ ++ +++ + �+ +++ +++ +++� V�OO 92 ++ +++ + + + +++ + + ++�++ + + + + rX++++ / � � r�"LL1— 41 ° ueG +4 + 3 �� ee° nsn #2171 - l+ l ��� ` ET \ a s - o tlVETL IN � Z \1 1 ATED " C I C uu 9 S T i 2 EXISTING WETLAND MANAGE 2 21 (301 BUFFER AVG.) 3�-L1 -- — 5 S 89° 30" W / F / EXISTING "` #- RAIN GARDEN �P I GARAGE e^BO BOT=936.00 WEST LINE 0E=937.00 OF LOT 6 E_ EOF-937.50 H ! IDE OVERFIL "m-° "gym 100—YR WL 937.37 ELEV=937�,,0 1 0 YR L 937.9 T OF BASIN=937,�a(1 Ifs ALL P RAP AT OU O — ° — 1 T TIE E OVERFLOW ELEV.=937.00 TOP OF BASIN=93 . / INSTALL RIP R AT UTLET 6 93 o- Ol L — — — — — — 938.. (-�----- 938 CA 938 50 J 938.50 -- 938.50 NG I RP --�R =93.0 / n / 4GE cy SOUTH LINE SE COR LF�§-4b �� LF=940.0 oT 6 �8 I 921 9' WO 0 EXISTIN � EXIS G O - � WO / EXISTING HOUS&o s 4 kl` HOUSE OUS HOUS , , ,g°�- #3590 #3640#3630 NOISE} �gggd AY GF=9 0 4.6'F M I ER _ 441 6 AV V TEV I�e° 46 946.39 9.45. 194 / — 944.27 Al 94 VC SAN. SEWER, 7S�f1v1-> > s — — THEIR GRADING NOTES: PROPOSED GRADES SHALL BE USED TO ESTABLISH BUILDING HEIGHT PER CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES. NEW LOTS WILL BE CUSTOM GRADED AND CLEARED BY BUILDER. GRADING PLAN LEGEND: (2 m (m M P >il Enginearing • Surveying' LerMscepe Archkecture 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 SC Louis Park, AN 55416 civilsitegioup.cOm 612-615-0060 EX. V CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL —1137— 1 0 CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL '-41.26 SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 891.00 G SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTER 891.00 TC SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB REVISION SUMMARY 891.00 BS/TS SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS DATE DESCRIPTION CURB AND GUTTER (TO = TIP OUT) EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EOF=1135.52 PRELIMINARY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL GRADING PLAN WWW. GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG N (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE 1 , (651) 454-022 LOCAL =36•-0. C 2.0 >s -a® OCOPYRIGHT A—ITE GROUP IN] Q N N Z c O O N Z W W J O m Z W w 0 f) 0a o z o F—LU F— x W a a W o " Z r Z M } W M Z Z 7 M W N N U W C3 a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. yn �� WL ) David J. Knaeble GATE 12/12/17 LICENSE ND. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY EX. V CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL —1137— 1 0 CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL '-41.26 SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 891.00 G SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTER 891.00 TC SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB REVISION SUMMARY 891.00 BS/TS SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS DATE DESCRIPTION CURB AND GUTTER (TO = TIP OUT) EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EOF=1135.52 PRELIMINARY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL GRADING PLAN WWW. GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG N (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE 1 , (651) 454-022 LOCAL =36•-0. C 2.0 >s -a® OCOPYRIGHT A—ITE GROUP IN] XISTING BUILDING #3655 TOGO ROAD F Fz N 89°42'3 0 E 123.41 NE COR T 0 0 0 x (0 m O M p LOT 6 v CIA Engineering• Surveying' LarMscepe A,hkecture o 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 10,00 S, Louis Park, AN 55416 civilsitegioup."' 612-615-0060 17 _ — — 28.4 z EXISTING 71 UEXISTING HOUQ EXISTING #3s CHIMNEv - HOUSE'°; HOUSE O 4.0 ##3635 #3601 V ^ EXISTING HOUSE C,. a so 's.e - #3645 I I I 1 I I I I 2a2 e=� ,EXISTING 13ARAGEw Iv 34.9 24.2 O I --- O N 89°42'30" E 140.00ob5 02 / z Q N N Z c /U 0 O #2171 0 W W NWETL N A� I ATEO 1 m O Z w a w WETLAND BUFFER INFO AVG. BUFFER AREA =14,898 SF Z ^ oY 30' _ PROP. BUFFER AREA =15;259 SF / Ex o' / � � ` 5 M T W 2 XISTING WETLAND Z H- / MANAGE 2 3 ^ / I ( (301 BUFFER AVG.) W M ^o Z Z 50.00 � 7 M W S 89°57'30" W III IN N - DAYLIGHT #2177 EXISTING "PVC E DRAIN TILE I a - ELFjU E W O BE =934.50 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS CLEANOUT WEST LINE DT E=934.50 TYP U% SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY DT IE=934.50 TYP. OF LOT 6 MINNES�OT��A..,� 6" PVC PERF. DRAIN David J. Knaeble / TILE W/ROCK BED O PD / @(o -/o O o / FILT. BASIN PwtTLY6'.E '— I r oTH V� _ FILT. A I 2P N / A\ I I CONNECT EXISTING ITARY/ / CONNECT TO I NG EXISTING SANITARY',- I I I SERVICE B, FIELDVERIFY SERVICE STUB, r- CONNECT TO 4GE FI LD VERIFY 6 I SOUTH LINE I EXISTING WATER - LOCATION ,SE COR ._- LOT 6 LOCATI OF LOT 6 �� �— a FIELD�VER'IFYB EXISTIN - G LOCATION / EXISTING HOUSE HOUSELO 6 E ISTII #3640 ER ICE NOI IN TAR DRIVEWAY g35so FIE D 4.6 F M LOT CORNER LOCATION / VA TED /- -- CIP ATER MAIN _ --- 8 7 ° 51'77'' - --,—,—, S • 1o° PVC 25AN—SEWER —> c NORTHERN AVENUE � UTILITY LEGEND: CATCH BASIN MANHOLE ►1 GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX -�- PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT REVISION SUMMARY WATER MAIN DATE DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER >> STORM SEWER FES AND RIP RAP PRELIMINARY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL UTILITY PLAN WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (600) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 4540002 LOCAL =... 15'-0® C3CIVIL . ©Co0 Q N N Z c O O N Z W W J O m Z w a w U) O Z e oY F- x W a W 0 H- Z H- M Zz } W M Z Z 7 M W IN N U W C3 a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BV ME OR UNDER MV DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNES�OT��A..,� Q David J. Knaeble DATE 12/12)17 LICENSE ND. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY CATCH BASIN MANHOLE ►1 GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX -�- PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT REVISION SUMMARY WATER MAIN DATE DESCRIPTION SANITARY SEWER >> STORM SEWER FES AND RIP RAP PRELIMINARY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL UTILITY PLAN WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (600) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 4540002 LOCAL =... 15'-0® C3CIVIL . ©Co0 -XISTING O a BUILDING O / #3655 7e O c.een 24.z c)e.le 71/ G141 / lV L xa. U nae o°k CD F- N 89°42'30" E 140.00 Jo 00 02 / a.n e°n Ga Nee a ##2171C.— 0 ETL N� A ATED O / Y WETLAND BUFFER INFO 30' AVG. BUFFER AREA =14,898 SF / ^ _ PROP. BUFFER AREA =15;259 SF J 17M T If 0 2 XISTING WETLAND MANAGE 2 (30' BUFFER AVG.) 3�-q 5000 N / S 89°57'30" W III z EXISTING I #2 177 GARAGE WEST LINE� OF LOT 6 '� I a III (� o "lil. Ell WET/ TW—R TAKE — I OTHERS /� wal, EI11 Y / 3 � S o- NG P.1 4GE cI eSOUTH LINE In °� SE COR / OF LOT 6 LOT 6 EXISTIN EXISTING e��� EXISTING HOUSEL° 6 a „p ""' S HOUSE #3640 HOUSE NOISE °4,�A#4-eak ° #3590 #3630 e 4.6 F OM LOT CORNER TED _31 __ e V e n — — — 8" GI ATER MAIN e 87"') - 5 ' • 10° FVC SAN_SEWER,—,—'--, ' c NORTHERN AVENUE TREE NUMBER SIZE N 89°42'3 0 E 123.41 MLAs eEo 4188 8 A X 4189 NE °°R TOGO TOGO ROAD f 9 LO T 6 4191 z F.6 10.00 4192 oa Green Ash 4193 I Bur Oak 4194 8 Bur Oak 4195 8 Green Ash 4196 9 Green Ash I I Green Ash 4198 9 Green Ash 4199 11 Green Ash 4200 13 Box Elder 4301 11 Green Ash 4302 9 Box Elder 4303 10 Z 4304 9 American Elm 4305 8 American Elm 4306 10 White Oak 4307 23 Cottonwood 4308 18 Quakin As en 4309 8 STING 4310 9 U XISTING 4311 9 Red Oak 4312 13 Red Oak 4313 9 Red Oak 4314 15 rHOU0 4315 15 Black Walnut 4316 30 Cottonwood EXISTING 8 Red Oak 4318 18 Bur Oak 4319 #b61Q Red Oak o °NE HOUSE' Red Oak 4321 10 HOUSE 4322 24 Green Ash 4323 22 Cottonwood 4324 12 O 4325 aub #8635 4326 8 Green Ash #3601 12 Big Tooth Aspen 4328 13 EXISTING 4329 14 fV 4330 x,2.5. u 19e 4331 13 Green Ash -% 12 Green Ash 4333 13 HOUSE 4334 11 c"I 4335 11 Green Ash 4336 10 Green Ash 4337 34 Red Oak 4338 29 #3645 4339 47 O11 4340 48 Bur Oak 4341 7°k -XISTING O a BUILDING O / #3655 7e O c.een 24.z c)e.le 71/ G141 / lV L xa. U nae o°k CD F- N 89°42'30" E 140.00 Jo 00 02 / a.n e°n Ga Nee a ##2171C.— 0 ETL N� A ATED O / Y WETLAND BUFFER INFO 30' AVG. BUFFER AREA =14,898 SF / ^ _ PROP. BUFFER AREA =15;259 SF J 17M T If 0 2 XISTING WETLAND MANAGE 2 (30' BUFFER AVG.) 3�-q 5000 N / S 89°57'30" W III z EXISTING I #2 177 GARAGE WEST LINE� OF LOT 6 '� I a III (� o "lil. Ell WET/ TW—R TAKE — I OTHERS /� wal, EI11 Y / 3 � S o- NG P.1 4GE cI eSOUTH LINE In °� SE COR / OF LOT 6 LOT 6 EXISTIN EXISTING e��� EXISTING HOUSEL° 6 a „p ""' S HOUSE #3640 HOUSE NOISE °4,�A#4-eak ° #3590 #3630 e 4.6 F OM LOT CORNER TED _31 __ e V e n — — — 8" GI ATER MAIN e 87"') - 5 ' • 10° FVC SAN_SEWER,—,—'--, ' c NORTHERN AVENUE TREE NUMBER SIZE TYPE 4188 8 Red Oak 4189 12 Black Walnut 4190 9 Quaking Aspen 4191 11 Quakin As en 4192 8 Green Ash 4193 9 Bur Oak 4194 8 Bur Oak 4195 8 Green Ash 4196 9 Green Ash 4197 9 Green Ash 4198 9 Green Ash 4199 11 Green Ash 4200 13 Box Elder 4301 11 Green Ash 4302 9 Box Elder 4303 10 Box Elder 4304 9 American Elm 4305 8 American Elm 4306 10 White Oak 4307 23 Cottonwood 4308 18 Quakin As en 4309 8 Paper Birch 4310 9 Green Ash 4311 9 Red Oak 4312 13 Red Oak 4313 9 Red Oak 4314 15 Red Oak 4315 15 Black Walnut 4316 30 Cottonwood 4317 8 Red Oak 4318 18 Bur Oak 4319 13 Red Oak 4320 11,12 Red Oak 4321 10 Green Ash 4322 24 Green Ash 4323 22 Cottonwood 4324 12 American Elm 4325 14 Box Elder 4326 8 Green Ash 4327 12 Big Tooth Aspen 4328 13 Black Willow 4329 14 Box Elder 4330 10 Box Elder 4331 13 Green Ash 4332 12 Green Ash 4333 13 Green Ash 4334 11 Green Ash 4335 11 Green Ash 4336 10 Green Ash 4337 34 Red Oak 4338 29 Green Ash 4339 47 Bur -Oak 4340 48 Bur Oak 4341 16 Green Ash 4342 22 Green Ash 4342 31 Bur Oak 4343 16 Siberian Elm 4344 12 Green Ash 4345 12 Box Elder 4346 9 Hackberry 4347 13 Box Elder 4348 18 Green Ash 4349 20 Green Ash 4350 15 Box Elder 4351 30 Box Elder 4352 12 Green Ash 4353 9 Green Ash 4354 10 White Mulberry 4355 9 White Mulberry 4356 12 Box Elder 4357 13 White Mulberry 4358 28 Silver Maple 4359 24 Green Ash 4360 8 Basswood 4361 10 Basswood 4362 30 Green Ash 4363 9 White Oak 4364 10 1 Blackberry 4365 20 Red Oak 4366 11 Su ar Ma le 4368 16 American Elm 4369 10 Silver Maple 4370 22 Red Oak 4371 23 Bur Oak 4373 17 Green Ash 4374 19 Red Oak 4375 14 Red Oak 4376 9 Basswood 4377 8 Red Oak 4378 8 Green Ash 4379 17 Bur Oak 4380 8 Green Ash 4381 9 Green Ash 4382 13 Cottonwood GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ILL GIFIG WNhY.GOP(NO)25 V/ Q -11667 (600) 252-1166 TOLL FREE FREE N N Z (651) 4540002 LOCAL O 15'-0® (a R OO M P > l Engineering • Surveying' LerMecepe Archkecture 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 dMilliteg.lip.— 612-615-0060 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN C4.0 @COPYRIGHT A17 CIVIL SITE GROUP INJ V/ Q N N Z c O O N Z W W J OLU > Z W LU U) 0a o z o oY 0 F— K W a Q W o " Z r Z M } W M Z Z 7 M W N N U W C3 a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNES�OT��A..,� Q David J. Knaeble DATE 12/12/17 LICENSE ND. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN C4.0 @COPYRIGHT A17 CIVIL SITE GROUP INJ 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. LEGEND: C/)N SWPPP NOTES: N 89°4230 123.41 M64 RED ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND N Z 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF DISTURBED AREA AND C0 Q (ED Iu p F' NECOR TOG O LOT 6 v WILL NOT REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS O N z CIA Engineering• Surveying' LerMs°epe Archke°ture REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING A F xo' 10.00 oa 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. REQUIRED BY THE CITY. W a St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (A o z 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.3 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES, oY cwbit.g-p.— 612-615-0060 0 DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. LU W 3. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION W o CONTROL NOTES. Z E [STING U XISTING HOUR EXISTING } [EXISTING INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. #363 .'xNE' HOUSE° HOUSE CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: M W O 4x40 #W35 #3601 N 199USE645 U W K a -XISTING I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS CD 1 i BUILDING #3655 LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF I W David J. Knaeble I ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY Gree° a 24.2 63.9 ,EXISTINGH �a .�n G T / GARAGE' IV 24.2 CII xe4 o°x O O'� / I I I I _ °° , ex /Vx 89°42' 0" E ; . 14000 0 00 S T 06 " sNeo sir .n u� #2171 - E ETLAND IN FATED O SAS �aY OTHERS 36� [EAS NT T�- zy0vaa o°x / Da / .21 S 89° 30" W C TRACTOR T EFyxDII,SS�thi4��(S(QT[J L _ G c' een 451' `''_• #2177 ERO IONYCOTNj`1`t0 `�" WEST LINE OF LOT 6_" AT ETLAND EDG '.m E, �- '° O j o WETLAND _ -'$t`°"OTHERS \ 13 v / sQ°^le, V/ NG I 4GE PERIMETE I SOUTH LINE SE COR SI N CONTROL I OF LOT 6 LOT 6 EXISTIN - TCC CTIO OYP. v EXISTING HOUSE HOUSELO 6 #3640 I NOISE(ip } A�ia°x #3590 #3630 1 4.6 F T CORNER I x [/� V HISS I S L / A ONS USTION I s - - — NT E FOR — B ILD c I 1 VC SAN. SEWER � > � 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. LEGEND: C/)N SWPPP NOTES: (CgVHM'ate ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND N Z 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF DISTURBED AREA AND C0 Q (ED Iu p MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM WILL NOT REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS O N z CIA Engineering• Surveying' LerMs°epe Archke°ture REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY EROSION CONTROL PERMITS 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. REQUIRED BY THE CITY. W a St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (A o z 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.3 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES, oY cwbit.g-p.— 612-615-0060 0 DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. LU W 3. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION W o CONTROL NOTES. Z o 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, } W M INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. Z Z CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: M W 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. LEGEND: C/)N Q N Z c E O O N z W W J O m Z W a w (A o z o oY 0 F- x LU W a W o Z o Z M } W M Z Z 7 M W N N U W K a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNIE OO'T-.A..,�,L David J. Knaeble DATE 12/12/17 LICENSE NO. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY - -- ----- 1125 -------- EX. T CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL ...-- - DRAINAGE ARROW .. ..�...... SILT FENCE/BIOROLL- GRADING LIMIT +„y INLET PROTECTION REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET LC LL LLL L� SWPPP - EXISTING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL CONDITIONS WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALLORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651)454-0002 LOCAL 1"=... 15'-0® S 1 • O OCOPYRIGHT A17 CIVIL SITE —UP Ncl N 89 42"30 " 1 23.41 NEA BED TOGO ROAD F xN Fxo' 10.00 y 5 i IL)� NOW *101.1101m••� � • • 1i la` !lilY•4 � •� 1A I� •.- s �S7' St'�i'I'� j ��••la•'sd • � '�R�iS�'iJL'�44� L"}::r2isli� 'i COR OGO Anon �� EXISTING �1 SWPPP NOTES: HOUSE ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF DISTURBED AREA AND #3601 MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM e CIA Engineering- Surveying' LerMscepe Archkecture REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING e0ak 1 4931W .35h Street, Suite 200 / N SL Louis Park, MN 55476 EOF=935.5 71 cwbit.gioup.— 612-615-0060 / % I n Am ook w 0 U) 0a 0 CONTROL NOTES. I I F— I x W CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: Q W o u OO H- ooS } W M Z Z 7 M W N N E ISTING C3 U XISTHOUSING a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER #363Q MINNS OO'T-.A..,�,L NE David J. Knaeble DATE 12/12/17 LICENSE No. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY O 4a'e 4 #W35 EXISTING N 99 HOUSE w I #3645 O XISTING BUILDING #3655 I I I I creep a 24.2 63.9 i „EXISTING„ c)a I n - N 9 GARAGEWDm cyl O --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — ++ +++ ++off# d, +ei+ AME §SF+ + rrr +s + + + + +?++++ +4+ e+ n ++'+++ E 140.00 + +++y�++++ ++++n9'4 + 92+++++++, ++++ /+++++ ++ ++++ +++ +++ + r + ++ + n \ 19 , o k, � dH, WETLAND BUFFER IN / 30' AVG. BUFFER AREA =14,898 SF —` PROP. BUFFER AREA =15;259 SF \ 2 S EXISTING WETLAND �; r n MANAGE 2 3 I y eY ,e, (301 BUFFER AVG.) 11 - -- - 5 S 89° 30" W F C TRACTOR EF L rG I I ERO yxDII,,SS�IF�NSQT[J IONYCOT�1`I`t0 ene ` WEST e ETLAND EDG OF LO TAT I �_ , ___ �•� �'� —_ O ,'.E o 936- '—`9- 3fi-----'- _ 938 9y$ CP NG �o 4GE PERIMETE SI N CONTROL I L SOUTH LINE of LOT 6 /I� / 1 9 T O y 5 i IL)� NOW *101.1101m••� � • • 1i la` !lilY•4 � •� 1A I� •.- s �S7' St'�i'I'� j ��••la•'sd • � '�R�iS�'iJL'�44� L"}::r2isli� 'i COR OGO Anon �� EXISTING �1 SWPPP NOTES: HOUSE ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF DISTURBED AREA AND #3601 MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM e CIA Engineering- Surveying' LerMscepe Archkecture REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING e0ak 1 4931W .35h Street, Suite 200 / N SL Louis Park, MN 55476 /Kn 71 cwbit.gioup.— 612-615-0060 / DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. Z Am ook w 0 U) 0a 0 CONTROL NOTES. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, F— INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. x W CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: Q W o u OO H- ooS c.een nsn #2171 m�eee oek #2177 / N N � / COR / T 6 / EXISTING HOUSE l #3590 LEGEND: SWPPP NOTES: (CgVHM'ate ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF DISTURBED AREA AND (0 Q (ED Iu p MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM WILL NOT REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS CIA Engineering- Surveying' LerMscepe Archkecture REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ANY EROSION CONTROL PERMITS 4931W .35h Street, Suite 200 THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. REQUIRED BY THE CIN. SL Louis Park, MN 55476 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.3 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES, cwbit.gioup.— 612-615-0060 Om DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. Z 3. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION w 0 U) 0a 0 CONTROL NOTES. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, F— INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. x W CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: Q W o 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. LEGEND: - -- ----- 1125 -------- EX. T CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW .................... . . ......... SILT FENCE/BIOROLL- GRADING LIMIT " +„y `��+ INLET PROTECTION REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET LC LL LLL LG SWPPP-PROPOSED GOPHER STATE ONE CALL CONDITIONS WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALLORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL ,•'=... 15'-0® SW 1.1 V) Q N N Z c OE O N z W W J Om Z W w 0 U) 0a 0 Z F— ❑ x W a Q W o H- z Z } W M Z Z 7 M W N N U W C3 a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNS OO'T-.A..,�,L David J. Knaeble DATE 12/12/17 LICENSE No. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY - -- ----- 1125 -------- EX. T CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW .................... . . ......... SILT FENCE/BIOROLL- GRADING LIMIT " +„y `��+ INLET PROTECTION REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET LC LL LLL LG SWPPP-PROPOSED GOPHER STATE ONE CALL CONDITIONS WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALLORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL ,•'=... 15'-0® SW 1.1 ' IJ 72 OF IAt l:Ulttl IT NAT TOP OF SEMBLY CURB, PLATE, BOX, TE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 3SEMBLY DIAMETER, 6" E 10" AT LOW POINT )W FABRIC NUI LS: 1. REPLACE INLET GRATE UPON COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF INLET PROTECTION FABRIC. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM THE SURFACE OF THE SYSTEM AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND AT THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT. 3. REFERENCE APPLE VALLEY STANDARD PLATE EROI TO TER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED FILL UPSTREAM BASE EDGE WITH 2" OF DIRT OR COMPOST TO EMBED ROLL. DIRECTION OF FLOW WOODEN STAKES 1/2"X2"X16" MIN. PLACED 10'0.C. WHEN INSTALLED ON GROUND. IF INSTALLED ON PVMT. PROVIDE SANDBAGS BEHIND AND ON TOP AT MIN. 10' O.C. NOTE: 1. COMPOST FILTER LOGS (BIO ROLLS) SHALL BE FILTREXX EROSION CONTROL SOXX OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. COMPOST FILLER TO BE MADE FROM A COMPOST BLEND 30%-40% GRADE 2 (SPEC 3890) AND 60%-70Y PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED WOOD CHIPS, PER MNDOT SPEC 3897. 3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE GEOTEXTILE KNITTED MATERIAL WITH MAX. OPENINGS OF 318. 4. IF MULTIPLE ROLLS NEEDED, OVERLAP BY MIN. 12" AT ENDS AND STAKE. 5. SILT SHALL BE REMOVED ONCE IT REACHES 80% OF THE HEIGHT OF THE ROLL OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY SITE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCTION. CURB INLET FILTER SEDIMENT BIO -ROLL / COMPOST FILTER LOG 1 NTS 4 NTS 30FROM EDGE OF ROAD TO FRONT OF SPEED BUMP TO CONSTRUCTION AREA SIDE SLOPE TREATMENTS, SEE GRADING OR LANDSCAPE PLANS 35'R 0 O PRE-TREATMENT STRUCTURE, SEE UTILITY AND LANDSCAPE PLANS 0 w :ONSTRUCTION_ r m x AREA N I z GEOTEXTILE FILTER CHIGH, 18 -WIDE z 7 GRADE (D PLAN 35' R F 6" MIN CRUSHED STONE rn TO CONSTRUCTION AREA SIDE SLOPE TREATMENTS, SEE GRADING OR LANDSCAPE PLANS w GRASS PRE-TREATMENT STRIP OR PRE-TREATMENT STRUCTURE, SEE UTILITY AND LANDSCAPE PLANS EXISTING 75' MINIMUM UNDISTURBED FINISHED GEOTEXTILE FILTER CHIGH, 18 -WIDE ROADWAY GRADE FABRIC SPEED BUMP III III=III=1 III=III=III=III=III=III=III=11 1=III=III=III=III=III=III=111- II I II I I=1 I I=11 I I� I I=11 I-III-III-III=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I III=1 I I-III=1 I I=1 I I-III-III=1 1I- =I L=1=1 1=1 I=III=1=11 L=1 I=III=1 I=III-I=1 I=III=1 I=III=1=11 L=1=11I -t i t -t i t -t i t -til -1 i i=l i t-1 i t-1 i t-1 i t-1 i t-1 i t-1 i t IT-til-til-til-til=til-1 i l-Iii=11 UNDISTURBED, UNCOMPACTED INSITU SOIL PROFILE NOTES: 1. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. 2. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE OR ADDING STONE TO THE LENGTH OF THE ENTRANCE. 3. REPAIR AND CLEANOUT MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 4. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. FINAL LOCATION AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 6. CRUSHED STONE SHALL BE 1-1/2" DIA. CLOSE GRADED, AND IN ACCORDANCE TO MNDOT SECTION 2118. 2 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS NTS 'B' TAMP THE TRENCH FULL OF SOIL. SECURE WITH ROW OF STAPLES, 10" SPACING, 4" DOWN FROM TRENCH r� 'C' OVERLAP: BURY UPPER E OF LOWER STRIP AS IN'A' ANDS'. OVERLAP END OF TOP STRIP 4" AND STAPLE.. 'D' EROSION STOP: FOLD OF MATTIt BURIED IN SILT TRENCH AND TAMPED. DOUBLEROW OF STAPLES. PLACE STAPLES 2 FEET APART TO KEEP MATTING FIRMLY PRESSED TO SOIL. 3 EROSION BLANKET NTS 'A' BURYTHETOPENDOFTHE MATTING INA TRENCH 4" OR MORE IN DEPTH NOTE: 1. PLACE STAPLES 2 FEET APART TO KEEP MATTING FIRMLY PRESSED TO SOIL. TYPICAL STAPLE #8 GAUGE WIRE FILTER FABRIC WITH WIRE SUPPORT NET AS SPECIFIED. METAL POST AS SPECIFIED. SUPPORT NET: 12 GAUGE 4'x 4" WIRE HOOKED ONTO - PREFORMED CHANNELS ON POSTS AS SPECIFIED. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CARRY WIRE SUPPORT NET - DOWN INTO TRENCH I I FILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED SECURE TO WIRE SUPPORT NET WITH METAL CLIPS 12"O.C. ANCHOR FABRIC WITH SOIL, TAMP BACKFILL DIRECTION OF FLOW RIBBON CURB OR CURB CUT, SEE SITE AND GRADING PLANS SIDE SLOPE TREATMENTS, SEE GRADING OR LANDSCAPE PLANS Q' VH' to G m OO M P CIA Engineering • Surveying' LarMs . Archk-u. 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 civilsitegioug.cam 612-615-0060 GRASS PRE-TREATMENT STRIP OR PRE-TREATMENT STRUCTURE, SEE UTILITY AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SEE GRADING PLAN FOR DEPTH PLANT MATERIAL, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 3HAL MAX UNDISTURBED, UNCOMPACTED INSITU SOIL 1.5' 1 -III III -III 12 III �_� =I NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (MnDOT 3733, TYPE 1 -HIGH FLOW RATE) NET LESS EROSION BLANKET IN BOTTOM OF -III 4 -FIT-- AROUND GRAVEL BLANKET -EXTENDING 1.5' BASIN. SLIT BLANKET TO ALLOW PLANT ='' t FROM UNDERDRAIN PIPE SIDES MATERIAL SURFACE IF PLUG PLANTING IS TO _i -III-. UNDERDRAIN GRAVEL BLANKET BE USED SEE GRADING AND LANDSCAPE -III= 1-1.5" DOUBLE WASHED STONE LAN - - = NON LIMESTONE OR CONCRETE MATERIAL MIN. PLANTING MEDIUM DEPTH 12" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN OUTLET PIPE WITH A WELL BLENDED MIXTURE (BY VOLUME): 6" DIAMETER RIGID, PERFORRATED PVC. 70% HOMOGENOUS CONSTRUCTION SAND SEE UTILITY PLAN 30% ORGANIC COMPOST MUST OVER EXCAVATE DOWN TO SUITABLE SOLS. FIELD TYPICAL SECTION VIEW VERIFY WITH SOI LS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING 1. INSTALL SILT FENCE ANDIOR OR OTHER APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING OR ENTERING THE PRACTICE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL DOWN -GRADIENT PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE ANY UP GRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY BEGINS. 3. PERFORM CONTINUOUS INSPECTIONS OF EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES. 4. INSTALL UTILITIES (WATER, SANITARY SEWER, ELECTRIC, PHONE, FIBER OPTIC, ETC) PRIOR TO SETTING FINAL GRADE OF BIORETENTION DEVICE. 5. ROUGH GRADE THE SITE. IF BIORETENTION AREAS ARE BEING USED AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS LEAVE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET OF COVER OVER THE PRACTICE TO PROTECT THE UNDERLYING SOILS FROM CLOGGING. 6. PERFORM ALL OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 7. PLANT ALL AREAS AFTER DISTURBANCE. B. CONSTRUCT BIORETENTION DEVICE UPON STABILIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA. 9. IMPLEMENT TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES. 10. PLANT AND/OR ROCK MULCH BIORETENTION DEVICE. =N s° 11. REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AFTER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS ADEQUATELYVEGETATED. METAL POSTS 8'-0" O.C. MAX. BIO -FILTRATION BASIN (RAIN GARDEN - TYP.) SEDIMENT FENCE 5NTS 6 NTS GENERAL NOTES 1. IN THE EVENT THAT SEDIMENT IS INTRODUCED INTO THE BMP DURING OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EXCAVATION, THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PRACTICE PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION. 2. GRADING OF BIORETENTION DEVICES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED USING LOW -COMPACTION EARTH -MOVING EQUIPMENT TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF UNDERLYING SOILS. 3. ALL SUB MATERIALS BELOW THE SPECIFIED BIORETENTION DEPTH (ELEVATION) SHALL BE UNDISTURBED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. V! 0 O O 3: U) F_ W Z W co Lu J m W a Z Y a ❑ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IO'-.,�,L David J. Knaeble OATS 12/12/17 LICENSE NO. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION SWPPP - DETAI SW 1.2 GENERAL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS AND NOTES: THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH A CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT DISTURBS SITE SOIL OR WHO IMPLEMENT A POLLUTANT CONTROL MEASURE IDENTIFIED IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWEEP) MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT (DATED AUGUST 1, 2013 # MNRI 00001 PAGES 1-35) AND ANY LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION CONCERNING EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. PART III STORMWATER DISCHARGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SWPPP (PART III.A) THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS REPRESENTED IN THIS SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. SEE THE SWPPP PLAN SHEETS AND SWPPP NARRATIVE (ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE) FOR ADDITIONAL SITE SPECIFIC SWPPP INFORMATION. THE PLANS SHOW LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S. STANDARD DETAILS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS SWPPP DOCUMENT. THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL STABILIZED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 2. NSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE AROUND SITE 3. INSTALL ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCING AROUND INFILTRATION AREAS. 4. CLEAR AND GRUB FOR TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN / POND INSTALL 5. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN / POND (PART III.B) 6. CLEAR AND GRUB REMAINDER OF SITE 7. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL B. ROUGH GRADING OF SITE 9. STABILIZE DENUDED AREAS AND STOCKPILES 10. INSTALL SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN STORM SEWER AND SERVICES 11. INSTALL SILT FENCE / INLET PROTECTION AROUND CB'S 12. INSTALL STREET SECTION 13. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER 14. BITUMINOUS ON STREETS 15. FINAL GRADE BOULEVARD, INSTALL SEED AND MULCH 16. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM BASIN / POND 17. FINAL GRADE POND / INFILTRATION BASINS (DO NOT COMPACT SOILS IN INFILTRATION AREAS.) (PART III.C) 18. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED BY EITHER SEED OR SONLANDSCAPING, REMOVE SILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. RECORDS RETENTION (PART III.E): THE SWPPP (ORIGINAL OR COPIES) INCLUDING, ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION BY THE PERMITTEE WHO HAS OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THAT PORTION OF THE SITE. THE SWPPP CAN BE KEPT IN EITHER THE FIELD OFFICE OR IN AN ON SITE VEHICLE DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS. ALL OWNER(S) MUST KEEP THE SWPPP, ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL RECORDS, ON FILE FOR THREE (3) YEARS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NOT AS OUTLINED IN PART II.C. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RECORDS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NOT. 1. THE FINAL SWPPP; 2. ANY OTHER STORMWATER RELATED PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT; 3. RECORDS OF ALL INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION (SEE PART IV.E. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE); 4. ALL PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED, INCLUDING ALL RIGHT OF WAY, CONTRACTS, COVENANTS AND OTHER BINDING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE; AND 5. ALL REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR DESIGN OF THE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ARE PERMITTEE(S) AS IDENTIFIED BY THE NPDES PERMIT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ONSITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE ACTIVITIES OF ALL OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SUBCONTRACTORS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A PERSON(S) KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED IN THE APPLICATION OF EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS TO OVERSEE ALL INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF BMPS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PERSON(S) MEETING THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE NPDES PERMIT TO CONDUCT INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL(S) MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR AN ONSITE INSPECTION WITHIN 72 HOURS UPON REQUEST BY MPCA. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL(S) AS REQUIRED BY THE NPDES PERMIT THIS TRAINING DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE RECORDED IN OR WITH THE SWPPP BEFORE THE START OF CONSTRUCTION OR AS SOON AS THE PERSONNEL FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, DOCUMENTATION SHALL INCLUDE: 4.1. NAMES. OF THE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE TRAINED PER PART III.F.I OF THE PERMIT. 4.2. DATES OF TRAINING AND NAME OF INSTRUCTOR AND ENTITY PROVIDING TRAINING. 4.3. CONTENT OF TRAINING COURSE OR WORKSHOP INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS OF TRAINING. 5. FOLLOWING FINAL STABILIZATION AND THE TERMINATION OF COVERAGE FOR THE NPDES PERMIT, THE OWNER IS EXPECTED TO FURNISH LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (0 &M) OF THE PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. PART IV. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FIELD REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL FIELD REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). 2. THE CONTRACTOR MUST IMPLEMENT THE SWPPP AND PROVIDE BMPS IDENTIFIED IN THE SWPPP IN AN APPROPRIATE AND FUNCTION MANNER. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESPOND TO CHANGING SITE CONDITIONS AND IMPLEME14TISUPPLEMENT EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES UTILIZED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF DISTURBED SOILS AND ADEQUATE PREVENTION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFFSITE. ATA MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FIELD REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR. EROSION PREVENTION (PART IV.B): THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION PHASING, VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT MINIMIZE EROSION, SO THAT THE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS OF PART IV.E. ARE COMPLIED WITH. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE DELINEATED (E.G. WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE ETC.) ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE NEXT WORK DAY WHEN EARTH -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WILL CEASE FOR AT LEAST 14 DAYS. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SILT, CLAY OR ORGANIC COMPONENTS (E.G., CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCKPILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES) AND THE CONSTRUCTED BASE COMPONENTS OF ROADS, PARKING LOTS AND SIMILAR SURFACES ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT BUT MUST COMPLY WITH PART V.C.5. SOILS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PUBLIC WATER (AS DESIGNATED BY THE MINNESOTA DNR) MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS DURING FISH SPAWNING TIMES. THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCH OR SWALE THAT DRAINS WATER FROM ANY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, OR DIVERTS WATER AROUND THE SITE, MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 200 UNEAL FEET FROM THE PROPERTY EDGE, OR FROM THE POINT OF DISCHARGE INTO ANY SURFACE WATER, STABILIZATION OF THE LAST 200 LINEAL FEET MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER. STABILIZATION OF THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER AND CONSTRUCTION IN THAT PORTION OF THE DITCH HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES THAT ARE BEING USED AS A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (WITH PROPERLY DESIGNED ROCK DITCH CHECKS, BIO ROLLS, SILT DIKES ETC.) DO NOT NEED TO BE STABILIZED. THESE AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER NO LONGER BEING USED AS A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. SEED NOTES (PART III.A.4.A): ALL SEED MIXES AND APPLICATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SEEDING THE SOIL SHALL BE TILLED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3INCHES. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, MULCHING & BLANKET. SEED • TEMPORARY SEED SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 21-112 (WINTER WHEAT COVER CROP)FOR WINTER AND 21-111(OATS COVER CROP)FOR SPRING/SUMMER APPLICATIONS. BOTH SEED MIXES SHALL BE APPLIED AT A SEEDING RATE OF 100 LBS/ACRE. MULCH • IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING, WITHIN 24 HOURS, MNDOT TYPE I MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE SEED GERMINATION. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT 90% COVERAGE (2 TONS PER ACRE OF STRAW MULCH) SLOPES • 3:1 (HORIZ(VERT.) OR FLATTER MUCH SHALL BE COVERED WITH MULCH • SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR DITCH BOTTOMS SHALL BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. • SEE PLAN FOR MORE DETAILED DITCH AND STEEP SLOPE EROSION CONTROL TREATMENTS. SEDIMENT CONTROL (PART IV.C): SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS. S. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCHES AND SEDIMENT BASINS THAT ARE DESIGNED AS PART OF A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (E.G., DITCHES WITH ROCK CHECK DAMS) REQUIRE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES ONLY AS APPROPRIATE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. b. IF THE DOWN GRADIENT TREATMENT SYSTEM IS OVERLOADED, ADDITIONAL UPGRADIENT SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES OR REDUNDANT BMPS MUST BE INSTALLED TO ELIMINATE THE OVERLOADING, AND THE SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED TO IDENTIFY THESE ADDITIONAL PRACTICES AS REQUIRED IN PART III.AA A. THROUGH C. c. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES, THERE SHALL BE NO UNBROKEN SLOPE LENGTH OF GREATER THAN 75 FEET FOR SLOPES WITH A GRADE OF 3:1 OR STEEPER. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESE PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART IV.G. THE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MAYBE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT-TERM ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING OR GRUBBING, OR PASSAGE OF VEHICLES. ANY SHORT-TERM ACTIVITY MUST BE COMPLETED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED. HOWEVER, SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATION EVENT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT COMPLETE. ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATE BMPS DURING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL ALL SOURCES WITH POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. INLET PROTECTION MAYBE REMOVED FOR A PARTICULAR INLET IF A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN (STREET FLGODING/FREEZING) HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THE PERMITTEE(S) HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY (E.G. CITY/COUNTY/TOWNSHIP/MNDOT ENGINEER) VERIFYING THE NEED FOR REMOVAL. THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN THE SWPPP OR AVAILABLE WITHIN 72 HOURS UPON REQUEST. WHEN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE CANNOT BE OBTAINED INATIMELYMANNER,THESPECIFIC INLET PROTECTION CAN BE REMOVED TO ALLEVIATE THE IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN. HOWEVER, EFFORTS TO OBTAIN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN THE SWPPP AND AVAILABLE WITHIN 72 HOURS UPON REQUEST. PERMISSION TO REMOVE INLET PROTECTION BASED ON A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN MUST STILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF REMOVAL. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING STORMWATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHES UNLESS THERE IS A BYPASS IN PLACE FOR THE STORMWATER. VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE (OR ONTO STREETS WITHIN THE SITE) MUST BE MINIMIZED BY BMPS SUCH AS STONE PADS, CONCRETE OR STEEL WASH RACKS, OR EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS. STREET SWEEPING MUST BE USED IF SUCH BMPS ARE NOTADEQUATE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO THE STREET (SEE PART IV.E.4.D J. THE PERMITEE MUST MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND, UNLESS INFEASIBLE, PRESERVE TOPSOIL. MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE THE FUNCTION OF THE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE SITE DICTATES THAT IT BE COMPACTED. METHODS FOR MINIMIZING COMPACTION INCLUDE THE USE OF TRACKED EQUIPMENT, AND STAYING OFF OF AREAS TO BE LEFT UN -COMPACTED. METHODS TO PRESERVE TOPSOIL INCLUDE STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING TOPSOIL PRIOR TO GRADING OR EXCAVATION OPERATIONS. THE PERMITTEE MUST INSTALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS AS REQUIRED IN PART III.B. OF THIS PERMIT. DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING (PART IV.D): DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING (E.G., PUMPED DISCHARGES, TRENCH/DITCH CUTS FOR DRAINAGE) RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT MAY HAVE TURBID OR SEDIMENT LADEN DISCHARGE WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASIN ON THE PROJECT SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THE WATER CANNOT BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SURFACE WATER, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE RECEIVING WATER, DOWNSTREAM LANDOWNERS OR WETLANDS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE THAT DISCHARGE POINTS ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM ERGS ON AND SCOUR THE DISCHARGE MUST BE DISPERSED OVER NATURAL ROCK RIPRAP, SAND BAGS, PLASTIC SHEATHING OR OTHER ACCEPTED ENERGY DISSIPATION MEASURES. ADEQUATE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGE WATER THAT CONTAINS SUSPENDED SOLIDS. FILTER BACKWASH WATERS MUST BE HAULED AWAY FOR DISPOSAL, RETURNED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS, OR INCORPORATE INTO THE SITE IN A MANNERTHAT DOES NOT CAUSE EROSION. DISCHARGE OF THE BACKWASH WATER TO SANITARY SEWER IS ALLOWED WITH PERMISSION OF THE SANITARY SEWER AUTHORITY. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE (PART IV.E): THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE AT ALL TIMES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND PROPER OPERATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ATA MINIMUM, INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBED SURFACES AND ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A RAINFALL OF 0.6 INCHES OR GREATER AND WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER THAT. CONTINUE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER IS ESTABLISHED. INSPECTIONS MUST INCLUDE STABILIZED AREAS, EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S AND INFILTRATION AREAS. BASED ON INSPECTION RESULTS THE CONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY THE SWPPP IN ORDER TO PREVENT POLLUTANTS FROM LEAVING THE SITE VIA STORM WATER RUNOFF. THIS MODIFICATION MUST BE MADE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE INSPECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT, LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS. INSPECTION REPORTS MUST BE RECORDED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN WRITING AND KEPT ON FILE BY THE CONTRACTOR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SWPPP ON SITE AND THEN FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT. ALL PERIMETER CONTROL DEVICES MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 112 OF THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVICE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE BY THE END OF THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER DISCOVERY, OR THEREAFTER AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. REMOVE ALL DELTAS AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN SURFACE WATERS INCLUDING DRAINAGE WAYS CATCH BASINS AND OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND RESTABILIZE THE AREAS WHERE SEDIMENT REMOVAL RESULTS IN EXPOSED TOPSOIL. THIS REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF DISCOVERY UNLESS PRECLUDED BY LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS. SEE (ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE) FOR SITE SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT (PART IV.F): THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE: SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPGA) DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. E%TERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTEWATER PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE, CONCRETE WASHOUT: ALL LIQUID AND SOUR WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE CONTAINED IN A LEAK PROOF CONTAINMENT FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER. A COMPACTED CLAY LINER THAT DOES NOT ALLOW WASHOUT LIQUIDS TO ENTER THE GROUND IS CONSIDERED AN IMPERMEABLE LINER. THE LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST NOT CONTACT THE GROUND, AND THERE MUST NOT BE RUNOFF FROM THE CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS OR AREAS. LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. A SIGN MUST BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO EACH WASHOUT FACILITY TO INFORM CONCRETE EQUIPMENT OPERATORS TO UTILIZE THE PROPER FACILITIES. CONCRETE WASHOUT MAY ALSO OCCUR OFF SITE ACCORDING TO THE APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS. FUELING OPERATION PLAN: ALL FUELING SHALL TAKE PLACE AT THE DESIGNATED FUELING LOCATION AND ACCORDING TO BEST PRACTICES FOR SITE FUELING OPERATIONS AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SPILLS. SPILL PREVENTION PLAN: ALL SPILLS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CLEANED UP AFTER DISCOVERY. THE SITE SUPERINTENDENT, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAY -TODAY ONSITE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WILL BE THE SPILL PREVENTION COORDINATOR AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING CLEANUP PROCEDURES, POSTING CLEANUP RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ENSURING PROPER CLEANUP TRAINING OF APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL. SANITARY AND SEPTIC WASTE: SANITARY/SEPTIC FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED IN A NEAT AND SANITARY CONDITION, FOR THE USE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES. A LICENSED SANITARY WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS WILL COLLECT SANITARY WASTE FROM PORTABLE UNITS. FINAL STABILIZATION (PART IV.G): THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE ACCORDING THE DEFINITIONS IN THE NPDES GENERAL PERMIT PART IV SECTION G. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT.) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE OR WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER SELLING THE SITE OR PORTION OF THE SITE (THAT HAS NOT UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION I TO ANOTHER PARTY. A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF TERMINATION I PERMIT MODIFICATION FORM MUST GO TO THE NEW OWNER. THE ORIGINAL CURRENT OWNER MUST PROVIDE A SWPPP TO THE NEW OWNER THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE REMAINING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. SEE THE SWPPP PLAN SHEETS AND SWPPP NARRATIVE (ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE) AND SWPPP PLAN SHEETS FOR FINAL STABILIZATION MEASURES TRAINING (PART III.A.2) OWNER INFORMATION �gRpggRte DESIGN ENGINEER: DAVID J. KNAEBLE P.E. OWNER: (0m (ED U p TRAINING COURSE: DESIGN OF SWPPP TRAINING ENTITY: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DAVID KNAEBLE 227 SUNNYRIDGE LANE Clvil Engi-4,g • Surveying' LBrMscepe Archk-ure INSTRUCTOR: JOHN CHAPMAN GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 DATES OF TRAINING COURSE: 8/22/2012- 8/23/2012 CONTACT: Sc Louis Park, AN 55a TOTAL TRAINING HOURS: 12 61 civilsitegioup.cam 612-615-0060 DATE OF RECERTIFICATION: 4119/16 EXPIRATION: 5/31/2019 SWPPP CONTACT PERSON CONTRACTOR: SWPPP INSPECTOR TRAINING: ALL SWPPP INSPECTIONS MUST BE PERFORMED BY A PERSON THAT MEETS THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION SITE PERMIT. TRAINING CREDENTIALS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND KEPT ON SITE WITH THE SWPPP PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT TO MEET NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM. SWPPP ATTACHMENTS (ONLY APPLICABLE IF SITE IS 1 ACRE OR GREATER): NA SUPPLEMENTARY SITE SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES: THESE NOTES SUPERCEDE ANY GENERAL SWPPP NOTES. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN 1.0 ACRE SO AN NPDES PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN THE NPDES PERMIT THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT NARRATIVE: PROJECT IS THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PROPERTY INTO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SITE IMPROVEMENTS WILL OCCUR. PROJECT INFORMATION: DISTRUBED AREA = 39,000 SF T o O O W LU �m Z (L U) O Z F- °a Y F- K ❑ W °a Z H- IA Iff It a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. �� 1'v""'"v 9 L David J. Knaeble OATS 12/12/17 LICENSE NO. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION SWPPP - NARRATI SW1.3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #18-3994 DAVID KNAEBLE, 3635 TOGO ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 7:03 P.M. — 7:15 P.M. David Knaeble, Applicant, was present. Curtis noted the Planning Commission reviewed this as a sketch plan last September. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval with PRD flexibility for a residential subdivision of the 2.44 acre property in order to create a total of three lots for single-family homes where one lot currently exists. The property is currently zoned LR -1C, one family lakeshore residential. A delineated wetland near the center of the property impacts the building area of the southern two lots. The lots will be served by City sewer and water. One property would be accessed off of Togo Road where the current home exists and the two additional lots are proposed to access off of Northern Avenue on the south. It is not known at this time whether the existing home will remain. M46 The proposed lots range in size between 0.51 and 0.94 total acres. The lots will be served by City sewer and water. City Code requires that each sewered lot provide 0.5 acres minimum of contiguous dry buildable area. The proposed lots meet the acreage requirement of the Code but the acreage is not contiguous as required. The preliminary plat also reflects additional flexibility being requested for reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 2 and 3 off of Northern Avenue. The side and rear yard setbacks will be met and all lots provide the minimum 100 -foot lot width measured at the front setback. A 20 -foot right-of-way dedication is shown along both Togo Road and Northern Avenue. Currently Northern Avenue exists as a 20 -foot paved width public road half on the railroad right-of-way and half on the adjoining properties. Dedication of a 50 -foot right-of-way would make the southern two lots unbuildable. The Northern Oaks addition to the west along Northern Avenue was required to dedicate additional right-of-way to get to 30 feet. The developer in this case has shown a 15 -foot right-of-way dedication beyond the existing Northern Avenue consistent with the Staff recommendation made during the sketch plan review. The entire property is located within Hardcover Tier 3, which allows for 35 percent impervious surface. Hardcover calculations should be provided by the developer to confirm that each lot can be developed MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. well within the hardcover limitation of 35 percent. Each of the lots are subject to a 20 percent structural coverage limitation. The City's consulting engineer has provided comments regarding this proposed plat with regard to stormwater management and drainage concerns. Some of those proposals require additional action or plan revisions by the developer. The developer should contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. The developer is requesting flexibility to accomplish their development goals. The flexibility is able to be accomplished via the creation of a Planned Residential District overlay. The mechanism for establishing a PRD is the conditional use permit process which establishes an overlay district accommodating the desired flexibility. The PRD process could provide the framework for development of the lots which meet the half acre standard albeit with noncontiguous acreage and the requested reduced front setbacks with conditions. The Planning Commission should discuss the merits of platting as a PRD based on the requests for front yard setback reductions and noncontiguous lot area minimums for Lots 2 and 3 as well as the proposed right-of-way width to be dedicated on Northern Avenue. Staff recommends approval in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. David Knaeble, Applicant, stated they are proposing to subdivide this property into three residential lots and that he has been working with the current property owner, Mary Schommer, who is aware of the project and had brought it forward initially as a sketch plan review. Knaeble noted Staff has already touched on a few items that they are requesting on this subdivision. One is flexibility to the dry contiguous requirement and then the other is with respect to the front setback, which is required in order to create the three lots that are being requested. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Approximately 30 years ago the City installed a new sanitary sewer line on the east side of the property and Ms. Schommer provided an easement to the City. As part of that process, two stubs were provided to the properties on the south side with the assumption the properties could be built on at some point in the future. Knaeble indicated he did hold a neighborhood meeting and that two people showed up aside from Mary Schommer and Ralph Kempf. In addition, a mailing was sent out to approximately 50 residents in the area. In discussions with them, they appeared to be in favor of what is being proposed. The neighbor on the west side was in support of having the flexibility to do the 20 -foot front setback to keep the properties and the homes in line with each other. The neighbor on the east had a question about some existing trees. It was determined the trees are on his property and will not be impacted. One other neighbor showed support but was unable to be at the meeting tonight. That neighbor indicated she would send an email expressing her support. Knaeble requested that they be allowed some flexibility on the project and that the Planning Commission recommend approval on their application. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. IRE& MV There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Thiesse stated his biggest concern that he would like addressed prior to the City Council meeting is tree preservation. Both the City's stormwater plan and Comprehensive Plan talk about tree preservation, but the proposed grading plan shows that none of the trees on the south end will be preserved. Leskinen stated the noncontiguous has its challenges but the Planning Commission has discussed that in the past. Leskinen asked if there will be a homeowners' association. Curtis indicated the City would require an easement over the rain gardens. Curtis stated she does not believe a homeowners' association is necessary since there will not be a private road to be plowed and only three lots are being developed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schwingler moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-3994, David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Road, preliminary plat approval per the recommendations of Staff and the City Engineer, with the developer providing an update to Staff on tree preservation before proceeding to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Cl Date Application Received: 12/12/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/12/17 120 -Day Review Period Expires: 04/11/18 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 16 January 2018 Subject: #18-3994, David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Rd, Subdivision/Preliminary Plat/PRD-CUP Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision of the 2.44 acre property to create a total of 3 lots for single family homes where one lot currently exists with PRD flexibility. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon meeting the MCWD and City Engineer's recommendations and permitting requirements of the MCWD. Background This subdivision was introduced as a sketch plan application in 2017 Case # 17-3964. PRELIMINARY PLAT/PRD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW Conformity with 2010 - 2030 Orono Community Management Plan The proposal involves creation of three lots with approximately 0.5 acre in dry buildable area each within the area guided for Low -Medium Density (2-3 units per acre). The project has a prescribed density of 1.22 units per acre based on the gross area; 1.73 units per acre upon removal of the wetland acreage. The proposal is less dense than the prescribed maximum density contemplated within the comprehensive plan. Conformity with LR -1C Zoning District Standards The property is currently zoned LR -1C One Family Lakeshore Residential (1/2 acre). A delineated wetland near the center of property impacts buildable areas of the southern two lots. The lots will be served by City sewer and water. City Code requires that each sewered lot provide 0.5 acres minimum of contiguous dry buildable area. The lots, as proposed, meet the acreage requirement, however the acreage is not contiguous as required. The developer is requesting the flexibility that a Planned Residential District (PRD) would facilitate. The mechanism for establishing a PRD is the conditional use permit process which establishes an overlay district accommodating the desired flexibility. The proposal includes the subdivision of the single lot into three lots. One property would be accessed off of Togo Road where the current home exists; two additional lots are proposed to access off of Northern Avenue on the south. It is not known if the existing house will be retained or replaced. The proposed lots range in size between 0.51 and 0.94 total acres. The preliminary plat also FILE # 18-3994 16 Jan 2018 Page 2 of 6 reflects additional flexibility requested in reduced front yard setbacks for Lots 2 and 3 off of Northern Avenue. The preliminary plat drawing illustrates the proposed building pad areas for all three lots. It does not appear that the contiguous acreage standard can be met for Lots 2 and 3. The LR -1C side and rear yard setbacks will be met; all lots provide the minimum 100 -foot lot width measured at the front setback. Lot Areas Proposed: General Site Characteristics This wooded site with somewhat bowl -shaped topography due to the 0.71 acre centrally - located wetland. There is an existing home and detached garage located in the northern portion of the property, which may remain following the subdivision; the setbacks are met. There is an existing 20 foot drainage and utility easement on the eastern property line accommodating an existing sewer line. The Conservation Design Report by Jacobson Environmental (see Exhibit H) provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics. Planning Commission should review the Report and discuss with the applicant his plans for adhering to the recommended provisions for site management. Tree preservation within the site will be primarily the areas immediately abutting the wetland. The Report recommends reed canary grass and buckthorn removals throughout the southern portion of the property. Removals within the wetland buffer areas should be restored according to the MCWD's planting requirements. Hardcover Allotment and Tier Assignment. The entire property is within Hardcover Tier 3 allowing 35% impervious surface. Per the tier assignment methodology established in 78-1701, all proposed lots will remain within Tier 3. Hardcover calculations should be provided by the developer to confirm that each lot can be developed well within the hardcover limitation of 35%. Each of the lots are subject to a 20% structural coverage limitation. H �.UII I[IIdIy ICVICW UI CdL.11 UI L11U P1UPU.,CU IUL5 15 dN IUI IUWN. Proposed Lot 1: Proposed Lot 1 will have just over % acre in dry, contiguous area and will have 123 feet of frontage on Togo Road. This lot contains an existing house and detached garage. This lot will conform to the LR -1C setbacks of 30 feet on the front; 10 feet on the sides; and 30 feet on the rear. The buildable envelope is reasonable with an approximate 120 foot by 93 foot buildable area. Wetland Dry Buildable Contiguous, Dry Total 3635 Togo Road Existing 0.71 acre / 30,875 s.f. * 1.73 acre / 75,392 s.f. North 0.98 acre/ 42,686 s.f. South 0.75 acre / 32,709 s.f. 2.44 acres / 106,267 s.f. Lot 1 NA 0.51 acre / 22,337 s.f. 0.51 acre / 22,337 s.f. 0.51 acre / 22,337 s.f. Lot 2 0.42 acre 0.52 acre / 22,870 s.f. 0.35 acre / 15,355 s.f. 0.94 acres / 41,357 s.f. Lot 3 0.28 acre 0.53 acre / 23,437 s.f. 0.30 acre / 13,071 s.f. 0.82 acre / 35,822 s.f. Northern Avenue ROW Dedication 0.098 acre / 4,283.6 s.f. Togo Road ROW Dedication 0.056 acre / 2,468 s.f. General Site Characteristics This wooded site with somewhat bowl -shaped topography due to the 0.71 acre centrally - located wetland. There is an existing home and detached garage located in the northern portion of the property, which may remain following the subdivision; the setbacks are met. There is an existing 20 foot drainage and utility easement on the eastern property line accommodating an existing sewer line. The Conservation Design Report by Jacobson Environmental (see Exhibit H) provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics. Planning Commission should review the Report and discuss with the applicant his plans for adhering to the recommended provisions for site management. Tree preservation within the site will be primarily the areas immediately abutting the wetland. The Report recommends reed canary grass and buckthorn removals throughout the southern portion of the property. Removals within the wetland buffer areas should be restored according to the MCWD's planting requirements. Hardcover Allotment and Tier Assignment. The entire property is within Hardcover Tier 3 allowing 35% impervious surface. Per the tier assignment methodology established in 78-1701, all proposed lots will remain within Tier 3. Hardcover calculations should be provided by the developer to confirm that each lot can be developed well within the hardcover limitation of 35%. Each of the lots are subject to a 20% structural coverage limitation. H �.UII I[IIdIy ICVICW UI CdL.11 UI L11U P1UPU.,CU IUL5 15 dN IUI IUWN. Proposed Lot 1: Proposed Lot 1 will have just over % acre in dry, contiguous area and will have 123 feet of frontage on Togo Road. This lot contains an existing house and detached garage. This lot will conform to the LR -1C setbacks of 30 feet on the front; 10 feet on the sides; and 30 feet on the rear. The buildable envelope is reasonable with an approximate 120 foot by 93 foot buildable area. FILE # 18-3994 16 Jan 2018 Page 3 of 6 Proposed Lot 2: Proposed Lot 2 will be the western lot, and have 100 feet of frontage on Northern Avenue. It will have a total of 0.52 dry acres; only 0.35 acre are contiguous. This lot contains a 0.42 acre portion of the wetland and the dry acreage is noncontiguous. The buildable area, including the additional flexibility requested for a 20 foot front yard setback, will be approximately 85 feet deep by 80 feet wide. MCWD-approved buffer averaging will result in a wider wetland buffer on Lot 2 than on Lot 3 to accommodate a reasonable building envelope; the buffer on the northern portion of the lot will be approximately 45 -feet in width. The remaining wetland and LR -1C setbacks will be met. Proposed Lot 3: Proposed Lot 3 will be the eastern lot, and have 113 feet of frontage on Northern Avenue. This lot contains a 0.28 acre portion of the wetland; 0.30 acre contiguous area; and 0.53 acres of dry acreage is noncontiguous. MCWD-approved buffer averaging will result in a 15 foot wide wetland buffer on Lot 3 to accommodate a reasonable building envelope; the buffer on the northern portion of the lot will be approximately 45 -feet in width. The buildable area, including the additional flexibility requested for a 20 foot front yard setback, will be approximately 70 feet deep by 84 feet wide. The remaining wetland and LR -1C setbacks will be met. Relationship to Surrounding Development Except for the Kingdom Hall property on Togo Road, development in the neighborhood bounded by Northern Avenue on the south, Togo Road on the north, the northerly extension of Blaine Avenue on the east and the Spring Park border on the west is single family residential. The proposed subdivision is generally consistent in lot areas and front setbacks with the existing single family development in the surrounding neighborhood. Road/Right-of-Way Dedication: A 20 foot right-of-way dedication is shown along both Togo Road and Northern Avenue. Northern Avenue was originally created as part of the plat of Townsite of Langdon Park in 1893, being 66 feet in width adjacent to the north boundary of the 100 -foot wide Great Northern Railroad right -of way. In 1912, Northern Avenue was vacated by the town board for unknown reasons. Today, Northern Avenue exists as a 20 foot paved width public road half on the railroad right-of-way and half on the adjoining properties. As part of the plat of Southview Estates in 1983, the City was able to recover a 30 foot corridor near the western end of the vacated right-of-way. Since then, the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority has acquired the railroad right-of-way and has a recent history of attempting to eliminate encroachments on its potential commuter/light rail corridors. With half of Northern Avenue's traveled road on the railroad right-of-way, it is in the City's interest (and by extension, area residents) to regain the necessary right-of-way outside the rail corridor for potential relocation of Northern Avenue should the need arise. Property subdivision is one of the few opportunities the City has to acquire necessary road rights-of-way. Guidance is provided in the Subdivision Code Section 82-281(2) as follows: 82-281(2) Rights-of-way. Rights -of --way shall be in accordance with the following performance standard: FILE # 18-3994 16 Jan 2018 Page 4 of 6 a. Minimum ri ht -of -way widths. Category of Road Required Width Principal arterial, intermediate arterial As recommended by the State Department of Transportation Minor arterial 80 feet Collector 70 feet Local 50 feet Parkway 100 feet Culs-de-sac 50 feet radius b. Rights-of-way are needed for future roadways in the opinion of the city. C. Right-of-way widths or additional widths in existing rights-of-way in excess of the standards designated in this chapter when, due to topography, additional width is necessary to provide adequate earth slopes. Such slopes shall not be in excess of 3:1. Both Northern and Togo are local roads, suggesting the need for 50 feet of right-of-way (25 feet on each side of Togo, 50 feet north of the rail line for Northern). However, dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way would make the southern two lots (Lots 2 and 3) unbuildable. The Northern Oaks addition to the west along Northern Avenue was required to dedicate additional right-of-way, to get to 30 feet. The developer has shown a 15 -foot right-of-way dedication beyond the existing Northern Avenue consistent with the Staff recommendation during the sketch plan review. City Engineer Comments The consulting City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat application materials; comments are attached as Exhibit I. The developer should prepare a final plat application which responds to and incorporates these recommendations. Drainage & Utility Easements The City requires standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the Plat and drainage easements over the wetland areas. The easements as shown on the proposed plat drawing must be revised to meet the City standards. Park Dedication The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan element of the Orono Comprehensive Plan does not specify the need for a neighborhood park at this location. The site is near the Navarre Park, and is directly adjacent to the Dakota Trail. As there is no defined need for park land at this location, it would appear that dedication of actual land for park purposes is not required. Absent the need for park land dedication, a Park Dedication Fee in lieu of land would be appropriate per City Ordinance. The Park Fee is determined as 8% of the fair market value of the land being subdivided, but must be between a minimum of $3,250 and a maximum of $5,550 per residential dwelling unit. For the proposed lots, the Park Fee would be based on only the 2 new lots. The City's Assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land for establishing the amount of the fee. FILE # 18-3994 16 Jan 2018 Page 5 of 6 Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The City's consulting engineer has provided comments regarding this proposed plat with regard to stormwater management and drainage concerns, some requiring additional action or plan revisions by the developer. However, the developer should contact MCWD and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. Rain gardens/filtration basins are shown adjacent to the defined wetland buffer. The development is subject to the 2018 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of $6,050 per acre. For the 1/2 -acre zoning districts, any lot exceeding 0.5 gross acres, including wetland, shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 0.5 acre parcel. Therefore $6,050 x 1.5 [3 lots x 0.5 = 1.5 total acres] = $9,075.00. Utility Locations and Availability The subject property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The property was served with City water in both Togo Road and Northern Avenue as part of the 1970 -LW -1 project which was assessed on both a front footage and unit basis. According to the as -built record plan, the property has one stub on Togo Road (presumably in use by the existing house) and two stubs at Northern Avenue. However, while the property was fully assessed for 294 feet of front footage, which includes both Togo and Northern frontages, it was only assessed for two units. Additionally, one additional water unit is due with the creation of two additional lots as the plat is proposed. That 3rd water unit charge would be $4,240.00 per the 2018 Fee Schedule. PRD/CUP Section 78-348(6) The developer is requesting flexibility to accomplish their development goals. The flexibility is able to be accomplished via the creation of a Planned Residential District (PRD) overlay. The mechanism for establishing a PRD is the conditional use permit process which establishes an overlay district accommodating the desired flexibility. The PRD process could provide the framework for development of the lots which meet the half acre standard albeit with noncontiguous acreage, and the requested reduced front setbacks with conditions. Planning Commission should discuss the merits of platting as a PRD based on the requests for front yard setback reductions and noncontiguous lot area minimums for Lots 2 and 3; as well as the proposed right-of-way width to be dedicated on Northern Avenue. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval in accordance with the current and going recommendation of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD. The Planning Commission's options for action are: • Recommend approval with appropriate conditions; • Recommend denial, stating reasons; or • Table the application providing direction and guidance to the developer. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Applications & Narrative Exhibit B. Existing Survey FILE # 18-3994 16 Jan 2018 Page 6 of 6 Exhibit C. Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit D. Wetland Delineation and NOD Exhibit E. Preliminary Stormwater Report Exhibit F. Soils Report Exhibit G. Additional Plans: a. Preliminary Grading Plan b. Preliminary Utility Plan c. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan d. SWPPP — Existing & Proposed Conditions & Narrative Exhibit H. Conservation Design Plan by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC 12/12/17 Exhibit I. City Engineer Comments 01/08/18 Exhibit J. Aerial Photos Exhibit K. Sketch Plan Meeting Minutes Exhibit L. Neighborhood Meeting Information Exhibit M. City Code Sections Exhibit N. Map Exhibit O. Property Owners List XISTING BUILDING #3655 TOGO ROAD � xo I I EXISTING HOUSE #3645 I N 89'42"30" E 123.41 eLA6gREp NE LOT C6DR TO 0 m po 10.00 �� Jf�sacm�<a.<oe as Z EXISTING HOUW - EXISTING #3a HOUSE O 4 #3601 N i / 9 8 uern:psn W �t // li�6tir_Ook bpye 0 > a<e pn O O O N 89'42'30 E 140.00 o? CD O N W T WETLAND BUFFER INFO 30'AVG BUFFER AREA- 14898,SF PROP. BUFFER AREA=15,259SF O � Z �/ � � �� ��XISTWG WETLAND MANAGE?/ 3 (30' BUFFER AVG.) S 89°57'30 W EXISTING 1/ n GARAGE WEST LINE OF LOT 6 O —T� ce O CD a 10. TA6E _G_ PROPOSE TREE, TYP. 11 IGN NO I AGE I I °SOUTH LINE ori° °.< OF LOT 6 EXISTIN EXIS ING "e�" cr HOUSELO s < #3646 HOUSE NOISE 4.6 F ON LOT CORNER U A T E D V -4- - — I C; ATER M IN °p_ — — -- — 87°51 2 / �'' IO" PVC USAN. SEWER > >�— _ NORTHERN AVENUE o00 #2171 \ ar pea 2 Mmoi, / m oak / / TREE NUMBER SIZE / 4188 8 Red Oak 4189 L Black Walnut 4190 L Quaking Aspen 4191 11 Quaking Aspen 4192 PROPOSED Green Ash �. TREE, TYP. Bur Oak 4194 8 Bur Oak 4195 8 Green Ash 4196 9 Green Ash 4197 SE COR / 4198 OT 6 Green Ash 4199 11 Green Ash 4200 / EXISTING 4301 11 HOUSE 4302 / #3590 4303 10 / F 9 American Elm 4305 8 / TREE NUMBER SIZE TYPE 4188 8 Red Oak 4189 12 Black Walnut 4190 9 Quaking Aspen 4191 11 Quaking Aspen 4192 8 Green Ash 4193 9 Bur Oak 4194 8 Bur Oak 4195 8 Green Ash 4196 9 Green Ash 4197 9 Green Ash 4198 9 Green Ash 4199 11 Green Ash 4200 13 Box Elder 4301 11 Green Ash 4302 9 Box Elder 4303 10 Box Elder 4304 9 American Elm 4305 8 American Elm 4306 10 White Oak 4307 23 Cottonwood 4308 18 Quaking Aspen 4309 8 Paper Birch 4310 9 Green Ash 4311 9 Red Oak 4312 13 Red Oak 4313 9 Red Oak 4314 15 Red Oak 4315 15 Black Walnut 4316 30 Cottonwood 4317 8 Red Oak 4318 18 Bur Oak 4319 13 Red Oak 4320 11, 12 Red Oak 4321 10 Green Ash 4322 24 Green Ash 4323 22 Cottonwood 4324 12 American Elm 4325 14 Box Elder 4326 8 Green Ash 4327 12 Big Tooth Aspen 4328 13 Black Willow 4329 14 Box Elder 4330 10 Box Elder 4331 13 Green Ash 4332 12 Green Ash 4333 13 Green Ash 4334 11 Green Ash 4335 11 Green Ash 4336 10 Green Ash 4337 34 Red Oak 4338 29 Green Ash 4339 47 Bur Oak 4340 48 Bur Oak 4341 16 Green Ash 4342 22 Green Ash 4342 31 Bur Oak 4343 16 Siberian Elm 4344 12 Green Ash 4345 12 Box Elder 4346 9 Hackberry 4347 13 Box Elder 4348 18 Green Ash 4349 20 Green Ash 4350 15 Box Elder 4351 10 Box Elder 4352 12 Green Ash 4353 9 Green Ash 4354 10 White Mulberry 4355 9 White Mulberry 4356 12 Box Elder 4357 13 White Mulberry 4358 28 Silver Maple 4359 24 Green Ash 4360 8 Basswood 4361 10 Basswood 4362 10 Green Ash 4363 9 White Oak 4364 10 Hackberry 4365 20 Red Oak 4366 11 Sugar Maple 4368 16 American Elm 4369 10 Silver Maple 4370 22 Red Oak 4371 23 Bur Oak 4373 17 Green Ash 4374 19 Red Oak 4375 14 Red Oak 4376 9 Basswood 4377 8 Red Oak 4378 8 Green Ash 437917 Bur Oak 43SO 8 Green Ash 4381 9 Green Ash 4382 13 Cottonwood TREE PRESERVATION PLAN: TREES TO BE REMOVED TREES TO BE PROTECTED PROPOSED TREE SYMBOLITHER 2" CALIPER DECIDUOUS TREE OR 6' CONINIFEROUS TREE TO BE PLANTED BY HOME BUILDER) TREE REPLACEMENT THE CITY OF ORONO REQUIRES 1 TREE FOR EVERY 40 LF OF FRONTAGE. FRONTAGE ALONG NORTHERN AVE = 213' TREES REQUIRED = 213'140'= 6 TREES 'NO ADDITIONAL TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON TOGO ROAD BECAUSE ALL OF THE TREES FOR THAT LOT WILL BE SAVED. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHER)252-16TOLLORE I\1 �4 (800)252-1186 TOLL FREE Y (651) 4544002 LOCAL N 0 z w 15'-0® CC? G3 OO M p Civil Engineering Su—yiN Landscape A,&itecWra 4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 clvllsitegroup.wm 612-615-0060 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 1/29/18 REV. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN C4.0 (DOO—CH-17 CIVILSITE GROUP INC U) Q N N Z 0 N 0 z w LU J Om z W LU V+ O Z O o Y 0 LU r K W a Q w o ZED F O Z M } D W M Z Z 7 M W 1n N Q U w a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. �� O L- ) Imo - David J. Knaeble DATE 12/12/17 LICENSE ND. 48776 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 1/29/18 REV. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN C4.0 (DOO—CH-17 CIVILSITE GROUP INC AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 16 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #18-3997 — Rehkamp Larson, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, Variances — Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to conduct changes, primarily cosmetic changes, to the roof of the home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete December 13, 2017. The 60 -Day review period was extended and will expire on April 12, 2018. 3. Background. The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance in order to change a flat roof to a gable roof within the 75 -foot setback and an average lakeshore setback variance in order to make cosmetic improvements and structural changes to the home situated entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16th, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the variances stating the improvements were thoughtful and made sense. 5. Public Comment. No additional comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Prepared By: VY1GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -bV AGENDA ITEM References PC Exhibits 01/16/18 Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Site Photos Exhibit F. Aerial Photos Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments Exhibit I. 60 -Day Extension Exhibit J. Property Owners List Exhibit K. Plat Map Prepared By: VY1GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -bV CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. 18-3997 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, on behalf of the property owner, Ferndale Properties LLC, Rehkamp Larson Architects (hereinafter the "Applicant"), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 1300 Bracketts Point Road and legally described as: Lot 4, Rearrangement of Orono Point except that part of vacated Center Avenue as said Center Avenue was dedicated to the public in the plat of Rearrangement of Orono Point, lying northerly of a line drawn westerly perpendicular to the west line of said Lot 4 from a point on said west line distant 182.29 feet northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot 4, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow modification of the roof within the 75 -foot lake setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow modification of the roof within the average Lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the 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 12, 2018, 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: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #18-3997. 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 -1A One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 3.0 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 320 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 variances: a. Lake Setback Variance b. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for 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. ANALYSIS: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance .... The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing home. The additional mass of the roof areas within the 75 -foot lake setback will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the Property from the lake. This criterion is met. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted ... when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variances resulting in a permit for construction of modifications to the residence, without footprint expansions, within the setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 modification of the roof lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and within the 75 -foot lake setback appear to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties previously stated no objection to the plans; the mature vegetation, topography, and home orientation separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Based on the curvature of the shoreline, the Property, and therefore the subject home, extends further into the lake than the neighboring properties. Also because of the shoreline curvature, the home to the north is set back further from the lake than the subject home resulting in the severe average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The requested variances will not result in the subject home being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the home; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. This criterion is met. 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 improvements to a residential structure is an allowed use in the LR -1A Zoning 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. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The extreme curve of the shoreline results in the average lakeshore setback line encumbering the Property. The proximity of the existing home to the lake is an existing condition setback of the subject home and is generally not in character with the immediate neighborhood. 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 shoreline's curve results in the extreme average lakeshore setback which encumbers the Property. The proximity of the existing home to the lake is an existing condition; the setback of the subject home is not in character with all of the homes the immediate neighborhood. 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." Due to the location of the house and the applied setbacks, no improvement which expand beyond the existing footprint and walls of the existing home can be conducted without variances. 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." Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The shoreline, topography, and location of the subject home as well as the adjacent homes create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. This criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow modification of the roof within the 75 -foot lake setback; and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow modification of the roof within the average lakeshore setback, 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 dated 02/17/2017 and building plans dated 12/13/2017 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 variance will expire on that date (February 12, 2019). 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 12th day of February, 2018. Anna Carlson, CITY OF ORONO: Dennis Walsh, Mayor affiQ .a s o£ $ o� v sn°vac cn i S R1 W ;m `sG) C �z �n pN n �sssass µ31 a - _Vr —_- _ tpi,n3aoNiwi�+3 a,on� _ 6 1 � ami• ,/' � IF— o� to p;pe xiis3mHiao__{- 06; ms___µ, o �oJ� �,✓ ,�s=� G a � �n e - Epr.E Or WATER--, \ EIEVAnON erss (Ncvpzs) _ � � ams 2�R RAv i%5 > �R oo > 3ffi o s � a 3aa� 5� � 9R � ams 2�R sas �R 2 � a 3aa� 5� � 9R 22 z� � s � K� $ sA a n2e ss £N 3 SP._" g 8 fig �' 3 R F �i � ams 2�R sas - � a 3aa� 5� az p S. R K� $ sA a n2e ss 4� mem iu iKi �iX N���.+ DD eo W N+ W N+ O W N+ O A W N O mmmmmmm mmvv mm Tti XXX XXXX AAAA AA Azi mmmwinmw 0000 00 Or AAA vmvv TT mm zzzz 0000 00 Oy ,-{Oj,�Ojm '� 'n 'nw mmmm m m mm TTT mmmm 0000 vv orq mmm 000 mmmm ��XX DO 000 mmmm 000 MASA mmmm �O m www 5500 :O.Z_I;ux 0 0 AXXX 0005 m� D mmmm ,mm V 70 D mmmm mmmm mz D aaaa mmmm 0 5555 zzzz 5055 m wwwm zzzz < wwww m R.o n o 3 3 m " o rnrn�`N'm 3 J�a� NNV w� r A z 2 N ?o N O 3 D 3 &FR^M m o � r 0 C�C G Z 0 Z O X n O Z D n N LTJ 0 0 0 Y) 0 rt fl1 (DT 3 O O CD O� 1 /0 `T✓ 0Y f^^ CD 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION y o m 3 J c p Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. > 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 m 0 & 1 m m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 m T(7� my W (Ewa 3 T x o rn o ° w m?yTH o,zwo -zw IT. N 2 c >cm m mi m y o» "m w m m , O 1' m0 Eq m � A 3 XX ww 00 G "moo' ti N m m m Nw m To G m O Oo mm z D - `m v 0 m ozo woH m m v o o 3 'm 0 C�C G Z 0 Z O X n O Z D n N LTJ 0 0 0 Y) 0 rt fl1 (DT 3 O O CD O� 1 /0 `T✓ 0Y f^^ CD 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION y o m 3 J c p Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. > 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 m 0 & 1 m m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 n Q\ . W — I / la \ tn>m0 y0 rn000 tn00 I W r� �O �mm0 ��,0 \ T lamOGm O<m Oo�m yam I 1 / A m 0 m 0 O x 0 O i m A m , I 0 0 D n D D m e m O m W \ ml. O 00 00=m 0Om \ O�z m v� m mm <L7o m> m m Q =o f 1 1 1 1 E \ , 1 1 La 1 I\ 0 cn Z 5 mRi bD _ \ / I 0 0 D D i \ \ Z*Ocn b V o toY 135'MHOfit / - 504'49'15"W — Y 12/13/2017 -VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A 8 � o < Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. o m ` m 6 _ >5; 6 N 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 p & A Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 3 N m IF] .P W N mO0 OO ��nMX 0 DO a �v c� m mm XDm zm m m �m cn�v civ gm'v my Ln m'nA BOO xG) D o SO 03 7-1 CD D , 0Z> Z m m Or,m X ��00 'O vmm � 0 -n 0m 0r rn OZ �O i e.r c MATCH J N G) C4F \ m m Z?ym�omn a ol o= rn A Zm> H= g \ x <mmm=mmm�m,Zm7�3'> cn� p�m ���n?�=W—cmmm�-n> O 01 O i m O ZnP n O D mnaiOmAm>zm>0. ZXcn J D Z Z O c v mm- O� O np ocm mTD10X ZOZL<Ommm* Xm0 m w m m D O m r C c= m m 0 p X � 0 vDm m* K m L m mX r m m 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION s o 0 oHalvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. D m : _ > 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 9 m p m Orono, Minnesota 55391 D Te1.612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 z sm M 5 Z z• az^ cn K mD D Z A = �O mc D m 0 E O 0 o m u m r_ a ii ii AZ $how u O 1 ;€� L]EIU \1 m X00 ----Eo--- ---Ea - --ao <o 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION � Halvorson Renovation 10 REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. A 3 = > 1300 Bracketts Point Road r 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 M, ^ m p m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 z i -i SEE A23 FOR GARAGE ELEVATIONS 12/13/2017 -VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . I ■|OR ■E . Jill )§? (( )|(! Halvorson Renovation _vt n wKA� RSo ARCHITECTS I� � (;\ , e� mR2# z2A@pds« l,N�m § Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Q I m 6o rom Z a a Zo -c6 m r r Z oz>Km '0 0 r Dp< mD m � x .. a �oDn omz=Nz <rnm0m g0 °xx*z r mmcnz0 cnx m,--or"m em xcn o �o 10 lm;o m>o0 I m Km m r, o I "s of mA° z z= z y Igo wg a s eo —°i min O O IN oz _ m- omo1 I --- OZwm I C— wleo T C L �— �z� 1 2 n — m(P�xO I O O D Z J x T Z m D06,o <� amZ. A < K Z o m f Z M 0 f xIT m Ag ° m (n o 1 mz 01 O r cn < ° I x OmAmDX lan m 0 0 0 0 0 �-0 -0.0 m x00200 / Xmmr"mm � ) j -n D O m O r r � z° p m m I x°m�xx OrXtn00 p m — r p 'n � <m rpmi7P Z -: 01� °m x� 1 x= =m >ElD Z OmFr= -D m w M oIn m °z 1 O zO — — — m 0� i X oz 0 o 00 I 8 I SEE A23 FOR GARAGE ELEVATIONS 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11 I I 1 1 I UhlNy''llo in �Il!I I'I o o 0 Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. X I 3 a " y z = > y 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 00 N & p m m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 yp | | w „ m _>_>m z 3o;Rm § E;%mm m 0 > m § �l3m, m d\/j$ (1) -0 2mmom e,�#§ \)0k� � G)'m o�;cn t= o \\\ §>0 §\\\ §/-k q�2§ ?/r§ ;=$z ;(§2 \�\i 2@°T> >`m0 )`am m / > % § k ( k G 12/13/2017 -VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -Halvorson n_k_ �HKA�LARAacr2aI�§ / #, eargym@ @2 2732 West 43rd Street, l,N�2 / ow Minnesota 55391 ga,zs�s�a,za�4z§ a$2£«2 <oo0oo M33230 ;mm ,mm -co � 1)c— \2§Rmm q;9;3§ n 0. °S§`f% <; 2fmqa >; xq ;° �m $ \§ > 2§ r- ®\ k03 m \ 2 ) § \ \ y � B� � r-�---- �- 12/13/2017 -VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION s. )( ) (; \ Halvorson Renovation wKA� RSo ARCHITECTS I� §? § � 6 , e� # m@R2 z2A@pds « l,N� m |(! Orono, Minnesota 55391 ga,zs�s�a,za�4 ( .. : .. a r------- ---I \)j( . .. . 8 � � � � � � ----------- = = I � � ----- -- � )( ) (; \ Halvorson Renovation wKA� RSo ARCHITECTS I� §? § � 6 , e� # m@R2 z2A@pds « l,N� m |(! Orono, Minnesota 55391 ga,zs�s�a,za�4 ( .. : .. 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION o o 0 m Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. o m '^ m > y 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 y o& p m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC.y om 1300 Brackets Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 00 �Ai.,! & p m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 a �V 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION v X X 3 v Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. o m 6 _ > N 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 y0 m & A m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 X /.1 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m X X 3 J o a 9 Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. <y 'A `, y ` = D N 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 c z 1 V & A m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 zQ O Dm �y D� NO 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION mX X 3 J o a o Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. y > y 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 c z N & A m m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 N Q 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION mX X 3 J o a o Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. y > y 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 c z N & A m m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 y" N 12/13/2017 - VARIANCE PACKAGE - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m X X 3 J o a 9 Halvorson Renovation REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC. <y 'A `, y ` = D N 1300 Bracketts Point Road 2732 West 43rd Street, Mpls, MN 55410 c z 1 V & A m Orono, Minnesota 55391 Tel. 612-285-7275 Fax. 612-285-7274 zQ W 11 I 1 I 1 ni I 11 1 11 I 1 1 PI \ I 1 1 II 1 < % w0E= 935.4 Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitment) Lot 4, Rearrangement of Orono Point except that part of vacated Center Avenue as said Center Avenue was dedicated to the public in the plat of Rearrangement of Orono Point, lying northerly of a line drawn westerly perpendicular to the west line of said Lot 4 from a point on said west line distant 182.29 feet northerly from the southwest corner of said Lot 4, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALTA/ACSM OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES (The following items reference Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications) HOU m 11 O m 2) Site Address: 1300 Bracketts Point Rd, Orono, MN 55391 #129 \ 40 20 0 20 40 80 I' mN 3) Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) and Zone I z 11 SCALE IN FEET AE (special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood, base flood elevation determined to be 931 NGVD29) per 1 / \ Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 270188 0308 E effective date of September 2, 2004. s 4) Parcel Area Information: Gross Area: 131,820 s.f. - 3.026 acres R/W Area. 3,655 s.f. - 0.084 acres Wet Area: 4,655 s.f. - 0.107 acres *see note 18 below \ Net Area: 123,510 s.f. - 2.835 acres. I n 1P 01 9326 I 5) Benchmark: Elevations are based on MN/DOT Geodetic Station Name: ELWELL MNDT which has an elevation of. 980.362 feet (NAVD88). U, N 32.6 < 6 Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is LR-lA One Family Lakeshore Residential - 2 Acres per the Ci of a ) g g J P p ty• ( Y )p h' 1 \ x 932.9 x Orono's zoning map dated March 2011 and within Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier 1. The setback, height, and floor space area 932 o restrictions for said zoning designation were obtained from the City of Orono found on their web site on the date of July 2016 and are as 1 N a follows: �4y x 932.9 930.9 �, 1 to S x 933.3 O N \ -936.3 �� P O N s x 936 5 GP FO 932.7 �r 1 Principal Structure Setbacks - Front: 50 feet; Side: 30 feet; Lake: 75 feet (From Ordinary High Water Line) 1 = m 934.3 o S� x 933.0 S 930'8 F LAKE MINNETONKA 936.2 x W x 9329 9322 �pLk 9328 x 9A Height: 2.5 stories and 30 feet 932.6 /� BS x 933.5 F� 955. ro . a c 1 Hardcover: 25 percent of gross lot area 5 6 m 3 0 + BSB et �� i pig "O p 1 9311 x� 932 / g3 �� 95 �„ C �4� �� \�8'6g i \\ \eSe 935.4 �F\ 93 .3 x 9� 00 WAYZATA BAY (Within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of any lake or tributary, and within any bluff or 933.1 933.2 ` x 933.0 < 934.6 9 x 931.0 930 9 X33.3 5� Qr1 5 OPEN 952 s x 9 9�6 J �9� 9sQ �� 9 shore impact zone, no hardcover shall be placed, located or constructed, except for driveways, stairways, lifts, N7 P \ 3A 1, s v� WATER LOCATED JULY 19, 2016 landings and lockboxes as regulated by the Shoreland Overlay District.) 932,0g32.1 - �34 ' 931.9 x BENCH -� 933.1 934.0 x ���1� 93443 x g� 6 �' WATER ELEVATION = 929.0 (NGVD29) -10 y x 931.5 � x 931.2 \NG F\ -A x-931.3 �� �j`ZS• \ O S 2 O P �Y 9 934.6 \•y 933.2 9� \��o x 9L �� O� FNo_ 1 4.6 \ 9 O Please note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such 1 93 .0 rn �o \ 932.1 x s� 3�� \ �Q N \� LA 0 x � l 940.3 �i �., 8J amendments if they are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning S e 3\ 6 931.6 O m 932.6 + s L F g i< x 932.4 \� F 3 Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. m 6 1 x 931.9 sg� \ 940.6 1 9 x 931.4 B 932.0 x\`-, \ 5 w 11 14 / k v 935.8 ° N 1 1 36 n_ --. BSB I �� 94 x 9 4.3. O r 1 _ ms % } 936.1 �9? o l 3 x 4. 32 We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer. / gs Z w �L x 933.4 \\ .+ xS 1 1 ti g� x 932.0 \ / X936.0 / G O�\� 9�\ 934 5 x x 931.6 x 831.7 932.5 x �O � 9--15 6 9356 11) Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities on the surveyed property by observed evidence and city record plans only. There may be - r - x 931.6 x 93 g m x X34 4 \ c� x x 943. o,-' 94 I underground utilities encumbering the subject property we are unaware. Please note that we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this WET LAND ' 9-5\a \ y \ x 944 5 9 .0 �, 9426 DOCK survey. There may or may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation 931.1 r 933.6 � �°' x 943.6 N x a� takes lace on or near this site. Before digging, you are required b law to notify Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours in advance at 944.0x- q_, m Z 9 p gg g> Y q Y f1 p 1 Vx 932.4 V Q r 34 ° x 931.8 x 932.0 x 932.1 ® m S oN x 945.4 �� 9 Jam, 4 93\ x 935. 3 A�C 944.6 944.1 - 9 X4.2 x 9�?S. w� ro 932.7 1 651/454-0002. 1 - x 931.5 r \ oUN 94 / \ . x 9a) x � " 937 1 O m Uix 934.5 p 948.8 q W o5 x 1 J 1.7 1 x 932.2 0/ N �N �� x 937.3 �s g \ 948 9F 944. x 944.5 r � 958.6 \ _ 5 x 933.3 <\ 1 0 47.3 944. 944.4 x - 18) Wetland: A wetland delineation was not preformed for this survey. The wetland is shown per LiDar data derived from Minnesota Department o x x y 944.9x F 939.7 o ,t ON n g5o.o x o 947.7 S 44.8 Q� ^ -1 of Natural Resources on January 11, 2013 and is intended to be an approximate location only. A wetland delineation is recommended for an O m� 1 1 931.8 ' x 631.7 r /� � / 948.3 2 944.7 x944.7 I rr \`I Z C lo / x 932.6 �n 94/.&&& 2A' x 947.6 44.8 accurate location. n w x 931.7 0NU 935.9 x 950 3 GFE 1 N O Uj9 944.9 944 9 o N .... z n 1 � 944.9 O N x 9 49.4 0 95 s ? 9sr OF �� `96 9AS / 45 3 i o I %p �: , t 9 J pN� x 931.6 m 932.0 x 934.2 950's O S2 x` cD I 0 03 C V �s 931.9 �1 x 932.4 936.5 x m g4� 6 950.0 9S0 3 \ �� cr ch? I o' 03 co 6 �61 7 1 �', -I _ _ 5D . 1 x 934.1 ` h^ _ - 9 j 1 XX SAP X00 953.0 949.0 / SURVEY REPORT c) 1 1 Q P w `5().9 8.6 d I 9 A S 952.9 / \ Q 932.2 x m -x 950.5 9,50 9SFx �m S - _ --_-- / I � 932.1 x 932.2 x 933.2 ^ 936.0 - 950 98 x 951.3 /i A @ O O 55.3 -- 7 r,M 9 so 950.7 6 X ti - This ma and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued b Custom Home Builders Title LLC as issuing agent z 9� - 949.E x 95 8 S �� x 953.0 I rn p p P P Y g g C) o o 932.2 3 x 932.4 x 935.0 50.1 949 7 0.6 x o� �� �5� 30 2 N for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, File No. HB -32299, dated June 30, 2016. O rn 1 x x`32.3 _ 9.3 - 949 °� 19 S O 952-8 x 953.2 cn b ^'� - > x 932.4 3. x ")P. d 949. / x 8 949. " 9 S O 4. 1 5g \ O ) 9Q ,STONE CURB - s� '6 x 952.7 x � Z 1 '2 9 949.7 O r 953.1 x 951.7 W w o x 1 x i .. 950.1` \\ -BENCH i'i 1 Q 932.4 _ x 932.9 x .S x 953.0 -- X 9327 N % TEp �_ 94 6 951.3 x 953.0 !� I 54.4 � a 1) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment: --- m N S 949.2 d v _ 1 w 1 r 932.8 x 933.0 a�� bl O �' 9., 50., 951.0 953.4 x 9s� W 952 953.3 a Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey related N 948.3 x 9 9. /- P 950.5. w 9 � � -7 \ Zz \ 1 � � � � 0 x 952.8 "� 00 952.7 � 31.2 � _ ) Y lo 49. O x 952.4 rI \ x 953.0 x 953.3 W II x - w x 946.7 948 2 5 E 9 1 953.b \ = b) Item no. 9 Terms and conditions of easement for the perpetual right to operate and maintain underground cable and conduit, in favor of N 950.4.: S I 953.3 x k' Z O N x g36•� x 945.4 O 9 0 5 951.1 �6 o Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, dated January 11, 1945, filed July 18, 1945, as Document No. 2297031. 1 / 942.7 x 944.2 46 4 948.6 `o p g 5 .4-> x 952.1 x, \\x 952.8 I W [r 0 -- 1 l0 936.3 � x 9 � W I z Z Q Partially released by Partial Release of Easement, dated November 25, 1987, filed December 15, 1987, as Document No. 5357598. Z-- 949.2 9 FOUNTAIN 3N 950,6, } I x 93.4 r�g40 1 x 941.1 ° 4 x 951.3 952.9 x 930 I > Easement does not affect the subject property. Said easement is located l7feet west o the sub •ect ro er shown hereon. 9 % 1 36 9 942.4 944.5 947.8949 6 951.1 x1952.7 ° i D W %% l P P tY % f l P P tY O 1 0� 940 B 49 4 950 2 x 952.1 x 953.4 x 952 9 x w_ 5.27 o w c Item no. 10 Terms and conditions of Declaration of Private Road Easement, dated March 6, 1992, filed March 17, 1992, as Document 953.2 > ) (n ® 937.1 O' 949 3 949.9 950.5 9s/ 0951.6 952.7 x�I:D Q� No. 5888651. Shown hereon. 1� 944.6 947.1 x 953.4 x 9 3.4 - % 1 o m 940 7 9 9 950.8 I � 930.2 d) Item no. 11 Rights of the public and the State of Minnesota in and to that portion of the insured premises lying below the natural high 942.4 948.9 949 7. . o 9 9.1 u, / x 948.6 950.1 952.7 J 1 w N ® 938.1 r O. 50.5 x 851.6 9§3.7 W � x water mark of Lake Minnetonka. Shown hereon. Il 1 x 946.3 00 x 951 9s 953.5 x 953.9953:6g�38 2.9 O 0 -Z 938.0 x 953.5 38 : 9S3 m x 944 NT R x 951.7 x 952�s 953.5 9s 8 2) Observations/Comments noted hereon per field survey such as (but not limited to): access, occupation, and easements and/or servitudes: x 950.5 3 x 953.9 �9 50 �31.q _ 1 x 39 8 E'SROAD EpCEMPROPERTY PER �� Sg`/ gsd� 953.3 �� 9 x ,X 954 1 \P 1° EPN a) Red circled letters represent the City of Orono hardcover worksheet items. Seethe corresponding hardcover worksheet. Ex, (A LO 1 1 g IR�ENING SggJE TEM N0. 10) x 948.6 / `/ B 0 3.,\ x' O� / FNS 953.8 x '0. W 5 9951 BSB 95 954.0 W D (!� . N -- - 0C N� - x 946.9 �/ SB x 951.3 x 74.29' 1 x x 944.9 gsB 3 x 953.4 -6 r,945 �jg45.9 gSB�/ / 9Si6 --342 9 3 3+ x 953.6 x 1 D o _i 1 �/ x x (� �� \ x 952.7 1 N O'p, BSB ` 94 6 x 951.6 "� 1 Z r x 941.8 W 9S o , 5x �� 953.1 x O 1 x x 947.8 O x X15 Ar -7 x 952.9 Z -\ 9 P \� \ 49.S x 951.3 N 1 x 953.4\ �0V� - x x .Nr 1 1 o O 942.1 x 945.3 \ 946.6 x 941 9\ 9 42 m 1 =940.5 x o 1 ,. Q N ice/ x 9 5.4 P x 9507 I .+ o \ 1 O Q2 x� 954.1 1 FND REBAR 1/2" 2 FND 1P 1\2 x 947.8 to FND IP 1.5" 1 - x 944 2 x 945.4 < FIELD CREW NO. BY DATE CL, DM, AT 1 DBP 2/15/2017 DRAWN 2 DBP 2/17/2017 JJA CHECKED DBP DATE 07/19/2016 9 x 944.8 943.3 fir �N m m� m �N m m� m REVISION USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR AVERAGE BLDG. SETBACK LINE CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS BURNET TITLE STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. 117.5 __---- b,QU To: Sally W. Pillsbury, Burnet Title, Custom Homes Builders Title, LLC, and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 5, 7a, 8 and 11 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on August 2, 2016. Date of Plat or Map: August 2, 2016 Jalkd J. Averbeck, PLS Minnesota License No. 53642 mw + co N c�FR S P 0"���� OO CAST IRON MONUMENT R7 CATCH BASIN a �EFN N GATE VALVE < GUY WIRE '0� HYDRANT O SURVEY MONUMENT SET • x7 Q V FENCE LIGHT POLE oE. SINEDR � �_. POWER POLE I SANITARY MANHOLE Q R\_ ❑ SIGN SANITARY SEWER GROUND ELEVATION %972.5 O STORM DRAIN sT STORM MANHOLE b %F GRAVEL LANDSCAPING ROCK LANDSCAPING Y SI TE N N T Smith Da, ��T Y CM A A L Bracketts P E Point FIELD CREW NO. BY DATE CL, DM, AT 1 DBP 2/15/2017 DRAWN 2 DBP 2/17/2017 JJA CHECKED DBP DATE 07/19/2016 9 x 944.8 943.3 fir �N m m� m �N m m� m REVISION USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR AVERAGE BLDG. SETBACK LINE CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS BURNET TITLE STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. 117.5 __---- b,QU To: Sally W. Pillsbury, Burnet Title, Custom Homes Builders Title, LLC, and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 5, 7a, 8 and 11 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on August 2, 2016. Date of Plat or Map: August 2, 2016 Jalkd J. Averbeck, PLS Minnesota License No. 53642 mw + co N c�FR S P 0"���� OO CAST IRON MONUMENT R7 CATCH BASIN a FLARED END SECTION N GATE VALVE < GUY WIRE '0� HYDRANT O SURVEY MONUMENT SET • SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND Q SURVEY CONTROL POINT FENCE LIGHT POLE 7)� POWER POLE O SANITARY MANHOLE Q SANITARY CLEANOUT ❑ SIGN SANITARY SEWER GROUND ELEVATION %972.5 O STORM DRAIN sT STORM MANHOLE b YARD LIGHT GRAVEL TWP.117 - RGE.23 - SEC. 11 Project City: Orono SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. Hennepin County 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 WWW.SATHRE.COM SURVEY LEGEND LA- A/C UNIT © CABLE TV PEDESTAL ❑E ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER O ELECTRIC MANHOLE OO ELECTRIC METER © GAS METER © GAS VALVE -° GUARD RAIL ❑H HAND HOLE FENCE SOIL BORING FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TREE CONIFEROUS GAS UNDERGROUND TREE DECIDUOUS O TELEPHONE MANHOLE ❑ TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY SEWER TRAFFIC SIGNAL OO UTILITY MANHOLE 70 UTILITY PEDESTAL O WELL y LANDSCAPING BITUMINOUS -BSBL-BSB- BUILDING SETBACK LINE CTv CABLE TV CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CONTOUR EXISTING sso CONTOUR PROPOSED DT DRAIN TILE Esc ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND -X-X- FENCE FO FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND GAS GAS UNDERGROUND oHu OVERHEAD UTILITY RAILROAD TRACKS > SANITARY SEWER » STORM SEWER TEL TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND uTL UTILITY UNDERGROUND WATERMAIN ROCK LANDSCAPING ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY PREPARED FOR: SALLY W. PILLSBURY FILE NO. 70668-001 1 1 DRAWING INDEX The Halvorson Renovation -Variance Package A00 TITLE SHEET A02 PROPOSED SITE DIAGRAM A13 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A14 PROPOSED GARAGE SECOND LEVEL A20 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A21 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A22 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A23 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X20 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X21 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X22 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X23 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X91 EXTERIOR PHOTOS X92 EXTERIOR PHOTOS X93 EXTERIOR PHOTOS CONTACTS Owner: George & Lorie Halvorson 1300 Brac etts Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Orono, Minnesota Architect: Re -]ramp Larson Arcritects Inc. 2732 West 43rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55410 t. 612.285.7275 _I 612.285.7274 Contacts: Jean Reil amp Larson, AIA can@re rFamplarson.com Amanda Ka- amanda@reFi-amplarson.com Builder: WeICr Forsman 6026 Pillsburi Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55419 t. 612.827.4455 Contacts: Don Forsman don@Feld orsman.com Structural Engineer: Bun l ers & Associates Structural Engineers 6687 Forest Street Farmington, MN 55024 t. 651.366.2853 Contact: Eric Buni ers ericb@buni-ersandassociates.com Interiors: Alecia Stevens Interiors 510 Groveland Ave, No. 116 Minneapolis, MN 55403 t. 612.889.7188 Contact: Alecia Stevens alecia@aleciastevens.com GENERAL NOTE: FULL SIZE SET: 24" X 36". SCALE AS NOTED. HALF SIZE SET: 11" X 17". SCALE IS 1/2 OF NOTED. U o Z H L0 � zo Llop H N = N N U Qr Z LL O L Ch U)� "6 N J It LO 00 d N Q O N Y � � = M - W N H iO M �' � > 4iCt 0 . a O d O � N C Aa) c O LN L O m C O Q 2C-)0 DRIVEWAY 1 1 1 1 \ GARAGE \` 111F ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II GRAVEL 1 1 1 DRIIVEWA 1 •. 1 \ ELEV: 946.2' 1 EXISTING CONCRETE \ \ RET. WALL S78°17'53"W 20.00 I 1 III � I \ FLAT ROOF I / 1 1 � 1 II � 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 N-75�1'5 1 1 1 14'69 \ W LL & BENCH OTE: \ ��1 I N. 1 m� 11 WORK @ GROUND 1 LEVE IQ � w s� \ 1. PROPOSED GABLE y 1 1 PRIVATE ROAD 1 / ROOF IN PLACE OF GARDEN 14.96 / SUBJECT PROPERTY 1 \ PER DOC. NO. 5888651 EXIST. FLAT ROOF 1 (ITEM NO. 10) I 1 I 111 1 1 1 o 1 _ PRIVATE ROAD 1� EASEMENT BURDENINGNSG SESB� / ' 2. PROPOSED GABLE I SUBJECT PROPERTY / ROOF @ EXIST. HIP PER DOC. NO. 5888651 I(ITEM N0.10) / � � � ROOF ENDS. TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF SLOPE. II 11 y �� 3. PROPOSED RAISED II 0 1 Q�GP, �1 \ EXIST. OVERHANG GARAGE, DRIVEWAY & TIRE PATH 4. PROPOSED SECOND 1 1 I F In SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT NOV.2017 -NOT REQUIRED LEVEL OVER GARAGE 1 I 1 FOR REVIEW IN PROPOSED VARIANCE PACKAGE. SHOWN\ W/ GABLE ROOF (OVER 1 I I 1 REFERENCEISIUDEDI REQUISITE REQUISITE AREAC INCLUDED IN EXIST. FLAT ROOF) I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 ATTACHED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS FOR CONSISTENCY. -------- \ \ XIS NG NEW GRAVEL \ ST NE .. ALL ' DRIVEWAY 1 1 1 1 \ GARAGE \` 111F ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II GRAVEL 1 11 I II 1 DRIIVEWA 1 •. 1 GRAUEL •• ELEV: 946.2' 1 EXISTING CONCRETE \ \ RET. WALL S78°17'53"W 20.00 I 1 III � I \ FLAT ROOF I / 1 1 � 1 II � 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 \ S ONE RET. \ \ \ W LL & BENCH OTE: \ ��1 I N. 1 m� 11 WORK @ GROUND NORTHWESTERN BELL` LEVE IQ � w TELEPHONE EASEMENT 1 PER DOC. NO, 2297031 1 160'�9� D / & 5357598 (ITEM NO. 9) I 1 1 PRIVATE ROAD 1 EASEMENT BENEFITING 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY 1 PER DOC. NO. 5888651 1 (ITEM NO. 10) I 1 I 111 1 1 1 NEW GRAVEL 1 TIRE PATH 1 1 1 11 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY MEADOW \ AT ROTAD W ENG Im / -ECT PROPERTY DOC. NO. 588865 Y A NO. 10) \ CONCRE \ �S RET. WALL \stej� \ \ S�5.` 7 TRELLIS ABOV\S!O E\ STONE \ SINK / Norte / / \ SITE DIAGRAM Scale: 1/16" 1'-0" on 24x36 (1/32"= V-0" on 11x17) / 13 RAP RAP —EDGE OF WATER Z 0 F_ N Z /0 1.6 0 H Z I, W Y RIP RAP a W L) O N M U Z o -'t H L0 � W z op H N = N N SQ T LI L Q x Z LL L L0 _0 N J It Lo � N N I Q > N Y = M — w N H r_ _0' m w I1 V L.1_ I i c� O o Nd d O Ids 2 � C AJ C O U N 2 O Co C O 0 2C-) 0 A02_ SITE DIAGRAM O EXISTING CONCRETE EXT'G SHED IRET. WALL I F / EXIST. LL WALKOUT ELEV: 946.2' \ EXISTING CONCRETE \ \ RET. WALL \ EXISTING \ FLAT ROOF I / \ EXISTING FLAT ROOF \ S ONE RET. \ \ \ W LL & BENCH OTE: \ SHADED AREAS bE�NOTE AREAS OF WORK. NO NEW WORK @ GROUND LEVE IQ � w / I N ma m 160'�9� D / / Norte / / \ SITE DIAGRAM Scale: 1/16" 1'-0" on 24x36 (1/32"= V-0" on 11x17) / 13 RAP RAP —EDGE OF WATER Z 0 F_ N Z /0 1.6 0 H Z I, W Y RIP RAP a W L) O N M U Z o -'t H L0 � W z op H N = N N SQ T LI L Q x Z LL L L0 _0 N J It Lo � N N I Q > N Y = M — w N H r_ _0' m w I1 V L.1_ I i c� O o Nd d O Ids 2 � C AJ C O U N 2 O Co C O 0 2C-) 0 A02_ SITE DIAGRAM 1. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF IN PLACE OF EXIST. FLAT ROOF 2. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF @ EXIST. HIP ROOF ENDS. TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF SLOPE. 3. PROPOSED RAISED EXIST. OVERHANG 4. PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL OVER GARAGE W/ GABLE ROOF (OVER EXIST. FLAT ROOF) \ \ of F so N� —MATCH NEW OVERHANG I EXISTING UPPER \ LEVEL OVERHANG RpOFp�gO \ \ \ \ \ /q pT0, "O \\\ Nq�TRFgN�pRes TPO SURFACE \ / VELI ROCK - FLAT ROOF / FOR SUNSET / NTION & INFO) / \� NEW GRAY TPOSURFACE /GRAVEL/ELI ROCK AT ENTIRE FLAT ROOF mm EXTG BRICK CHIMNEY DECK AT ALL LOCATIONS NOTE: INCREAEXTSLOPE FOR BETTESER DRAINAGGE TO GUTTERS @ ALL FLAT ROOFS NEW GRAY TPO SURFACE ( GRA VEL/ ROCK AT ENTIRE FLAT ROOF II I I I I I I I I F SKYLIGHT I NEW GUTTERS AT ALL LOCATIONS II re UP 14" I I I NEW GRAV TIOSURFAI L/ I GRAVELI ROCK AT ENTIRE FLAT ROOF EXTG SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN- VFY CONDITION I I I FIIIIIIIIII _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -------------------------------------- _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — PROPOSED GABLE ROOF @ EXIST. HIP ROOF ENDS. TO L — — — — EXISTING ROOF SLOPE. 1 I I I I I I y I I I I I I I I I J --------------- AT ALL LOCATIONS NOTE: INCREASE EX -7G SLOPE FOR BETTER DRAINAGE TO GUTTERS @ ALL FLAT ROOFS NEW GUTTERS AT ALL LOCATIONS a' w _ l II I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I - �L--------------- � w NEW FLAT ROOF BELOW TO REPLACE EXISTING. RAISE NEW GUTTERS OVERHANG ABOVE DOORWAY. AT ALL LOCATIONS GENERAL NOTES: 1 2 3 SHADED AREAS DENOTE THE AREAS OF WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. ALL ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE EITHER NEW ROOF SHAPES (SLOPES UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING) OR ENCLOSED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING SPACE. THERE ARE NO NEW ELEMENTS @ GROUND LEVEL. ADDITIONAL NOTES REFERENCING OTHER ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED VARIANCE AREAS ARE ONLY INCLUDED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. NEW GUTTERS ------------------- I PROPOSED GABEXIST FLAT F IN ROOF /PLACE OF EXIST. FLAT ROOF MATCH NEW OVERHANG / EXISTING UPPER LEVEL OVERHANG REUSE EXISTING GUTTERS AT EAVE ENDS IF POSSIBLE North I ROOF PLAN Scale: 1/4"= V-0" on 24x36 (1/8"= V-0" on 11x17) Z 0 P 0 N� I� H Z U 0 LL F_ 0 Z 1 /W Vg i Q IL w Z Q `Q r 0 04 M r 04 Vo Z HL0ti WZ000 H N _ N N V Q� (.0 Co O a) LL U)U)L0 72 N J tLn d v N N N_ = N M w N H r_ p r �0/ILO LJ. r+ Ln C 0 0 a C N co O 0 SMO 2� PROJECT PHASE: VARIANCE PROJECT NUMBER: 17-004 rc NEW GUTTERS GRAY POSURFACE AT FLAT ROOF l GRAVEU ROCK METAL RAILING- SEE ELEVATIONS IPE DECKING PANELS ON PEDESTAL SYSTEM EXISTING FLAT ROOF 'NOTE: NEW WALLS TO BE SET IN FROM F.O. BRICK BELOW BY u12", F.O. FASCIA BY ❑16" \q : - ::: ::: ::: I II NOTE: 2.8 II I W II I II I II I -----------7r----------- ri II I I PAWIPION carvFeRovc��B$ eE w D I I F -'Y1 4" 3,_D" 10" B'-18" R.O. v / TERRACE _ PABAR MAIN HOUSE REMODEL UNDER I / 1--1k \ / SEPARATE APPROVED PERMIT or 2x10 WALLS AT PAVILION TO ALLOW FOR WINDOW COVERINGS SET IN DEEPER JAMBS -c` C D \ v \ / Norte i UPPER LEVEL GARAGE PLAN Scale: 1/4"= 1'-B" on 24x36 (7/S"= 1'-B" on 11x17) Z `O /II— V N� r N Z O U O H O Z W Y L) A14 UPPER LEVEL GARAGE PLAN rr I I I I I I I I U) Z O Q i W Lu Q o co Q W W ' Cn 1 'REMOVE EXT'G TRELLIS BETWEEN ENTRY & GARAGE ROOF. REMOVE EXTG LOW 'LANDING WINDOWS AND MOVE ENTRY CANOPY UP 'LijT^^ VJI F _", 11 GENERAL NOTES: Mism ISI I�1' ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■�� j� ■Ij ���j _ �■1 1■1 1■1 1■1 1■1 1■ 1�■I ■�I'■■■I III'���■I � I I i s ��■��I■Ii al��l I m m i I��I 3 2 --s 4m----- ------ %/ 111111 %/ NEW WOOD DOOR (NO GLASS) PAINTED WOOD SURROUND SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (OVERALL) Scale: 3/16"= V -D" on 2406 (3/32"= V-0" on 11x17) - NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES I NEWABLEDROOFA OVERLAY GABLE FRAMING STRUCTURE -SE OVER HIP STRUCTURE- SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR INFO J 41, NEW GUTTERS AT ALL LOCATIONS NEW GABLED ROOF OVER EXTG NEW GUTTERS TO STRUCTURE. CONFIRM STRUCTURAL MATCH EXISTING INTEGRITY OF EXISTING ROOF AND REPAIR/ REPLACE AS NEEDED ■r• ■r• ■r• ■r• ■r• NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES ' ' ^ LINEOFEXISTING Ijfl RINE OF EXISTING L.� _yam J -- —� NOTE: AT CONSERVATORY, Ll REMOVE ALL EXTG METAL DETAILING @ WINDOWS CUT BRICK PIER DOWN &CAP ABOVE GRANITE PLINTH EXTG STONE BOULDER FOUNTAIN NEW CLAD WINDOWS AT ALL ALL OTHER EXTG BRICK PIERS LOCATIONS UNLESS NOTED & GRANITE WALLS TO REMAIN OTHERWISE CUT STONE TRIM AT MOST WINDOWS & DOORS 1. BUBBLED AREAS DENOTE THE AREAS OF WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. 2. ALL ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE EITHER NEW ROOF SHAPES (SLOPES UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING) OR ENCLOSED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING SPACE. THERE ARE NO NEW ELEMENTS @ GROUND LEVEL. 3. ADDITIONAL NOTES REFERENCING OTHER ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED VARIANCE AREAS ARE ONLY INCLUDED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. SOUTHWEST ELEVATION w/ CONSERVATORY on 24x36 (1/8- 1'-0" on 11x17) AREAS OF WORK: 1. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF IN PLACE OF EXISTING FLAT ROOF 2. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF @ EXIST. HIP ROOF ENDS. TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF SLOPE. 3. PROPOSED RAISED EXIST. OVERHANG 4. PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL OVER GARAGE W/ GABLE ROOF (OVER EXIST. FLAT ROOF) z 0 I— N z 0 W 0 LL I— O z 1 /W Q Y U Q a W U z Q OC Q ti 0 N M T_ N T U o z HL0 � LLlzoop H _ N _ � N Q r Q X Z LL rl- -0 N Jm a o0 � N I Q�� = N (' 13�NI— o ��LI) o=L' . Q F9 O Y � � C N L 0 m 0 O 2�0 A20 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0 i� ■1 1■ ■1 i i� I. -In -nn 1.1 1 NORTHEAST ELEVATION (OVERALL) = 1'-0" on 24x36 (3/32"= V-0" on 17x17) NEW GUTTERS AT ALL LOCATIONS NEW GABLED ROOF OVER EXTG STRUCTURE. CONFIRM STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTING ROOF AND REPAIR/ REPLACE AS NEEDED NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES LINE OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE NOTE: AT CONSERVATORY, REMOVE ALL EXPG METAL DETAILING Q WINDOWS CUT BRICK PIER DOWN & CAP ABOVE GRANITE PLINTH GENERAL NOTES: 1 NEW GABLED ROOF ABOVE. OVERLAY GABLE FRAMING OVER HIP STRUCTURE. SEE I STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR INFO NEW GABLED ROOF TO I REPLACE EXT'G HIP NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES I L_�_' NEW CLAD WINDOWS AT ALL LOCATIONS UNLESS NOTED CUT STONE TRIM AT MOST �\ WINDOWS & DOORS ii II II 0 II II 0 II II /i/ II II ii NORTHEAST ELEVATION w/ CONSERVATORY Scale: i/4 7'-0" on 24x36 (118"= V 0" on 11 x17) _= �izl fit• ME Jllll�ll�i■�ll�l�l�i, __:,_..L,_.1 _L== nnn_ l�FM 2 ----------------------- .......................... l.ml�nlnll111 '*��NEW STUCCO�­-�' WALL FINISH G4STOMQG9R TG­MATCH— EXTG WINDOW HEAD i I i i/ % I IIIII I � /NEW STUCCO WALL FINISH NEW STONE STOOP TO REPLACE EXT'G 1 /\ RAISE WINDOW HEADS ATTHIS WALL OF LAKE FACADE ONLY (SEE EXTG CONC. STRUCT. FOR INFO) RETAINING WALL 1. BUBBLED AREAS DENOTE THE AREAS OF WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. 2. ALL ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE EITHER NEW ROOF SHAPES (SLOPES UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING) OR ENCLOSED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING SPACE. THERE ARE NO NEW ELEMENTS @ GROUND LEVEL. 3. ADDITIONAL NOTES REFERENCING OTHER ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED VARIANCE AREAS ARE ONLY INCLUDED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. AREAS OF WORK: REPLACE WINDOWS & DOORS IN EXTG MASONRY OPENINGS EXISTING PAINTED ■ BRICK TO REMAIN 1. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF IN PLACE OF EXISTING FLAT ROOF 2. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF @ EXIST. HIP ROOF ENDS. TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF SLOPE. 3. PROPOSED RAISED EXIST. OVERHANG 4. PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL OVER GARAGE W/ GABLE ROOF (OVER EXIST. FLAT ROOF) U o Z HLr) Llzoop _ � N Z LL O rl- -0 N JL0 = N M �NI— ■ O M Loril i - U-) 0.c c ^^0 ON0 LL w r O L) N CIO 0,0 °c / O 0 =�0 A21 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS L 2 r ---- ---------------- -t NEW CLAD WINDOWS AT ALL NEW GABLED ROOF ABOVE- I OVERLAY GABLE FRAMING LOCATIONS UNLESS NOTED HIP STRUCTURE- SEE I I MN STOVER RUCTURAL PLANS FOR INFO NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES /NEW STUCCO CUT STONE TRIM AT MOST WALL FINISH L NEW CLAD WINDOWS AT ALL LOCATIONS UNLESS NOTED \ OTHERWISE ■ CUT STONE TRIM AT MOST WINDOWS & DOORS 1 NEW GABLED ROOF SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR INFO LINE OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE ! EXTG BRICK PIERS & GRANITE WALLS TO REMAIN CUT BRICK PIER DOWN & CAP ABOVE - GRANITE PLINTH EXT'G STONE BOULDER FOUNTAIN /NEW STUCCO l� WALL FINISH EXTG CONC. RETAINING WALL GENERAL NOTES: NEW GUTTERS AT ALL LOCATIONS AT ALL LOCATIONS D D /WOOD TRIM AT SOME _ WINDOW LOCATIONS '\ A (No STONE) ­_EXT'G CONC. RETAINING '_'-_'-ri-4'-ri"tiT'.-_'-ri"tiT'T-L WALL TO REMAIN NEW STONE STOOP TO REPLACE E%T'G NEW DOORS AT END WALL OF CONSERVATORY ONLY -ALL OTHERS TO REMAIN SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 2 Scale: 111= 1'-B" on , x36 011= 1'-D" on 11 z17) r--------------------� N I NEW GABLED ROOF TO SCh REPLACE EXTG HIP ��WALL FINISH STUCCO �� NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES WALL REPLACE E%T'GWOOD RAILING WITH NEW METAL Fi RALING TO MATCH OTHERS __----_---==—=7� SECTION THROUGH --N, EXISTING GARAGE - '-- EXISTING PAINTED BRICK TO REMAIN EXISTING PAINTED REMAINAINNORTHWEST ELEVATION (CUT THROUGH GARAGE) BRICK TO RE on .x ., (1/8"= 1'-1)" on 11x17) AREAS OF WORK: ®i 1. BUBBLED AREAS DENOTE THE AREAS OF WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. 2. ALL ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE EITHER NEW ROOF SHAPES (SLOPES UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING) OR ENCLOSED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING SPACE. THERE ARE NO NEW ELEMENTS @ GROUND LEVEL. 3. ADDITIONAL NOTES REFERENCING OTHER ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED VARIANCE AREAS ARE ONLY INCLUDED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. 1. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF IN PLACE OF EXISTING FLAT ROOF 2. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF @ EXIST. HIP ROOF ENDS. TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF SLOPE. 3. PROPOSED RAISED EXIST. OVERHANG 4. PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL OVER GARAGE W/ GABLE ROOF (OVER EXIST. FLAT ROOF) Z O U H N Z O U O LLI— O Z rW V Q Y V Q a W V Z Q I.f. Q ti O N M r N T_ U o Z H L0 � z L6 Lu pp F- N NN ccQ T I.fG Z LL O L ch U)� _0 N JCO LID d N Q � N Y = M - N I-_ r_ Or m (Y Lo O.� LO r p M !Z O cmc o/� (A L `O m C / O p 2C-)0 A22 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4 r---------- -------- I NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW GUTTERS TO D OMATCH REST OF HOUSE NEW CLAD WINDOW & DOOR UNITS L/ WOOD r TRIM AT PAVILION I I WEST GARAGE ELEVATION 1 Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —f I _ I I I I I I I I I I rt1 3 EAST GARAGE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) GENERAL NOTES: I I R F DECK --I CUSTOM M AL RAILING AT sTSETTERRACE I NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW GUTTERS TO MATCH REST OF HOUSE NEW CLAD WINDOW & DOORUNITS '/ WOOD r TRIM AT PAVILION EXISTING PAINTED �I� BRICK TO REMAIN V .. z --- - O N (n 11 r----------------------- i ' NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES I M NEW GUTTERS TO 4 MATCH REST OF HOUSE II I NEW CLAD WINDOW I I ^�� I & DOOR UNITS L/ WOODSECT! N T 4 CO ' TRIM AT PAVILION \ THROUGH STUC WALL FINISH NEW LINK ROOF DECK r/ CUSTOM II 0)II FOR REFERENCE ' I METAL RAILING BEYOND AT SUNSET TERRACE �I I � II I I I �I I II I I II I I II I II 1 — EXISTING PAINTED BRICK - WING WALL TOREMAIN O Z 1 r X Lil 1. BUBBLED AREAS DENOTE THE AREAS OF WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. 2. ALL ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE EITHER NEW ROOF SHAPES (SLOPES UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING) OR ENCLOSED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING SPACE. THERE ARE NO NEW ELEMENTS @ GROUND LEVEL. 3. ADDITIONAL NOTES REFERENCING OTHER ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED VARIANCE AREAS ARE ONLY INCLUDED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. I� I NEW STUCCO WALL FINISH I ill SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 2406 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW GUTTERS TO MATCH REST OF HOUSE FE ==nr 0 I / NEW CLAD WINDOW NEW STUCCO Z & DOOR UNITS �/ WOOD WALL FINISH EXISTING BRICK— TO REMAIN CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE XDOORS \` -STYLE TBD w METAL RAIL NO ND (PROVIDE ALLOWANCE) WEST GARAGE ELEVATION 1 Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —f I _ I I I I I I I I I I rt1 3 EAST GARAGE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) GENERAL NOTES: I I R F DECK --I CUSTOM M AL RAILING AT sTSETTERRACE I NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW GUTTERS TO MATCH REST OF HOUSE NEW CLAD WINDOW & DOORUNITS '/ WOOD r TRIM AT PAVILION EXISTING PAINTED �I� BRICK TO REMAIN V .. z --- - O N (n 11 r----------------------- i ' NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES I M NEW GUTTERS TO 4 MATCH REST OF HOUSE II I NEW CLAD WINDOW I I ^�� I & DOOR UNITS L/ WOODSECT! N T 4 CO ' TRIM AT PAVILION \ THROUGH STUC WALL FINISH NEW LINK ROOF DECK r/ CUSTOM II 0)II FOR REFERENCE ' I METAL RAILING BEYOND AT SUNSET TERRACE �I I � II I I I �I I II I I II I I II I II 1 — EXISTING PAINTED BRICK - WING WALL TOREMAIN O Z 1 r X Lil 1. BUBBLED AREAS DENOTE THE AREAS OF WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR VARIANCE. 2. ALL ELEMENTS SHOWN ARE EITHER NEW ROOF SHAPES (SLOPES UNCHANGED FROM EXISTING) OR ENCLOSED SPACE ABOVE AN EXISTING SPACE. THERE ARE NO NEW ELEMENTS @ GROUND LEVEL. 3. ADDITIONAL NOTES REFERENCING OTHER ELEMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED VARIANCE AREAS ARE ONLY INCLUDED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT. I� I NEW STUCCO WALL FINISH I ill SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 2406 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW GUTTERS TO MATCH REST OF HOUSE FE ==nr 0 I / NEW CLAD WINDOW NEW STUCCO & DOOR UNITS �/ WOOD WALL FINISH I TRIM AT PAVILION ROOF DECK rI CUSTOM \` METAL RAIL NO ND I ATSUNSETT RRA E \ ,y- TPO W/ GRAVEL, VFY NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION � Scale: 1/4"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (1 /8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) AREAS OF WORK: ExISTING PAINTED BRICK TO REMAIN 1. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF IN PLACE OF EXISTING FLAT ROOF 2. PROPOSED GABLE ROOF @ EXIST. HIP ROOF ENDS. TO MATCH EXIST. ROOF SLOPE. 3. PROPOSED RAISED EXIST. OVERHANG 4. PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL OVER GARAGE W/ GABLE ROOF (OVER EXIST. FLAT ROOF) Z O I— N z 0 w L 1,O1, 1. I— z w Q U Q a w U z Q Q ti 0 N M T_ N T Y O m rn In E I O .0 a o F9 N� O O � 0 m o 0 > 0 0 A23 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 40. w +IWO - - -�_.,� � II 1 r ' Ile. ' II '. �"6 ➢ a'"„§s "`�� ``'�� ..fid ti, F RIP"F/W _. `? r hit 4\ y V�u+ft�' by 4.�� J �!�` tl� � ��■■r4 41, I A,W!`@k G ' MW W FR 4 _f ;gip 4`i? f1" .i2' •.eA A ` � :� -� r i ,A" �ei� .. �,�+'.�� i, � .ley �� r � ,p �'''• 1'i+@ RIF! I F. i N Y�M lm go d A pM5 71, l r pp' a" !poll r a �i1 a, Of x WOMAN 40 o P �� Sill" , -KR ` 1 VIEW OF GARAGE FRONT Scale: No scale 2 VIEW OF GARAGE SIDE FROM ENTRY Scale: No scale z O U D H U) z O U O LL F- 0 O z w Q Y U Q 101- w w U z Q OC Q N M T- 04 N T U o Z H LU 000 H N _ � N U Z li O -0 N JLr) a �00 = N (y �NI— Q N r M >�LO O Co N C C C 02 N Cu O m C C) Q 2 i CY) PROJECT PHASE: VARIANCE X93 EXTERIOR PHOTOS SEE SHEET ) GARAGE ELD EXISTING SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (OVERALL) Scale: 3116"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (3132"= 1'-0" on 11x17) EXISTING SOUTHWEST ELEVATION w/ CONSERVATORY 2 Scale: 114"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (118"= l'-0" on 11x17) Z 0 P U F- U) N Z 0 LL 0 LL F- 0 Z LU a U Q a LU L) Z a a ti r N M r N r U C:) Z T H L0 � zo LUop H N / 1 Q T Z LL O L U) U)� "6 N J It LO (L 00N Q N Y = M - w N H r- -0 O T NNm m LA_ m 4it L(7 a o Ny� IZ O r A O�/� L V/ L O m C O Q 2C-)0 PROJECT PHASE: X20 EXISTING ELEVATIONS EXISTING NORTHEAST (LAKE) ELEVATION- OVERALL Scale: 3116"=1'-0" on 24x36 (3/32"=1'-0" on 11x17) SEE SHEET X23 FOR GARAGE ELEVATIONS 2 EXISTING NORTHEAST ELEVATION w/ CONSERVATORY Scale: 114"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (116"= 1'-0" on 11x17) z O U D H U) z O U O LL F- 0 O z w Q Y U Q 101- w w U z Q OC Q ti N M T- 04 T U O Z U) LQ N H LCA r - W Z M H N _ � N U 0- Z LL O U) ro � -0 N J ' a00 >a N Q > � Y N = M r- 0NCj C Q r rn M — > Lo C.- 0 Co O I.I. � C C C v � N Cu C c O 5 O PROJECT PHASE: X21 EXISTING ELEVATIONS EXISTING SOUTHEAST ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"= 1'A" on 2406 (3/32"= 1'-0" on 11x17) EXISTING NORTHWEST ELEVATION 2 Scale: 1/4"= 1'A" on 2406 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) z O P U F- U) N z O U O LL F- 0 O z LU a U Q a LU C-) z a a r N M r N r U o z T H L0 � zo LUoo I—�N N Q y � Z a) LL rl- O ll+^^ N VJ -0 N J dM' LO Q N Y = N � N H 0 O -0 T (B � m 0Y > - LLQ 0 C a O d O r A 0 L) cC V/ L 0 m C O Q 2C-) 0 PROJECT PHASE: VARIANCE X22 EXISTING ELEVATIONS EXISTING EAST (LAKE) GARAGE ELEVATION EXISTING WEST GARAGE ELEVATION Scale: 3/16"= 1'-0" on 24x36 (3132"= 1'-0" on 11x17) Scale: 3/16"= 1'-0" on 2406 (3/32"= 1'-0" on 11x17) EXISTING NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4"= l'-0" on 24x36 (1/8"= 1'-0" on 11x17) z O P U D w F- U) N z O U I.f O LL F- 0 z W a U Q a Lu L) z a a r N M r N r U o z T H L0 � Lu z op H N / 1 Q T Z LL O L u) U)� -0 N J It LO d 00N Q N Y = M - w N H iO -0 T m 0' >+C.Lo O . a o d o r O�/� L V/ L O m C O Q 2C-)0 PROJECT PHASE: VARIANCE PROJECT NUMBER: 17-004 X23 - EXISTING ELEVATIONS MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. #18-3997 REHKAMP LARSON ON BEHALF OF GEORGE HALVORSON, 1300 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:15 P.M. — 7:24 P.M. Rehkamp Larson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lake setback variance in order to change a flat roof to a gable roof within the 75 -foot setback and an average lakeshore setback variance in order to make cosmetic improvements and structural changes to the home situated entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. There will be no expansion of the footprint. The existing home on the subject property is situated 54.4 feet from the ordinary high-water level of Lake Minnetonka and entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line on the east side of Bracketts Point. The applicant's proposal involves replacing the existing flat roof of the one-story conservatory with a pitched roof, thus increasing the volume of the encroachment within the lake setback. The roof of the main portion of the home will be modified to add gables on the north and south ends to replace the existing hipped roof. The roof will not increase in overall height or peak height. However, the mass of the new gable within the 75 -foot lake setback will be greater than existing. The home is located entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line based on the homes immediately to the north and to the south. Those homes do not appear to have existing views of the lake over the subject property. Instead, each of the homes are situated primarily with views of the lake away from the subject property. The proposed improvements are not likely to adversely impact the existing views of the lake from the adjacent homes. In addition, the roof will not increase in overall height or peak height. However, the mass of the new gables within the average lakeshore setback will be greater than existing. I Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties in the report and can comment on those if the Planning Commission desires. The subject home was constructed in the 1950s and predates the contemporary lake and sightline protection rules. The owners intend to keep the existing home and also wish to make improvements to better suit their family's needs and to modernize the structure. Staff finds practical difficulties exist which support granting the requested variances. Planning Staff recommends approval. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Public comments have been received and have been included in the Planning Commission packet. Landgraver asked whether Staff has any elevation drawings. Curtis displayed a sketch of the existing home from the street and the lake. Curtis stated while there is an increase in the overall mass, it is fairly minimal. Jean Rehkamp Larson stated the property owners purchased the home with the intention of making improvements. The proposed changes are aesthetic and also help make the house more functional. The house is significantly toward the lake and any improvements would require a variance. Larson stated the improvements will greatly improve the value of the home and not impact the neighbors. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Schwingler commented the application is pretty straight forward and significantly improves the aesthetics of the home. Lemke stated the proposed improvements make sense. Landgraver stated normally he would be concerned with the massing effect near the lake but the plan appears to be a very thoughtful expansion and that he would be in favor of it. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that the applicants are limited in what they can do. Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-3997, Jean Rehkamp Larson on behalf of George Halvorson, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, granting of variances based on Staffs recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/13/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/13/17 60 -Day Review Extension Period Expires: 04/12/18 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 16 January 2018 Subject: #18-3997, Jean Rehkamp Larson o/b/o George Halvorson, 1300 Bracketts Point, Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance in order to change a flat roof to a gable roof within the 75 -foot setback and an average lakeshore setback variance in order to make cosmetic improvements and structural changes to the home situated entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background The existing home on the subject property is situated partially within the 75 -foot lake setback, and entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line on the east side of Bracketts Point. The applicant, representing the owners of the property, is requesting a lake setback variance in order to change a flat roof to a gable roof within the 75 -foot setback and average lakeshore setback variances in order to add a second story over the garage, convert a flat roof to a roof deck, add gable roofs where flat roofs exist, and improve the aesthetic appearance of the existing home. There will be no expansion of the footprint. The applicant's plan sheets (Exhibit D) illustrate the areas of change/expansion. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 &78-1279 - Setbacks: LR -1A Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 50' +250' No Change North Side 30' 145' No Change South Side 30' 73' No Change Lakeshore 75' 54' No Change Average Lakeshore The entire home is lakeward of the average Lakeshore setback line. FILE #18-3997 16 Jan 2018 Page 2 of 5 Section78- 305 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 131,820 s.f. (3.0 acre) f 320' @ 75' / f 320 ` @ OHWL Section 78-1403 - Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 1.99 acres and therefore is not subject to structural coverage limitations. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 32,955 s.f. 23,196 s.f. * 23,196 s.f. Tier 1 131,820 s.f. (25 %) (17.5%) (17.5%) *Staff adjusted the submitted hardcover calculations to exclude all of the retaining walls per current policy. The portions of house and other hardcover within 75 feet of the lake have not been itemized out. However, the applicant is not proposing any changes to existing hardcover or building footprints. Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The existing home is situated 54.4 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka where, normally, structures are not permitted. The applicant's proposal involves replacing the existing flat roof of the one-story conservatory with a pitched roof, thus increasing the volume of the encroachment within the lake setback. Additionally the roof of the main portion of the home will be modified to add gables on the north and south ends to replace the existing hipped roof. The roof will not increase in overall height or peak height, however the mass of the new gable within the 75 -foot lake setback will be greater than existing. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The home is located entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line based on the homes immediately to the north and to the south. Those homes do not appear to have existing views of the lake over the subject property rather, each of the homes are situated primarily with views of the lake away from the subject property. The applicant is proposing improvements to the existing home which will increase the mass of the encroachment within the average lakeshore setback. However, the addition of a covered entry; a second story over the existing flat roofed, single story garage; a new pitched roof over the flat roofed conservatory; and change in the roof over the main portion of the home are not likely to adversely impact existing views of the lake from the adjacent homes. The roof over the main portion of the home will also be modified to add gables on the north and south ends replacing the existing hipped roof. The roof will not increase in overall height or peak height, however the mass of the new gables within the average lakeshore setback will be greater than existing. FILE #18-3997 16 Jan 2018 Page 3 of 5 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 requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing home. The additional mass of the roof areas within the 75 - foot setback will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of modifications to the residence without footprint expansions within the setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. 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 proposed roof changes lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and within the 75 -foot lake setback appear to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties previously stated no objection to the plans; the mature vegetation, topography, and home orientation separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Based on the curvature of the shoreline, the subject property, and therefore the subject home, extends further into the lake than the neighboring properties. Also because of the shoreline curvature, the home to the north is set back further from the lake than the subject home resulting in the severe average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. This criterion is met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will not result in the subject home being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the home; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. This criterion is met. FILE #18-3997 16 Jan 2018 Page 4 of 5 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 improvements to a residential structure is an allowed use in the LR -1A Zoning 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 extreme curve of the shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback which encumbers the subject property. The proximity of the existing home to the lake is an existing condition setback of the subject home and is generally not in character with the immediate neighborhood. 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 shoreline's curve results in the extreme average lakeshore setback which encumbers the subject property. The proximity of the existing home to the lake is an existing condition setback of the subject home and is not in character with all of the homes the immediate neighborhood. 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. Due to the location of the house and the applied setbacks, no improvement which expand beyond the existing footprint and walls of the existing home can be done without variances. 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. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The shoreline, topography, and location of the subject home as well as the adjacent homes create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. 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. FILE #18-3997 16 Jan 2018 Page 5 of 5 Practical Difficulties Analysis The subject home was constructed in the 1950's and predates the contemporary lake and sightline protection rules. The owners intend to keep the existing home yet wish to make improvements to better suit their family's needs and to modernize the structure. Staff finds practical difficulties exist which support granting the requested variances to improve the home. Public Comments Comments have been 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 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. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Site Photos Exhibit F. Aerial Photos Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments Exhibit 1. 60 -Day Extension Exhibit J. Property Owners List Exhibit K. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 17 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #18-4000, Jeff Martineau o/b/o Barbara Garcia, 1335 Arbor Street, Variance — Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. Purpose. This application is requesting multiple variances to construct a new home on site, including Lot Area, Lot Width, front, side, street side setback and structural coverage. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 13, 2017; it was considered as complete on January 4, 2018. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on March 5, 2018. 3. Background. The applicant is looking to construct a new home located at 1335 Arbor Street, replacing an existing home on the property. The proposed home will be more centered on the lot. The site is a corner and through lot with streets on three of the four sides. The applicant proposes to build a full basement rambler style home with two stall garage and a deck. They are located in the RR -1 B zoning district and the lot is extremely small at 0.20 acres in a zone requiring 2 acres. The applicant is requesting variance for lot area, lot width, front setback, side setback. Side street setback, and structural coverage variance. The applicant would like the council to consider this application as it is presented, though the Planning Commission noted concern with the structural coverage variance. The applicant is prepared to redesign the footprint of the home to meet the structural coverage of 2000 square feet. Staff has determined that the redesign will require review by the Planning Commission in a public hearing. If the Council feels that the standards for a variance from the structural coverage have not been met, the applicant will bring new plans for a public hearing at the April 16th Planning Commission and the May14, 2018 Council meeting. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16, 2018 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. The Commission discussed the multiple variances and seem supportive of the variance except the structural coverage, noting that the limits were recently increased from 1500 sqft to 2000 sqft. The commissioners voted unanimously on a motion to deny the variance requests. Prepared By: LO Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: 5bV AGENDA ITEM 5. Public Comment. No comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. The Council has one of two options: a. If the Council feels that the standards for one or several variances, including the structural coverage variance, are not met, the applicant asks the Council table action, allowing him to redesign and resubmit for public review. b. If the Council finds that the standards for variance are met, the Council should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval for consideration at a future meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to either approve the application as presented or table the application for redesign. Exhibits Exhibit A. Proposed Plans Exhibit B. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit C. PC Staff Report Exhibit D. Setback Exhibit References 1) PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Site Pictures Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Prepared By: LO Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: 5bV v O /W CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR OF CO 11, BLOCK Z,-MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUN-1Y, MINNESOTA Mut OF tsMum i UP SHED 10.0 (E) n III PROSPECT AVE. POOL 1/ _ v STwP \ / I RRESRHUED 62.1 / ECEv = (y5g.v) u, EXISTING N RUU5E #1335 62.1 S 89020'30" It 175.00 EXISTING RDUSE x#1355 O 0 Siwr �� (F) ,.. � O U (A) -" 0 GARAGE FLOOR�-- ECEv = (95t.t) BEACKTOP o ------------------ DRIVEWAY Z 15.4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PRERIBES: LOT 1, SIOCK Z, ITARKVICCt • : uwfi ote� iron marker Lound p : Denotes iron marker set -- 56— Denotes ex6iing curimor ii"u, iTiooan 3ca level sato, I his Soy vey zonows the boos dal ies of the above described property andthe locaiion Man exisun9 nrj-=, aiivevvay, angio aria ooA6u� iy hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or itripruvcmu its. / o / (/J r O 0 r Q!� O Z /m CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR OF CO 11, BLOCK Z,-MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUN-1Y, MINNESOTA Mut OF tsMum i UP SHED 10.0 (E) n III PROSPECT AVE. POOL 1/ _ v STwP \ / I RRESRHUED 62.1 / ECEv = (y5g.v) u, EXISTING N RUU5E #1335 62.1 S 89020'30" It 175.00 EXISTING RDUSE x#1355 O 0 Siwr �� (F) ,.. � O U (A) -" 0 GARAGE FLOOR�-- ECEv = (95t.t) BEACKTOP o ------------------ DRIVEWAY Z 15.4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PRERIBES: LOT 1, SIOCK Z, ITARKVICCt • : uwfi ote� iron marker Lound p : Denotes iron marker set -- 56— Denotes ex6iing curimor ii"u, iTiooan 3ca level sato, I his Soy vey zonows the boos dal ies of the above described property andthe locaiion Man exisun9 nrj-=, aiivevvay, angio aria ooA6u� iy hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or itripruvcmu its. v v CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR OF LO 1 1, BLOCK 2, MAR-K/I LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. i N EDGE OF SMu ii uP ---S-89!-20"300-E- _.S-89!-29`30"-E-1-------------- :00 CC) \ DECK 75 :v � � �-. Vo 12PRUPUSEU o V, WALK - .- -- N1.0 - i HubbE co o / o ?F1 ss5 9.25 CJ)v / (A) o BLACKTOP 0 Of i 0- / N o DRIVEWAY CV (t) V m Z - 70.00 it // O: /_ FENctuNE __....__-.. �?: \ 40.00 Q S 89020'30° It 115.00 EXISTING POOL HOUSE T#1355 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISE: Cot -i, aiocK /-, MARK711M • Denutc5 irt;n iafRer Lound _ I hereby certify that this plan; specification, or report 5(;A -LE O :Denotes iron marker set ��%• was prepared by me or under my direct supervision 1" = 20' RS, and that I am a duly EicenSed Eand Surveyor under vA r E -- 956 -- Denotes existing contour line_ mean sea iuvv aurum the laws UT the State UT MirineSuta. 12-6-17 I fiia aui vcy aFt-uws the Bum iBarlCs Ot the a60ve tlesCi iced Ni upwrty and the location UT an umzltiritj Mnuao, driveway_ aR2O and er atiny JOB NO. hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments Ur improvements. Film AAul, mom we RECEIVED JAN 01 "018 CIN OF ORONO LEFT ELEVATION l �` scALE: va'=r,m \ �r GONYEA HOMES e,R, aaox L,eno RPS Rwr. oeRvaLsi. L,x nLa ofFw,=: iea-ta�sao fIUL iW.i] 1 BIMLDERLILER•E•NbY REVISION RECORD 0 Q 0 z N N O J Q J J Y Z U) O w 2 W O z Q Z L>u 1 1 I z //0� PROJECT y FgNWTCN.�� FMiBRED Sa.FT. 1478 r e�rrr F•18t 1B%2 N sEcow _ r(� iota. 33.E_5`Q V NOTE: INSTALL TWO -MEMBRANETAR PAPER SACKING UNDER ALL ROCK, STONE, AND STUCCO PRODUCTS NOTE: TYVEK AND TAR PAPER EXTERIOR IN PROPER FORM p' 1 //— a ��PErDENIf11La�CI1bLYM*K 8 P UfL CEDAR CORBEL DETAIL � anmme[ SCALE: ill -1.4r I I ❑ _ yearrwir�F�ne�cMmil�i�E ®® ,ro�u woRauaa —y} w CEDAR BRACKET DETAIL BR ® scuE: lir .,•a RECEIVED JAN 01 "018 CIN OF ORONO LEFT ELEVATION l �` scALE: va'=r,m \ �r GONYEA HOMES e,R, aaox L,eno RPS Rwr. oeRvaLsi. L,x nLa ofFw,=: iea-ta�sao fIUL iW.i] 1 BIMLDERLILER•E•NbY REVISION RECORD 0 Q 0 z N N O J Q J J Y Z U) O w 2 W O z Q Z L>u 1 1 I z //0� PROJECT y FgNWTCN.�� FMiBRED Sa.FT. 1478 r e�rrr F•18t 1B%2 N sEcow _ r(� iota. 33.E_5`Q V RECEIVE® J��N U -4 ?,U18 CITY OF ORONO BRtlNFF� IF M-1 r�H rmNr GONYEA im ,vIKa - a HOMES atmasoN xm•. BaFOEn vAuev, ssess asleE: eBo _ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MASTERSEDRooM c` FAx:mwz+wt Bllll!]ERl1GENBE ONBi ,a"I,mri.Rm. z•a . Bo=.•wA, a REVISION RECORD }-==�—�° TETT n_+,w•Bar.�rvwAr vm.nRARBd 1 12-16-14 GREAT ROOM FIREPLACE &R,R T ROOM ARCH -- - ---- M� 3 SCALE: ik` • 1'-0` 3 SCALE: tlY • i'-0` . --- rm.Rr. ou l z -66� CV EAr0.A jPANTRV n A I a O �' �� .r �� � � � � 4 3 ARCH ELEVATION 3 SCALE: VP•t'-0' rJ �� ' , -� -., vBr rr �-' N in �� � � .• fin MA MRCLOSET iia' 0�'k�4a 1OTC aEN iii iii 9y' -.. � _ � I�i ,aa.ma• --���-BFCFsp � $ 4 p 0 omaoFex .� MUDRooAi� � I I LAUNDRY I� Ad v-, iKR r. I a�ARCH ELEVATION ARCH Et' nLEVATION 1!a^• SCALE: t'-0` 3 SCALE: i!a'•-0' z k xucwu = m�e IMaw—FBF - C W �aE®aRIFRNwE'm,m 0 z 2 -CAR GARAGE Fr au—I i i ra CE saacemmaP anmal •I igl OFFICE ederw iRFnnwr rl �ee�oma wtrrisosieo Z [��i'�( 1,•-1 tail Xar. t I _ ,I adIRoOGB11OIFATNMi LU z 1 I 1 I==—IPiL T T f --_ �1—I ,. Z LARCH ELEVATION --------a s.leuw levF�wx+vawe R ae"" a°° O��t PROJECT I COVERED FRO elowaewueae y FOUNDATDN 62 al.FlB w,t»eFenox TP H j V�,.TNNU ,),mrse AriOanF V5nc N06Mn �wF1'e� � FINISHED 80. Ff. � BABENENT 1476 1 ® ® ILp. ROOFrRBF� 1 oze•o.e e.)�uiFal�"'mi.v�iesxottn e.IRooR owF.ROR. O N FIRST 1672 SECOND TorAl 3350 F �N oa Awa. o moo PROD. NO. GH0536 MAIN LEVEL PLAN SCALE: W^=vr SHEET 3 OF 4 RECEIVED 4 U y e '. .F e CITY OF ORONO •�. — — — — 1-T jf "Lb--DUJIrr-A o °Ie j HOMES �t�r� a a.,a., a oI EXERCISE p�pN II b atm IX.SaN 11ENDW.LHwV. �# BED�rDpA1 it OC,IIEN VALLEY, MNSRR pFwxiaas�ma qREC ROOM 6CALE: 7N'a O 'I SUaffER LICENSE 1211p I I I I II REVISION RECORD 1 12-18-14 4rr --_-- r-- �— --i I I I II C'.b � I ,�� mr r� � esataa• ' i, � I �� z ROOM ARCH _E_X.ERCISE \J DUNE: iN'e t'-0' 9EDRO I I I j L ------------J , O Z „I I • ;pr ,", i � -------------- I I I Q N � —_--_--_� U) ■ I ---- 31 O h I I I I I e J GI1Muuae� I ?. uvourcN i may. x•EOa rl I J STAIR ELEVATION I. I amRCX i I11Lw aw.ocaw I I MECHIcu I .N - I J 4 ---------------- z aaowwAta ea U) .: L-------, •� I CWC t.IKIhY�RgRn EY,Ennpn L 1 1 1 =a• '. ��NaNEsBe�Noms STORAGE I O 4aTnmmEaoM T i Otm.=w•wuc y Z I` I UNEXCAVATED I. I I' I alKutxea�.a �`v���a� Q J Z I.I I I I. I a.lauvmRgR i G ------� i wr.RwNaoNanawE Z ar-,, I PROJECT FWNOATION 2262 FEWHED M PT. I I I :. I I waem tlTxueeaaoontaer Nwtrrcn,r¢R V I '' L --_---_----J I h a aencxb oFbm aR �.,xwa �— mt�Enw.� L O eAeENoar 1478 FN=8f 1872 ---w I f — — a7R�Noaa„aw». roRrrnaxrn Rooua IN sECDND TOTAL 3350 r---------------� ;I ..: wwE,ucrRaaa LOWER PROJ. NO. GH0536 LEVEL PLAN SCALE: 1N'=1'-0' SHEET 11 2 of 4 From: Martineau, Jeff L To: Laura Oakden Cc: Melanie Curtis; Jon Connolly, Mark Gronbera Cmarkg(a oronbergassoc.com) Subject: RE: Application # 18-4000 - 1335 Arbor St - Electronic Copies of Survey, Plans and Exterior Date: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:42:33 AM La u ra, Thanks for your conversation today regarding 1335 Arbor St. This email is to confirm that the structure will be a full basement with no grading change. No lookout, no walkout, just the normal window well not in the side yard setbacks but to the rear of the home, so as to comply with city ordinances regarding bedrooms in the lower level. I will next week submit a marked up plan verifying no grade changes. Jeff Martineau REALTOR Coldwell Banker Burnet (952) 210-2626 www.ieffmartineau.com From: Martineau, Jeff L Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:23 PM To: Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us> Cc: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>; Jon Connolly <jconnolly@gonyeahomes. com>; Mark Gronberg (markg@gronbergassoc.com) <markg@gronbergassoc.com> Subject: Re: Application # 18-4000 - 1335 Arbor St - Electronic Copies of Survey, Plans and Exterior Not altering grade. No walk out basement Sent from my iPhone On Dec 20, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Laura Oakden <loakdenr@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Hello Jeff, From your submitted application 1335 Arbor Street #18-4000 it appears that you are requesting variances for Front yard, Side Yard, Side Street setbacks and a Structure Coverage variance to exceed the 2000sq.ft maximum. I am concerned there may be more approval required if you are planning on altering the grade of the lot to accommodate a walk out basement. Creating a new engineered grade on the lot would also require a Condition Use Permit. Right now I do not have enough information to move forward with your application without clarification. If you are planning on changing the grade for a walkout basement. I will need a proposed grading plan that shows existing and proposed 04125/2011 1295 OP I110 RROSPE 5 TAW! IN1EAt - V PRQ PE6 r.• Ar AYE ,a 1 0 P•ROSPEE AYE " oma MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 7. #18-4000 JEFF MARTINEAU ON BEHALF OF BARBARA GARCIA, 1335 ARBOR STREET, VARIANCES, 7:24 P.M. — 7:55 P.M. Jeff Martineau, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting multiple variances for lot area, lot width, front setback, side street setback, interior side setback and structural coverage to exceed 2,000 square feet. The applicant is looking to construct a new home on the property that will be more centered on the lot. The property is a corner and through lot with streets on three of the four sides. The applicant proposes to build a full basement rambler style home with a two -stall garage and a deck. The property is located in the RR -1B 2 -acre zoning district, with 0.20 acres in a zone requiring two acres. The applicant is requesting a 40 -foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required and a 7.5 interior side yard setback where 10 feet is required. In addition, the applicants are requesting an 8.5 side street setback where 30 feet is required. City Code allows lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area to have a total footprint of 2,000 square feet. The applicants are requesting a structural coverage variance to allow 348 additional square feet of coverage over what is permitted per City Code. The single-family home is consistent with the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The applicants should submit a proposed grading plan for review with the building permit. Depending on the roofline, roof overhang or small areas for drainage, water may be able to be mitigated with a gutter system. Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, lot width, proposed setbacks and structural coverage. Due to the size of the lot located within the 2 -acre RR -113 zoning district. The lot is also unique in that it has street abutting three sides of the lot. The Planning Commission should discuss and ask the applicant about the visual impacts of allowing an 8.5' side street setback, placement of window wells for the basement bedrooms if they can create adequate drainage within the side setback space for the lot. To date, no public comments have been received. Staff would recommend approval of the requested variances. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Jeff Martineau, Applicant, stated he represents both the seller and potential purchaser of the property and that he has submitted a rendering of the exterior, but that he has a photograph of an identical house that was built in another development. Martineau indicated they considered a number of different options for the home. This potential purchaser would like to live in this neighborhood. Martineau stated they initially looked at a house that would front on Prospect but the house would need to be two stories, with the back of the house facing the neighbor to the south. In order to reduce the impact on the neighbors, a one-story house has been proposed facing Arbor and fits the character of the neighborhood. The home will be constructed without any major grading. The main floor of the house consists of approximately 1500 square feet. Martineau indicated they will need to redesign the window wells to be on the back, which is fairly easy to do according to the builder. Landscaping is planned for along Prospect and no trees will be removed as part of this project. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Martineau displayed a picture of the existing house and indicated the stake depicts the front corner of the new house. Additional stakes were placed to illustrate where the new house will be and a line was spray painted connecting the stakes so the neighbors can see where the new house will be located. It is a one-story house and should fit into the neighborhood really well. Thiesse asked if there is any living area in the upper portion of the house. Martineau indicated there is not and that it is all aesthetics. Landgraver asked if he has looked at the drainage between the two homes at all. Martineau indicated there might be a need for drain tile or some type of swale along the property line and that he is willing to work with staff on that. Lemke asked if the proposed house is a mirror image of the photograph. Martineau stated the garage will be located on the other side of the house but otherwise it would be identical. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Lemke commented the drainage is a concern between the homes. Thiesse asked if there are any concerns with the street setbacks. Thiesse stated it is a quiet neighborhood and the setbacks do not bother him. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated if this was a busy street, the setbacks would be an issue. Leskinen indicated she does not have any concerns given the quietness of the street. Thiesse stated the structural coverage is an issue and that in his view this lot might not be able to accommodate this type of house. Leskinen stated the question is what is the practical difficulty for going over 2,000 square feet. Thiesse stated the rationale for the overage was so it could be kept as a one-story story. Thiesse noted this is a clean sheet design and that the applicant could get rid of 348 square feet but someone could argue that it is hardly worth redesigning. Landgraver stated the City recently increased the structural coverage to 20 percent and the main reason why the City has those constraints is to keep things in scale. Landgraver indicated he is hesitant to approve that much of an increase over the allowable structural coverage and that he has not been persuaded to approve that. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission recommended the increase in the structural coverage be denied. Thiesse asked whether the applicant would be able to reduce the structural coverage. Martineau stated this is a very unusual lot given the street on three sides and that the proposed house is 36 feet wide, including the garage. Martineau stated he is not sure if that includes the deck. Oakden indicated it would be the house and the covered stoop. Martineau stated it would be very difficult to reduce it without reducing the size of the rooms to the point where it does not make sense. Martineau stated he understands citizens have to be good stewards of the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. property and that it is his belief it is in the best interest of the neighborhood not to make this a two-story house, especially given the street on three sides of the house. Thiesse stated he is looking at the floor plan and he sees a sunroom and a study. Thiesse commented those are wonderful to have but that the applicant might have to decrease the size. Martineau noted the plan was originally at 38 feet wide and they reduced it to 36 feet wide. Lemke asked whether a two-story would be preferable. Thiesse indicated it would not be preferable but it would be allowed. Leskinen stated having the road on three sides makes the lot more challenging and noted the new home would be more centered on the lot. Leskinen questioned whether having a two-story house or having a one-story that is 348 square feet over the allowed structural coverage is really the lesser of two evils. Thiesse noted the home on one side is two stories and the other homes in the neighborhood are a story and a half. Landgraver stated the City thoroughly vetted the new structural coverage ratios and that he is not inclined to approve the increase in structural coverage. Landgraver stated he is willing to approve a two-story home since that is an efficient use of land. Landgraver stated if everything else were single story, he might make an exception, but that he has a feeling that some of the other neighbors in the future may want a two-story. Oakden stated because the proposed house encroaches the setback, if those setbacks continue to be proposed with a two-story home, they would require a variance since the second story would be a new encroachment in height in the setback areas. Landgraver moved, Schwingler seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 18-4000, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jeff Martineau on behalf of Barbara Garcia, 1335 Arbor Street, based on the structural coverage exceeding the 2,000 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: December 13, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: January 4, 2018 60 -Day Review Period Expires: March 5, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Reif, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLo Date: January 16, 2018 Subject: 18-4000, Jeff Martineau o/b/o Barbara Garcia, 1335 Arbor Street, Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting multiple variances for lot area, lot width, front setback, side street setback, interior side setback and structural coverage to exceed 2,000 square feet. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Background The applicant is looking to construct a new home located at 1335 Arbor Street, replacing an existing home on the propoerty. The proposed home will be more centered on the lot. The site is a corner and through lot with streets on three of the four sides. The applicant proposes to build a full basement rambler style home with two stall garage and a deck. They are located in the RR -113 2 acre zoning district and the lot is extremely small at 0.20 acres in a zone requiring 2 acres. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 - Setbacks: DISTRICT RR -1B Required Existing Proposed Front (Arbor St) 50' 15.4 40' Rear (Briar St)_ 50' 97.5 65' Street (Prospect Ave) 30' 15.5 8.5' Side 10' 7.7 7.5' Section 420- Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT RR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' Actual 9,100s. (0.2 acre) 52' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 9100 s. (0.2 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f. Proposed: 2,348 s.f. (House and Porch) 18-4000 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 5 (25.8%) *On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 3,185 s.f. 2,112 s.f. 3,184s.f. Tier 3 9,100 s.f. (35 %) (23.21%) (34.99%) Applicable Regulations: Setback Variances (Section 78-4201 The applicant is proposed to construct a new home that is oriented towards Arbor. They are requested multiple setback variances to use the lot for a single family home. They are requesting a 40' front yard setback where a 50' is required. They are requesting a 7.5 interior side yard setback where a 10' feet is required. They are requesting a 8.5 side street setback where 30' is required. The front and interior side yard setbacks seem reasonable for the small lot location. The Planning Commission should discussion if the 8.5 foot proposed street side setback seems reasonable for the home and location. Lot Area and Width Variance (Section 78-305) 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. Not 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 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 35 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. Not Met. The applicant's need for a multiple setback variances and structural coverage variance results in the property's inability to conform to #1 and #4 above. Therefore, a lot width and area variance is also required in order to develop the property. Structural Coverage (78-1403) The city code allows on lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. The application is requesting a structural coverage variance to allow 348 additional s.f of coverage over the permitted 2,000 sq.ft per the city code. The applicant is proposed a rambler style of home that is fitting within the neighborhood. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the 18-4000 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 5 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 applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The variances for a 40' front, 7.5' interior side, 8.5 street side setback and a 2,348 s.f. structural coverage request is reasonable considering the shape and buildable area of the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone 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 applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction on a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and shape, and its uniqueness being a lot abutting 3 streets. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence which is consistent in character and size with the surrounding homes. d. 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 18-4000 January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 5 located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home is an allowed use in the RR -16 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 size of the lot with in the RR -113 zoning district and abuting 3 streets is unique for the requested lot width, lot area, setback variances and structural coverage variance. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this statement to be true to allow for construction of a single family home on this parcel. 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 of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application has stated the narrow corner lot has setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size location between three streets. 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. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Engineer Comments A proposed grading plan should be submitted and reviewed with the building permit. Depending on roof line, roof overhang or small areas for drainage water may be able to be mitigated with a gutter system. The applicant should show how they plan to address drainage on the site with a submitted grading plan. 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 Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, lot width, proposed setbacks and structural coverage. Due to the size of the lot located within the 2 acre RR -113 zoning district. The lot is also unique in that has street which is abutting 3 sides of the lot. The Planning Commission should discuss and ask the applicant about the visual impacts of allowing an 8.5' side street setback, placement of window wells for the basement bedrooms if they can create 18-4000 January 16, 2018 Page 5 of 5 adequate drainage within the side setback space for the lot. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. The Planning Commission should discuss the side street setback and the visual impact that may have. 2. The Planning Commission should discussion he placement of the placement for window well. 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Planning Commission options for consideration If the Planning Commission has discussed and has sufficient findings for the requests, staff would recommend approval of the request variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Site Pictures Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map J 4 W al �\k �� sidet�zad , w I : � fide. hard 10 `min o CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR BARBARA GARC IA OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. Gnrgz nF GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 952.473-4141 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Numbfr 12755 1.— N LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot 1, Block 2, MARKALLE SCALE • Denotes iron marker found 1" = 20' O : Denotes iron marker set DATE ---956---; Denotes existing Contour line, mean sea level datum 12-6-17 This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing JOB NOhardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments 17-437 or improvements. From: Jeremy Barnhart To: Laura Oakden Subject: FW: 1335 Arbor Street Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:26:15 AM FYI From: Aaron H. Printup Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:58 PM To: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarn hart@ci.orono.mn.us>; Dustin Rief <drief@ci.orono.mn.us>; Denny Walsh <dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: FW: 1335 Arbor Street FYI: From: Casey Conrad Hudson [caseyconradhudson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 4:06 PM To: Aaron H. Printup Subject: 1335 Arbor Street Hello: I understand Jeffs proposal was denied during the Planning Commission's meeting where he proposed an application for a new home at 1335 Arbor Street due at least in part to lot coverage of the proposed structure. While I feel this requirement looks good on paper and may be a benefit for the majority of Orono's properties I don't feel that it applies in the same effect for 1335 Arbor Street due to the irregular and oddly shaped property. I have heard that to meet this regulation the possibility of a second story could be an option. While I cannot speak for the neighborhood I do wish to express my family's opinion that we would much prefer the current proposal as overall I feel that it is a much better fit for the neighborhood. We will accept the cities decision and welcome the new family into our wonderful neighborhood regardless but I don't feel it hurts to voice an opinion. Best, Casey C Hudson 2150 Prospect Avenue o� A F} OC I I 1D DGm n D I I �pami I t r rn$$ zG a I I j�a yp A II r I ni \J pmS� p I I NO \ II O Ncn Dr- m I I =t r lq m "t7 �� i FTOSLL \ om m r < 0 2 �y i F772o� I i I I I I I aD OR (n T IIS aR I C% N =11 III P mJW m D z� II n II W T II D<m I p� N II rp_A I I m- CI r_ m D5555 y O m m y B' D II oop A m'" 3 I� II I i ti G ---= a s \ m It __ J-______ pm -__- za q ' F TO 5 LL tr / II I / I Qa7 HEEL \ q' p D ;o \ I II VJ III G A� L m II N 0 m r II mm Am I I 3y D A z A` j aD I o� IL --------- II yj II n fl b II I I1 7fB' I HEEL II II II 11 II LF O 2017 STONEGATE BUILDERS SOUTH 1 — ELEV A N mJmN>t� N-� m No gm in= o SOUTH PLAN 1 y =g gm N� oz ° LOT X- BLOCK X- DEVELOPMENT X Q Q N N pmm. ° N _ street address m o�=sHATE BUILDERSSyom y ' city, State, Zip o o Ie. ho a;tcsu�e AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 18 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #18-4002, John Patch o/b/o Berkshire Partners, LLP, 2745 Kelley Parkway, Concept Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is provide non-binding feedback to the applicant and staff as to the Council's opinion of a proposed land use plan and zoning map amendment to allow a 56 unit apartment building. 2. 15.99 Deadline. Not applicable 3. Background/ Summary. The subject parcel is the vacant lot to the East of the Orono Dental building at 2745 Kelley Parkway. The site is platted and currently guided for office uses and is zoned for Highway Commercial Uses. The applicant desires to purchase the property and build a 2.5 story residential apartment building of 56 units on the site. An apartment requires an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan amendment requires Met Council approval. Density. The net development density based on 56 units on the 2.55 acre parcel would be 21.9 units per acre. The highest density anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan is High Density Residential at 10-15 units per acre. The Senior Housing project to the east was approved at 20 units per acre. Density at this level will help the City meet its work force housing and density goals established in the Comprehensive plan and could allow for lower densities elsewhere. Height. The 56 units will vary between 1, 1+, and 2 bedrooms in 2.5 floors. (4 units are proposed on a third floor, the remainder units will be on the 1St and second floor.) The building is designed to meet the height limits of 30 feet, though the final determination will be made when a full grading plan and architectural plans are developed. Parking. Parking will be provided in both surface lots and underground. Approximately 14 spaces of the surface lot are shared with the Dentist/ Medical office to the west. Even with the shared parking, parking on site meets the requirements of the use. Architecture. The property will be rezoned to RPUD and tied to the Stonebay development across the street to meet size requirements. Staff anticipates a design palette similar to the Stonebay project. The attached Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit B) provides additional information. 4. Planning Commission vote and comment. The Planning Commission took no formal action or vote. In their comments, they voiced support for the transition of use and trail connection. Since this project does not involve a subdivision of land, no public park is required. The RPUD zoning district requires a 10% of private recreation space is required. The Commission felt that the 10% land requirement would be better served as a cash donation to the public park requirement, in part due to the use of the property (likely working young adults or older individuals, the proximity of Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -T)2 AGENDA ITEM the school, and the desire to build connections to the trail system. Planning Commission minutes are attached as Exhibit C. 5. Public Comment. No public comment has been received. The concept plan does not require a public hearing. 6. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the City Council should include the following topics: A. Is there justification for the necessary CMP amendment and rezoning to allow the guiding of this property to be converted from commercial office to residential? If that conversion is not allowed, what other uses for the site might be acceptable (aside from office)? B. Is the Council comfortable with the density of the development at over 20 units per acre gross? C. Council should discuss whether this development should be required to create the RPUD standard 10% private recreation space or would a similar donation to the park dedication fund be appropriate. D. Staff recommends that a 10' trail easement be retained along the south boundary of the property. Should this developer be committed to establishing a trail along Wayzata Boulevard with a connection northward along the west end of the pond? Pending Hennepin County final decisions as to whether or when should a trail be established (and who should pay for it) should the developer be expected to construct or assist in the cost of trail construction? E. Are there any other issues or concerns with this concept? COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide non-binding feedback as to the Council's opinion of the proposed land use and zoning map amendments. Exhibits Exhibit A. Proposed Plans Exhibit B. Planning Commission Staff report Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Proposed Plans & Elevations Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. Building Height Comparison Exhibit F Narrative References A. PC Exhibits: ExA Application ExE Airphoto ExF Comp Plan Map ExG RPUD Ordinance Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -T)2 Council ExA . 18-4002 PARKING GARAGE, The parking is partially subgrade which provides 83 enclosed parking. This means that we are providing 1 1/z enclosed parking spaces per unit. i /�' ��""'''�� s" r - wr+oMla> # planners ORO, 'f`•" A 1 � E NT%j 4+ jCt801Nrtatawn Long LMte. NM156886 8418 989.470.4484' ax 82.4178.8889 • mr�+rabwwr�N�°�s.e�m Kelley Parkway, 3 of. s ►a � u�c� FIRST FLOOR PLAN This plan shows 26 units plus storage area at the inside corners. The entrance area includes a small administrative office and mail -room. The second floor is similar with a "guest unit" for use by tenants at the elevator core. O ONO APARTMENT oLLQ Kelley Parkway 4 of a s�+Ohliotw. plswnnora. 7280 W4te kw" I%W Lo%-Leka. MM 55356.9419 %1478A4U - Fax 932.476.6W3 - rnr®wabararc+l ocW.c= C9fxWti c 0 CL '_ E m c' cv 0 cn (i 0 cn N -c_ E a) _L c L Q� (^u C L y Zcu 0 a 0 0)4- � 0 >; o — M (6 C ui Q cm J3E a°0 a° > co -c �4- ��0 s n �• r its-, INC c 0 CL '_ E m c' cv 0 cn (i 0 cn N -c_ E a) _L c L Q� (^u C L y Zcu 0 a 0 0)4- � 0 >; o — M (6 C ui Q cm J3E a°0 a° > co -c �4- ��0 M 8� >s a a �• oil 4 J m f 4� C Ct lT aa• • C a a� 0 c co J W 0 �_ W =Go Jo LL l cu - P- O 002 �; c s n � A J � ti L U � 3 O � N r- 2- 2- 1E m m a.+ O m as) U) O C (D (� _cu m CJ U C C L cu N E U) p N U — O m -- O N N CL m cn t5 C_ U U X cm •3 O —_ O C N � ��c� om cu r - c CD w U C O O c 1) O U C: tr- Cl) � "O > O N m` C 4 CD N 'Ucn ��E lu Z (� m C C 0) . O O m ' Q C: 0 cu L �oo.0 m00a) ! U O O p m ©" WC �!► o :� >, �0)l=moi= 4 W=C�m°� a �E��� Cd Lu F z u! z O f/1 LL2 U. O 09 a a z ad O yWf CjO5Buu1W 'au010 T— R It IIIIND IVNOISS3dONd ONOSO ■ SulppIR pasodoid l $ o�zz aSPH INN avow xva ivisauo aio (g U) ED C a. a,•u P L�j NNi G� y s € _C Y L co Q C cu ZC" C: a J ILy-+ co W� W U E v O C CO CL UO C Q) O � N L 0 V7 CLU N (6 `} ! o cuCO o Oo cO U) ca > 0 W_o Q)(D � Q) 4- a> ca a H m Date Application Received: December 13, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 13, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: N/A To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: January 16, 2018 Council Exhibit B 18-4002 Subject: #18-4002, John Patch o/b/o Berkshire Partners, LLP, 2745 Kelley Parkway, Concept Plan Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comments via the concept plan process for a proposed amendment to the Community Management Plan (Land Use) and Zoning Map (Zoning) to develop the 2.55 acre parcel into an apartment building. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission is asked to give feedback on the proposed development. Background The property under review is Lot 1, Block 2 of the City of Orono Addition, and is located immediately south of the Orono Public Works garage. The property is currently zoned B- 6 PUD, and is guided and planned for Commercial Office use. The site is and has been vacant for many years. In 2004 a plan was developed for a proposed office building; that plan was never acted on. There does not appear to be a market for additional office space in Orono, and the city has stated its desire to prevent retail uses from expanding west of Willow Drive. Proposal The property owner has approached the city about a possible amendment to the Community Management Plan and zoning map to permit the construction of an apartment building for 56 units. The units include 1, 1+, and 2 bedroom units in 2 1/2 floors. Parking will be provided via a surface lot and an underground garage. A portion of the surface lot also serves the adjacent medical office building to the west. Access to the site will be via Kelley Parkway in one of two driveways, one of which is shared with the medical office building. The building is U shaped and 2.5 stories tall, fronting on Kelley Parkway. The defined height of the building is proposed to be 30 feet, though final verification of the height will need to be determined with the final grading. The property has been located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) in the 1980's, and would be served with municipal sewer and water. FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Review Parameters The proposed residential development is a departure from the CMP guiding of this site for commercial office use. For this reason, staff recommends that the Planning Commission's review should proceed by considering the following two basic questions: Is this property a location where the City should depart from the current Comprehensive Plan guidance and allow for high density residential development? 2. If so, what are appropriate standards for such a development? Planning Commission's primary focus should be on whether the proposed type and density of development is appropriate for this specific property. Conformity with the Orono 2008-2030 Community Management Plan The net development density based on 56 units on the 2.55 acre parcel would be 21.9 units per acre. The highest density anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan is High Density Residential at 10-15 units per acre. Met Council and Density. In approving Orono's 2008-2030 CMP, Met Council took into account that Orono guided specific properties for higher density sewered development (3- 7, 7-10, 4-15 and 10-15 units per acre) in order to offset the long -planned sewered development at low densities in the Shoreland areas. In effect, the higher -density guiding of a select number of strategically located properties established a numerical `buffer' which allowed properties previously added to the MUSA and guided/planned for 2 -acre minimum lot sizes, to be developed as historically planned. Over the last several years, properties guided for higher density development have been reguided via amendments of the CMP to lower densities, and the `buffer' established in the 2008-2030 CMP has functionally been eliminated. Some of that buffer was replaced by the recently approved Orono Senior Housing (17-3948) project to the east. In addition, to meet work force housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan, and the desire to move density away from areas where it is currently guided, i.e. the Navarre Area, reguiding the subject parcel may benefit the city long term. Conformity with RPUD Zoning District Requirements The property was zoned to B-6 PUD in June of 2003. Permitted uses were those listed in the B-6 Highway Commercial District, offices, banks, motels, and hotels. There are no zoning districts that permit apartment buildings by right or by conditional use. To support the development as proposed, staff anticipates rezoning to a RPUD. The RPUD District standards are found in Zoning Code Sections 78-621 thru 78-629, attached as Exhibit G. The RPUD district standards indicate an RPUD site must be at least 5 acres in area, but does allow for smaller sites under specific conditions, as noted in the code excerpt below: Sec. 78-626. - Development standards. Within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: (emphasis added in bold) (1) Minimum area; shoreland district limitation. Each site proposed for rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated wetland, FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 3 of 8 floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the council finds the existence of one of the following: a. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. d. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. No property located within 250 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of a protected lake or tributary as defined in article IX of this chapter shall be rezoned to RPUD. However, for a property that is partially located less than 250 feet from the OHWL and partially located more than 250 feet from the OHWL, the portion located more than 250 feet from the OHWL may be rezoned to RPUD at the discretion of the city council when all other requirements are met. (2) Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated for commercial use if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this division. If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the metropolitan council for review. It would appear that the provisions of 78-626(1)b would be applicable, as the proposed use is adjacent to the Orono Senior Housing project which itself is a component of the Stonebay Master Development and is across Kelley Parkway from the Stonebay Lofts, which are similarly zoned RPUD. Further, because the site is guided for commercial office use with the intention of being rezoned for commercial use, the rezoning would fit within the provisions of 78-626(2). It should be noted that the Council has recently approved and supported three smaller RPUD developments (Orono Senior Housing, Shadywood Villas, and the Eisinger site) so that rezoning the Kelley Parkway parcel to RPUD would not be inconsistent. Additional factors which suggest this site may be appropriate for the proposed residential use include its proximity to the medical office, as a buffer between that use and residential to the north and east, and the separation from the Industrial Park provided by Wayzata Boulevard. Relationship to Surrounding Development The design style has not been fully defined, but in keeping with the parameters of the RPUD requirements, staff anticipates a building style similar to Stonebay and its buildings, similar roof materials, pitch, building materials, colors, etc. FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 4 of 8 General Site Characteristics The site is open. The property is very flat with a relatively shallow water table. There are no wetlands mapped on the property. Lot Layout and Lot Standards The specific lot requirements for a multi -family building in RPUD can be found in Section 78-626(7). A summary of those standards is as follows: Building setback from local streets (Kelley Parkway): 35' Building setback from arterial streets (Wayzata Boulevard): 50' Building setback from side lot lines: 35' Parking lot and driving lane setback from all lot lines: 20'* Parking structure setback from streets: 35' 50' (local streets 35 feet, arterial 50 feet) Parking structure setback from lot lines: Adj. to residential: 50' Adj. to non-residential: 35' Minimum setback must be no less than height of the building *These setbacks are met, though parking spaces on the west side are shared with the lot to the west, a 20 foot setback is impractical and counter to the shareing goals. Height limitations. For properties guided for residential use in the comprehensive plan, a building height limit of 30 feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the comprehensive plan for commercial use, height may exceed 30 feet but shall not exceed three stories (not including underground parking level) and shall maintain a residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple -family building will be allowed. Outside storage limitations. Building materials, recreational vehicles, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, and other items of personal property shall not be stored outside within any site used for attached or multifamily uses. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = Total Building Floor Area/Total Lot Area): 1.0. Additionally, the RPUD District standards include substantial requirements for landscaping as well as screening and buffering of parking areas. Conformity: The proposed conceptual site plan includes a two 1/2 -story building with a defined height of 30', significantly lower than the Lofts across the street. The applicant has provided a sketch showing the height differential between the subject building and the adjacent Stonebay condos and the as yet undeveloped Senior Housing Project. Proposed underground parking constitutes a 4th level, mostly below grade. It is assumed that some filling to raise the overall elevation of the site is likely in order to accommodate the underground parking while avoiding potential water table issues. Building setbacks meet minimum RPUD standards. The shared parking lot to west do not meet the minimum 20 foot setback. Floor Area Ratio. The FAR for a RPUD is capped at 1.0 for residential structures. FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Assuming 35,325 sq ft per floor and a 2,500 sq foot top floor, the FAR would be 0.66 (73,150/111,078 sq ft) for the 2.55 acre site. Access, Internal Circulation and Parking The concept plan includes 2 accesses onto Kelley Parkway, with no access to Wayzata Boulevard. The proposed Kelley access point does not appear to be directly across from the access from the curb cut on the north side of Kelley Parkway, staff would suggest that these curb cuts line up. Internal circulation is proposed to be provided by a paved driveway along the west side of the building for parking, and a loop driveway in front of the building. The Fire Marshal will need to verify fire access is maintained as required by the fire code. Parking as depicted includes 54 surface stalls and 77 underground stalls*. To be verified, but the number of spaces appears to exceed the number of spaces required, which is 2 spaces per multifamily dwelling unit. Assuming 56 units, 112 spaces would be required, 131 are shown. *The drawings label 53 surface spaces, and 83 underground spaces. The size and accessibility of the spaces will need to verified. Staff's preliminary review indicates that there are 54 surface and 77 underground parking spaces. Parks, Trails, Sidewalks This site is adjacent to the Stonebay Development, and staff anticipates the need to incorporate this project in some form to the Stonebay pallet to meet the RPUD size requirements. A trail along the south property line is anticipated as part of the Stonebay project. Preliminary Hennepin County plans for the upgrade of Wayzata Boulevard include a trail along the north side of Wayzata Boulevard from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. Final determinations have not been made as to whether or exactly where that trail will be developed. The current plans suggest it will be in the right-of-way, while the Stonebay PUD Agreement intended for it to be within the commercial Outlots. Pending a final layout by the county, applicants should expect that a trail will be required along their south boundary, with a possible connecting link to Kelley Parkway along the west edge of the stormwater pond. An existing sidewalk within the right-of-way of Kelley Parkway extends along the entire frontage of the site, constructed with the original Stonebay improvements. RPUD standards include a requirement for 10% of the site being dedicated to private recreational purposes. The project does not show any private recreation. Development Fees Summary As the property has been platted most development fees have been paid. However, staff anticipates some fees due as part of the plan approval and/or building permit: Park Dedication Fee: The property is platted, no park dedication is required. Perhaps the Council could consider a 10% value cash donation in lieu of the 10% area required by RPUD zoning. FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Water and Sewer Connection Charge: SAC and Connection charges may apply, to be determined. The current SAC is $2,485 per residential unit. Stormwater & Drainage Trunk Fee: Storm water trunk fees apply to new development and redevelopment of existing properties and provide funding for the storm water infrastructure necessary to serve the City. The trunk fee is based on the land use and acreage of the property being developed. Residential > 4 units/acre: $8,490/ac x 2.55 acres = $21,649.00 These numbers are based on the 2017 fee schedule and are adjusted at the time of final approval. Site Grading, Stormwater and Drainage Improvements No stormwater ponding is proposed on site. Reviewing the files for the adjacent medical office, it appears that storm water detention is provided via the large stormwater pond east of this site. This will need to be verified as part of the formal Master plan application. The property is not within the Stormwater Overlay District, but if developed as RPUD is subject to a maximum hardcover per lot of 50%. Hardcover will need to be verified in the master development plan. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee as noted above. Utility Locations/Availability/Connection Fees Municipal sewer and water utilities are available in Kelley Parkway to serve the property. Should the project proceed, the impacts of the project on the downstream system will be reviewed, and if improvements are necessary (lift -station, pump sizes, etc.), will be completed by the applicant. Connection charges as noted elsewhere in this memo will be due at the time of final plat approval. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted There are no mapped wetlands on the site. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is extremely flat and open. Conservation Design While the property is technically subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance, it is anticipated that due to the small size and open nature of the property, a Conservation Design Inventory and Master Plan may be unnecessary; Planning Commission should address this topic in its' discussion. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm. FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission should include the following topics: 1. Is there justification for the necessary CMP amendment and rezoning to allow the guiding of this property to be converted from commercial office to residential? If that conversion is not allowed, what other uses for the site might be acceptable (aside from office)? How will the City benefit from this development? Would the City see greater benefit by waiting for commercial development of this property, or is this the appropriate time and location to make the change? 2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the density of the development at over 20 units per acre gross? 3. Planning Commission should discuss whether this development should be required to create the RPUD standard 10% private recreation space or would a similar donation to the park dedication fund be appropriate. 4. Staff recommends that a 10' trail easement be retained along the south boundary of the property. Should this developer be committed to establishing a trail along Wayzata Boulevard with a connection northward along the west end of the pond? Pending Hennepin County final decisions as to whether or when should a trail be established (and who should pay for it) should the developer be expected to construct or assist in the cost of trail construction? 5. The conceptual landscaping layout does not provide any buffering from Wayzata Boulevard — is such buffering needed from a visual perspective from off-site, or from a perspective of the occupants of the building? 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this sketch plan? Sketch Plan Review Parameters The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The above "Summary of Issues for Consideration" reveals a number of issues with the proposed development and should help Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant regarding the proposal. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the developer should pay special attention. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are non-binding but will be extremely helpful as the applicant moves forward. Because the concept is a departure from the CMP, this sketch plan will also be presented to the City Council for comment. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Applicants' Narrative Exhibit C. Applicants' Submitted Exhibits: a. Site Plan FILE # 18-4002 January16, 2018 Page 8 of 8 b. Garage Plan c. 1St Floor Plan d. Roof level Plan e. Sections f. Elevation Exhibit D. Building Height Comparison Exhibit E. Airphoto Exhibit F. Comp Plan Map: Land Use Plan Exhibit G. RPUD Ordinance MINUTES OF THE Council ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit C Tuesday, January 16, 2018 18-4002 6:30 o'clock p.m. 8. 18-4002 JOHN PATCH, 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, CONCEPT, 7:55 P.M. — 8:40 P.M. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting comments on a sketch plan for a proposed amendment to the Community Management Plan and Zoning Map to develop the 2.55 acre parcel into an apartment building. The applicant is proposing to construct a 56 -unit apartment building. The units include 1, 1+, and 2 -bedroom units in 2.5 floors. Parking will be provided via a surface lot and an underground garage. Staff is comfortable with the proposed parking. A portion of the surface lot will also serve the adjacent medical office building to the west. Access to the site will be via Kelley Parkway in one of two driveways, one of which is shared with the medical office building. The building is U-shaped and 2.5 stories tall, fronting on Kelley Parkway. The defined height of the building is proposed to be 30 feet. The property is located within the MUSA district. The net development density based on 56 units would be 21.9 units per acre. The highest density anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan is high density residential at 10 to 15 units per acre. In order to meet work force housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan and the desire to move density away from areas where it is currently guided; i.e., the Navarre area, reguiding the property may benefit the City in the long-term. To support the development as proposed, Staff anticipates rezoning to an RPUD. The RPUD district standards indicate an RPUD site must be at least five acres in area but does allow for smaller sites under specific conditions. Those conditions are outlined in Staff's report. It should be noted that the Council has recently approved and supported three smaller RPUD developments so that rezoning the Kelley Parkway parcel to RPUD would not be inconsistent. The site is adjacent to the Stonebay Development and Staff anticipates the need to incorporate this project in some form to the aesthetics of Stonebay to meet the RPUD size requirements. A trail along the south property line is anticipated as part of the Stonebay project. Preliminary Hennepin County plans for the upgrade of Wayzata Boulevard include a trail along the north side of Wayzata Boulevard from Willow Drive to Old Crystal bay Road. Final determinations have not been made as to whether or exactly where that trail will be located. Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The site is currently open and is very flat. There are no wetlands mapped on the property. No stormwater ponding is proposed for the site. In reviewing the adjacent medical office, it appears that stormwater detention is provided via the large stormwater pond east of this site but this will need to be verified. The property is not within the Stormwater Overlay District, but if developed as an RPUD, it would be subject to a maximum hardcover per lot of 50 percent. Municipal sewer and water utilities are available in Kelley Parkway to serve the property. The proposed conceptual site plan includes a 2-1/2 story building with a defined height of 30 feet, which is significantly lower than the Stonebay Lofts across the street. It is assumed that some filling will be necessary to raise the overall elevation of the site in order to accommodate the underground parking and to avoid potential water table issues. That fill will determine the final height of the building and will need to be determined. The building setbacks meet the minimum RPUD standards but the shared parking lot to the west does not meet the minimum 20 -foot setback. Access is proposed to include two accesses onto Kelley Parkway, with no access to Wayzata Boulevard. The proposed Kelley access point does not appear to be directly across from the curb cut on the north side of Kelley Parkway, and Staff would recommend that those two curb cuts be aligned. Internal circulation is proposed to be provided by a paved driveway along the west side of the building for parking and a loop driveway in front of the building. The Fire Marshal will need to verify fire access is maintained as required by Fire Code. Parking as depicted includes 54 surface stalls and 77 underground stalls. This will need to be verified but the number of spaces appears to exceed the number of required spaces. The Planning Commission should discuss whether there is justification for the necessary CMP amendment and rezoning to allow the guiding of this property to be converted from commercial office to residential. Further, the Planning Commission should discuss whether they are comfortable with the proposed density of the development and whether this development should be required to meet the RPUD standard 10 percent private recreation space. Staff recommends that a 10 -foot trail easement be retained along the south boundary of the property. Page 2 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission should also discuss whether buffering from Wayzata Boulevard should be provided Barnhart stated the goal of the review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat as well as to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are nonbinding but would help assist the developer in moving forward. Thiesse asked whether the corner lot has enough parking. Barnhart indicated he does not know the answer to that question but that his belief is that it does. For this building 112 spaces are required, assuming 56 units. The applicant is showing a total of 131 parking stalls between the surface and underground stalls, which would be more than enough even if the shared parking was eliminated from the calculation. Barnhart stated in lieu of the 10 percent private recreation area, the applicant could pay a park dedication fee. Lemke asked if the City ever receives any recommendations or pushback from the Metropolitan Council on affordable housing. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council has published recommendations for the City to meet affordable housing goals and that they encourage the City to look for opportunities for affordable housing. The Metropolitan Council cannot require the City to actually provide the financial assistance necessary to make it affordable. Neil Weber, Architect, stated he would like to highlight a few things. As it relates to the parking, the shared parking already exists and will not be built by them. Weber stated in their view the medical building will not need that parking late in the afternoon and on the weekends. Weber stated they are showing 1.5 parking stalls inside the building. Page 3 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Weber stated when this building is compared to the condominium project, the condominium units are averaging 1,800 square feet per unit and these units are a little more than half the size. In addition, the building is heavy on one -bedroom apartments and the condominium building has all two bedrooms. Weber stated he realizes density is measured by units per acre, but that they have smaller units and smaller bedrooms, which generates less traffic and fewer residents. Weber stated the apartment units are designed to be affordable and will help meet a demand for people who might sell their homes and want to remain in the area. Weber stated in his view there is a big need for quality rental apartments. Weber stated he acknowledges the issue of the trails and that they will cooperate on that as well as lining up the access. Weber stated they wanted to do the sketch plan first to discuss the density and the Comprehensive Plan amendment. As it relates to the height, this building will be visibly lower than the condominium building. Weber noted they have not taken soil borings on the site yet but that they anticipate a high-water table. Weber indicated they might be able to lower the garage by a couple of feet depending on the soil borings. Thiesse asked if there will be one large mechanical unit. Weber indicated they will be individual. Thiesse asked if there is any place for the kids to play. Weber stated they do not anticipate a lot of kids as part of this project and that they see the trail and trail connections as a more advantageous amenity. Weber noted with the school being close by, there are a number of play areas available and that they would prefer the trail connections. Thiesse asked whether there is a use that the Planning Commission feels is more appropriate for this site. Thiesse stated in his view an apartment building on this site is a good use. Lemke asked if the City would be limiting itself by removing this amount of business potential. Page 4 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the City does not have a lot of area for office growth but there is also not a strong market in the City for office use. Barnhart stated they would be limiting themselves but that the risk is pretty low. Leskinen noted there is also space on the other side down the road which is more conducive to business. Leskinen stated in her view this is a good spot for an apartment building and that the City needs a place where there is higher density. Leskinen noted business use for this property has not happened. Landgraver stated this is also not a transitional site and will not result in high density next to low density. Leskinen pointed out if the majority of the units are one bedrooms, there will likely not be a lot of kids. Schwingler commented the connection to the trail is important. Thiesse stated in his view this site is a good spot for the higher density. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed use is appropriate for the site. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission not to require the 10 percent private recreation space and that a park dedication fee would be appropriate. Thiesse noted Staff recommends a 10 -foot trail easement along the south boundary. Thiesse indicated he would be in favor of that. Thiesse asked whether the easement would be given back in the event the trail is constructed on the other side of the road. Barnhart indicated this is similar to the Orono Senior Housing project and that the easement would provide some options. Weber noted the 10 -foot easement will not affect them in a negative way and that it is typical to a utility easement. Landgraver asked if the pond has been expanded. Page 5 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated Hennepin County is working with the property owner of the senior housing project to expand that pond and that Staff will have to do the calculations. Barnhart stated it appears the pond was designed to accept development of this site as a business use. Weber stated the commercial site had 26 open space and that this site has less hardcover than what was previously approved. Weber stated as part of their application one of the requirements is that the pond does accommodate the stormwater and that they will be looking at that. Thiesse stated if the City were to request additional monies from the developer for recreation, it could go towards the trail. Thiesse noted landscaping will be required and that a plan will need to be submitted at some point. Landgraver commented this would be a nice compliment to Orono's housing stock. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Page 6 of 6 ..CE XQW, Sal! :!ffa -- r ■Fj, 'll' • Rm--! !�A, MI I'l-i ON ;-- - - - - I i I I - C.1 me L-1 now �' t Em' �Iae J • U. O O H z W F— CL a z w O LL `O z O IL _O LL O O H z W H a a O z O O LL LO z O a 0 2 9 —,94` e 0 E..J r� l z M5 0 U z cn 0 0 z W cn 0 z 0 w 0 Council Ex F 18-4002 19 December 2017 CONCEPT PLAN FOR JOHN PATCH ORONO APARTMENTS, LLC KELLEY PARKWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION We are looking for concept approval on a 56 unit apartment project on a site adjacent to the existing medical building on Kelley Parkway. The site has an easement on the westerly portion which currently has parking for 14 parking spaces which will be shared with our project. The project is a two story building with partially subgrade parking which meets or exceeds all setback requirements and meets the 30 height requirement. The project tabulation is as follows; SITE AREA 111,318 SF (2.55 ACRES) BUILDING FOOTPRINT 31,535 SF SURFACE PARKING AREA 26,860 SF TOTAL HARD COVER 58,385 SF (53%) TOTAL BUILDING AREA: FIRST FLOOR 31,535 SF SECOND FLOOR 31,535 SF ROOF LEVEL 5,236 SF TOTAL 68,306 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO .61 APARTMENT UNITS: 2 BEDROOM 16 @ 1100 — 1200 SF 29% 1 BEDROOM + DEN 24 @ 900 — 1000 SF 42% 1 BEDROOM 16 @ 700 — 850 SF 29% TOTAL UNITS 56 PARKING PROVIDED: ENCLOSED NEW SURFACE TOTALAPARTMENT SHARED PARKING TOTAL ON SITE 83 SPACES (1.5 SPACES/UNIT) 39 SPACES 122 SPACES (2.17 SPACES/UNIT) 14 SPACES 136 SPACES (2.42 SPACES/UNIT) DENSITY: SITE AREA NUMBER OF UNITS NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AVERAGE SIZE OF UNITS 2.55 ACRES 56 UNITS 21.9 UNITS/ACRE 72 BEDROOMS (2X16 +24+16) 28.2 BEDROOMS/ACRE 964 SF By comparison the Stonebay Condos at 2670 Kelley Parkway the numbers are: Site area 125,242 sf 2.87 acres Number of units 57 condos (19.9 units/acre) Number of bedrooms 114 bedrooms (39.7 bedrooms/acre) (all units are 2 Bedroom units) Average unit size 1800 sf (smallest unit is 1500sf and largest is 2100 sf) SUMMARY POINTS TO CONSIDER: We are limited in the ability of put the garage level totally underground by groundwater conditions. The project concept proposed meets all setback requirements and height requirements. Market Rate Rental Housing There is a high demand in the area for high quality market rate rental housing. There currently is no rental option in the area of this quality. A full range of available housing will provide Orono residents a needed option which would allow them to remain in the community when looking for housing. 2. Density Evaluation The density of this project compares favorably with the Stonebay condo project. Orono Apartments density is 21.9 units/acre while the Stonebay project is19.9 units/acre. While units per acre is one measure of density other factors are worth taking into account. In addition to being similar in units per acre, Orono Apartments are averaging just over half the physical size of the Stonebay project. Orono Apartments average 964 sf in area. Stonebay units average approximately 1,800 sf When comparing the density of bedrooms Orono Apartments are at 28.2 Bedrooms/acre while Stonebay Condos are at 39.7 Bedrooms/acre. The number of bedrooms generate residents and car traffic. Both size of units and bedroom density are measures that effect the impact of the project on the site. And both are significantly reduced on our site. 3. Building Massing We will design the projects to have a height of 30' (average of roof slope). The highpoint of the Orono Apartments is 14'2" LOWER than the highpoint of the Stonebay condos. We are also comparable in height to the recently approved Orono Senior Housing Community on the adjacent site to the East of our site. We believe that our project will fit well into the community physically while meeting the needs of the community in general by providing market rate rental housing in an area that has a great need for this type of housing. We will look forward to concept approval so that we can develop the engineering and architectural plans for your review and final approval. Thank you for your consideration. We will look forward to addressing any questions you have of us. John Patch Orono Apartments Neil Weber, AIA Weber Architects & Planners AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 19 Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #17-3984 City of Orono, Text Amendment Short Term (Vacation) Rentals Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider one of more ordinances amendments related to short term (aka Vacation) rentals and noise regulations. 2. Background/ Summary. The City Council has discussed the Vacation rental issue recently, including March and April of 2016, June, October and November of 2017and most recently in the workshop on January 22, 2018. The Council has received reports that in some cases renters have not been respectful of neighboring properties. Reports of the disrespectful behavior have centered on noise complaints, though other factors have been reviewed, including lack of parking, additional traffic, trash. The Council was conscious about Orono's perception in the region as a transient community [by allowing short term rentals] and had concern that allowing short term rentals would promote this perception. The City Council, in their workshop on January 22nd, directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would prohibit the rental of a residential home for a period less than 30 days, but also allow for a resident to rent up to one room of their home to no more than 2 people for a short term. The workshop also included discussion on the need for a residential rental licensing program. In response to the workshop discussion and direction, staff has prepared three ordinances: Option A is an ordinance that prohibits short term rentals and requires a license. (Exhibit A) Option B is an ordinance that prohibits short term rentals and does not require a rental license. (Exhibit B) Option C is an ordinance that enhances our existing noise regulations, giving our police responders more tools with which to evaluate noise issues when they occur. (Exhibit D) Licensing The Metropolitan Council estimates that there are 500 renter occupied homes in Orono, more than 15% of our housing stock. Licensing would apply to all of these, in addition to the short term rentals. The anticipated costs associated with licensing are outlined below. Should the City desire to adopt more stringent rental housing and property maintenance codes, these fees will be re-evaluated to accommodate the additional investigation and inspection time. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: -Sb)R Approved By: -TV AGENDA ITEM Rental Prope ty Licensing Duration (hrs) Staff charge Distribution of licensing materials 0.25 $ 30.00 $ 7.50 Clerical Administration, investigation of non- compliant properties 0.5 $ 30.00 $ 15.00 Inspection, verification of Rental Property 0.75 $ 50.00 $ 37.50 Clerical follow up, distribution of license 0.25 $ 30.00 $ 7.50 Total $ 67.50 3. Enforcement. Enforcement relies on residents contacting the Police Department. The City has no authority to evict renters, and a simple fine will likely only be factored into the cost of the rental. Further, rental complaints filed over the weekend would be reviewed by zoning staff at the earliest on Monday; there is no opportunity to correct behavior after the renters have returned home. Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen provided the attached memo (Exhibit C) to the Council at their workshop on January 22, 2018 regarding enforcement challenges. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff does not support an ordinance amendment that prohibits short term rentals. Prohibiting and severely restricting the short term rental of a property owners' home impacts their property rights, actively punishes the 99% of property owners and renters that are respectful because of I% that don't, and serve to only add redundant regulation to city ordinances that is already layered and therefore confusing to understand and difficult to enforce. The City has existing rules and ordinances that address nuisances and crimes. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Act on one or several of the draft ordinances presented for the Council's consideration. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance requiring licensing, prohibiting terms less than 30 days, with single room exception Exhibit B. Draft Ordinance prohibiting terms less than 30 days, with single room exception Exhibit C. Steve Tallen Memo Exhibit D. Draft Ordinance adjusting noise regulations Exhibit E. CC workshop minutes Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: -Sb)R Approved By: -TV CC Exhibit A (2-12-18) ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING ARTICLE IV TO CHAPTER 26 AND AMENDING SECTION 26-31 REGARDING RENTAL LICENSING AND A PROHIBITION OF SHORT TERM RENTALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 26-31 Definitions of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following text: Rent shall mean, for the purpose of this definition, leasing, subleasing, letting etting or hiring for occupancy. Short-term rental shall mean the rental to a person or group of persons a residential unit for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days in a zoning district where residential uses are allowed. Short-term rental property means a parcel of real property and includes the premises upon which a short-term rental unit is located and the parking areas, driveways, landscaping, accessory structures, fences, walls, swimming_ pools, hot tubs, and spas. SECTION 2. Article IV. — Rental Dwelling License Requirements of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby added by adding the following text: Section 26-80 — Purpose The City of Orono finds that to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the general public, assure preservation of the existing housing supply, help maintain property values, work toward eliminating substandard and deteriorating rental housing, maintain a living environment that contributes to healthful individual and family living, it is in the best interest of the residents of Orono to require a license for all residential rental property. Section 26-81 — License required (a) License . No person, firm, or corporation shall operate a rental dwelling unit without first having obtained a rental dwelling license to do so from the city as provided for in this article. Each rental dwelling license shall be issued annually and expire one year after its issuance. Rental dwelling license renewal applications for the following year shall be filed on or before 30 days prior to the expiration of the then current license. Sixty days prior to the expiration of a rental dwelling license, the city shall notify the operator of the upcoming renewal deadline within which to file the rental dwelling license renewal application. Page 1 of 3 (b) Exceptions from rental licensing . (1) Rental property which is licensed as a nursing home or boarding care home by the State of Minnesota Department of Health shall be exempt from the license required under this article. This exception shall not apply if no services are provided to the tenants, or the services are incidental to, or independent of, the landlord/tenant relationship. (2) State licensed residential facilities. (3) A single-family dwelling or a dwelling unit in a duplex occupied by the owner for a minimum of six consecutive months per calendar year. Section 26-82 — License Standards (a) Regulation. No license may be issued unless all of the following are complied with: 1. The owner shall ensure that the occupants and ,guests of a rental unit do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances engage in disorderly conduct or violate provisions of the City of Orono Code or any State law pertaining to noise, disorderly conduct, overcrowding, the consumption of alcohol, or the use of illegal drugs. Owners are expected to take any measures necessary to abate disturbances including, but not limited to directing the occupants and guests of a short term rental unit to cease the disturbing conduct, removing the occupant and/ or guests or taking any other action necessary to immediately abate the disturbance. 2. The owner shall ensure that the property comply with all applicable codes regarding fire, building, and safety. 3. The owner shall provide a twenty- four (24) hour emergency contact that will be available to respond to issues at the rental property within sixjy (60) minutes to complaints regarding the condition, operation, or conduct of occupants of a rental unit. 4. The rental property must have a visible house number easily seen from the street day and night. 5. All advertising for the rental shall include the City issued license number. 6. The primary overnight and daytime occupant of a rental unit must be an adult eighteen 18 years of age or older. This adult must provide a telephone number to the owner and shall be accessible to the owner by telephone at all times. 7. Two off street parking spaces shall be provided at minimum. The maximum number of vehicles allowed at a rental property shall be limited to the number of available off street parking spaces. 8. The owner of a rental propertyshall hall provide sufficient trash collection containers and service to meet the demand of the occupants. 9. The City may conduct an inspection of the rental property as deemed necessary or prudent including without limitation based upon any complaints or violations that occur or prior to a renewal of a permit. 10. The owner will be required to provide the city and any guests with the name and telephone number of a contact person who can be at the property in n 60 minutes. The contact person can be the owner. (b) License period. Licenses shall expire December 31 of each year. Page 2 of 3 Section 26-83 — Short Term Rentals prohibited al Short Term rentals prohibited. No person may rent for a term less than 30 days- a. ama. Exception. A rental license may be issued and used for rental terms less than 30 days if all of the following are true: i. The home is homesteaded ii. The portion of the home to be rented is no more than 1 bedroom and for no more than 2 persons over the a _ eg of 5 years. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2018 on a vote of _ ayes and nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of 2018. Page 3 of 3 CC Exhibit B (2-12-18) ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING ARTICLE IV TO CHAPTER 26 AND AMENDING SECTION 26-31 REGARDING A GENERAL PROHIBITION OF SHORT TERM RENTALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 26-31 Definitions of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following text: Rent shall mean, for the purpose of this definition, leasing, subleasing,letting etting or hiring for occupancy. Short-term rental shall mean the rental to a person or group of persons a residential unit for a period of less than thirty 30) consecutive calendar days in a zoning district where residential uses are allowed. Short-term rental property means a parcel of real property and includes the premises upon which a short-term rental unit is located and the parking areas, driveways, landscaping, accessory structures, fences, walls, swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. SECTION 2. Article IV. — Rental Dwelling License Requirements of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby added by adding the following text: Section 26-83 — Short Term Rentals prohibited al Short Term rentals prohibited. No person may rent for a term less than 30 days. a. Exception. A rental license may be issued and used for rental terms less than 30 days if all of the following are true: i. The home is homesteaded ii. The portion of the home to be rented is no more than 1 bedroom and for no more than 2 persons over thea age of 5 years. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. Page 1 of 2 ADOPTED this day of nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk 2018 on a vote of _ ayes and _ Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2018. Page 2 of 2 TALLEN and BAERTSCHI Attorneys at Law STEVEN M. TALLEN PAUL D. BAERTSCHI steve(a)tablawmn.com 920 2nd Avenue South paul@tablawmn.com Suite 1540 Paralegal: Marijo Witte MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2224 mwittena inteera.net 612-349-3900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jeremy Barnhart, Orono Community Development Director FROM: Steven M. Tallen, Orono Prosecuting Attorney DATE: January 10, 2018 RE: Short Term Rental Licensing Issues Mr. Barnhart: You have provided me with three proposed ordinances addressing short term rental licensing that you have been directed to prepare for consideration by the Orono City Council. I will address my concerns with each proposed ordinance in turn, starting with what you have labeled as Exhibit A. Exhibit A allows short term rental, but requires a license to do so. On page two under the section labeled Section 26 -82 -License Standards, these are my concerns: (a) regulation. Number one requires that the owner "ensure" that the occupants and guests of a rental unit do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct or violate the provisions of the Orono City Code or State law pertaining to noise, etc. It is probable a violation of the due process provisions of the Minnesota and the United States Constitutions to make an owner responsible for criminal behavior of a tenant. Certainly if the owner was participating in the disturbance, they could be prosecuted, but if an owner rents their house to someone for 30 days, the owner leaves the State for some reason, and the renter then violates a law, we would not be able to hold the owner criminally responsible for that behavior. Perhaps an owner could be held civilly responsible, meaning they could face some sort of civil penalty if their tenants disturb the peace, etc. Any such provision would require that the owner have a right to a hearing probably before the city council or an administrative law judge before any such penalty could be imposed. Likewise, requiring the owner to remove an occupant or guests necessary to abate the disturbance might very well run afoul of the landlord -tenant law which would require an unlawful detainer eviction action rather than the owner summarily evicting someone who is renting under some sort of lease. Number three requires that the owner provide a 24 hour emergency contact available to respond within 60 minutes to complaints. I do not see an issue with requiring the owner to provide an emergency contact, but the question becomes what if the emergency contact requires more than 60 minutes to respond. Would that be a criminal offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000.00 fine, or would the council wish to make that some sort of civil penalty not punishable by jail, but which the council, after a hearing, might impose? I have a similar concern with number six requiring the renter to be accessible to the owner by telephone at all times. I think number 7 is probably enforceable, number 8 would be enforceable, number 9 seems reasonable, number 10 seems to be identical to number three. I don't' have any issues with Section 26-83 which prohibits rentals of less than 30 days with certain exceptions. In terms of Exhibit B, which prohibits short term rentals: this would obviously be the easiest of the proposals to enforce; however, there still would be evidence and proof issues regarding the investigation and collection of evidence necessary to prove a short-term rental had occurred. This would no doubt require cooperation from the renter, and might require police department or other investigative agency to prepare search warrants to get copies of cancelled checks, to look for rental agreements, and to be able to bring witnesses back for trial, if necessary, assuming that most short-term rentals are going to be made by people who do not live in the Twin City Metropolitan area. Exhibit C seems to be a bit of a compromise between A and B. Under the terms of Exhibit C, an owner would have to obtain a short-term rental license, and under Section 2(c) regulation, again the proposed ordinance would proport to put criminal liability upon the owner to ensure that the renter and guests behave appropriately. I have the same concerns with the provision as I did as discussed above. Number two requires the owner to provide a 24-hour emergency contact available to respond within 30 minutes. Again, the 30 -minute time period gives me concern. Are we going to prosecute an owner criminally if it takes their emergency contact 45 minutes to respond? I think it's reasonable to require that an emergency contact be given, but if we are going to go with a provision such as this, I believe we should have language such as "within four hours, or a reasonable time" because, depending on the time of day and the situation of the "emergency", what might be reasonable in one circumstance, might be too long or too short in another. Number 4 discusses requiring that the renter be 25 years of age or older and that that person provide a phone number to the owner and be accessible "at all times". By setting a minimum age of 25 years, I think the City holds itself out for a possible equal protection argument, and to enforce this, we would be required to prove why someone 25 years of age or older would qualify, but someone 21 years of age or older would not. My suggestion would be that the City simply make it 21 years of age, which is regarded in Minnesota as an adult for all purposes. I believe the City is within its rights to regulate rental properties. My concern is that by making violation of the ordinance a criminal offense under the City Code, as opposed to an administrative violation that could be punished by either a fine or possible revocation of the rental license, the City would be creating enforcement issues that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. In addition, the amount of resources required for proper investigation and preparation of a criminal charge may require more resources than the City has to commit given the other responsibilities of the police department and/or the administrative staff. Thank you for going over this with me. I am more than happy to appear at the council's work session on January 22, 2018, if you and Soren believe it would be helpful. For now, I am planning to come. Please let me know the exact time you would like me there, unless you determine that you would prefer to have that session without me. SMT/mw cc: Soren Mattick Chief Farniok CC Exhibit D (2-12-18) ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 58 BY ADDING CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING EXCESSIVE NOISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 58-120 Prohibited Noises of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following text to read as follows: The city council declares that excessive noise that unreasonably disturbs the peace, quiet or repose of persons of ordinary sensibility is a misdemeanor. A person must not make, or assist in making, permit or allow the making of a noise that is prohibited by this section. The factors that should be considered in determining whether a noise is excessive, disturbing,, unnecessarv. or unreasonable for the purposes of this section include the followina: 1. the time of day or night when the noise occurs; 2. the duration of the noise and whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; 3. the proximity of the noise to a sleeping facility or residential area; 4. the land use, nature and zoning of the area from which the noise emanates and the area where the noise is perceived; 5. the number of people and their activities that are affected or are likely to be affected by the noise; and 6. the sound peak pressure level of the noise, if known, in comparison to the level of ambient noise. No person shall make or cause to be made any excessive noise nor as follows: (1) Horns, audible signaling devices, etc. No person shall sound any signaling device on any vehicle except as a warning of danger. (2) Engine exhausts. No person shall discharge the exhaust or permit the discharge of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motorboat, motor vehicle, motorcycle, all -terrain vehicle, snowmobile or any recreational device except through a muffler or other device that effectively prevents loud or explosive noises and complies with all applicable state laws, regulations and this article. (3) Radios, phonographs, televisions, paging systems, etc. No person shall use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television, paging system, machine or other device for production or reproduction of sound in a distinctly and loudly audible manner so as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of any such set, instrument, Page 1 of 3 phonograph, machine or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, in the hallway or apartment adjacent, or at a distance of 50 feet if the source is located outside a structure or building, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subsection. (4) Social gatherings. a. No person shall participate in any party or other gathering of people giving rise to noise which disturbs the peace, quiet or repose of the occupants of adjoining or other property. When a police officer determines that a gathering is creating such noise disturbance, the officer may order all persons present, other than the owner or tenant of the premises where the disturbance is occurring, to disperse immediately. No persons shall refuse to leave after being ordered by a police officer to do so. Every owner or tenant of such premises who has knowledge of the disturbance shall cooperate with police officers and shall make every reasonable effort to see that the disturbance is abated. b. A violation of this article shall be deemed to be the act of the owner of the residential dwelling unit wherein it occurs as well as the persons on the premises who violate the article, except that the owner of the dwelling unit occupied by others shall be liable only for those violations occurring after a written notice of the violation of this article shall have been received. (5) Loudspeakers, amplifiers, etc. No person shall operate or permit the use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other device for the production or reproduction of sound on a street or other public place for the purpose of attracting the attention of the public. (6) Schools, churches, hospitals. No person shall create any excessive noise on a street, alley or public grounds adjacent to a school, church or hospital. (7) Human noise. No person shall engage in yelling, shouting, screaming, whistling or singing at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of any persons in any residence or dwelling in the vicinity of the source. (8) Loading, unloading, unpacking. No person shall create loud or excessive noise in loading, unloading or unpacking any vehicle. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2018 on a vote of ayes and nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Page 2 of 3 Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2018. Page 3 of 3 Council Exhibit E 17-3984 Minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session Monday, January 22, 2018 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Aaron Printup, Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals and Wendy Dankey. Representing staff were Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Meeting Start Time: 6:00 p.m. 1. Short Term Rental Regulation Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart began the discussion by reviewing the potential drafts of the ordinances that would prohibit rental of residential property for periods less than 30 days. Staff had developed two options for the council to review, Option A addresses requirements of the City Council discussed in November. Option B is the same as Option A, except the licensing requirement has been removed. Of the two options, Barnhart mentioned that staff would advocate for Option B. He added that the main issues are still there in terms of the enforcement but would like to address those issues further through discussion. Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen addressed some of his concerns regarding the proposed short term rental licensing ordinances. Tallen added that his main concern is that by making violation of the ordinance a criminal offense under City Code, as opposed to an administrative violation, that the City would be creating enforcement issues that would be very difficult to overcome. Police Chief Correy Farniok discussed the process of enforcing violations. Farniok mentioned that it is not easy to enforce noise violations due to the difficulty of monitoring the duration and timing of the noise. The group discussed the options and their views for regulating short term rental licensing. The group also collectively discussed the various options the city could do to control the issue. Barnhart noted it might be appropriate to revisit the nuisance regulations. Mayor Dennis Walsh directed staff to bring the two options forward at the next City Council meeting so the council could revisit the options and make a decision. Meeting End Time: 6:47 p.m. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor