HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2017 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, April 10, 2017, 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
1. Consent Agenda — Consent agenda items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by
one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda
are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no
further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff
member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item
from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos
regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the lobby near
the sign in sheet.
Consent Agenda
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2017
3. Approval of Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2017
4. Approval of Claims/Bills
5. Approval of Appointment of 2017 Seasonal Employees. V2
6. Acceptance of Mowing Contract Quote
7. Acceptance of Navarre Garage Siding Quote
8. Acceptance of Saga Hills Park Improvement Project Quote
9. Joint Use Dock Licenses Renewals for 2017
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.
Presentation
10. Long Lake Fire Department Annual Report for 2016
11. State Legislature Update — Senator Osmek
Public Works/City Engineer Report
Planning Department Report
12. 17-3907 — Ugorets 8098, LLC, 2500 Shadywood Road,
Conditional Use Permit: Permanent Dock in Floodplain - Resolution
13. 17-3908 — Roman Zhuk of CUBE, Inc., 3320 Navarre Lane,
Variances (Lot area, lot width) - Resolution
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, April 10, 2017, 7: 00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
14.
17-3909
— Ken & Sheralyn Saddler, 2755 Ethel Avenue,
Variances (Lot area, lot width) - Resolution
15.
17-3912
— Bruce Birkeland, 1298 Wildhurst Trail & Lot 3, Block Wildhurst, Variances
16.
17-3914
— Phillip & Darcy Otto, 4116 Highwood Road, Variance - Resolution
17.
17-3915
— Lecy Brothers o/b/o Charlie & Nora Daum, 1920 Fagerness Point Road,
Variances (Lot area, hardcover, setbacks) - Resolution
18.
17-3916
— Peter Eskuche o/b/o Forrest Burke, 1020 Tonkawa Road, Variances - Resolution
19.
17-3919
— Amir & Ashley Mehbod, 2625 North Shore Drive, Variance - Resolution
20.
17-3920
— City of Orono, Text Amendment: Surveys and site plans
21.
17-3921
— City of Orono, Text Amendment: Escrow Agreements & financial guarantees
22.
17-3923
— City of Orono, Text Amendment: Lot Line Adjustments
23.
17-3924
— City of Orono, Text Amendment: Repeal of Conditional Use Permit
24.
17-3926
— City of Orono, Text Amendment: Exemption for Government Signs
25.
Orono Preserve — Request For Early Permits
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
City Attorney's Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2017
04-17-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Victoria Seals Liaison)
04-19-17 — Open Book Meeting, Wednesday, 4:00 p.m. — 6:30 p.m.
04-24-17 — Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
04-24-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
04-29-17 — Spring Cleanup, Saturday, 8:00 a.m. — 2:00 p.m.
04-29-17 —National Take Back Initiative, 8: 00 a.m. — 2: 00 p.m.
05-01-17 - Park Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m.
05-08-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
05-15-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Wendy Dankey Liaison)
05-22-17 — Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
05-22-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
05-29-17 — Memorial Day, Monday, City Offices Closed
06-05-17 — Park Commission Work Session, Monday, 1:00 p.m.
06-12-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
06-19-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Dennis Walsh Liaison)
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, April 10, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
06-26-17 — Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
06-26-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
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, Council Members Richard Crosby, 11, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals.
Representing Staff were City Administrator Doug Reeder, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Attorney
Soren Mattick, 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
City Administrator Reeder noted the resignation of David Rahn has been added to tonight's agenda.
Item Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to accept the resignation of David Rahn as Orono's representative
to the LMCD Board of Directors. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 13,2017
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of March
13, 2017, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
*3. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION — SARAH LINDAHL — RESOLUTION NO. 6736
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6736, a Resolution of Appreciation to
Sarah Lindahl for Distinguished Service as a Member of the Parks Commission. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
4. PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK PROGRAM — UPDATE
Police Chief Correy Farniok reported a new program has just been launched involving prescription drug
deactivation bags. April 29 will be the City's prescription drug take back program in partnership with the
Page 1 of 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
4. PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK PROGRAM — UPDATE -Continued
City's Cleanup Day. Staff will be on site to collect unused prescription drugs that day only from 8 a.m. to
2 p.m. The other days of the year the deactivation bags will be available to residents at the Orono Police
Station. Each of the bags will hold 45 pills, six ounces of liquor or six patches.
Farniok stated one of the leading causes of people becoming addicted to drugs is through using
prescription drugs. The bags will allow residents to dispose of their prescription drugs year-round rather
than having to wait for the one -day drug take back event. Currently there are only two drop-off sites in
this area, one at Hennepin County Water Patrol in Spring Park and one at Ridgedale District Court.
Farniok cautioned people to not flush their prescription drugs down the toilet since it can cause issues
with the City's drinking water and sanitation system.
Famiok stated the Orono Police Department has partnered with Crime Prevention Fund in this program
and 300 bags have been purchased for Orono. Farniok stated the bags are easy to use and are safe for
landfills. Famiok stated the police have had issues with people breaking into homes and stealing
prescription drugs and that this is one way to get rid of unused and unwanted prescription drugs.
Famiok reported last year the City took in 58 pounds of prescription drugs at the Take Back Event. The
drugs are then taken to the incinerator. Famiok noted they do not track anyone who brings in drugs.
Printup asked how the information about the program will be disseminated to the public.
Farniok stated the program has just been launched but that they will be putting information online, in the
police department office, and city newsletter. Famiok stated the bags will not be handed out at different
events because the bags cost just under $3 per bag. Farniok stated they would like the residents to come
into the police department to pick one up.
Walsh suggested information also be posted to the City's Facebook Page
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
2016 POLICE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT- PRESENTATION
Police Chief Correy Famiok provided a recap of the activities of the Orono Police Department for 2016.
Farniok stated the Police Department prides themselves in building partnerships within the community
and that those partnerships make the Orono Police Department better aware of what is happening in the
City as well as help people become comfortable with asking questions and expressing concerns.
As an example, during National Night Out, the Police Department made contact with hundreds of people.
As part of the Heart Safe Communities, police officers helped train just under 2,000 people on CPR and
AED use. The Police Department also partnered with WeCAN by collecting groceries at various events
and donating refurbished bicycles.
Famiok stated the Police Department also hosts Civilian Use of Force classes, with 18 residents in
attendance. Famiok stated they hope to host another one sometime this fall. The classes are a great
success and help make community members understand why the police do what they do in certain
situations.
Page 2 of 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
2016 POLICE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT- PRESENTATION - Continued
The Police Department also participates in the DARE Program. During Forensics Day the police hosted
between 400-500 high school students where the students had a chance to learn about drugs, use of force,
and crime scene investigation.
Farniok stated the Orono Police Department also has a great volunteer program with 14 reserve officers
currently. Those officers put in over 2,000 volunteer hours in 2016. In addition, the Explorer program
has seven members. Those explorers just participated in a competition in St. Paul and took first place.
Farniok noted Orono saw an increase in thefts in 2016. Famiok encouraged everyone to lock their doors
to vehicles and to take their valuables inside. Farniok stated the majority of the thefts are occurring from
cars that are left unlocked.
Orono did have one homicide last year. Famiok stated it got called in as an overdose but through the
investigation they were able to obtain fingerprints and find the dealer who sold the drugs. Farniok stated
they were able to charge that individual with third degree murder and the case is currently going through
court process.
Farniok reported in 2016 the Drug Task Force confiscated just under 13 pounds of cocaine, 5 8 pounds of
meth, and 48 pounds of marijuana. Farniok noted in previous years they saw a higher amount of
marijuana but that they are now seeing that usage is changing. As a result, in 2016 there was a spike in
heroin, cocaine and meth. The Drug Task Force, in the first month of 2017, conducted a bust which
resulted in the confiscation of two pounds of heroin, half a pound of meth, and 14 pounds of marijuana.
Farniok noted they are noticing heroin is on the rise in this area.
Seals asked if these numbers are for all the communities the Police Department covers or just for Orono.
Farniok indicated the Drug Task Force has no boundaries and that they go wherever the information takes
them. When the task force was created 12 years ago, they were seeing a lot of stuff being brought into the
community but that the dealers do not live here. Farniok stated the Drug Task Force is able to follow the
sources.
Seals asked how this compares to other communities in the state.
Farniok stated the Drug Task Force is similar to other neighboring drug task forces. At times the various
Drug Task Forces will work together and that there are significant amounts of work and drugs that are
involved. Farniok stated in 2016 the Drug Task Force for this area confiscated drugs with a street value
of $5 million and that they need to work together as a partnership since they cannot tackle this alone.
Mayor Walsh noted the Police Department also partners with the local schools and that he has heard a
number of positive comments about that program.
Farniok stated he hopes to have this update on the police department's website by Monday.
The City Council commended Police Chief Farniok for his fine work and that of the police department.
Page 3 of 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
*6. APPROVAL OF HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT — LONG LAKE
ROWING CREW
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to direct Staff to send a letter to the Sheriffs Water Patrol
approving issuance of the Special Event Permit for the Long Lake Rowing Crew for the 2017
season subject to, one, no organized practice on Sundays, and two, the activity shall not impede the
use of the Summit Park Beach facilities and access by the public. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*7. 17-3894 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: NON -ENCROACHMENTS —
ORDINANCE NO. 188 Third Series
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 188, Third Series, an Ordinance
Amending the Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Retaining Walls and Grading Throughout the City
of Orono. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*8. 17-3899 JAMES SMALE REPRESENTING LITTLE ACORNS CHILD CARE, INC.,
2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DAYCARE USE —
RESOLUTION NO. 6737
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6737, a Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit for Daycare Use at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard, File No. 17-3899. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
IL15 ITMILI) :1111011111061 Lmna0m
Seals noted the Orono girls basketball team won at the state championship.
Crosby noted Sharon Ford of the Orono Dance Team was named AA Coach of the Year.
Walsh reported he attended a meeting of the Western Mayors. Hennepin County provided an update on
the infrastructure improvements they will be making around the area.
Walsh stated he also attended the Planning Commission Monday night with Council Member Printup.
The Planning Commission had 18 items on the agenda, including a number of text amendments, and that
the Planning Commission did a great job vetting those applications.
Walsh stated he also met with the Code Review Committee, which is moving forward on more changes to
the City Code. Walsh stated the City Council should see those sometime in April. Walsh stated the goal
is to simplify the application and permit process.
Walsh stated he also obtained his Lurton Park dog park permit and that it is a fabulous facility. Walsh
encouraged the residents to buy a permit for the park at the front desk of City Hall. The cost is $25 for
residents and $45 for nonresidents.
Page 4 of 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - Continued
Walsh noted at tonight's work session the City Council talked about road improvements, with the Council
directing the Public Works Director to commence work on getting plans drawn up for eight road projects
that will take place in either 2017 or 2018. Walsh stated improving the roads in Orono is a big priority
and that the Council will continue to move forward with that.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
*9. CLAIMS/BILLS
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Mattick stated he had nothing to report outside of the closed session.
Closed Session
10. Discussion Relating to Pending Litigation — Matthew and Susanne Johnson/David and
Archelle Feldshon vs City of Orono, et al.
Walsh moved, Seals seconded, to go into closed session as permitted by the attorney-client privilege
(section 13D.05, Subd. 3(b) to discuss pending litigation between Matthew and Susanne
Johnson/David and Archelle Feldshon vs the City of Orono, et al. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(The City Council went into closed session from 7:32 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT
moved, seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:00
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page5 of5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
March 22, 2017
5:00 o'clock p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard Crosby II, Wendy Dankey, and
Victoria Seals. Council Member Aaron Printup arrived at 5:45. Representing Staff were Interim
City Administrator Doug Reeder, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, Finance
Director/City Treasurer Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Police
Chief Coffey Farniok, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, and City Clerk Anna Carlson.
Guests: Hennepin County Transportation Planning Engineer Kristy Moyer, P.E. and SRF
Engineer Nate Will, P.E.
1. CSAH 112 Phase 2 Update From Hennepin Coun
Moyer and Will explained the process, layout and background for CSAH 112. Phase I of the
project is to begin in April 2017.
Mayor Walsh asked where the proposed staging area would be for the project.
Moyer explained that there was not an identified area at this time for the set up/staging area
and that the contractor would decide where that would take place.
Moyer and Will provided an update of plans for Phase 2 of the reconstruction of Wayzata
Boulevard (CSAH 112). There was discussion regarding the concerns for the property
owners along the reconstruction of the road for Phase 2.
Mayor Walsh asked if the County had met with property owners regarding Phase 2.
Will had said that they were able to meet with some of the property owners along the Trail
and that they were planning to reconnect in a month or so to revisit any issues that might be
of concern.
Mayor Walsh asked if they had figured out if there were any safety concerns relating to
Phase 2.
Will reported that the main impacts would be trees, poor soils, muck, and that they will have
to widen the road on both sides; there will be no impacts on the trail. Will mentioned that the
guidance of two-lane traffic will help with safety concerns.
Council Member Crosby asked how many business owners the project would affect and that
he would like to see as little negative impact on the businesses as possible.
Will answered about 2-3 businesses would be affected and that traffic will be maintained.
Public Works Director/ City Engineer Adam Edwards mentioned that the funding for this
project is from the State Turn Back ftmding. One of the things of focus is that traffic would
be maintained as much as possible and that this is one of the guiding principles that has been
set forth for the project.
Council Member Seals asked about the lighting of the road.
Edwards mentioned that they will be using the same design for the light poles as what had
been used in Navarre. The lights will be added and they will vary in size and the corridor
will have a consistent look. They will have one light at each intersection as well. The lights
will transition to rural as you get out of Long Lake.
There was discussion regarding a guardrail along the curve in Wayzata and if there were
plans to add one there.
Council member Crosby was concerned about the safety without a guardrail and was
wondering if it was possible to have a guardrail added and try to keep it as aesthetically
pleasing as possible.
Will mentioned that it was outside of the guidelines and that his comment is noted.
2. Orono Road Plannini! and Fundin2
Edwards presented the road planning and funding for Orono. Getting guidance from the
Council on road planning for 2017, 2018 and long term funding for roads are the main goals
for this presentation. Edwards presented three courses of action to show what can be
accomplished at each levy level.
Mayor Walsh mentioned budgeting more money for the pavement management plan and
planning a little more aggressively for the future could be a possibility. Walsh recommends
taking an approach at getting the worst roads done first and then see where we are from that
point.
Edwards recommended patching areas of some roads, depending on the size, could be an
acceptable cure for the time being; until there are funds available to do a complete fix.
Edwards has begun putting together a list of roads that will need attention.
Mayor Walsh recommended seven different roads that he would like considered for the list of
roads in need.
There was discussion of revisiting the Old Crystal Bay Road and a feasibility study that had
been done for Leaf Street in 2010.
Edwards mentioned that there could be other options as far as state funding that could be
used. Edwards proposed to pull information from the feasibility study and getting together
with the engineers to discuss it.
Mayor Walsh agreed with this and that we should continue to actively control it.
Edwards confirms to look into and put together a priorities list for 2018-19 roads.
Council member Seals would like to get more information about the project and would like it
kept simple. Seals would also like Edwards to come back with a plan of preventative
planning for the current roads that are in good shape in addition to those roads that currently
are in need of repair.
Added Item -Consent A2enda
Interim City Administrator Doug Reeder referenced a couple agendas from surrounding
cities that have a section labeled "Consent Agenda." Reeder recommends that the City
Council had it added to their own agenda.
By Consensus the Council agreed to have Consent Agenda added to the Orono Agenda.
3. Explanation of Council Memo Format — Planning Items
Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart clarified the reasoning and purpose of
References, Exhibits and Summarized Public Comments listed on the Planning Council
Memos. The References are guides for the Council so if they would like more information
about a specific item they may reference the document noted. The Exhibits will be provided
with each memo. If the Council needs more information on any reference they can call and
we will get it for you. Summarized Public Comments already heard or any new comments
heard up to the date that the memo was created will be provided on the memos as well.
Mayor Walsh requested Barnhart to provide an update after a while to let the Council know
how it is working for him to go to this new format.
4. Minnetonka Beach Police Services Amement Discussion
Police Chief Correy Farniok explained that he, Doug Reeder, and Ron Olson had met with
Minnetonka Beach. At the meeting they found that Minnetonka Beach representatives were
interested in a base price for police services that they could take back to their Council.
Reeder had presented them with an offer that started with a base price with terms outlined for
the next five years. Minnetonka Beach Council decided that they wanted to move forward
with a contract with Orono Police Department for police services.
Farniok wants to revisit the contract to establish the correct amounts.
Reeder mentioned that Minnetonka Beach agreed tentatively, and if Council agrees tonight
the language will be worked out and brought back to the City Council for final approval.
By Consensus the Council agreed to have the language worked out and brought back to the
City Council for final approval.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 4 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Claims/Bills
Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda City Administrator's
Finance Director Section: Report
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 107161 to 107257, totaling $254,271.5 1.
3. Noteworthy Payments.
Vendor
Amount
Description of Payment
# 107168 Brad Schoenherr
$7,831.11
Reimbursement for Helmets purchased on behalf of the
City. The City has received a grant from Hennepin
County for this cost.
# 107182 City of Mound
$3,712.31
Payment to Mound for administrative fines that were
issued by Orono PD and collected on Mound's behalf.
Reimbursement for the purchase of a table and chairs for
#107188 Janie Delaney
$2,130.86
the golf course. Funding for this purchase was from the
Save the Course Funds.
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
Check Register
Prepared By: J*16 Reviewed By: *IV Approved By: D5R,
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -Long Lake Creek Water Shed Mtg
Public Works Department
11.45
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -SRA Meeting
Public Works Department
14.66
ADAM EDWARDS
04/1012017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-CEAM Conf
Public Works Department
26.64
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-CEAM Conf
Public Works Department
26.64
ADAM EDWARDS
04110/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-CEAM Conf
Public Works Department
26.64
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -Road Inspection -Fox Rd
Public Works Department
2.68
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-CSAH 112 Mtg
Public Works Department
8.35
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -Meeting with PC
Public Works Department
2.46
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-CSAH 112 Mtg
Public Works Department
8.35
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-CSAH 112 Mtg
Public Works Department
3.21
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -with PC & Mr. Erickson
Public Works Department
.96
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -Resident MTg
Public Works Department
3.85
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage-ProDev Presentation
Public Works Department
13.91
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -Meet Well Driller & MDH
Public Works Department
.96
ADAM EDWARDS
04/10/2017
107161
010617
101-43000-331
Mileage -Street & Park Visits
Public Works Department
3.53
Total 107161:
154.29
ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS
04/10/2017
107162
5802605.OR
101-45210-404
security service -GC- 4/11/17 to 3/31/18
Golf Course
690.25
Total 107162:
690.25
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO
04/10/2017
107163
327187118
101-41900-413
CH Copier Lease -03/20/17-04/20/17
Central Services
1,357.00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO
04/1012017
107163
327224044
101-42110-413
Police Copier -03/20-04/20/2017
Police Department
340.40
Total 107163: 1,697.40
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 04/10/2017 107164 304792 101-42110-580 New Rader Squad #248 Police Department 2,526.90
Total 107164: 2,526.90
BCAATTN: MNJIS 04/10/2017 107165 0000036512 101-42110-311 CJDN Access fee Police Department 510.00
Total 107165: 510.00
BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN 04/10/2017 107166 31360 101-42110-437 Onlin Trg Reg -DMT -G Recert-J. Needham Police Department 75.00
Total 107166: 75.00
BOLTON & MENK INC. 04/10/2017 107167 0200584 402-48056-304 Watertown Road -Materials Testing Watertown Road 550.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200586
601-16500
Well#4
2,297.10
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200589
602-16500
2016 Sewer Projects
256.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/1012017
107167
0200590
101-43280-304
701 Dickey Lane
Special Services
78.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200591
101-43280-304
2807 Casco Point Rd
Special Services
156.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04110/2017
107167
0200592
601-49400-304
GIS/Mapping
Water
416.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200592
101-43170-304
GIS/Mapping
Engineering
582.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200593
101-43170-304
General Eng 02/2017
Engineering
499.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200621
602-16500
2017 Sewer Projects
78.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200622
101-43170-304
Willow Trail
Engineering
78.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200623
402-48057-304
Fox Street
Fox Street
26,235.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200624
101-43280-304
15-3723 Lakeview
Special Services
55.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200625
651-49910-304
Drainage Review
Storm Water
120.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200626
101-43280-304
Orono Preserve
Special Services
550.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200627
101-43280-304
Tanager Estates
Special Services
353.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200628
601-49400-304
Antennas Verizon
Water
266.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0200629
402-48056-304
Watertown Road Phase 11
Watertown Road
956.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.
04/10/2017
107167
0201102
601-49400-304
Water Quality
Water
1,236.90
Total 107167:
34,762.00
BRAD SCHOENHERR
04/10/2017
107168
S016988
101-42110-226
Remibruse-Swat Hemlets-Hennepin Cnty-Subrecipi
Police Department
7,631.11
Total 107168:
7,631.11
BRIAN &JUDITH BUTTERFIELD
04/1012017
107169
2014-00610
101-22205
Escrow Refund -2014-00610-3955 Watertown Road
10,000.00
Total 107169:
10,000.00
BUSINESS ESSENTIALS
04/10/2017
107170
WO -274955-
101-41900-201
Paper
Central Services
416.40
Total 107170:
416.40
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.
04110/2017
107171
1824255
101-45210-091
beer
Golf Course
204.05
Total 107171:
204.05
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
04/10/2017
107172
AE040517
101-45210-433
Golf Course Website -Go Daddy
Golf Course
119.88
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
04/10/2017
107172
CF0223/17
101-42110-439
Lake Are Emergency Mgmt Mtg Lunch -Tip
Police Department
1.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
04/1012017
107172
CF030617
101-42110-403
Headset -Amy Swanson
Police Department
24.17
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
04/10/2017
107172
CF032117
101-42110-221
2-1phone Holsters for Squad Phones
Police Department
32.13
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Payee
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBER SERVICE
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
I a-MEDYA11%
CARGILL SALT
CARGILL SALT
Total 107173:
CECE S SIGNS
CECE S SIGNS
Total 107174:
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN
Total 107175
CENTRAL HYDRAULICS
Total 107176:
Check Check Invoice Invoice GIL Account
Issue Date Number Number
04/10/2017 107172 CF032217 101-42110-402
04/10/2017 107172 CF032317 101-42110-437
04/1012017 107172 DJG031617 101-41900-403
04/10/2017 107172 R0030317 101-41900-221
04110/2017 107172 RO030317.2 614-49840-221
04/10/2017 107172 RO030317.3 614-49840-221
04/10/2017 107172 R0030717 101-45210-221
04/10/2017 107172 R0030917 101-42110-221
04/10/2017 107172 R0031717 101-43000-240
04/10/2017 107172 RO031717.1 602-49450-221
04/10/2017 107172 R00322/17 101-41110-439
04/10/2017 107172 R0032217 101-41110-439
04/10/2017 107172 R0040517 101-45210-201
04/10/2017 107172 SC032417 101-43000-489
04110/2017 107172 S0022417 101-43000-240
Description
Department
Carwash for Squad #235
Police Department
MN Chiefs Assoc Trg-C. Fischer & T. Wittke
Police Department
Replace Drinking Fountains in City Hall & Public Wo
Central Services
Connectors -Two Microphones -Council Chambers
Central Services
Spare Microphone for Council Chambers
Cable Franchise
Microphone Cable -Wire -Council Chambers
Cable Franchise
Square Cash Register -GC
Golf Course
Finger Print Reader For Jane S. & PD
Police Department
Wall Plate for Ethernet Connection -PW
Public Works Department
Wall Plate for Network Lines at Public Works
Sewer
Cookies For Council Mtg-03122/17
Mayor & Council
Food for Council Work Session -03/22/17
Mayor & Council
Thermal Paper -GC Receipt Register
Golf Course
Couch -Public Works On-Call/Call Out
Public Works Department
Chainsaw Chain Sharpener
Public Works Department
04/10/2017 107173 2903165382 101-43000-224 Road salt
04110/2017 107173 2903213813 101-43000-224 Road salt
04/10/2017 107174 7302 101-45210-221 Golf Course Signs
04/10/2017 107174 7302 602-49450-406 Golf Course Signs
04/10/2017
107175
15865-1.MA
601-49400-381
March/1 7 -Gas -02/21/17-03/21/17
04/10/2017
107175
15865-1.MA
602-49450-381
March/1 7 -Gas -02/21/17-03/21/17
04/10/2017
107175
15865-1.MA
101-41900-381
March/1 7 -Gas -02/21/17-03/21/17
04/10/2017
107175
15865-1.MA
101-42110-381
March/1 7 -Gas -02/21/17-03/21/17
04110/2017
107175
15865-1.MA
101-45210-381
March/1 7 -Gas -02/21/17-03/21/17
04/10/2017 107176 0046204 602-49450-402 Repair Hoist On Unit #712
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Golf Course
Sewer
Water
Sewer
Central Services
Police Department
Golf Course
Sewer
Invoice
Amount
10.00
1,170.00
1,380.06
8.78
53.47
46.93
449.95
74.47
13.95
13.95
25.46
55.73
49.00
499.00
548.37
2,457.19
2,505.02
4,962.21
32.00
100.00
132.00
739.87
504.75
998.53
274.70
163.35
2,681.20
544.07
.I A -
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GIL Account
Total 107178:
CHRISTOPHER MCLEAN 04/10/2017 107179 2014-01418 101-22205
Total 107179
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
101-42110-402
CENTURY LINK
04/10/2017
107177
9524731909
101-45210-321
Total 107177:
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
CHRIS
FISCHER
04110/2017
107178
03/28/2017
101-42110-228
CHRIS
FISCHER
04/10/2017
107178
03/28/2017
101-42110-228
CHRIS
FISCHER
04/10/2017
107178
03/28/2017
101-42110-228
CHRIS
FISCHER
04/10/2017
107178
03/28/2017
101-42110-228
CHRIS
FISCHER
04/10/2017
107178
03128/2017
101-42110-228
CHRIS
FISCHER
04/10/2017
107178
03/28/2017
101-42110-228
CHRIS
FISCHER
04/10/2017
107178
03/28/2017
101-42110-228
Total 107178:
CHRISTOPHER MCLEAN 04/10/2017 107179 2014-01418 101-22205
Total 107179
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
0014603
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
0411012017
107180
0014605
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
0014606
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04110/2017
107180
0014614
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
0014618
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
0014624
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/1012017
107180
0014632
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
0014637
101-42110-402
CHUNKS LAKESHORE
AUTO
04/10/2017
107180
0014638
101-42110-402
Total 107180:
CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 04/10/2017 107181 MB032117 101-35105
Total 107181:
CITY OF MOUND 04/10/2017 107182 12312016 101-35105
Total 107182:
CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 03/2712017 107159 03272017 101-10300
Description Department Invoice
Amount
GC phone 3/19-4/18 2017 Golf Course 99.25
99.25
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
4.55
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
64.82
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
58.15
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
3.19
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
1.99
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
18.66
Remiburse-Alcohol Compliance Trg
Police
Department
9.57
160.93
Escrow Refund -2014-01418-114 Chevy Chase Dr
2,500.00
2,500.00
#238 Oil, filter service, rear washers
Police
Department
100.19
#223 Replace Battery
Police
Department
158.01
#236 -Test Back up Lights, Test for bearing noise
Police
Department
1,149.27
#244 -oil filter, service
Police
Department
45.79
#230 -lube, oil, filter, service
Police
Department
63.71
Oil filter, service, check engine light, brake pads, ex
Police
Department
1,272.76
#232 Test Battery
Police
Department
177.83
#240 oil, filter, service, inspection
Police
Department
45.79
#233 Left Front tire Leaks, repair
Police
Department
15.90
3,029.25
2016 Admin Fines
842.92
842.92
2016 -Admin citations
3,712.31
3,712.31
2017 -Golf Course Change Fund
300.00
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Department
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Total 107159:
CITY OF SPRING PARK
04/10/2017
107183
12312016
101-35105
2016 -Admin citations
Total 107183:
COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA
04/10/2017
107184
71615709
101-43000-224
Notreated Raod Salt
Public Works Department
Total 107184:
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO
04/10/2017
107185
446869 -CRC
602-49450-227
Lubricate & Zonker Oder Block -Lift Stations
Sewer
Total 107185:
COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD
04/10/2017
107186
031317 COU
101-41110-439
cookies for Council Meeting -03/13/2017
Mayor & Council
Total 107186:
DANIELLEAMIRA
0411012017
107187
DA022817
101-41500-331
Reimburse -Mileage -Bank Deposit -02/28/17
Finance Department
DANIELLE AMIRA
04/10/2017
107187
DA022817
101-41500-331
Reimburse -Mileage -Bank Deposit -03/117/17
Finance Department
DANIELLE AMIRA
04110/2017
107187
DA022817
101-41500-331
Reimburse -Mileage -Bank Deposit -03/24/17
Finance Department
DANIELLE AMIRA
04/10/2017
107187
DA022817
101-41500-331
Reimburse -Mileage -Bank Deposit -03/31/17
Finance Department
Total 107187:
DELANEY, JANIE
04/10/2017
107188
JD032817
237-45690-489
Table and Chairs GC
Golf Course Improvement
Total 107188:
DELTA DENTAL
04/10/2017
107189
6843165
101-21709
003722072- April/2017- Dental
DELTA DENTAL
04/10/2017
107189
6843165
101-15998
003722072- April/2017- Dental
Total 107189:
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
464747
101-41900-352
March 20th Public Hearing Notice
Central Services
EGM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
467307
101-41900-352
AD -City of Orono
Central Services
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
467308
101-41900-352
Seasonal Parks & Golf Course Ad
Central Services
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/1012017
107190
467309
101-45210-352
Golf Course Clubhouse Attendant AD
Golf Course
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
471804
101-41900-352
Ordinance No. 187
Central Services
Page: 5
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Invoice
300.00
90.00
90.00
1,685.54
1,685.54
474.00
474.00
18.00
18.00
5.88
23.54
2,130.86
2,130.86
455.00
62.00
55.50
55.50
184.76
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
472192
101-45210-352
Seasonal Parks & Golf Course Maint AD
Golf Course
55.50
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
472193
101-45210-352
GC Attendant Opening Ad
Golf Course
55.50
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/1012017
107190
472194
101-45210-352
Mowing Bids
Golf Course
62.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
475192
101-41900-352
Open Book Meeting
Central Services
47.68
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04110/2017
107190
475193
101-41900-352
Ordinance No. 188
Central Services
303.96
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
475194
101-41900-352
April 17th Public Hearing
Central Services
113.24
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
04/10/2017
107190
475197
101-43000-340
Fox Street Improvements BIDS
Public Works Department
136.49
Total 107190:
1,352.65
FINANCE AND COMMERCE
04/10/2017
107191
743213957
402-48057-304
Fox Street Project
Fox Street
189.59
Total 107191:
189.59
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1000638130
101-43000-226
uniforms
Public Works Department
64.99
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1000638130
101-43000-221
towels
Public Works Department
2.63
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1006392702
101-43000-226
uniforms
Public Works Department
64.99
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1006392702
101-43000-221
towels
Public Works Department
3.50
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1006395086
101-41900-404
mats
Central Services
10.80
G & K SERVICES
0411012017
107192
1006395087
101-41900-404
mats
Central Services
21.92
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1006403984
101-43000-226
uniforms
Public Works Department
55.35
G & K SERVICES
04/10/2017
107192
1006403984
101-43000-221
towels
Public Works Department
2.63
Total 107192:
226.81
GEFFRE INTERIORS
04/10/2017
107193
39977
101-45210-404
Vinyl Floors -Both Bathrooms -GC
Golf Course
437.00
Total 107193:
437.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA
04/10/2017
107194
354700
101-43000-403
Cable Ties Unit 460
Public Works Department
14.99
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA
04/10/2017
107194
355413
101-43000-402
Flasher #427
Public Works Department
27.74
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA
04/10/2017
107194
355794
101-43000-402
REpair #427 -Lamp
Public Works Department
4.01
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA
04110/2017
107194
356586
101-45210-221
Blow Gun
Golf Course
10.39
Total 107194:
57.13
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
04/10/2017
107195
7030625
601-49400-489
locates
Water
108.68
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL
04/10/2017
107195
7030625
602-49450-489
locates
Sewer
108.67
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017
Page: 7
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Department
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Public Works Department
95.30
Central Services
51.00
2,348.36
Golf Course
259.00
Total 107195:
259.00
Police Department
297.24
Central Services
416.13
GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA
04110/2017
107196
3602203284
101-45210-092
beverages for concessions
Total 107196:
238.00
238.00
Building & Zoning
200.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE
04/10/2017
107197
1000091104
101-42110-414
PID FEB/I 7 -Radio fees
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE
04/10/2017
107197
1000091135
101-43000-240
PW FEB/17-radio admin fee
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE
04/10/2017
107197
1000091320
101-41900-319
network support 3/02017
Total 107197:
HENNEPIN COUNTYTREASUR
04/10/2017
107198
GC ORONO
101-45210-441
2017 Food License -GC
Total 107198:
INTEGRATELECOM
04/10/2017
107199
14546898
101-42110-321
Phone service
INTEGRATELECOM
04/10/2017
107199
14546898
101-41900-321
Phone Service
INTEGRATELECOM
0411012017
107199
14546898
601-49400-321
Phone Service
INTEGRATELECOM
04/10/2017
107199
14546898
602-49450-321
Phone Service
Total 107199:
INTOXIMETERS
04/10/2017
107200
558528
101-42110-221
Repair PBT
Total 107200:
JACKIE YOUNG
04/10/2017
107201
03/31/2017
101-42400-319
PC meeting -03/06/17
JACKIE YOUNG
04/10/2017
107201
03/31/2017
101-41300-319
CC meetings, 03/13 & 03/22
JACKIE YOUNG
04/10/2017
107201
03/31/2017
101-42400-319
PC meeting -03/20/17
Total 107201:
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL
04/10/2017
107202
2638861
101-45210-091
beer for resale
Total 107202:
KENNETH N POTTS PA
04/1012017
107203
MARCH 201
101-41600-306
prosecution services-March/2017
Page: 7
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Department
Invoice
Amount
217.35
Golf Course
550.41
550.41
Police Department
2,202.06
Public Works Department
95.30
Central Services
51.00
2,348.36
Golf Course
259.00
259.00
Police Department
297.24
Central Services
416.13
Water
69.36
Sewer
208.06
990.79
Police Department
238.00
238.00
Building & Zoning
200.00
Administration
500.00
Building & Zoning
350.00
1,050.00
Golf Course
335.70
335.70
Law/Legal Services
3,166.66
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Department
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Total 107203:
LANO EQUIPMENT
04/10/2017
107204
03-422518
101-43000-403
repair Bobcat
Public Works Department
Total 107204:
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR
04/10/2017
107205
2140
703-49960-379
private data claim
Total 107205:
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
04/10/2017
107206
1297291-201
101-42110-311
Feb/1 7- contract fee
Police Department
Total 107206:
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
04/10/2017
107207
A36151
101-45210-404
Keys
Golf Course
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
04/10/2017
107207
B385146
602-49450-406
Duct Sea] Comp Plug
Sewer
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
04/10/2017
107207
B388465
101-45210-201
Tissue Paper, Napkins, Lunch Plates, Bandages
Golf Course
Total 107207:
MALWAREBYTES
04110/2017
107208
INVO057653
101-41900-416
Malwarebytes 03/14/17-0314/18
Central Services
MALWAREBYTES
04/10/2017
107208
INVO057653
101-42110-416
Malwarebytes 03/14/17-0314/18
Police Department
Total 107208:
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY
04/10/2017
107209
20222634
101-43000-212
Unleaded Fuel
Public Works Department
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY
04/10/2017
107209
20222635
101-43000-212
Diesel Fuel
Public Works Department
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY
04/10/2017
107209
MBINV-7969
101-41900-403
Test Fuel System For Water/Algee
Central Services
Total 107209:
MEDIACOM
04110/2017
107210
39831 -GC 0
101-45210-415
GC cable -04/2017
Golf Course
MEDIACOM
04/10/2017
107210
4327 -APRIL
614-49840-329
internet-04/2017
Cable Franchise
MEDIACOM
04110/2017
107210
4327 -APRIL
101-42110-329
internet-04/2017
Police Department
MEDIACOM
04/10/2017
107210
4327 -APRIL
101-41900-329
internet-04/2017
Central Services
Total 107210:
MELANIE CURTIS
04/10/2017
107211
MC032917
101-42400-439
reimb-Bus Garage OPS Lunch
Building & Zoning
Page: 8
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Invoice
3,166.66
52.69
52.69
2,500.00
2,500.00
16.50
16.50
10.98
27.84
42.80
574.75
574.75
1,149.50
2,657.78
280.50
270.00
3,208.28
14.68
593.50
1,201.68
15.00
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017
Page: 9
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Department
Invoice
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Amount
Total 107211:
15.00
METRO CITIES
04/10/2017
107212
59
101-41110-433
2017 -Membership Dues -Orono
Mayor & Council
3,326.00
Total 107212:
3,326.00
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S
04/10/2017
107213
FEB 2017
101-42400-310
Feb/17-Inspection Services
Building & Zoning
7,844.00
Total 107213:
7,844.00
MIKE WOCKEN
04/10/2017
107214
MW033017
101-42110-402
Remiburse-DMV Fees Increased -Unmarked Car
Police Department
6.00
Total 107214:
6.00
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT
04/10/2017
107215
P53649
101-43000-226
Protective Wear -Gloves
Public Works Department
59.85
Total 107215:
59.85
MINUTEMAN PRESS
04/10/2017
107216
19135
101-41900-352
2017 -spring newsletter
Central Services
1,501.91
Total 107216:
1,501.91
VIN APA
03/23/2017
107158
PLANNERJO
101-41900-352
Planner Job Listing
Central Services
25.00
Total 107158:
25.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH
04/10/2017
107217
031517C.SC
601-49400-441
Water Supply System Operator Class D license C. S
Water
23.00
Total 107217:
23.00
MN NCIPERS GROUP LIFE INS
04/10/2017
107218
6732417
101-21710
Para life 04/2017
224.00
Total 107218:
224.00
VIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
04/10/2017
107219
CONFREG
601-49400-437
2017-Conf registration R. O'Brien
Water
255.00
VIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
04/10/2017
107219
CONFREG
601-49400-437
2017-Conf registration DJ Goman
Water
255.00
VIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
04/10/2017
107219
CONFREG
601-49400-437
2017-Conf registration G. Palmer
Water
255.00
VIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
04/1012017
107219
CONIF REG
601-49400-437
2017-Conf registration J. Hirsch
Water
255.00
MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
04/10/2017
107219
CONFREG
601-49400-437
2017-Conf registration C. Schumann
Water
255.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03.00PM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
MIN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATI
04/10/2017
107219
CONFREG
601-49400-437
2017-Conf registration R. Rice
Water
255.00
Total 107219:
1,530.00
MOUND TRUE VALUE
04/10/2017
107220
142091
101-42110-240
Towels, Electric tape
Police Department
28.56
MOUND TRUE VALUE
04/10/2017
107220
142511
101-42110-221
WHIT Switch Guard, CD
Police Department
8.18
MOUND TRUE VALUE
04/10/2017
107220
142554
101-42110-221
Waterless Wipes, Screws, Bolts nuts,
Police Department
12.69
Total 107220:
49.43
MTI DIST CO
04/10/2017
107221
1107010-00
101-45210-221
Clamps for Sprayer
Golf Course
18.13
Total 107221:
18.13
NAVARRE HARDWARE
04/10/2017
107222
300714
602-49450-406
Plumbers Putty
Sewer
3.79
NAVARRE HARDWARE
04/10/2017
107222
300883
101-43000-224
Garden Hose Twist Nozzle
Public Works Department
7.49
NAVARRE HARDWARE
04/10/2017
107222
300893
601-49400-223
Soap Refill
Water
7.78
NAVARRE HARDWARE
04/10/2017
107222
300918
101-45210-201
Golf Course Clubhouse Supplies
Golf Course
50.09
Total 107222:
69.15
NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR RE
04/10/2017
107223
8026
602-49450-406
GS#9 Bracketts Point
Sewer
275.00
Total 107223:
275.00
NEWEGG INC
04/10/2017
107224
1300170379
101-41900-321
Returned Laptop Restocking fee
Central Services
54.99
NEWEGG INC
04/10/2017
107224
1300212223
602-49450-221
Ethernet Cable-SCADA
Sewer
123.40
NEWEGG INC
04/10/2017
107224
1300216676
101-45210-221
Antiglare Protector-lpad-GC
Golf Course
5.09
Total 107224:
183.48
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS
04/10/2017
107225
109676
101-41900-401
update Greeting
Central Services
90.00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS
04/10/2017
107225
109805
101-41900-401
Phone maint 05/05/17-05/04/2018
Central Services
1,674.00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS
04/10/2017
107225
109805
101-42110-401
Phone maint 05/05/17-05/04/2018
Police Department
1,674.00
Total 107225:
3,438.00
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9121527540
101-41900-201
Batteries, Note pads, Refill Post Its, Plastic Forks
Central Services
135.13
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9121527980
101-41900-201
Monthly Planner
Central Services
10.58
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9125346210
101-42110-201
Paper, Markers, batteries, box, stapler
Police Department
99.44
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Total 107226:
OKEY, DAPHNE 04/10/2017 107227 2016
Total 107227:
Department
Police Department
Police Department
Central Services
Central Services
Central Services
Central Services
Police Department
614-49840-319 meeting video production 10/10-12/12/2016 Cable Franchise
PIRTEK 04110/2017 107228 S2455358 101-43000-403 repair loader #429
Total 107228:
PLEAA 04/10/2017 107229 HGEHLEN 2 101-42110-433 2017 membership- H. Ghelen
PLEAA 0411012017 107229 JWERDER2 101-42110-433 2017 membership -J. Werder
PLEAA 04/10/2017 107229 KHERZOG 2 101-42110-433 2017 membership- K. Herzog
Total 107229:
PLUNKETT S 04/10/2017 107230 5633183 101-41900-404 City Hall pest control
Total 107230:
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 04/10/2017 107231 5425
Total 107231:
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
107232
33276
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9125348360
101-42110-201
Disinfecting Spray
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9125348370
101-42110-201
DVD Spindle
OFFICE DEPOT
04/1012017
107226
9132519470
101-41900-201
Binders
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9132519920
101-41900-201
Pencils
OFFICE DEPOT
04110/2017
107226
9136269080
101-41900-201
Paper, Markers, Highlighter, color paper
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9136269790
101-41900-201
Highlighter
OFFICE DEPOT
04/10/2017
107226
9157749450
101-42110-201
Toner, Note pads, Paper towels
Total 107226:
OKEY, DAPHNE 04/10/2017 107227 2016
Total 107227:
Department
Police Department
Police Department
Central Services
Central Services
Central Services
Central Services
Police Department
614-49840-319 meeting video production 10/10-12/12/2016 Cable Franchise
PIRTEK 04110/2017 107228 S2455358 101-43000-403 repair loader #429
Total 107228:
PLEAA 04/10/2017 107229 HGEHLEN 2 101-42110-433 2017 membership- H. Ghelen
PLEAA 0411012017 107229 JWERDER2 101-42110-433 2017 membership -J. Werder
PLEAA 04/10/2017 107229 KHERZOG 2 101-42110-433 2017 membership- K. Herzog
Total 107229:
PLUNKETT S 04/10/2017 107230 5633183 101-41900-404 City Hall pest control
Total 107230:
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 04/10/2017 107231 5425
Total 107231:
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
04110/2017
107232
33274
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
04/10/2017
107232
33275
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
04110/2017
107232
33276
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
04/10/2017
107232
33277
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
04/10/2017
107232
33285
Total 107232
101-45200-404 Lurton Park 2017 Spring Dormant Mow
602-49450-406
LS#17 Repair
602-49450-406
LS#5 Repair
602-16500
LS#6 Remodel
602-16500
LS#7 Remodel
601-16500
Water Tower Mixer
Public Works Department
Police Department
Police Department
Police Department
Central Services
Parks
Sewer
Sewer
Invoice
Amount
10.18
16.61
54.95
7.73
45.57
7.29
126.96
35.00
105.00
223.60
223.60
525.00
525.00
939.45
32,620.00
32,820.00
7,752.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
R.D. & Associates Specialized Ser
04/10/2017
107233
103129
101-45210-404
Golf Course Tree Removal
Golf Course
6,355.00
R.D. & Associates Specialized Ser
04/10/2017
107233
103132
101-43000-415
Arbor, Prosepct, Briar -Street Clearance, tree trimmi
Public Works Department
1,250.00
Total 107233:
7,605.00
RANDYS SANITATION INC
04/10/2017
107234
MARCH 201
101-41900-404
Trash Service 3/2017
Central Services
372.49
Total 107234:
372.49
REED WHOLESALE/OFFICE CO
04/10/2017
107235
032717
101-45210-093
concession supplies
Golf Course
261.00
REED WHOLESAILE/OFFICE CO
04/10/2017
107235
9347
101-45210-093
concessions Resale
Golf Course
130.95
Total 107235:
391.95
RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS
04/10/2017
107236
17-85086
101-41900-201
Form W2C
Central Services
121.46
Total 107236:
121.46
ROB HOWELLS
04/10/2017
107237
JAN -MAR 17
614-49840-319
Meeting Videos 01/09/17-03/22/17
Cable Franchise
1,020.00
Total 107237:
1,020.00
RON STEFFENHAGEN
04/10/2017
107238
RS032117
101-45210-226
2017-reimb boots
Golf Course
149.99
Total 107238:
149.99
SCOTT BORIS
04/10/2017
107239
SB01/31/17
101-42110-226
reimb for clothing
Police Department
256.82
Total 107239:
256.82
SHI
04/10/2017
107240
B06182085
101-42110-416
MS licensing
Police Department
3,863.41
SHI
04/10/2017
107240
B06182085
101-41900-416
MS licensing
Central Services
3,863.40
SHI
04/10/2017
107240
B06182597
101-42110-416
MS licensing
Police Department
3,319.35
SHI
04/10/2017
107240
B06182597
101-41900-416
MS licensing
Central Services
3,319.35
SHI
04110/2017
107240
B06190199
101-42110-416
MS licensing
Police Department
701.28
Total 107240:
15,066.79
SIMPLEX GRINNELL
04/1012017
107241
83487777
101-41900-404
PW 5 -Year Fire System Inspection
Central Services
595.00
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Department
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Total 107241:
STAR TRIBUNE
04/10/2017
107242
1913693.201
101-41300-208
2017 subscription acct 1913693-4/6/17-7/6/17
Administration
Total 107242:
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
04/10/2017
107243
11253450
101-42110-226
Pants, Belts, Nameplate, Serving Since Tab, Boots-
Police Department
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
04/10/2017
107243
11253569
101-42110-226
Pants, Belt, Boots Mic Kilp-K. Beck
Police Department
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
04/10/2017
107243
11254599
101-42110-226
Shirts, Pants, Boots -F. Vargas
Police Department
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
04/1012017
107243
11255063
101-42110-226
Shirts, Pants -F. Vargas
Police Department
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
04/10/2017
107243
11255205
101-42110-226
Boots -J. McCoy
Police Department
Total 107243:
TACTICAL SOLUTIONS
04/10/2017
107244
6053
101-42110-403
Re -certify All Radars
Police Department
Total 107244:
THE HOME DEPOT
0411012017
107245
56301
101-45210-404
Golf Course Toilet Bowl Resets
Golf Course
THE HOME DEPOT
04/10/2017
107245
56301
101-43000-240
Pliers, Saw blade, tape measure, Hammer
Public Works Department
Total 107245:
TITAN MACHINERY
04/10/2017
107246
9057473 GP
101-43000-403
Lamp Post
Public Works Department
Total 107246:
TODD BALAN
04/10/2017
107247
2016-00517
101-22205
Escrow Refund -2016-00517-2905 Casco Point Roa
Total 107247:
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY
04/10/2017
107248
40061153
101-43000-415
cylinder & Demurrage
Public Works Department
Total 107248:
TRI CITY LAB
04/10/2017
107249
MARCH 17
601-49400-489
P/A Total Coliform
Water
Total 107249:
Page: 13
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Invoice
595.00
44.20
44.20
401.97
179.99
.11 —
980.93
547.00
547.00
26.64
183.14
209.78
161.04
161.04
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017 Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GIL Account
Payee Issue Date Number Number
Description
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI
04/06/2017
107259
1 ST QTR 20
601-49400-322
1 st/Qtr 2017- Utility Bills
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI
04/06/2017
107259
1 ST QTR 20
602-49450-322
1 st/Qtr 2017- Utility Bills
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI
04/06/2017
107259
1 ST QTR 20
651-49910-322
1 st/Qtr 2017- Utility Bills
Total 107259:
5410
101-43000-403
DOT Trailer & Repair Unit #481
Public Works Department
532.68
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE
04/10/2017
107250
51517
101-41900-407
Janitorial service
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE
04/10/2017
107250
51517
101-42110-407
Janitorial service
Total 107250:
Department Invoice
Amount
Water
Sewer
Storm Water
Central Services
Police Department
95.77
526.71
526.72
1,149.20
1,435.50
1,039.50
2.475.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5402
101-43000-402
DOT & Repair Unit #431
Public Works Department
1,036.72
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5409
101-45200-403
DOT Trailer & Repair Unit #483
Parks
321.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5410
101-43000-403
DOT Trailer & Repair Unit #481
Public Works Department
532.68
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5411
101-43000-402
Repair #426
Public Works Department
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5412
101-43000-402
DOT Truck & Repair Unit #422
Public Works Department
372.42
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5413
602-49450-402
DOT Truck & Repair Unit #711
Sewer
276.39
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5414
101-43000-402
DOT Truck Unit #432
Public Works Department
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5415
602-49450-402
Repair #712
Sewer
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
0411012017
107251
5416
101-43000-402
DOT Truck #428
Public Works Department
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5417
601-49400-402
DOT Truck Unit #709
Water
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04110/2017
107251
5418
101-43000-402
DOT Truck #708
Public Works Department
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/10/2017
107251
5419
101-43000-402
DOT Truck #424
Public Works Department
90.00
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
04/1012017
107251
5420
601-49400-402
DOT Unit #710
Water
90.00
Total 107251: 3.259.21
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-42110-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Police Department
1,527.21
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-41900-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Central Services
155.56
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-45210-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Golf Course
74.56
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
601-49400-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Water
70.02
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
602-49450-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Sewer
70.02
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-43000-415
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Public Works Department
35.01
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-42110-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Police Department
79.00-
VERIZON WIRELESS
04110/2017
107252
9781583659
101-41900-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Central Services
8.00-
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-45210-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Golf Course
4.00-
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
601-49400-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Water
4.00-
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
602-49450-321
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Sewer
4.00-
VERIZON WIRELESS
04/10/2017
107252
9781583659
101-43000-415
Cell Phones -03/07/17-04/06/17
Public Works Department
1.00 -
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 3/23/2017 - 4/10/2017
Page: 15
Apr 06, 2017 03:OOPM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
Total 107252:
1,832.38
WACONIAFORD
04/10/2017
107253
FOCS110633
101-42110-402
RepaiR Check Engine Squad #237
Police Department
99.95
Total 107253:
99.95
WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH
04/10/2017
107254
MARCH 201
101-42110-402
March/1 7 -car washes
Police Department
10.55
Total 107254:
10.55
WESTONKA COMMUNITY & CO
04/10/2017
107255
ORONO PID
101-42110-433
2017 Membership Dues -PD
Police Department
125.00
Total 107255:
125.00
WILLIAMS TOWING
04/10/2017
107256
143823
231-45650-436
tow-case#OR170EO0005
155.00
Total 107256:
155.00
XCELENERGY
0411012017
107257
540516342
101-41900-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Central Services
1,730.21
XCELENERGY
04/10/2017
107257
540516342
101-42110-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Police Department
1,404.63
XCELENERGY
04110/2017
107257
540516342
101-42110-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Police Department
33.21
XCELENERGY
04/10/2017
107257
540516342
101-43000-386
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Public Works Department
2,057.68
XCELENERGY
04/10/2017
107257
540516342
101-43000-381
Electdc-02/21/17-03/22/17
Public Works Department
146.58
XCELENERGY
04/1012017
107257
540516342
101-45200-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Parks
35.25
XCELENERGY
04/10/2017
107257
540516342
601-49400-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Water
4,518.74
XCELENERGY
04/10/2017
107257
540516342
602-49450-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Sewer
630.34-
XCELENERGY
04/10/2017
107257
540516342
101-45210-381
Electric -02/21/17-03/22/17
Golf Course
134.29
Total 107257:
9,430.25
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.
04/10/2017
107258
MAN 116770
101-45210-415
18 Golf Carts -Lease
Golf Course
1,647.00
Total 107258:
1,647.00
Grand Totals:
254,271.51
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 5
Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Appointment of 2017 Seasonal Employees. V2
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Work Director/City Engineer Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of seasonal employees.
2. Background. The hourly pay is proposed to be $10.00-12.00 for the Golf Course Clubhouse
Attendants; $ 10 for Golf Course Maintenance Assistants and $11.00 for Parks Maintenance Workers; a
pay range of $10.25-15.22 for the Utilities Maintenance Worker; and a pay range of $15.00-$20.00 for the
Assistant Superintendent and Clubhouse Manager. The clubhouse manager will be enrolled in the
coordinated PERA plan. All other seasonal employees will fall under the 6 month PERA Classification
and are therefore excluded from PERA membership.
3. Seasonal EmDlovee ADDointments and Candidates.
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employee as in the list above.
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: D5R,
--A- --A—
Name
Position
Wage
($/hr)
Remarks
Robert Howells
G.C. Clubhouse Manager
$18.00
Returnee
Jason Goehring
G.C. Assistant Superintendent
$16.00
Returnee
Ivan Corazalla
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$12.00
Returnee
f
Paul Tolzmann
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$11.00
Returnee
Diane Otrey
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$10.00
New
Rebecca Anderson
Utilities Maintenance Worker
$11.00
Returnee
Ed Kvam
G.C. Maintenance Assistant
$10.00
Returnee
Requesting
Calvin Schmidt
G.C. Maintenance Assistant
$10.00
Returnee
Approval
Marshall Hambro,
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$11.00
Returnee
EW�endy Middendorf
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$10—.O—O—T—New
I Ron Vanacora
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$10.00
1 New
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employee as in the list above.
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: D5R,
--A- --A—
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 6 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Acceptance of Mowing Contract Quote
Presenter: DJ Goman Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Works Supervisor Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain Council Approval to accept the quotation for lawn
mowing services for 2017-2019.
2. Background. The latest three year mowing contract ended in 2016. Public works solicited quotes for
2017-2019 annual lawn mowing services, quotes were received from numerous firms.
3. Project Scope The scope of work includes the mowing of selected parks and city property (see
exhibit A) from April thru November. In addition the selected contractor will perform dethatching in the
spring and a fall leaf cleaning. The agreement for park mowing services is for 3 years, providing the
company is continuing to provide high quality work.
4. Cost. The table below is a summary of the three lowest quotes received. The complete list is at
Exhibit B.
Firm
One (1) Year
Two (2)
Three (3)
Three (3)
Agreement
Year
Year
Year
Agreement
Agreement
Total
Shaughnessy Lawn Care
$19,300
$19,300
$19,300
$57,900
Meyer's Outdoor Services
$24,000
$24,500
$25,000
$73,500
Lake Country Lawn and
$32,250
$28,000
$24,250
$84,500
landscape"
5. Funding. Mowing is funded through the Park Operation and Maintenance budget and the Central
Services budget.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends acceptance of the lowest responsible quotation of
$57,900.00 received Shaughnessy Lawn Care, Orono, Minnesota.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quotation from Shaughnessy Lawn Care, Orono, Minnesota for park mowing
services for the 2017-2019 seasons in the amount of $57,900
Exhibit
A. Map of Lawn Maintenance Areas
B. Quote Summary
Prepared By: DJG
Reviewed By: E -
Approved By: DR
Exhibit A
I Exhibit B
PROJECT: 2017-19 Mowing Proposals DATE: 3/16/2017
Firm
Per Year
Three year
Price
Total
Shaughnessy Lawn Care
$ 19,300.00
Same
Same
$57,900.00
Meyer's Outdoor Services
$24,000.00
$24,500.00
$25,000.00
$73,500.00
Lake Country Lawn and landscape
$32,250.00
$28,000.00
$24,250.00
$84,500.00
North Country Lawns
$32,000.00
$32,000.00
$32,000.00
$96,000.00
Norlings Lake Minnetonka Landscapes,
$32,050.00
Inc.
$33,011.50
$34,001.85
$99,063.35
Beniek Property Services
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$46,350.00
$ 136.350.00
A & H Company Inc.
$96,000.00
$96,000.00
$96,000.00
$ 288,000.00
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 7 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Acceptance of Navarre Garage Siding Quote
Presenter: Scott Oberaigner Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Works Supervisor Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain Council Approval to accept the quotation for residing the
shed at the water treatment plant.
2. Background. The shed siding is in a state of decay. The building is in need of general maintenance
and a facelift.
3. Project Scope. The scope of work includes removal of the old siding, application of new house
wrap, new siding and replacement of soffits and trim.
4. Cost. The table below is a summary of the quotes received.
Firm
Quote
Atkinson Construction and Siding LLC
$ 12,725
Joe Mauk Siding, Inc.
$12,875
Al Hackbarth Construction LLC
$19,615
5. Funding. The project is funded from the Sewer Fund (note -although located at the water plant the
shed primarily provides storage for sewer back-up generators and equipment).
Fund
Total
� CIP Amount
Est. Fund Balance EOY 2017
Sewer Fund
$12,725
1 $ 15,000
$ 1,659,532
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends acceptance of the lowest responsible quotation of
$12,735 received Atkinson Construction and Siding LLC, Delano, Minnesota.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quotation from Atkinson Construction and Siding LLC, Delano, Minnesota for
residing the Navarre Water Plant Shed
Prepared By: SO
Reviewed By:
Approved By: DR
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 8 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Acceptance of Saga Hills Park Iraprovernent Project Quote
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Work Director/City Engineer Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain Council Approval to accept a quote to complete the Saga
Hills Improvement project.
2. Background. The Park Commission identified Saga Hills as a focus park for 2016 and 2017. After
engagements with the local residents and historical research the Saga Hills subcommittee recommended a
set of improvements for the park. (See Exhibit B for background presentation) At the March 3rd, 2017
meeting the Park Commission voted 7-0 to forward the project to the City Council for approval. At the
March 13' City Council meeting the council approved the project and solicitation of quotes for the
project.
3. Project Scope The scope of work for the contracted portion of the improvement project includes
clearing trees from & planting 4.5 acres of the hilltop area with native plants grasses.
4. Cost. The table below is a summary of the quotes received. In the quote request we allowed
companies that specialized in either tree clearing or native vegetation establishment to just quote their
area of expertise.
Firm
Quote to
clear trees
and brush
Quote to
reestablish native
vegetation
Total Quote
Minnesota Native Landscapes
$6,907.00
$12,690.00
$ 19,597.50
Tree Top Services
$14,760.00
None submitted
$14,760.00
R.D. & Associates
$24,300.00
None submitted
$24,300.00
TreeCare Incorporated
$32,500.00
None submitted
$32,500.00
5. Funding. This project would be funded through the Park Fund. The project estimate for these
contracted services was $26,250. The Park Fund Balance is projected to be $808,863 at the end of 2017.
Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends acceptance of the lowest responsible quotation of
$19,597.50 received from Minnesota Native Landscapes, Ostego, Minnesota.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quotation from Minnesota Native Landscapes for clearing trees from & planting 4.5
acres of the hilltop area of Saga Hill Park with native plants grasses in the amount of $ 19,597.50.
Prepared By:
Reviewed By: �c
Approved By: D5R
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 9 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Joint Use Dock License Renewals for 2017
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to review and approve the 2017 Joint Use Dock Licenses.
2. Background. The City is in receipt of 10 out of the I I joint use dock renewal license applications
for the docks we have historically licensed. None of them exhibited any significant changes from
previous licenses. Additionally, no permits have been issued at any of the joint use dock sites for
structures or changes to the sites in the past 12 months.
One joint use dock user, Big Island, Inc., has responded to the annual licensing application requests for
2010 to 2015. Applications for 2016 and 2017 were mailed out, but has not yet been received. Big
Island, hic. is not yet in compliance with the City's survey requirements pertaining to Joint Use Docks.
We will continue to work with them to gain compliance.
3. Staff Recommendation. To date there have been no complaints regarding any of the ten (10) joint
use dock license renewals. Staff recommends that the Council approve the 2017 Joint Use Dock Licenses
for each of the ten (10) applicants listed below:
0 Bohns Point Lane Homeowners Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association
• Forest Arms Country Club Addition
Homeowners Association, Inc.
• Foxhill Homeowners Association
• Kelly Cove Homeowners Association
of Orono
• Minnetonka Power Squadron
0 Pirates Cove Homeowners Association
• Tonkawa, Inc.
Property Owners at 460, 500 & 550 Tonkawa Rd
• Victoria Estates Homeowners Association
• Walter's Port Maintenance & Improvement
Association
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider adopting resolutions granting a 2017 Joint Use Dock License for each of the ten
(10) applicants for the period January 1, 2017 to December 3 1, 2017; a sample is provided.
Exhibits
A. Joint Use Dock Location Map
B. Resolution No. 5990
C. Draft Resolution Example
D. Draft License Example
References (References A — J each include the following: 2017 Application, Resolution and License)
A. Bohns Point Lane Homeowners;
B. Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc.;
C. Foxhill Homeowners Association;
D. Kelly Cove Homeowners Association of Orono;
E. Minnetonka Power Squadron;
F. Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association;
G. Pirates Cove Homeowners Association;
H. Tonkawa, hic. (Property Owners at 460, 500 & 550 Tonkawa Road);
1. Victoria Estates Homeowners Association; and
Walter's Port Maintenance & Improvement Association.
Prepared By: C. Mattson
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: D5R
P
t
2
P a)
2
=limit tju zi
FARM
A
"A
A
�7r 0
sn'
C
c
A
d. c
1 .61 1 0
IN
L6 OL
Council
Exhibit B
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF TTE CITY COUNCIL
NO; - 9 90
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISIHNG POLICY
REGARDING CERTMCATE OF SURVEY REQUIREpIENTS
FOR JOINT USE DOCK LICENSES
)VMREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation Organized and existing
under the laws of the State of'Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota
Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and
a
general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public T�dthin the City; and
V*WEREAS, the City shares coneurrentjurisdiction over the use of those portions of
Lake Minnetonka within the corporate boundaries of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and
W]UREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police
power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono,A11 of which have adopteci rules to ensure to all
equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waten
and on the land within the City which, if unregulated,- may be detrimental to the public health, safety
and general welfare; and
VMEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the
property rights of the riparian owners, including residential owners as well as the commercial marina
owners, to the extent OfPTOhibiting any interference with the public waters adj oining their prope*,
The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by
protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the common-law rights of
riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owner . s; and
WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and
is shared by riparian owners and the public generally; no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges
over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the
public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be
no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to
use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other
riparianowners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian
Page I of 3
'%f CITY of 01-10NO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. —9 9 C� ':
Owner. This mutual right of enjoyment which is sharedbyriparian owners and the public generally
includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing there
owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and in, and the riparian
WHERF-AS, Lake Minnetonka is Capable of substantial benf--ficial public use onlyas
long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such away as to ensure there is no abuse of the
limited riparian rights; and
WnREAS, since 1963 the City of Orono has required the amnual licensing ofjoint
use docks in order to manage not only the use of the lake but also the land-based facilities that
support the lake use; and
WHERF-AS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the constmcb on
and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such far
,ilities are used and maintained by three or
more families, which regulations include the annua.1' licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to
Chapter 94, Article II, Sections 94-39 through 94-3 8 of the Orono Municipal Code, as- well as the
land use provisions of the Orono Zoning Code, Orono Municipal Code Chapter 78; and
VVIMREAS, in 2008, City staff conducted an assessment of the license information
on file for each Of the joint use dock licensees of record, which revealed a number of tile f1les
containing old, outdated, incomplete or inaccurate sketches, site plans Or surveys that did not
represent the current status of the land and dock facilities; and
WHEREAS, a current, updated certificate of survey Provides the City with an
inventory and accurate record of what exists on the land and water; and
V*WEREAS, as a result of the assessment, City staff directed each licensee to submit
a current certificate of survey showing the existing conditions of the property and dock configuration
for the 2009 license year. Based on the information on file, it was determined that certificates of
survey dated 2007 or later'would be acceptable; and
VVUERF,AS, to further clarify the survey requirements for annual joint use dock
licenses, a Policy outlining the survey requirement is proposed.
Page 2 of 3
CITY of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF TH� CITY CfUNCI L
NO. 99
NOW, TIREREFORE, ]BE IT RESOLVED, an updated certificate of survey dated
2007 or later shall be required for approval of a City of Orono annual joint use dock license. Such
survey shall depict the 10 ' cation and configuration of the dock facilities and shall include the. entire
parcel of land from which the dock facilities extend. The survey shall depict all structure and
hardcover on the land. Upon receipt of the acceptable , a site pection will be p b
survey ins erf rmed
ep 0
annually, in the fall, -and site photos will be taken for the file. This survey will be acc table f r
future li'censure of the joint use dock. However, if -upon inspection, the conditions on the site have
changed an updated survey will be required for the upcoming license year, subject to the following:
1. r Changes COnStitafmg the need for an updated survey include, but axe not limited to: new
Structures; change in location of structures or storage area; additionaL new docks or change in docks,
slips, buoys, launching ramps, parking areas, access areas, steps, Or Pathways; new hardcover; an
increase or change in existing hardcover; fencing and/or landscaping activities which require a
pen -nit,
2. Changes that are acceptable and would not require an -updated survey are: pl g e
. antin tr es
plants; shrubs; picnic tables on grass and fire rings (with no increase in har'dcover).
3. If changes are noted during the fall inspection, thejoint use dock licensee will be notified that
an updated surveywill be required before the next boating season or ajoint use dock license willnot
beissued. ln February each year thejoint use dock license applications will be mailed for the =ent
boating season with a deadline of March 15.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of November, 2010.
ATTEST:
4Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
es �M
Page 3 of 3
Council
Exhibit C
W111 �11) list 1COM 11199 01011 10oww4vw"M
ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE
TO BOHNS POINT LANE HOMEOWNERS
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN
FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2017 TO DECEMBER 31,2017
WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and
responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq.,
to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of
the public within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit
of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of
Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police
power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to
all equal enjoyment of the publicrights and equal protection ftQm activity on or near the public
waters and on the land within the City which.. if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public
health, safety and genetal welfare; and
WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate
the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial
marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their
property. The L -MCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public
waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the common law
rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners;
Page I of 5
WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between
and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive
privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may
have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public
waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake
Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable
purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a Tight not only to members of
the public but the right to each riparian owner.
This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally
includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian
owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and
WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use
only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no
abuse of the limited riparian rights; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the
construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and
maintained by three or mom families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use
Docks pursuant to Section 94-37 of the Orono Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general
conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for
an annual Joint Use Dock License described below -
A. LICENSEE: Bohns Point Lane Homeowners
Dock Address: 3240 Bohns Point Lane
(Outlot 1, Bohns Point Addition, PID 08-117-23-44-0011)
Agent: Dave Condon
Address: 3230 Bohns Point Lane, Wayzata, MN 55391
Licensee is: member of homeowner's group
Page 2 of 5
B. BOAT DENSITY
The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed three (3) as shown on,
Exhibit A, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of
authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's
license.
Authorized Boat Density:
Bay
Crystal
Transient (Day use only) Slips
0
Permanent Moorage Slips
3
Boat Lifts
0
Subtotal Slips at Dock
3
Offshore Buoys
0
Maximum Boats in Water
3
Maximum Boats per Prior License
3
MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY
3
Exceeding this m&ximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts
or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for
violation of Section 94-37 of the Orono Municipal Code.
C. DOCKLAYOUT
'Me dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached
Exhibit A. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the
City Council.
Page 3 of 5
D. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or
the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these
conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or
prosecution by the City.
The City acknowledges the historic and continued use of this three -slip multiple
dock since the 1960's for the benefit of three designated non -riparian properties
within the Bohns Point Addition.
2. The City recognizes the easement over Lot 3, Block 1, Bohns Point Addition to
provide pedestrian access to Outlot 1, Bohns Point Addition for the owners of
Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6, Bohns Point Addiwn.
3. The three (3) multiple dock slips are designated for use by specific properties as
spelled out below, and no transfer of dock rights to different properties within the
subdivision of Bohns Point Addition may occur without City approval. Transfer
of dock rights to any property outside the subdivision of Bohns Point Addition or
to any person who is not a Rohns Point Addition property owner, will not be
allowed. Any boats stored at the dock shall be owned by a property owner within
the Bohns Point Addition.
4. The three properties which are each allowed one slip within the three slip multiple
dock are described as follows:
3220 Bohns Point Lane (Lot 1, Bohns Point Addition)
322. :.5 Hohns Point Lane (Lots 5 and 6, Bohns Point Addition)
3230 Bohns Point Lane (Lot 2, Bohns Point Addition)
This approval grants a 2017 Joint Use Dock License to the Association for three
slips. Applicants are advised of the need to henceforth apply for a City of Orono
Joint Use Dock License annually.
Page 4 of 5
E. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any
vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this
resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such
regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall
deem necessary from time to time in the public interest.
F STYROFOAM DOCK ADVISORY. Licensee is advised fhat the use of unprotected
Styrofbarn as a dock flotation material has been banned per Ordinance No. 104, Second
Series.
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2010, the City adopted Resolution No. 5990,
establishing the policy regarding certificate of survey requirements for joint use dock licenses.
WHEREAS, the Bohns Point Homeowners Association has submitted a survey
dated, April 14, 20 10 which complies with Resolution No. 5990.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and
conditions noted above.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this
101h day of April, 2017,
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 5 of 5
r- I
'M
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 10 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Long Lake Fire Department Annual Report for 2016
Presenter: James Van Eyll Agenda Presentation
Long Lake Fire Chief Section:
1. Purpose. Fire Chief James Van Eyll from the Long Lake Fire Department will be attending the
meeting to present their 2016 Annual Report. Chief Van Eyll has provided the attached report for your
information.
2. Background. None
3. Project Scope. None
4. Cost. None
5. Funding. None
6. Staff Recommendation. No Action needed, presentation only.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
No action required
Exhibits
A. 2016 Annual Report
Prepared By: Rd
Reviewed By: Rd
Approved By: D5R,
�'V 5
2016 Annual Report
w
Serving the Communities of Long Lake, Medina and Orono
With Pride and Professionalism
Mission Statement
Our mission is to enhance the quality of life and
I unique character of our protection area by k
providing excellent community risk reduction,
fire and rescue services through prevention,
education, preparedness and response.
Vision Statement --,z
'q
CCOMDlishments are based on our \ I
property
iu
of all persons within our community, and to
convey this commitment in a professional
manner. We support education, training and
skill development and intend to use these
opportunities to further enhance the quality
commitment to protect the lives and
I
of life of our citizens and visitors.
F �E
Value Statement
We embrace our fire service
responsibilities to our community through
R.I.TE Values - Respect, Integrity,
Teamwork and Excellence.,
11
0
R.I.T.E. Values - Respect,, Integrit
Teamwork, Excellence
Res ect: We recognize the contributions and unique
value of each individual employee, customer, and
partner. L N.48
Integritv: We conduct all of our activities honestiv and
objectively. We accept responsibility for our
decisions/actions.
Teamwork: We achieve our goals by working together
through cooperation, communication, service, and
commitment.
Excellence: We strive to be the best in everything we
do with dedication to quality, efficiency, innovation,
and continuous learning:')v in
!;;;�` A' LeadershiiP,_Zr"4*1*4_�7
NC) 64�'
CURRENT OFFICERS
Chief —James Van Eyll
Assistant Chief —John Hall
Deputy Chief of Administration — DJ Goman
Battalion Chief — Shane Gardner
Deputy Chief of Training — Cody Farley
Fire Captain — Kelly Shaughnessy & Chris Adams Zk
Fire Lieutenant — Ryan Gonsior, Doug Johnson, ,
Scott Anderson and Phil Steahl C 'x'-A0P-
44922� NQV NN k"
0 f (T � - X_ C -0. 1 �aa�a�
r
I
-mom—
Orgamizatio
Fire Chief
Secretary 11-1 ,
FAssistant Chief
Assistant Building and Apparatus Coordinator
---F sCBA Coordinator
---fcommunication Coordii
11 QuarterMaster
'INC 11P,
��z
1
61
Battalion Chief Deputy Captain of TrainIM
ato Fire Lieutenant Training Assistant
L4 Firefighter EMS Coordinator
Fire Lieutenant
Firefighter
Fire Lieutenant
Firefight= A
=saw
Fire Lieutena�F.
06, C 41,
-..Moo
Current MembershilT.
0000
r
38 active members (1 on Military LOA and 1 on
Active Guard Duty in North Dakota LOA)
All members are currently or will be:
Firefighter I or 11 State Certified
9 First Responder or EMT Certified
HazMat Operations Certified jw.�
Cl�
Members Who Retired Oin 2016
0 Mary Wurzer with 41 years of experience
0
Don "Bean"Gaspar with 42 years of experience
Brandon Stovern with 11 years of experience
Nathan Spring with 15 years of experience
Richard Crosby with 10 years of experience
In total we lost 119 years of experience last year.
This will be difficult to replace.
Cl�
2016 New Probationary Members
Ryan Hoster
Blair Mileski
Joshua Grady
* Bryan Frank
9 Dernetrous Few
L. 'JOV
I
Shawn Rioux
C�
Derek Lee
(T�
Members Who Came Off
Probationary Status in 2016..
David Rothstein
Paul Kubista
0 Tom Lunieski
0 Scott Anderson
Zach Berbig
John Paszkiewicz
Scott Spinks
Matt Smiley
Cie
I E -,q4w
Station 1 Facilities and Equi rj�Qent
A��
Station I — 340 Willow Drive N
Built in 2002
— 2004 Kenworth/Pierce Engine
E12 — 1990 Spartan/General Engine
R12 — 2003 Sterling Heavy Rescue
T11 — 2009 Freightliner/Midwest Fire Tanker
U11 — 1998 Ford F350 Grass Rig/Utility
U13 — 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 Chief's Vehicle/Utility
U14 — 2013 Polaris ATV
2013 Chevrolet Tahoe Chief Vehicle
CMD2 — 2012 Ford Explorer Duty Officer Vehicle
B11 — 2004 26' Lake Assault Boat - C 'AA
Station 2 Facilities and Equipment
0 Station 2 — 3770 Shoreline Drive
Built in 2004
E21 — 2003 International/Pierce Engine
R21 — 2003 Ford F550 Rescue/Mini Pumper
U21 — 2000 Ford F250 Grass Rig/Utility
T12 — 2001 Sterling/Midwest Fire Tanker
bib,
2016 Emergency Call Activity
Incident Type
Long
Lake
Medina
Orono
Mutual
Aid
Total
1 Fire
4
0
18
17
39
2 Overpressure Rupture,
Overheat (No Fire)
1
0
0
0
1
-Explosion,
3 Rescue & Emergency Medical
Service Incident
18
1
67
1
87
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
7
3
54
0
64
5 Service Call
2
0
15
4
21
6 Good Intent Call
5
8
95
2
110
7 False Alarm & False Call
7
3
77
0
87
8 Severe Weather & Natural
Disaster
0
1
0
0
1
Special Incident Type
0
0
0
0
0
-9
Total Incident Count:
44
16
326
24
410
Emergency Call Breakdown
Incident Type
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
1 Fire
39
27
24
28
34
2 Overpressure Rupture,
Overheat(no fire)
1
0
1
2
1
-Explosion,
3 Rescue & Emergency Medical
Service Incident
87
106
75
78
108
4 Hazardous Condition (No Fire)
64
71
55
81
56
5 Service Call
21
17
9
21
18
6 Good Intent Call
110
100
100
104
91
7 False Alarm & False Call
87
90
85
110
85
8 Severe Weather & Natural
Disaster
1
2
4
2
1
Special Incident Type
0
0
0
0
1
-9
Total Incident Count:
410
413
353
426
395
M
2016 Mutual Aid"�--
'1�
Auto -Aid given 4 times
Auto -Aid received 3 times
Mutual Aid given 20 times AV
Mutual Aid received 4 times
Average Response Time for all Calls
ce .4
District
Average
Response
Time
Lake
0:07:04
-Long
Medina
0:05:03
Orono
0:06:53
Mutual Aid
0:19:43
All
0:07:35
J0010T
C,'� I'A
'N
Responders Per Incident
AW We had on average 11.35 members respond per
caii. F U I
We had on average 10.32 members respond to calls
that happened from 06:00 to 18:00, daytime
responses.
62% of our calls happen between the hours of 0600
to 1800
Call Hours per City in 2016
"M
MIM
11
LLFD Goals for 2016
Lonsoliciate our tundraising activities to one clay - put
the 5K and all other activities (Kids Day, Car Show, Trap
Shooting, Beer/Wine Dabbler) together but leave the
pancake breakfast on its own
Create a LLFD Cloud Drive
Find a location for B11 on Lake Minnetonka
Create a better way to track items that are being done
and that need to get done around the stations
0 Lexipol and other SCIPs need attention to completion
'INC Ocni
Z. --
CW
0
0
LLFD Training Goals for 2016
Officer Training
. . . . . . . . . .
Driver/Pumper Training
Training with simulators from HTC - car fin
confined space, roof ventilation, forcible entry,...
Train with our OPD, Schools, Churches and
Businesses on Active Shooter/MCI - Create SOP
Possible changing up our training to hours not
nights i.e. we train for 10 hours in a quarter at a
minimum and not 5 nights. jW1
�; Cl� -Am-
Q�z ce I-V - �x M %"l 'r ( C' lc%" C
LLFD Training Goals for 2017
Hwy 12 Training
Backseat Crew Training
FF Leading Training
Outside Agency Training
Leadership/New Officer Training
Online Training and Access to Training
Records
0
0 f (T�
LLFD Goals for 2017-,-s
Boat 11 on the Water
LLFD Clothing SOP
Mentorship Program
Volunteer Hour SOP
Automation of Percentages
bib,
L. 'AF
Top Responders Station 1
e Tom Aldrich 86.35%
Kelly Shaughnessy 72.01%—
Tom Lunieski 63,14%
Jim Elder 62,12%
Pat Cotton 61.09%
L
Cl�
Top Responders Station 2
e Scott Spinks 76.27%
Chris Adams 59.32%
Shane Gardner 58,90%
Phil Steahl 58,47%
Ted Woychich 50.42%
Cl�
d7
Iii N-- &
Top Training Attendance
for Station 1
e Doug Johnson 98 hours
Tom Lunieski 86 hours
Jim Elder 78 hours
Cody Farley 76 hours
Tom Aldrich and Zach Berbig 74 hours
L
Cl�
i
Top Training Attendance
for Station 2
• Scott Spinks 92 hours
• Chris Adams 81 hours
• Shane Gardner 73 hours
* Phil Steahl and Ted Woychick 71 hours
A&
IZIIK rdI1111=1 d"U IVIdLL a[MICY WIL" OU "UU[b
Cl�
0 C
MR
F6 5]
FS -81
FS 3]
0
DAYS OF WEEK
FS 2]
[46
T [41]
F6 57
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
F32]
F29]
January February
CALLS BY MONTH
F34]
F28]
66 -
March April May June
Fs -81
F42]
F32]
July August September October November December
0
0
2016 Team Activity z
Excelsior Boot Hockey
Air Climb
I I'
Chili Cook -off
New Germany Softball Tournament
Maple Plain Water -ball
CIPD vs. LLFD Softball
Cl�
d7
40
2017 Save the Dates-.,,.,
Pancake Breakfast April gth
LLFD Memorial 5K July 29th RINhh,
Kids Day October gth
SBB Toy and Food Drive December 2nd
DUPStic
0
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 12 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3907, Ugorets 8098, LLC, 2500 Shadywood Road,
Conditional Use Permit: Permanent Dock in Floodplain - Resolution
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to install a permanent dock into the
floodplain adjacent to 2500 Shadywood Road.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. This application must be acted on by June 7, 2017, as an
extension has been taken.
3. Background/ Summary. The property owner is rehabbing the existing office building at 2500
Shadywood Road, and his office tenants are requesting a dock, in part to provide a peaceful location to
enjoy the environment. The dock is a permanent structure, requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The dock
would be 180 feet long, extending into the open water. The dock would be constructed of wood. There is
no boat -able connection to Lake Minnetonka. The dock is a private dock, and to be used by the tenants of
2500 Shadywood only. Letters from the Army Corps, Watershed District, and the Conservation District
noting their regulations do not apply have been provided.
4. Planning Commission comment. Commissioners felt the dock was an appropriate use, they
recommended approval 5-0 at the meeting on March 20', 2017.
5. Public Comment. Property owners within 350 feet of 2500 Shadywood Road were notified. Staff
have received two questions on the application, and no written comments in support or opposition of the
request.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the dock as
proposed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of a building permit for a permanent dock into
the floodplain.
Exhibits
Application
Exhibit A.
Draft Resolution
Exhibit B.
Proposed Plans
Exhibit C.
Draft PC Minutes dated March 20, 2017
Exhibit D.
PC Staff Report
References (PC Packet dated March 20. 2017
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Plans
Exhibit C
Narrative
Exhibit D.
Flood Map
Exhibit E.
Correspondence with DNR and LMCD
Exhibit F.
Property Owners List
Exhibit G.
Plat Map
Prepared By: J. Barnhart
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: NZ
Council
Exhibit A
17-3907
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-1118(c)
- FILE NO. 17-3907
WHEREAS, Alex Ugorets is the president of Ugorets 8098, LLC (hereinafter "the
Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2500 Shadywood Road within the City of
Orono (hereinafter the "City"), Hennepin County PINS 20-117-23-11-0034, and legally described
as follows:
EXHIBIT A, attached hereto (hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-
1118(3) for construction of a permanent dock extending into the floodplain; and
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
I . This application was reviewed as Zoning File 17-3907.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on
March 20, 2017 and recommended approval of the CUP based on the following
findings:
a. The Property is conforming due to size and width.
b. The dock is a water use feature and its extension into the floodplain is
reasonable
c. The dock will not support motorized boat connections to the large Lake,
minimizing noise irritation to adjacent neighbors.
Page I of 4
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
d. The dock will not support lights, negating any nighttime light pollution.
e. The dock will be built of sturdy materials designed for the specific use,
minimizing upkeep and annual maintenance.
f. The dock will support reflectors to provide safety to lighted vehicles in
darkness.
3. Conditional Use Permit Analysis. The City Council makes the following findings
with regard to the criteria necessary for the granting of a conditional use permit.
a. Consistent with the community management plan; The property is zoned and used for
office use. The dock, to be used by employees and tenants of the business center, is
consistent with the community management plan.
b. Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Docks are permitted improvements
into wetlands and the floodplain, provided a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.
c. Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The dock does
not require inordinate additional public services.
d. Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The dock will not
increase demands on the water or waste water treatment systems.
e. Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The dock
improvement is not expected to generate additional demand.
f. Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future; The dock is an appropriate use for the property. Docks
are typical in both commercial and residential settings.
g. Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is
called for in the community management plan; This statement is true.
h. Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
This statement is true
i. Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or
have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to
the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The dock, with no motorized
boat access to the lake, is expected to be a quiet viewing area, and is not expected to
impact the neighbors visually or audibly.
j. Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Docks are a common improvement in
floodplains, no buffering or screening is recommended.
k. Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust,
electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; No testimony has been
offered that suggests the dock will establish a nuisance.
Page 2 of 4
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
1. Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause
a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe
access; The dock is to be used by tenants of the office building, is not open to the
public; no additional traffic is expected in addition to traffic for the office building.
in. Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and
to minimize environmental impact; The dock is constructed of wood, and will be
consistent in appearance with other docks in the area.
n. All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public
right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lighting is proposed, and
o. Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. No evidence has
been suggested that the dock will be hazardous. However, it is recommended that
reflectors be added to the structure to warn winter users (skiers, ice skaters, snow
mobiles) of the obstruction.
4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by
the Applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit
on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
5. The City Council finds that the Applicants' request would be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-
1118(3) for construction of a permanent dock extending into the floodplain, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This approval is for dock depicted on the attached Exhibit B.
2. Light reflectors shall be placed every 25 feet along the edges of the dock to notify users
are the water/ ice level of structure.
3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but
are permissive only. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions
of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 10t" day of April, 2017.
Page 3 of 4
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 4 of 4
Council
Exhibit B
17-3907 72017
Zff*f0Peft0N0
Ot
cc
Mr,
Js
0 P. a
FRESHWATER 11
ip 00
UP
kol z BUSINESS CENTER
01 1 � 1�1 I
0 . r-
ir 1 2600 SHADYWOOD ROAD
z
I � I I I � � I � 1 ORONO, MINNESOTA 55331
19� 7
AMA
NM '3� 3� �,HU A�M a
OMI 'SLMT�M On %IaHNIDM IKID I I P.,
NJ �S
]iVIOOSSV V 058"NO,�O%w qmjqaqN
Ld
F-
Ld
8-3
_j
>- LLJ z
w >
>
LLJ
m
F-
c [-- z
W c�d C7)
� C)
<
0
U z z
L, Z < -w
Fo�� C z
-D .
LLj — v,5
En iLD Lz,:
LLI
C)
vi
0
0
M
D
0
0
�5 R
C,
# 3907
M, -�%. �- r-
-F-E�00 17 2 0 17
CrrY OF ORONO
8-3
d
0
�5 R
g g!
# 3907
M, -�%. �- r-
-F-E�00 17 2 0 17
CrrY OF ORONO
C-- — 6 v r - ---I
)Up�erm�
FEB 0 7 2017
#3907 CITY OF ORONO
MINUTES OF THE Council
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit C
Monday, March 20,2017 17-3907
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. 17-3907 UGORETS 8098, INC., 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, 6:32 P.M. — 6:41 P.M.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a permanent dock into the
floodplain. Docks that provide reasonable access to the lakeshore and do not exceed eight feet in width
are among the listed conditional uses in the floodway.
Barnhart indicated some letters have been received from the Watershed District, the DNR, and the Army
Corps of Engineers. Barnhart noted the letters are not necessarily letters of approval but they provide
comments regarding the application.
Barnhart noted this portion of the lake floodplain does not include any boat connection to Lake
Minnetonka.
Last month the Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan for an apartment building on the adjacent
lot and the property owners within 350 feet of this site have received notice of the public hearing.
Barnhart displayed a survey showing the existing site conditions. The proposed dock will be an accessory
structure to the principal office use on the property and will be offered as an amenity to its renters.
Barnhart pointed out the location of the proposed dock. The dock will be six feet wide and 180 feet long.
A portion of the dock will encroach into the wetland. The proposal includes a viewing/seating platform
into the open water area. The dock will be constructed of wood, including wood support pilings.
Staff has reviewed the standards for a conditional use permit and believes those standards will be met.
Staff does recommend that some type of warning lights or reflectors be placed at the end of the dock to
alert people about the new structure. No lights are proposed on the structure.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Lemke asked owns the land around the dock.
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart indicated the property owner owns four lots in this area, including portions of the wetland near
the dock.
Thiesse asked if what they are proposing will be high enough out of the water.
Barnhart stated the City requires structures to be one foot above the water.
Alex Ugorets, 175 Brentwood, Tonka Bay, stated the reason he would like a dock is to serve as an
amenity to the professional clients that will be renting office space in the building. Ugorets stated he
envisions the tenants utilizing the dock on nice days when they wish to work outside and in his opinion
that will be the only use of the dock.
Ugorets noted it will be a permanent structure but will be more of a walkway rather than a dock since
there is no way to get a boat in and out of that area. Ugorets indicated he does own the wetland near the
dock.
Landgraver asked if the dock will be secured at night.
Ugorets stated he did not plan to secure it since it is not that easy to access except from the back of the
building. Ugorets indicated there are cameras on the building, and unless there is an issue with the dock,
he does not see a need for securing it at night.
Lemke asked what type of wood will be used to construct the dock.
Ugorets indicated it will either be treated wood or cedar and that it will be constructed to meet the
requirements of the code. No creosote treated wood will be used. Ugorets stated the proposed plan
merely depicts the location of the dock and has not been designed to City specifications at this time but
will be at the time they request a building permit.
Lemke asked why there is a rope that extends four feet above.
Page 2 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Ugorets indicated the rope is to be used by people using the dock and that the height can be adjusted if
necessary.
Landgraver asked if he is okay with adding reflectors to the dock.
Ugorets indicated he is.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Landgraver stated in his view it is an appropriate use.
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3907 Ugorets
8098, Inc., 2500 Shadywood Road, granting of a conditional use permit, subject to reflectors being
added to the dock and subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 3 of 3
Date Application Received: February 7, 2017
Date Application Considered as Complete: Feb 7, 2017
60 -Day Review Period Expires: April 7, 2017
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: March 20, 2017
Subject: #17-3907, Ugorets 8098, LLC, 2500 Shadywood Road,
Conditional Use Permit: Permanent Dock in Floodplain
Public Hearing
Council
Exhibit D
17-3907
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a
permanent dock into the floodplain
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval, subject to the
following conditions:
Reflectors be added every 25 feet along the edges of the dock
All requirements of the DNR and Watershed District shall be followed.
Background
The owner of 2500 Shadywood Road is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to install a
permanent dock into the floodplain. Docks are among the listed conditional uses in the
Floodway outlined in Section 78-1118.
The dock will be 6 feet wide and 180 feet long. The proposal includes a viewing/ seating
platform into the open water area. The dock will be constructed of wood, including wood
support pilings. No lights are proposed on the structure.
This portion of the lake floodplain does not include any boatable connection to Lake
Minnetonka.
Temporary docks are common into the floodplain, but do not require a Conditional Use Permit
due to their temporary nature. A portion of the dock will encroach into a wetland, though docks
which provide reasonable access to the lakeshore and do not exceed eight feet in width are a
permitted use. (78-1606).
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-736 - Lot Area/Width:
B-4 ZONING DISTRICT
Lot Area
Lot Widt
Required
20,000 s.f. (.46 acres)
100,
Actual
220,413 s.f. (5.06 acres)
620'
FILE # 17-3907
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
This property is in Tier 3; the improvement is proposed lakeward of the 929.4 elevation.
Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916)
The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the
application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the
proposed location is or will be:
1) Consistent with the community management plan; The property is zoned and used
for office use. The dock, to be used by employees and tenants of the business
center, is consistent with the community management plan.
2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Docks are permitted improvements
into wetlands and the floodplain, provided a Conditional Use Permit is obtained.
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The dock
does not require inordinate additional public services.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The dock will
not increase demands on the water or waste water treatment systems.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The
dock improvement is not expected to generate additional demand.
6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future; The dock is an appropriate use for the property.
Docks are typical in both commercial and residential settings.
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character
is called for in the community management plan; This statement is true.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
This statement is true
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the
area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when
compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The dock, with
no motorized boat access to the lake, is expected to be a quiet viewing area, and is
not expected to impact the neighbors visually or audibly.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Docks area common improvement in
floodplains, no buffering or screening is recommended.
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; No testimony
has been offered that suggests the dock will establish a nuisance.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that
cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or
unsafeaccess; The dock is to be used by tenants of the office building, is not open
to the public; no additional traffic is expected in addition to traffic for the office
building.
FILE # 17-3907
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 3
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area
and to minimize environmental impact; The dock is constructed of wood, and will
be consistent in appearance with other docks in the area.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the
public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lighting is
proposed,and
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. No evidence
has been suggested that the dock will be hazardous. However, it is recommended
that reflectors be added to the structure to warn winter users (skiers, ice skaters,
snow mobiles) of the obstruction.
A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally,
a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are
observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official
controls to change the status of conditional uses.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose additional conditions in order to
mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested conditional use
permit?
2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Plans
Exhibit C.
Narrative
Exhibit D.
Flood Map
Exhibit E.
Correspondence with DNR and LMCD
Exhibit F.
Property Owners List
Exhibit G.
Plat Map
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 12 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3907, Ugorets 8098, LLC, 2500 Shadywood Road,
Conditional Use Permit: Permanent Dock in Floodplain - Resolution
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to install a permanent dock into the
floodplain adjacent to 2500 Shadywood Road.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. This application must be acted on by June 7, 2017, as an
extension has been taken.
3. Background/ Summary. The property owner is rehabbing the existing office building at 2500
Shadywood Road, and his office tenants are requesting a dock, in part to provide a peaceful location to
enjoy the environment. The dock is a permanent structure, requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The dock
would be 180 feet long, extending into the open water. The dock would be constructed of wood. There is
no boat -able connection to Lake Minnetonka. The dock is a private dock, and to be used by the tenants of
2500 Shadywood only. Letters from the Army Corps, Watershed District, and the Conservation District
noting their regulations do not apply have been provided.
4. Planning Commission comment. Commissioners felt the dock was an appropriate use, they
recommended approval 5-0 at the meeting on March 20', 2017.
5. Public Comment. Property owners within 350 feet of 2500 Shadywood Road were notified. Staff
have received two questions on the application, and no written comments in support or opposition of the
request.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the dock as
proposed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the issuance of a building permit for a permanent dock into
the floodplain.
Exhibits
Application
Exhibit A.
Draft Resolution
Exhibit B.
Proposed Plans
Exhibit C.
Draft PC Minutes dated March 20, 2017
Exhibit D.
PC Staff Report
References (PC Packet dated March 20. 2017
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Plans
Exhibit C
Narrative
Exhibit D.
Flood Map
Exhibit E.
Correspondence with DNR and LMCD
Exhibit F.
Property Owners List
Exhibit G.
Plat Map
Prepared By: J. Barnhart
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: NZ
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 13 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3908, Roman Zhuk of CUBE, Inc., 3320 Navarre Lane,
Variances (Lot area, lot width) - Resolution
Presenter: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Agenda Planning Department
Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to adopt a resolution granting variance approval.
2. Application Deadline. Rcvd: 2/7/17 Complete: 2/23/17 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 4/22/17
3. Background. The applicant requests lot area and lot width variances in order to take advantage of the
Tier 3 hardcover level of 35%.
Please review the attached Planning Commission memo and exhibits.
4. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and
held a public hearing at its March 20' meeting, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the lot area and
width variances to allow 35% hardcover subject to standard setback requirements.
5. Public Comments. No public comments were forthcoming at the public hearing held by the
Planning Commission. Per the City's standard practice, all property owners within 350 feet of the
property were notified of the hearing.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Section 78-350for Property Located at 3320 Navarre Lane — File No. 17-3908.
Exhibits
A — Resolution
B — Notice of PC Action dated 3/27/17
C — Draft PC Minutes of 3/20/17
D — Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 3/20/17
Prepared By: Mike Gaffron
Reviewed By:
Approved By: D5R
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. Council
Exhibit A
A RESOLUTION
GRANTING VARIANCES TO
ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3320 NAVARRE LANE
— FILE NO. 17-3908
WHEREAS, Roman Zhuk representing CUBE, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
(hereinafter the "Applicant' ') is owner of the property located at 3 3 20 Navarre Lane within the City
of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 1, WILEY'S NAVARRE ADDITION, LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "property"); and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017 the Applicant made a complete application to
the City of Orono for variances to Orono Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to be allowed the
Tier 3 hardcover allowance of 35% for an existing lot of 7,136 s.f. in area and 47 feet in width
where the minimum lot size requirements are 21,780 s.f. in area and 100 feet in width; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017 after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0
recommended approval of the variances; and
WIIEREAS, on April 10, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff.
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 this property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Al. 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.
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
M101
A2. The Property is located within the LR -IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District
which normally requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres (21,780 s.f.) and a minimum lot
width of 100' for construction of a single family residence.
A3. The Property is 7,136 s.f. (0.16 acres) in area and 47 feet in defined width, and contains an
existing single family residence which was constructed on the property in 2015, replacing
an older home. This lot qualified for buildability without area and width variances under
the Shoreland provisions of Zoning Code Section 78-72. However, a qualifier for taking
advantage of the Shoreland ordinance was a hardcover limitation of 25%, and the new
home meets that limitation at 24.8%.
A4. The property is located within Storm Water Overlay District Tier 3 which normally allows
35% hardcover for conforming lots. In order for a nonconforming lot to qualify for the 35%
hardcover allowance, lot area and width variances are required.
A5. The owner wishes to be able to add certain hardcover amenities — in this case a deck of as
yet undeten-nined size. In order to be able to exceed 25% up to the 3 5% limit, the lot area
and width variances are required. No specific deck plans have been submitted, and once
the area and width variances are granted, any additional hardcover will be limited to 35%.
A6. The neighborhood consists of single family homes located on Olive Avenue, Navarre Lane
and Bayview Place. In this neighborhood, approximately 20 homes are on single lots
similar in size to the applicant's property, with another half-dozen or so on combined lots.
The applicant's property had contained a single family residence for many decades before
it was recently replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same type of hardcover
amenities as other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if
the area and width variances are not granted.
AT 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.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
Bl. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance Singlefamily residences are a permitted use within the
LR --1 C zoning district.
B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The residential principal structure and associated amenities are
residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and
surroundingpropertiesfor residential use.
Page 2 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
10
61
B3. "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:
i. 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."
I The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner."
iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but th e size
of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code. Theplightofthe
property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size, which is a result of theproperty
beingplatted as part of the 'Wiley's Navarre Addition Lake Minnetonka I subdivision in
1911, long before local zoning codes were in effect. The Wiley's Navarre Addition
neighborhood (primarily fronting on Olive Avenue with just two on Navarre Lane)
consists of lots typically 47-55feet in width and ranging in depth from 90-160feet. Over
time a majority of these lots have each been developedfor individual homes, with few
being combined A singlefamily residence and associated amenities on a single lot in
this neighborhood will not be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood
B4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic
considerations have not been afactor in the variance approval determinatiom
B5. "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 NIinn. Stat. § 216C. 06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78." This condition is not applicable.
B6. "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 usefor a singlefamily residence is an
allowed use in the LR -1 C District.
B7. "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.
B8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property." The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover and
lot coverage standards applying to th is property are similar to th ose of other properties in
the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
Page 3 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
B9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located. " The standards applicable to this property apply to all otherproperty in the
neighborhood, however, in order to be allowed the 35% hardcover that other developed
similar -sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required
1310. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant." The property rights of the owner will be
diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as the new residence
would not be able to have the 35% hardcover that neighboring shnilar-sized lots are
allowed.
Bll. "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 ofthe area
and width variances would not inWair heafth, safety, comfort or morals and would not be
contrary the intent of the zoning code.
B12. "The granting of such variance willnot merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the variances will alleviate a
practical dolculty by allowing theproperty to be developed under the same hardcover and
structural coverage aflowances as other sindlar-sized developed lots in the neighborhood
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to be allowed the Tier 3
hardcover allowance of 3 5% for an existing lot of 7,136 s.f in area and 47 feet in width where the
minimum lot size requirements are 21,780 s.f. in area and 100 feet in width, subject to the
following conditions:
Council approval is based on the survey submitted by the Applicant, attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A. Hardcover on the property shall not exceed 35%. Lot Coverage
by structures on the property shall not exceed 2000 square feet. All new construction
resulting from the granting of the area and width variances shall be in conformity with
setback and height requirements.
2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owner, but are
permissive only.
Page 4 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
M103
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall
constitute a violation of the zoning code.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the I Oth day of April, 2017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 5 of 5
A&BUILT CERTIFICATE
"__fol_�,
4% CUBE INC.
4g,
�96J,
Aq J
%�o
_960�_
BLOCK RCT.
4,
t47 'k 'm I /� 4rj I
'Al 0 17 -_93 59.2 TIN j
58. B V6
1b
5W5. 7 5 Z 0S
V 55.59 8 -W
% I I k I I <11+
_�o Y_q�bq; P�/
0 is. aw Ab
53.1
IRV
49-
9
17r'—, /
JP -N
0 gr2a.40 ?0
4�'
A�
to .69
% $4.30 55.16
J0
54. 9 .24 B
h 54.30
49.79 8W
45. 4
4it 9 4-4.17
7
/95,yoo Ts
;V , r.00 19� Q, —94 A* -4
940 .79
—94 — — qj
%
A (A
0 — — — — 40— Aq
I- .. v
%
4-�L—1 Ri/.
906.004sl 1 % .
1 1 1 % %
/P 949J6 BS 1 D1,4 1 %
/ / 6
0 �? 9
944.80
NP
ON V. c3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION HARDCOVER REFERENCE BENCHMARK
Lot 1, WILEYS NAVARRE ADDITION, LAKE EXISTING HARDCOVER 0 SQ. FT. MNDOT MONUMENT "KEEFE MN053" NEAR
MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, PROPOSED HARDCOVER 1,767 SQ. FT. SOUTHEAST WING WALL OF ARCOLA
according to the recorded plat thereof. TOTAL LOT AREA 7,136 SQ. Fr. BRIDGE. ELEVATION = 943.01 (NGVD 29
EXISTING HARDCOVER 0% DATUM)
PROPOSED HARDCOVER 24.8%
Call 48 Hours before digging
GOPHER SIATE ONE CALL
Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002
MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166
0 2 1 0 4 1 0 Resolution
Exhibit A
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
0
DENOTES FOUND PROPERTY IRON
0
DENOTES SET 1/2" X 18" REBAR
NTH PLASTIC CAP "PLS 25105"
—
DENOTES BOUNDARY LINE
—
DENOTES LOT LINE
DENOTES SETBACK LINE
999 —DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR UNE
x999.99
DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE
DENOTES DRAINAGE FLOW
FFE
DENOTES FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION
0
DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE
—o—
DENOTES WIRE FENCE
_i:3—
DENOTES WOOD FENCE
---OE
DENOTES OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
q)-3
DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE
E--
DENOTES GUY ANCHOR
DENOTES MANHOLE
DENOTES RETAINING WALL
(M)
DENOTES MEASURED DISTANCE
(P)
DENOTES PLATTED DISTANCE
_EK3ea
DENOTES SILT FENCE
XXX.X TS
DENOTES TOP OF CONC. STOCIP/STEP
XXX.X FG
DENOTES BOT. OF CONIC STOOP/STEP
<r�Kp
DENOTES AS—BUILT GRADE
XXX.XX
DENOTES ASBUILT SWALE ELEVATIONS
RECEIVED
BUILDING SETBACKS AUG 0 5 2015
ZONING: LRAC-ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL
HOUSE: FRONT = 25 FT CITY OF ORONO
SIDE = 7.5 FT (SUM OF SIDES NOT TO EXCEED 15 FT)
REAR = 30 FT
ENGINEEmw. DEsiGN & Suimym I HEREBY CERMFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERNISION. TA. JOB NAME: CUBE INC. FIELD WORK DATE: 7/31/15 DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO.: 14-053
6480 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MIN 55426 AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNES0
OFFICE: 17631 545-2800 FAX: (763) 545-2801 941 t�lv e.V- DATED. 8/05/15 LOCATION: 3320 NAVARRE LANE
ht1p. FIELD BOOK NO.: EDS -11 I CHECKED BY: VS
EMAIL: inFoOedsmn.cam WEBSITE. -//eclsmn.com VLADIMIR SIVRFVER LS, NO, 25105 nRnNn UN 411A.1911 SHEET NO. 1 OF I A
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
952.249.4620
TO: Roman Zhuk
Cube, Inc.
4825 Hanover Road
Mound, MN 55364
cubeinc@)icioud.com
COPIES:
ZONING FILE:
Council
Exhibit B
17-3908
DATEOFNOTICE: March27,2017
TYPE OF REQUEST: Lot Area & Width Variances to allow a Tier 3 Hardcover level of 35%
DATE OF MEETING: March 20, 2017
The Orono Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the lot area and width
variances.
VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST
Applicant's next meeting is scheduled as: Monday, April 10, 2017
This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City
Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Mike
Gaffron at or 952.249.4622.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m. Exhibit C
Landgraver stated in his view it is propriate use.
in his
pn
5e 4Q�
iew it is pro U'
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to r me proval. of Application No. 117-3907 Ugorets
8098, Inc., 2500 Shadywood R granting of a conditional as it, subject to reflectors being
J 0.
added to the dock subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, 0.
3. 17-3908 CUBE, INC., 3320 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES, 6.41 P.M. — 6:49 P.M.
Roman Zhuk, Cube, Inc., was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to take advantage of the
Tier 3 hardcover level of 35 percent. The property is located on Navarre Lane. This small lot qualifies
for a building envelope without lot area and lot width under the Shoreland variances and the new home on
the property meets the 25 percent hardcover limit per the Shoreland regulations. The property owner
wishes to be able to add certain hardcover amenities; in this case a deck of unspecified size. Gaffron
stated in order to be able to exceed 25 percent up to the 35 percent limit, the lot area and width variances
are required. Once the area and width variances are granted, any additional hardcover would be limited to
35 percent.
The neighborhood consists of single-family homes located on Olive Avenue, Navarre Lane and Bayview
Place. In this neighborhood there are approximately 20 homes on single lots, with another half dozen or
so on combined lots. The neighborhood consists of lots typically 47-55 feet in width and range in depth
from 90 to 160 feet. In the opinion of Staff, a single-family residence and associated amenities on a
single lot in this neighborhood will not be inconsi stent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The applicant's property had contained a single-family residence for many decades before it was recently
replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same type of hardcover amenities as other existing
developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not
granted.
Page 4 of 64
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If the Planning Commission
determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances, then a
recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 3 5 percent hardcover limitations with
regards to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property.
Gaffron displayed a survey of the surrounding area and a photograph of the existing house.
Leskinen asked if this is the same owner that constructed the house on the property.
Gaffron indicated it is.
Landgraver noted this application is a little unusual in that what is actually being proposed is unknown.
Gaff-ron stated every builder has the option to take advantage of the Shoreland regulations. In this case,
the builder has a time deadline and does not want to spend the extra two months going through a variance
process. Gaffron stated typically these types of variances are granted and that it would be consistent with
the neighborhood since the whole neighborhood is located in Tier 3, which is allowed 35 percent.
Gaffron stated if the applicants were asking for excess hardcover for that tier, it would become an issue.
Landgraver asked if the City is essentially granting a variance to allow them to build right up to the lot
line.
Gaffron stated they are not but that they are merely saying this lot at 50 feet wide requires variances in
order to get the 35 percent. Gaff-ron stated in the five years that the Shoreland regulation has been in
place, the City has encountered a few of these situations.
Roman Zhuk, Cube, Inc., stated they would like to construct a 16' x 24' deck on the house.
Thiesse asked if the house is 24 feet wide.
Zhuk indicated it is.
Page 5 of 64
M[INUTES OF TBE
ORONO PLANNING COMI%HSSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. 40
There were no public comments regarding this application. 4�
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Landgraver commented Staff has clarified his concerns and that the request seems reasonable compared
to the other homes in the neighborhood.
Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3908, Cube,
Inc., 3320 Navarre Lane, granting of lot area and lot width variances, subject to the applicant
adhering to the required setbacks and 35 percent hardcover limitation with regards to any
additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
4. 17-3909 KEN
P.M. — 6:56 P.M.
Ken and Sheralyn Saddler, Applicants,
YN SADDLEIt, 2755 ETHEL A
present.
VARUNCES, 6:50
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting lo ea lot width variances in order to take advantage of
the Tier 2 hardcover level of 30 percent. Gaffi-r ted this is a similar request as the preceding
application except this lot is located in Ti
A new home was constructed on e property within the last In order to take advantage of the
Shoreland regulations, there as a hardcover limitation of 25 per t, which the new home meets. The
owner wishes to be able add certain hardcoveramenities, including atio, steps, and other
landscaping. In orde o be able to exceed 25 percent up to the 30 percent i it, the lot area and width
variances are
Page 6 of 64
Date Application Received: 2/7/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 2/1/17
GO -Day Review Period Expires: 4/1/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner
Date: March 20, 2017
Subject: #17-3908, Roman Zhuk of Cube, Inc., 3320 Navarre Lane
- Variances (Lot area, lot width)
- Public Hearing
Application Summary. The applicant requests lot area and lot width variances in order to take
advantage of the Tier 3 hardcover level of 35%.
Staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is
met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
Staff recommends approval of the area and width variances.
Zoning District: LR -IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 0.5 acres/100' min. width
LotArea/Width: 7,136 s.f. (0.16 acre), 47' wide
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Existing As -Built Survey
Exhibit C. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations (Proposed/Existing)
Exhibit E. Photos
Exhibit F. Plat Map & Wileys. Navarre Addition Area Map
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Background
This small lot qualified for buildability without area and width variances under the Shoreland
regulations, and a new home was constructed to replace the old house on the property in 2015.
However, a qualifier for taking advantage of the Shoreland ordinance was a hardcover limitation
of 25%. and the new home meets that limitation at 24.8%. The owner wishes to be able to add
certain hardcover amenities — in this case a deck of as yet undetermined size. in order to be able
to exceed 25% up to the 35% limit, the lot area and width variance is required. No specific deck
plans have been submitted, and once the area and width variances are granted, any additional
hardcover would be limited to 35%.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Variances noted in bold type)
LR -IC Zoning District
Req ulred/Al lowed
Proposed
Lot Area
0.50 ac. minimum
0.16 ac existing
Lot Width
100'minimum
47'existing
Street Setback
30'
30.0'
Left Side Setback
10,
12.0'
Right Side Setback
10,
10.(Y
Rearsetback
30'
64'
Council
Exhibit D
FILE #17-3908
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 4
Structural Coverane:
Total Lot Area
Total Structural Coverage
7,136 s.f.+ (0.154 acre)
Allowed: 1599 2000 s.f.* (Lot is less than 10,000 s.f.)
Existing (As -built) 1080 s.f.
*On March 13, 2017 the City Council amended the Lot Coverage ordinance
Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Allowed
Overlay District
Total Area
Hardcover
Existing
Proposed Hardcover
in Tier
Hardcover
Tier
per 78-72
Tier 3
7,136 S.f.
1784 s.f.
1767 s.f.
Up to 2498 s.f. (35.0%)
1
1 (25.0%)
1 (24.8%)__.l
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
X21-350: I.R-40C' I-ot & sath.-ack
733-17011( : T Ie, - H a f6cover GI I! I Kts
73-72: Cf Renord
(c) A lot of record located in any shoreland district, including the Shoreland Overlay
district, RS Seasonal Recreational district, and any of the LR- Lakeshore Residential
districts, that does not meet the requirements of this chapter for lot size or lot width
shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) A nonconforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without
variances from lot size and width requirements, provided that:
a. All setback requirements can be met;
b. 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
c. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square
footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of
hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area.
d. All other zoning district standards can be met.
(3) A lot subject to either subsections 78-72(c)(1) or (2) remains subject to the
hardcover restrictions of this chapter, as follows:
a. Where the hardcover square footage allotment as calculated based on the
assigned tier exceeds 25 percent of the entire lot area, hardcover shall be
limited to 25 percent of the entire lot area.
C-ovarr*-.7, Repuia--Yons: Warha'--ne (Szz.
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 offire, 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
FILE #17-3908
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 4
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 5ubd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when (staff commentary
in bold type):
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single
family residences are a permitted use within the LR -1C zoning district.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential principal
structure and associated amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the
comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use.
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 property owner is proposing to use the
property in a reasonable manner but the size of the lot is below the minimum
lot size standards of the Zoning Code.
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,
which is a result of the property being platted as part of the "Wiley's Navarre
Addition Lake Minnetonka' subdivision in 1911, long before local zoning codes
were in effect; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Wiley's
Navarre Addition neighborhood (primarily fronting on Olive Avenue with just
two on Navarre Lane) consists of lots typically 47-55 feet in width and ranging in
depth from 90-160 feet. Over time a majority of these lots have each been
developed for individual homes, with few being combined. In the opinion of
staff, a single family residence and associated amenities on a single lot in this
neighborhood will not be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as
follows:
4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover
and lot coverage standards applying to this property are similar to those of other
properties in the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the
neighborhood.
5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property
in the neighborhood; however, in order to be allowed the 35% hardcover that other
developed similar -sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, the property rights of
the owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as
the new residence would not be able to have the 35% hardcover that neighboring
similar -sized lots are allowed.
FILE #17-3908
March 20, 2017
Page 4 of 4
7. The granting of the proposed variances 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 area and width variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and
would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code.
8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of the
lot area and lot width variances will alleviate a practical difficulty by allowing the
propertyto be developed underthe same hardcover and structural coverage allowances
as other similar -sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
The Commission may recommend and the 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 ihe use permitted
in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Analysis: Lot Area and Width Variances
The neighborhood consists of single family homes located on Olive Avenue, Navarre Lane and
Bayview Place. In this neighborhood, approximately 20 homes are on single lots, with another half-
dozen or so on combined lots. The applicant's property had contained a single family residence
for many decades before it was recently replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same
type of hardcover amenities as other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be
limited if the area and width variances are not granted.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has submitted a Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit C, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Neighbor Comments
The City has received no comments as of this writing.
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 variances, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested are justified,
does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any
impacts created by the granting of the variances?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If Planning
Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances,
then a recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 35% hardcover limitations with regards
to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property.
City of Orono
Variance Application PC Exhibit A
SbuW Addrew:
Apiallodon # '5410?
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55M
Date ReoGfved:
Win- 952 -249 -Mo
stffff :
fax: 9W -Ug -ale
Fee:
hlb"Address.
P.O. BOX as
EwAm ft. & $
CMftl Bay, MN 5M3 -M
Perm it Fee
Notm:
Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application.
incornprets appitcafdons will jrLot be placed on Planning Commission Agenda.
SITE LOCATION: SS 2-0 —�N V i:v F- 9- 4;--- L V.,
DESCRPTION OF RECKJEST: ��areA + wt qn;oih vAiAar%cfD
(attached additional sheets as necessary)
APPLICANT I AGENT INFOW;ATION:
Applicant Name: 6 L -k ta tAc
Phone (Pdmary): fist ZITO a �S�[
Applicant Email: r-LAne- I w- CM le-- I jn%-La. Q-0—rn
Address: AtAO%JaV- P_gj, h
41-9a:q City: MQLAtA4 zip:
Applicant is: Contract= Homeowner JC!rcls One)
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: )fcheck here if property owner is same as applicant
Name:
Phone (Primary):
Mailing Address, City: ZIP:
Email:
APPLICANTIAGENT AND/OR OWNER:
Agree W provide all inforrnatlon required or requesied by the Planning Department.
Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in
review of this applicagon, and
Certify that the Information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner
recognize that they ore solely mponsible flor subrnMng a complo% aPpliceflon being aware that upon fallure to
do m ft sftff has no aftemeWe but to reject It until It In complete or to reco(nmend the request for denial of the
requed regardless of Its potential madt
Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed.
The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicallion and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property
by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission and Council Members for purposes of Investigation and v"cation of this
requesL
t, Owner andfor Applicant acknowledge they must be preserd at all scheduled review meetings of #* PlannIng
Commisellon and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, plesse make
arrangements to have an authorized representsfive attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise The City Planrmr
assigned to your project
Applicant(Agent Signature: Date:
Applicent/Agent Signature: oopdir-ol Date:
Property Owner Signature: Date:
Property Owner Signature:
"ECE D
V&WwAfiAk8ffw-AftyW1G paw 2 #3908 FES 0 7 2017
cnyOFORONO
A&BUILT CERTIFICATE
` for,
CUPE INC.
N "Nol
1W
0.?
A<
it-
or -
JK G
4�0
Oj
-960 ;ABLOCK IL
4-
_4
59. A
58. 2 B
%
% % 5&75 TW IN 015�
__95 10, 04.' ;%,
_b 447
4�) 0
7 '�
4�4�� '5�
4(41
V
A
5311 W
VL
947--b�_
958.40
�?o N\
7
45.69
"A -940
cr
30 55.16
C"
11 0
54, B 4 4
4'
54.30
Nk�
49.7'
945. 4
q 944.17 -
/95.Y00 TS -94 — 4.
0S.00 B�
1v
A/
936 O0'tS
'A BjS
"r / I I 1 938.56
94
70/PS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION HARDCOVER REFERENCE BENCHMARK
Lot 1, WILEY'S NAVARRE ADDITION, LAKE EXISTING HARDCOVER 0 SQ. FT. MNDOT MONUMENT OKEEFE MN053" NEAR
MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, PROPOSED HARDCOVER 1,767 SQ. FT. SOUTHEAST WING WALL OF ARCOLA
according to the recorded plat thereof. TOTAL LOT AREA 7,136 SQ. FT. BRIDGE. ELEVATION = 943.01 (NGVD 29
EXISTING HARDCOVER 0% DATUM)
PROPOSED HARDCOVER 24.8%
Call 48 Hours before digging
GOPHER ST6TE ONE CALL
Twin Cities Area 651-454-0002
MN. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166
0 2 1 0 4.0 PC Exhibit B
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
DENOTES FOUND PROPERTY IRON
0
DENOTES SET 1/2" X 18" REBAR
WITH PLASTIC CAP "PLS 25105"
—
DENOTES BOUNDARY LINE
—
DENOTES LOT LINE
DENOTES SETBACK LINE
999 —DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR LINE
x999.99
DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE
4
DENOTES DRAINAGE FLOW
FFE
DENOTES FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION
DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE
DENOTES WIRE FENCE
DENOTES WOOD FENCE
--OE
DENOTES OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
c0_3
DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE
E—
DENOTES GUY ANCHOR
DENOTES MANHOLE
DENOTES RETAINING WALL
(M)
DENOTES MEASURED DISTANCE
(P)
DENOTES PLATTED DISTANCE
-EK3E2EI
DENOTES SILT FENCE
XXX.X TS
DENOTES TOP OF CONC. STOOP/STEP
XXX.X FG
DENOTES BOT. OF CONC STOOP/STEP
(g3)
DENOTES AS -BUILT GRADE
XXx.Xx
DENOTES ASBUILT SWALE ELEVATIONS
RECEIVED
BUILDING SETBACKS AUG 0 52015
ZONING: LRA C -ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL
HOUSE: FRONT = 25 FT, CITY OF ORONO
REAR = 30 FT
I HERE13Y CERTIFY THAT THS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. - I PROJ
ENGINEERiNG Dum & SURVEYING AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAM OF THE STATE OF' MINNESOTA. JOB NAME: CUBE INC. FIELD WORK DATE: 7/31/15 DRAWN BY. EP ECT NO.: 14-053
6480 Wayzalo Blvd. Minneapolis, MR 55426 'lead
OFFICE: 1763) 545-2800 FAX. (763) 545-2801 - DATED. aZ%L16 LOCKnON- 3320 NAVARRE LANE FIELD BOOK NO.: EDS -1 1 CHECKED Br. VS I SHEET NO. I OF 1
IDS EMAIL- into6edizan.com WEBSITE: hffp://edsmn.com VLADIMIR SIVRIVER L.S. NO. 25105 ORONO. MR 55391
1-4, 1
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM PC Exhibit C
This form is a required 9 . ubmittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered
complete or placed on any meeting 'agendas until thia form is complete and submftd to the City.
Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that proalcal.difficulties be.demonstrated in
order for a variance tD be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the prop" as. variances run with the land
and not the land. owner. Personal and. ec9nomic situations am not considered valid pracUcal diftuldes. In order
for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must.
be demonstrated.
HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? ies exist and how the
This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulti
variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed
below and answer them as clearly as possible.
Since you are raqqestng the co i de exception, you have the burden of proving that the varlan ' ce is justified.
The infbrmabon the City receives is what is. used in determining a denial or approval irecommendabon. Ifyouleave
something out it will not be considered.
Please address each of the tweW precdcal difficuffies cftr1a as they relate to the request, if they do not apply,
wfft WA in the space provided.,
1. oThe prope . ow posesto use Ule proyerly in a ressonsWe manner not permitted. by the Zoning Chapter. 11
.0 'er � Apo &&oW4AjV �ezl
W1 _Z 40sit "!9
Vdv
e an
2. "The plight of the landowner is due to phrcurDsta. noes uniqu;,tohjs roperty not created. by th i downer.
Apt. Z"& mxa���
3. 'Th variance, qranted, will. no alter esser4jal charactpr of tl ocality�.W
A Af
k- - __
Yw- eA 9-
4. "Economic considerations alone do ni nstftute pracUcal difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists
un&r the terrj)s of the Zoning Ph_ pipter.m.,,
_,,
5. nPractical dirfficulties'include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunligjit for solar energy
systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construcUon as defined in Ml finesota Statutes, Section
11,6J.06, Subd. 2, when In har.mony with this Chapter." f4hv
6, uThe Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance an ' y use ftwt is not allowed
under this Chapter for prop" in the zore where ftaffected person's land
Variance Applicatibn - May 2010
Page 4
7 "The Board -or Council may permit as a variance the te.mporary use of a one -family -dwelling as a two-family
dwelling."
8. "The special -conditions applying to the structure or land In questionare pecullarto such property or immediately
alijoining property.0
9. "The condiu6ns do not apply generall�t�er land 61 structures n edis inw Ichsaldia islocated."
10. 7he gran.ft of the'application is necessary 6r the pteservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
11
"The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way. impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other
12. "The granting df such vadance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to
aeviate demon*trable difficulty."
/_^ - - - —
at 9-�V_ j? g�e;zw tz/
0-ela
9f_�
pmcocal Dilfficulties Statement
Should you feel the practical 'crdficulties cartnot fully be described in the above cniteria, describe the practical
dtfficulties preventing compliance with Zoning. Ordinance requiremeOts� irt t he fbl"ng lines (adach addifional
sheets if ne.cessary)-
VWfafm AWkeWn — A�ay 20 f 6 Page 5
City of Omno
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address: S a -2,0 h/ AV A P -p -e U P� V�e
RECOVED
FEB 0 7 2017
CITY OF ORONO
Prepared by: 0—t- DaW:
Alal�e kng.� -7 Sk Sl
Stomwrater Quality Overlay District Tier. (Circle one) Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier a
PC Exhibit D
Stop 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the follawing table, Identify all items of proposed hardcover an the property, keyed by letter to Certificate
of Survey (survey must accompany this fbrm). Include all existing hardcover Items that are intended to
remain, as well as all proposed hardcover Items that will be &dded. Use as many lines as necessary to
accurstely depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, Identify any features by
letter wh1ch are split at the 75' setback line and cakagate hardcmmr square footage separately for each
n6rflnn-
Hardcover Item Pescribe) Length x Width
Total
(Sauare Feat)
9MMM -
1 (7" efl.
---
A
—
KOD
S.F.
1-00
S.F.
C CZ�UA- M10.j:;7W;
!RS
SA-�
--2— D P- we- w :M;
E.
SA
V
S.R
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
K
S. .1
L
S.F. I
RA
S.F. I
N
S.F. I
S.F. I
S.
.1
S.F.
R
SY.
8
S.F.
T
S.F.
U
S.F.
V
a. .1
w
S.F. I
-x
S.F.
Yr
S.F.
Z.-
S.F.
Total Proposed Hardcover
S.F.
JU Herftowffmcgecofts
S.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
_L2) _TohA Exnludahle Hardwar
S.F.
_(S) WA Proposed Hardeover [Subinu:t line (2) from line ffil
2-0
S.F.
Total Lot Area
71-7 fo
S.F.
r4.1
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3) +(4)1
ZAJ. 6
%
P8118#3908
ke
N-1
00
IL
0
16
3i,
4- 14N
lip.
gift
Ilk
4
1, IL4
0
-1 L,
Fm
4p,
ir
.41 1
jr,
4r
- It
IT or
ik dwk
Aor
vL-- -
Irr
Of
-M.'46
4
tL
41 1
JF
lea
ltK
4
U-1
1,4
Al
dp
�; k
PY', Irk
Yi "t.,
At; -
401
Met
ot
X. .4, 4
*-Pf
11 -� 42.-W. 6L
Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map
Provided By Resident and Real Estate Serviues DatLc-: 21912017
Buffer Size: 350 feet 0 60 120 240 ft
Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I
PID:1711723440059
Owner: CUBE INC
Address: 3320 Navarre Lane
Orono MN
55391
Kr-('t1VLU
FE8 23 Z017
CITY OF ORONO
For more information contact:
Hennepin County GIS Office
300 6th Street South
Minneapolis, WIN 55487
gis. info@ hen nepin. us
# 3908
-.xhiiWt F
al
19
Is
(20.
44
9
(A-8) (116) 3j *'4
6
2z (110)
47 S
-fkts2),-,, 41 4
4 108
40,
'U.5) .39 49
1 (25) 21 A42) (4
2
I qr 36
(26 '/' %
24- 3! 5
10 2.6 34
f— '68) (2-8) 2T,
2)7 Anj 129%
5-71
2
AS (32) 3
14 (3
15 �k 4
ow
R4)
17
�2 V
Ln 3320
so
Aft�
49
A6.
\j
ILIO
28 -------- -Ra
(8)
47.
'0
5
cd� LOT
50 .
W
2
W)
A
(85) mo
50 so
A
��s
072
EEC, F971 4 - - - - - - - -
W. 9-1,5 708
2o.42
Nt 2
orna- A.
I Q 11 4- 3' r;lllll-
60 9 UAJI N30' 49'26-E
DOC NO 200
AU:InV-0!)-UU3-L
op suas
009LS @AH3AV 41jeqeb al zoslill
Op UIR &jnLpv4 el q zolldem
Jeled q salpa; sa:genbp
v
38 17-117-23 44 0025
38 17-117-23 44 0042
38 17-117-23 44 0074
C BIRCH JR/ B SIPPRELL-BIRCH
MICHELLE M BRASSINGTON
DOUGLASLARSON
2205 BAYVTEW PL
2240 BAYVIEW PL
2710 SHADY PINE LANE
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
MENOMONIEWT 54751
PC Exhibit G
38 17-117-23 44 0026
39 17-1[7-23440059
38 17-117-23 44 0075
NICHOLAS D HAWKINSON
CUBFINC
ANDREW A PRATT
STEPHANIE R HAWKINSON
4925 HANOVER RD
JAMIE L PRATT
2215 BAYVIEW PL.
MOUND NIN 55364
2339 OLIVE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 44 0027
38 17-117-23 44 0060
38 17-117-23 44 0076
TERESA KOCH
ANDREW D SPILSETH
JOSHUA D KRAUSE
2225 BAYVIEW PLACE
T CODY TURNQUIST
2359 OLIVE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
3324 NAVARRE LA
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 44 0028
39 17-117-23 44 0063
38 17-117-23 44 0082
GINA I SUMMERS
VALERIE T COYKENDALL
DALE M MATSON
2245 BAYVIEW PL
2344 OLIVE AVE
SHANNON WOLCOTT
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
2200 BAYVIEW Pl,
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-1,17-23 44 0029
38 17-117-23 44 0064
30 17-117-23 44 0083
KELLY ADELIA RIOUX
TIMOTHY C LIVINGSTON
J L & P M SCHNECK
SHAUN SCOTT RIOUX
2338 OLIVE AVE
2230 BAYVIEW PL S
2253 BAYVIEW PL
WAYZATA DAN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 44 0030
39 17-117-23 44 0065
39 17-117-23 " 0084
LAUREN E HATTARA
J T JACOBSON & L D JACOBSON
SAMUEL T MCNELLIS
2265 BAYVIEW PL
2328 OLIVE AVE
RACHEL L BALTES
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
2350 OLIVE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 44 0031
38 17-117-23 44 0066
38 17-117-23 44 0085
JAMES R ANDERSON
PATRICK W SULLIVAN
VOYAGEUR SERVICE CENTERS INC
2275 BAYVIEW PLACE
2318 OLIVE AVE
POBOX65
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
NAVARRE MN 55392
38 17-117-23 " 0032
38 17-117-23 44 0067
38 17-117-23 44 0094
GENE AND SHERYLL BLOCK
CALLENH CASEY
LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS
2305 BAYVIEW PLACE
2314 OLIVE AVE
P 0 BOX 41
WAYZATA NN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361
38 17-117-23 44 0033
38 17-117-23 44 0068
3R 17-1-17-23 44 0096
GENE H BLOCK
JOHNSHERMAN
BLAIR & CAROL WILSON
2305 BAYVIEW PLACE
2306 OLIVE AVE
2300 BAYVIEW PL
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN '55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 44 0041 38 17-117-23 44 0073 38 17-117-23 44 0098
KRIS ANN F EP RELL STEVEN R MORKRID MICHAEL J SWANSON
2250 BAYVIEW PL 2314 SHADYWOOD RD 3300 NAVARRE LA
WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
7 f
I I ,e6p3 dn-dod asodxa jaded piq &OgLs almidwal ofaeAV as
I wj.096S oJW-EAV 1 04 91111 Buolu puse
1 9 1 v sleqLq oload Ast
AtidAvlUtpluuTM .—'a F..M— op sues o09 LS (iDA113AV I!jeqeb al zeslip
WMIAMBIMMM VP UP iuRtPV4 it] q zelidem
v Aeled q soI1394 sauenbil
38 17-117-23440106
PHYLLIS HENDERSON
2308 SHADYWOOD RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 44 0108
CHRIS & COURTNEY BLOCK
2260 BAYVIEW PL
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23440ili
CIO LANA SCHUETTE
811 COUNTY RD F WEST
SHOREVIEW MN 55126
KECEIVEu
FEB 2 3 2017
# 3908 CITY OF ORONO
-dOd GscdxG Jaded poej 609Ls sieldtue
IT L
mL096S wafip3 dn
11 in ou!j buole puggi v sleqel S108d AM
AGENDAITEM
Item No. 14 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3909, Ken & Sheralyn Saddler, 2755 Ethel Avenue,
Variances (Lot area, lot width) - Resolution
Presenter: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Agenda Planning Department
Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to adopt a resolution granting variance approval.
2. Application Deadline. Rcvd: 2/9/17 Complete: 2/9/17 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 4/10/17
3. Background. The applicant requests lot area and lot width variances in order to take advantage of the
Tier 2 hardcover level of 30%.
Please review the attached Planning Commission memo and exhibits.
4. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Comriiission reviewed this application and
held a public hearing at its March 20' meeting, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the lot area and
width variances to allow 30% hardcover subject to the proposed hot tub location being moved so as to not
require a side setback variance (applicants have submitted a revised landscape plan attached as Exhibit D
showing the hot tub directly behind the deck instead of beside it).
5. Public Comments. No public comments were forthcoming at the public hearing held by the
Planning Commission. Per the City's standard practice, all property owners within 350 feet of the
property were notified of the hearing.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Section 78-350for Property Located at 2 755 Ethel Avenue — File No. 17-3909.
Exhibits
A — Resolution
B — Notice of PC Action dated 3/27/17
C — Draft PC Minutes of 3/20/17
D — Revised Landscape Plan
E — Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 3/20/17
Prepared By: Mike Gaffron
Reviewed By:
Approved By: D5R
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
101143.
A RESOLUTION
GRANTING VARIANCES TO
ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2755 ETHEL AVENUE
— FILE NO. 17-3909
Council
Exhibit A
WHEREAS, Ken & Sheralyn Saddler (hereinafter the "Applicants") are owners of
the property located at 2755 Ethel Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and
legally described as follows:
Lot 6, Block 3, "CASCO HEIGHTS", Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "property"); and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2017 the Applicants made a complete application to
the City of Orono for variances to Orono Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to be allowed the
Tier 2 hardcover allowance of 30% for an existing lot of 7,522 s.f. in area and 50 feet in width
where the minitnum lot size requirements are 21,7 8 0 s. f. in area and 100 feet in width; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017 after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Comn3ission on a vote of 5-0
recommended approval of the variances; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff.
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 this property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Al. 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.
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A2. The Property is located within the LR -IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District
which normally requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres (21,780 s.f.) and a minimum lot
width of 100' for construction of a single family residence.
A3. The Property is 7,522 s.f. (0. 17 acres) in area and 50 feet in defined width, and contains an
existing single family residence which was constructed on the property in 2015, replacing
an older home. This lot qualified for buildability without area and width variances under
the Shoreland provisions of Zoning Code Section 78-72. However, a qualifier for taking
advantage of the Shoreland ordinance was a hardcover limitation of 25%, and the new
home meets that limitation at 24.99%.
A4. The property is located within Storm Water Overlay District Tier 2 which normally allows
3 0% hardcover for conforming lots. In order for a nonconforming lot to qualify for the 3 0%
hardcover allowance, lot area and width variances are required.
A5. The owner wishes to be able to add certain hardcover amenities including a deck, patio and
hot tub. In order to be able to exceed 25% up to the 30% limit, the lot area and width
variances are required. Conceptual plans for these amenities have been submitted, and
once the area and width variances are granted, any additional hardcover will be limited to
30%. No setback variances are requested.
A6. The neighborhood consists of single family homes located on individual lots as well as
combinations of lots. The applicant's property had contained a single family residence for
many decades before it was recently replaced with a new home. The ability to have the
same type of hardcover amenities as other existing single -lot developed properties in the
neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not granted.
A7. 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.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
Bl. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance ...... Single family residences are a permitted use within the
LR -1 C zoning district.
B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The residential princoal structure and associated amenities are
residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and
surrounding propertiesfor residential use.
Page 2 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
B3. "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:
i. 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."
ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner."
iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the size
of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code. Theplightofthe
property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size, which is a result of theproperty
heingplatted as part of the 'Casco Heights'subdivision in 1911, long before local zoning
codes were in effect. The Casco Heights neighborhood (primarily fronting on Casco
Avenue, EthelAvenue, Caroline Avenue and Casco Point Road) consists of lots typically
50feet in width and ranging in depth from 140-190feet Over time approximately one-
fourth of the lots in the neighborhood have been developed singly, while the remainder
have been developed in combinations rangingfirom 1-112 to 3 lots in width. A single
family residence with associated amenities on a single lot in this neighborhood is not
inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Lots surrounding
applicants'property are all similarly within Hardcover Tier 2.
B4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic
consideradons have not been afactor in the variance approval determination.
B5. "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 Nfinn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78." Tkis condition is not applicable.
B6. "The board or the council may not pen -nit 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 usefor a singlefamily residence is an
allowed use in the LR -1 C District.
B7. "The board or council may pen -nit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling." This condition is not applicable.
B8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property." The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover and
lot coverage standards applying to this property are similar to those of other properties in
the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the neighborhood
Page 3 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
B9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located." The standards applicable to this property apply to all otherproperty in the
neighborhood; however, in order to be allowed the 30% hardcover that other developed
similar -sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required
B10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant." The property rights of the owner will be
diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as the new residence
would not be able to have the 30% hardcover that neighboring similar -sized lots are
allowed.
Bll. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way hnpair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Granting of the area
and width variances would not inWair heafth, safety, comfort or morals and would not be
contrary the intent of the zoning code.
B12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the variances will alleviate a
practical difficulty by allowing the property to be developed under the same hardcover and
structural coverage allowances as other similar -sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to be allowed the Tier 2
hardcover allowance of 30% for an existing lot of 7,522 s.f. in area and 50 feet in width where the
minimum lot size requirements are 21,780 s.f. in area and 100 feet in width, subject to the
following conditions:
Council approval is based on the survey and conceptual landscape plan submitted by the
Applicant, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Hardcover on the property shall not
exceed 3 0%. Lot Coverage by structures on the property shall not exceed 2000 square feet.
All new construction resulting from the granting of the area and width variances shall be
in conformity with setback and height requirements.
2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owner, but are
permissive only.
Page 4 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
1"0
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall
constitute a violation of the zoning code.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the I Oth day of April, 2017
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 5 of 5
i i R
PL P�
n
/71 2.
CD t. 64 t�
a CPO
f dio 4-
A
1>1
A
x 4
CL
0.lp;p 0.
k rri
A
04,k N >
fa
.. be
(b
CD
0 W
Ix,
D;o
10
0
-n ra M
C:)
0 M
z
0
I hereby ewrtiTy that thIs a Job Mimaer 7959
P"Parad by me or Lm&r
SCHOBORG =lyl—and Booklftgw LL
S
that ( am a didY Re&lered Land S)jrmyor un&,r the —
laws of the State of Mlnnmof&. Survey Dot& 4-21-14
LA SERVICEB .4-29-141 B-12-15
16
INC.
Ken
763-972-32,21 8997 Cal Rd. li SE L 'Y Drawn b), K0
'�: - !�Cffln as
~SchaborgLand.mm Odlana. AiN 55J28 Oct& ftfstrottan m. ReWsionx B�T*F-f5.
5-20-06
NORLING'S LAKE MINNLTONKA
LANDSCArTS,INC.
P.LX BOX.9r. T,SFRING PARK, MN 55384
932-471-0255 - www.norffilgLact
5 20
'K�ALE N FE E F
230 sq F
U/ It
cedCF- pergDk
h (dL Toml)
r pbrie,
.0 K-1
I
u,%UmcOsK
ASUILWT" RMULmmmma
uovzffu� rm 55M
j --y 17, 2M
crd, ', 1-41
e. n�xv
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Council
Exhibit B
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
952.249.4620
TO: Ken & Sheralyn Saddler
2755 Ethel Avenue
Wayzata, MN 55391
kensaddlertTmsn.com
COPIES:
ZONINGFILE: 17-3909
DATEOFNOTICE: March27,2017
TYPE OF REQUEST: Lot Area & Width Variances to allow a Tier 2 Hardcover level of 30%
DATE OF MEETING: March 20, 2017
The Orono Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the lot area and width
variances, subject to the proposed hot tub location being moved so as to not require a side setback
variance. (Note — staff has received your revised landscape plan showing the hot tub directly behind the
deck instead of beside it).
VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST
Applicant's next meeting is scheduled as: Monday, April 10, 2017
This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM
if you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City
Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Mike
Gaffron at mgaffron0ci.orono.mmus or 952.249.4622.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse openAthe public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
There were no public commkts regarding this application.
Chair Tbiesse closed the public heanX at 6:49 p.m.
Landgraver commented Staff has clarified his
to the other homes in the neighborhood.
Leskinen moved, Landgraver
Inc., 3320 Navarre Lane,
to recommend
Council
Exhibit C
that the request seems reasonable compared
of lot area and lot width
adhering to the requjKQ setbacks and 35 percent hardcover
additional stru_06res and hardcover proposed for the property.
of Application No. 17-3908, Cube,
subject to the applicant
i with regards to any
5, Nays 0.
4. 17-3909 KEN AND SHERALYN SADDLER, 2755 ETHEL AVENUE, VARIANCES, 6:50
P.M. — 6:56 P.M.
Ken and Sheralyn Saddler, Applicants, were present.
Gaff-ron stated the applicants are requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to take advantage of
the Tier 2 hardcover level of 30 percent. Gaff-ron noted this is a similar request as the preceding
application except this lot is located in Tier 2.
A new home was constructed on the property within the last year. In order to take advantage of the
Shoreland regulations, there was a hardcover limitation of 25 percent, which the new home meets. The
owner wishes to be able to add certain hardcover amenities, including a patio, steps, and other
landscaping. In order to be able to exceed 25 percent up to the 30 percent limit, the lot area and width
variances are required.
Page 6 of 64
M][NUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph depicting the curTent house. Gaffron noted the lot is comprised of
approximately 7,500 square feet and is 50 feet in width. The standards for the LR -IC zoning district are
one-half acre and 100 feet minimum width.
The neighborhood consists of single-family homes located on individual lots as well as combinations of
lots. The applicant's property had contained a single-family residence for many decades before it was
recently replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same type of hardcover amenities as other
existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are
not granted.
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If the Planning Commission
determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances, then a
recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following condition:
The applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 30 percent hardcover limitation with
regards to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property.
Lemke asked what the white square is that is depicted on the color rendering.
Gaffron indicated there are no variances being requested as part of this application in regards to that. If it
is located in a side yard, it would not be allowed.
Thiesse commented it appears to be a hot tub. Thiesse asked if it would need to meet a 10 -foot setback.
Gaff-ron stated it would. Staff s assumption is that the deck will be above grade but that the applicant
could answer those questions.
Ken Saddler, Applicant, stated the idea was to have a pad for a hot tub and that they will be moving it to
the back end of the deck towards the bottom. Saddler stated it is a 64 square foot concrete pad for a hot
tub.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
Page 7 of 64
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
Leskinen noted this is almost an identical application as the previous one.
Landgraver moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3909, Ken and
Sheralyn Saddler, 2755 Ethel Avenue, granting of lot area and lot width variances, subject to the
applicant adhering to the required setbacks and 30 percent hardcover limitation with regards to
any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property, and subject to the hot tub
being located off the back of the house rathe:
5. 17-3911 LAMWEST, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULF/VARD WEST, ZONING CODE
TEXT AMENDMENT, 6Yk6 P.M. — 8:02 P.M.
Curt Fretham, Lakewest, LLC,
Gaffron stated the applicants are reques"k, a chan to the City Code to allow for a new type of zone.
The applicants received final plat approval a -lot residential development of the property at 3245
Wayzata Boulevard in July of 2016. The pr is currently zoned RR- I B and will be rezoned to PUD
following final plat approval. Pending m e fav le market conditions, the applicants have chosen to
p
f 2
P
e
at
0
e
re
a
1
n
6
q
p
.0
d
p
n
e
ro
T
g
v
h
m
a
eI
pg
r
ea
c
a
fah
vo
;a an h
'e ' City
e to t P
'o residential
s currently Z(
o b
t e market c(
not proceed immediately with the resit ntial develo ent. The applicants are requesting, however, to be
a
able to allow temporary use of the as a staging, sto e and materials recycling yard for the upcoming
t
County Road 112 improvement oj ect expected to begin 1 20 117. This proj ect is being done in phases
and could take up to four to f, e years for completion.
Because construction stAaing is not an allowed use in any Orono zon district and is not a permanent
t
use, the only fimctio/al method for approving it is through an Interim Us ermit. The zoning code
's
I ]LI
currently does not contain provisions for Interim Uses. The applicants %arere t sting the City amend the
zoning code in order to allow Interim Uses.
Page 8 of 64
NORUNG'S LAKE A41NNEfONKA
LANDSCArES,INC,
PXXBL)X3r.1,SFKtNGPARF, MN 55384
952-471-0255 - www.nodit1pnet
66 hA Ub pad
UWF
pro CdON
3 rnoy He- sc�vo
CPU' s000t w0a W1, cup
(3) 00or LLV Cop 4 b -terns
4 rudDeckb
O,-&-,Cnw Tns�ee
hordLGA �Uk
Q3 Lp-lkjlts
0 2 path 14U
TO 10112,M
A N � 0
ND ,,JLMVW LAMMIM NEK ONWRIX"M
XWOMMY rJONFIMSM OM"M.
N
(I
Council
Re v K-� Exhibit D
P/,w
wb"lw 1-** For ww"
im o. ea I*w!ircd -t—h (a" '. q1M d.,'
LLV s.eppaAa TL%r4-,,P-, O.mtl.
a,j bw&r--
RECEIVED
U )M7
Im f- i
rOFORONO
Rfv6m
rrr. i w& ken wMar
:�.--m w,
uxvzda, rm 553q
jon� 17, 206
or& c, r -4
4, no4v
Date Application Received: 2/9/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 2/9/17
60 -Day Review Period Expires: 4/10/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner
Date: March 20, 2017
Subject: #17-3909, Ken & Sheralyn Saddler, 2755 Ethel Avenue
Variances (Area, width)
Public Hearing
Application Summary. The applicants request lot area and lot width variances in order to take
a dva ntage of the Tie r 2 ha rd cove r I eve I of 30%.
Staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is
met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
Staff recommends approval of the area and width variances.
Zoning District: LR -1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 0.5 acres/100' min. width
LotArea/Width: 7,522 s.f. (0.17 acre), 50' wide
List of Exhibits
Required/Allowed
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Existing As -Built Survey
Exhibit C.
Proposed Deck & Patio Landscaping Plans
Exhibit D.
Practical Difficulties Documentation Form & Attachment
Exhibit E.
Submitted Hardcover Calculations (Existing & Proposed)
Exhibit F.
Airphoto of Neighborhood
Exhibit G.
Plat Map
Exhibit H.
Property Owners List
,ouncil
Exhibit E
Background
This small lot qualified for builclability without area and width variances under the Shoreland
regulations, and a new home was constructed to replace the old house on the property in 2015-
16. However, a qualifier for taking advantage of the Shoreland regulations was a hardcover
limitation of 25%, and the new home meets that limitation at 24.99%. The owner wishes to be
able to add certain hardcover amenities including a patio, steps and other landscaping. Inorderto
be able to exceed 25% up to the 30% limit, the lot area'and width variance is required.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Variances noted in bold type)
LR -1C Zoning District
Required/Allowed
Proposed
Lot Area
0.50 ac. minimum
0.27 ac existing
Lot Width
100'minimum
50' existing
Street Setback
30'
30.0'
Left Side Setback
10,
14.5'
Right Side Setback
10,
10.01
Rearsetback
30'
62.2'
FILE #17-3909
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 4
Structural Coverage:
Tota I Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
7,522 s.f.+ (0,173 acre) Allowed: 159 2000* s.f. (Lot is less than 10,000 s.f.)
Existing (As -built) 1486 s -f.
*On March 13, 2017 the City Council amended the Lot Coverage ordinance
Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Total Area
Allowed
Existing
Overlay District
Hardcover
Proposed Hardcover
Tier
in Tier
per 78-72
Hardcover
Tier 2
7,522 S.f.
1880.5 s.f.
1880 S.f.
Up to 2257 s.f. (30.0%)
1
(25.0%)
(24.99%)
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
AS �J a Ifis
. 3-255: LH -1C 1.c�t Sf-,�-ndardsr & Setback Regul t4 . .
775-17W,if3il: Tler 1Hjardcov,2r
,,S-22: Lots of'ReCord
(c) A lot of record located in any shoreland district, including the Shoreland Overlay
district, RS Seasonal Recreational district, and any of the LR- Lakeshore Residential
districts, that does not meet the requirements of this chapter for lot size or lot width
shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) A nonconforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without
variances from lot size and width requirements, provided that:
a. All setback requirements can be met;
b. 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
c. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square
footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of
hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area.
d. All other zoning district standards can be met.
(3) A lot subject to either subsections 78-72(c)(1) or (2) remains subject to the
hardcover restrictions of this chapter, as follows:
a. Where the hardcover square footage allotment as calculated based on the
assigned tier exceeds 25 percent of the entire lot area, hardcover shall be
limited to 25 percent of the entire lot area.
i I � I
cauz-Ang
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 offire, 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
FILE #17-3909
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 4
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 (staff commentary
in bold type):
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single
family residences are a permitted use within the LR -1C zoning district.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential principal
structure and associated amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the
comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use.
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 property owner is proposing to use the
property in a reasonable manner but the size of the lot is below the minimum
lot size standards of the Zoning Code.
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,
which is a result of the property being platted as part of the 'Casco Heights'
subdivision in 1911, long before local zoning codes were in effect; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Casco
Heights neighborhood (primarily fronting an Casco Avenue, Ethel Avenue,
Caroline Avenue and Casco Point Road) consists of lots typically 50 feet in width
and ranging in depth from 140-290 feet. Over time approximately one-fourth of
the lots in the neighborhood have been developed singly, while the remainder
have been developed in combinations ranging from 1-1/2 to 3 lots in width. In
the opinion of staff, a single family residence with associated amenities on a
single lot in this neighborhood is not inconsistent with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. Lots surrounding applicants' property are all
similarly within Hardcover Tier 2.
City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as
follows:
4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover
and lot coverage standards applying to this property are similar to those of other
properties in the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the
neighborhood.
S. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property
in the neighborhood; however, in order to be allowed the 30% hardcover that other
developed similar -sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required.
FILE #17-3909
March 20. 2017
Page 4 of 4
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, the property rights of
the owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as
the new residence would not be able to have the 30% hardcover that neighboring
similar -sized lots are allowed.
7 The granting of the proposed variances 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 area and width variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and
would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code.
8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of the
lot area and lot width variances will alleviate a practical difficulty by allowing the
property to be further developed under the same hardcover and structural coverage
allowances as other similar -sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
The Commission may recommend and the 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.
Analysis: Lot Area and Width Variances
The neighborhood consists of single family homes located on individual lots as well as
combinations of lots. The applicant's property had contained a single family residence for many
decades before it was recently replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same type of
hardcover amenities as other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited
if the area and width variances are not granted.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has submitted a Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit D, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Neighbor Comments
The City has received no comments as of this writing.
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 variances, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested are justified,
does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any
impacts created by the granting of the variances?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If Planning
Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances,
then a recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 30% hardcover limitation with regards
to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property.
City of Orono
Variance Application
Street Address;
2750 Kelley Parkway Application # Z
hL Orono, MN 55356 Date Received:
F -Al) 1 -7
Main: 952-249-4600 Staff
lax: 1152-241-4616
MalfingAddress. Fee: $700 IP -4
P.O. Box 66 Escrow:
HO Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Notes: 05D�K:�'
X_
PC Exhibit A
Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application.
Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. ,
SITE LOCATION:
rA
L
Lk
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
(attach additional sheets as necessary)
APPLICANT INFOTMAITION.- 0 c ck h1reJif A�pplri nt addrio-qq nihnidd F
in 9
Applicant:
Phone (Primary):
9
Mailing Address: J-'7
la:S�-E� City: ZIP: -5-53-K
-A ;VI �
Email: Ve do iA -0 A 1 '0 lt� NAA
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: 12( hheck here if Property Owner is same as applicant
Name: Vcheck here if Property Owner address should be used for billing
Phone (Primary):
Mailing Address: Citv- ZIP -
Email: FEB 9 9
APPLICANT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER:
CITY OF ORONO
Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and property owner
recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the
staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless
of its potential merit.
The Property Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the
property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification
of this request.
Property Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or property owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make
arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicantlowner and advise the City Planner
assigned to your project.
0 Intormation Will De distr
Applicant Signature:
Applicant Signature:
Property Owner Signaturc
Property Owner Signatur(
Variance Application — January
Date: 1 -7
Date: 17
Date:
Date: I Ai(�z-3 -7
r-cruv -'P # 3909
51
,:tg: 2755 Ethel Ave
Oron o, UN
Grading As -Built Survey
953 7
x 954, 0
As—BUL11 Hardcover __jSA__F1.j
House
1,388
(inct cantilevers less
95&5
than 4 feet above grade)
stooplstaps
47
Paver Walkway
47
Driveway
398
Zola/
1880
Lot Area
7,622
Percent Hardcover
25. OX
Not
Deck (I Ox 10)
100
Reloining Wolfs
93
Landscaping Rock
177
Canlilevers
8.5
(over 4 feel above grade)
Ptonosed fl�,,j�a_fiomq,
Firs I Floor =
958.1
Top of Found
95&5
Garage rloor
956-2
tookout Window =
95 2. J
Basement Floor =
948.8
A-S-Ruilt Elevations-fas 0� 5
f-irst Floor = 95a 2
Top of Found. 9516.8
Garage Floor 955.9
,9
L
0
13
Prepored for:
Everlost Enterprises
956.-
55r,9
5 5
5S
A
1150
'o
co;
.0 .9
CIO
0-e,
e,
/ (VI
.6
.0
951� A
RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2016
Legen CITY OF ORONO
16 Found Iron A4onument
000.0 Existing Elevation
relephone Pedeslof
Drainage
SCALE ki
20 0 10 20 40
ine 20 feet
1$
AV
Bearings based on assumed dalurn.
PC Exhibit B
'0
0,
K-J*144,s�
10 Q
2,
z
- a's
THS
4 L
Q
2- RLZ
k:s 0
(30)
C
Uj
0
Cj) C)
ot
Lo
R'
td
tn
M
VON
N
,;�3
PC Exhibit C
Ile
pr
E ALIZ
x _UQl
XM
C)
0 U1,3 7.
0
LLI cp (Y-
0
00
Lj LL
0 C'll
— I . I . - --k ge -a a In. -D -, . . - . ;
uioo,saspdrzjiwMjj2AOgtu!f
SVLO-898-ZI9
xuvalo PW
xw loucuo
*S"OH 1=4s laipa
2
5
19
al
1-,6
LU
LE
LU
i LU
el
cn
X
�
v�
z
LU
Li
C3
M
go-
;;li
;U;
Ohl OLD016
potigypol
LU
i LU
el
cn
X
�
v�
z
LU
Li
C3
M
go-
k.,�
/'ji"ASIDE ELEVATION
\,t� sms I/C - I. -IF
\Z/ WPM: Ifir - 1'-T
r
F ;lip;
ZZ.-CEIVED
C "AQF ORONO
COMPM7M SHNJCM
r comw
i'-2�FRONT ELEVATION
\,� WAL. 1?w - TV
r -�\REAR ELEVA11ON
4
\e,l
VANDO NOTES:
I. WK
2. E AND
Mak"Orwovopwai am
3 ;W UtWoM
XE WRUMC To WM
4- SEr
1, PWW
,gn ON 1/g, WIRM MM
MD MUMS To BE 7/8' WUX SOL
MYRE NLMM To at grM WKWE
7, TW
W WNW
M&WMMMM
I
412)
00
'4D
ISSUE
I BID SET 4-20.15
JOB #12916
SHEET#
4
OF 5
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION
KEN AND SHERALYN SADDLER
2756 ETHEL AVENUE PC Exhibit D
1. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, but the size of the lot is
below the minimum lot size standards of the zoning code.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to the substandard lot size. The lot size was determined many
years ago, before current zoning codes and before the current structure was built in 2016. A different,
smaller structure occupied the lot prior to 2016. The builder of the current structure conformed to the
hardcover restrictions of the zoning code for the substandard lot by maximizing utilization of the 25%
hardcover allowance available for substandard lots. The current property owners purchased the home
unaware of the 25% hardcover limit and now wish to improve the backyard area requiring an
approximate allowance of 30% hardcover, which is consistent with the Tier 2 area of the Casco Point
neighborhood.
3. All adjoining lots are designated Tier 2, which allows 30% hardcover.
4. Economic considerations are not a factor.
5. NIA
6. Already in use as a single-family residence, which is permitted in LR -1C.
7. N/A
8. The hardcover restrictions applying to this property are similar to those of other adjoining properties.
9. The standards applicable to this property apply to all properties in the immediate area however, to allow
30% hardcover for this property requires a variance for lot area and width.
10, The prop" rights of the owner will be diminished if the variance is not granted, as the residence built
in 2016 does not have the 30% hardcover allowance of neighboring similar -sized lots,
11. Granting of the variance would not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals and would not
be contrary to the zoning code.
12. Granting of the variance will alleviate a practical difficulty by allowing the property owner to improve the
usefulness of the backyard area to the same standards as other properties in the 'immediate
neighborhood.
FEB 0 9 2017
0% Aft 0%
# 31) U 1) CITY OF ORONO
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered
complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City.
Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in
order for a variance to be granted, The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land
and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difflCulties. In order
for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must
be demonstrated.
HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY?
This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the
variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed
below and answer them as clearly as possible.
Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance Is justified.
The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave
something out it will not be considered.
Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to he request, if they do not apply,
write NIA in the space provided. P I eA5 e- 15 e -e- a tt,
1. ."De property r proposes to use the property in a reaso iable manner t permitted by the Zo
In In I niQg Chapter."
kt ^.INA A dC I . �R . a -- - �4? — —
9T '\A I F
P V\ A V � :V I V%
K f M Ou4nan- bd-r s , r XA-
L 't -z e, s-rq-r%-A G,
2. "The plight of the I r 1A t � circ not created by the landowner."
3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms of the Zoning Chapter."
5. "Practical diffliculties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
S r
systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered con trution as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter."
6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed
under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located."
t E 'I V E
FEB 0 9 2017
Variance Application — January 20.17
Page 7
CITY OF ORONO
V_t+
7 "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family
dwelling."
8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately
adjoining property."
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located."
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant."
11 - "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort. morals, or in any other
respect be contrary to 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."
Practical Difficulties Statement
Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical
difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional
sheets if necessary):
r� !-, - r
L -1 L7- -�- , I'll E D,
Vigdanc* Application - January 2017 FEB 0 .9 2 017
Page 8
ff 3909 CITY OF ORONO
City of Orono C -N I ST -1 N1 6
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet PC Exhibit E
Property Addr
SIBio Prepared by: _7
Storrnwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one(�� ler 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Stop 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER
In the following table identify gLll items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of
Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing
hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter within the 75' setback line
and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion.
FEB 0 9 2017
Variance &pficaffon — Januaty 2017 pa�ffl I I CITY OF ORONO # 3909
City of Orono FKSWSIE�N
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address: :2-75-5- E:%e-1 Av-er�ue-
Prepared by: K c4cfq Y, Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 ��Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
017
Stop 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey
(survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all
proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover
status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are within the 75' setback linpqnd
Variance Application - Januafy 2017
Page 12 # 3909
RECEIVED
FEB 0 P 2017
CITY OF ORONO
I —�
City of Orono, MN
4Nimr'&
FVAU
WOW.
A
I wan,t to..
all
16*
4p
wow
1>0
if I
:Aft'
At. A"A* OR
4K
sw
CO 01,
All C7
Ila,
LHennepin County Locate & Notify Map
Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 2/6/2017
Buffer Size: 350 feet
Map Comments:
2011723240017
K R SADDLER & S K SADDLER
2755 Ethef Avenue
Orono, MN 55391
0 60 120 240 ft
I I I I I I I I I
For more information contact:
Hennepin County GIS Office
300 6th Street South
Minneapolis, MN 5W7
FEB 0 9 201,17 gis.info@hennepin.us
hibrt G
CjrY OF ORONO
# 3 9 0"'
camy ravm- LALicim
Use Avery'@ Template 51600
AL — - — Bend along line to I
Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge—
5960TM
38 20-117-23 23 0003
38 20-117-23 23 0019
38 20-117-23 24 0017
MARY A PETERSON
RICHARD A PUTNAM
KENNFrH R SADDLER PC Exhibit H
6445 VIRGINIA DR
2765 CASCO POINT RD
SHERALYN K SADDLER
EXCELSIORMN 55331
WAYZATA MN 55391
2755 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0004
38 20-117-23 24 0001
38 20-117-23 24 0019
MARY C ENGER & MARK M ENGER
DAVID L RUNKLE
DONNA L LILE
2697 CASCO POINT RD
2684 CASCO POINT RD
2765 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0005
38 20-117-23 24 0004
38 20-117-23 24 0019
SHIRLEY A JUNGELS
DAVID L RUNKLE
ATLAS Hows INC
THOMAS J JUNGELS
2684 CASCO POINT RD
CIO MARK WAY
7730 LOCHMERE TER
WAYZATA MN 55391
14450 113TH AVE N
EDINA MN 55439
MAPLE GROVE MN 55369
38 20-117-23 23 0006
38 20-117-23 24 0007
38 20-117-23 24 0020
STEVEN R PETERSON
RANDALL L ENGELHART
JEFFREY A SCHUTT
2745 CASCO POINT RD
ELIZABETH A ENGELHART
PIA E SCHUTT
WAYZATA MN 55391
2715 CAROLINE AVE
40 TWIN MAPLE LA
WAYZATA MN 55391
C14ANHASSENMN 55317
38 20-117-23 23 0007
38 20-117-23 24 0009
38 20-117-23 24 0021
MICHAEL G BASKFIELD
DONALD J & DAWN R HEBIG
BARBARA i PALMER
SHARON J BASKFIELD
2735 CAROLINE AVE
2710 CASCO POINT RD
2755 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0009
38 20-117-23 24 0010
38 20-117-23 24 0022
CITY OF ORONO
LANCE L & RHODA L VICKNATR
DANIEL BUESING/LINDA RUNNING
P 0 BOX 66
2740 ETHEL AVE
2700 CASCO POINT RD
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0010
38 20-117-23 24 0013
38 20-117-23 24 0025
CITY OF ORONO
JACOB HEYDT
HARRY E PULVER JR
P 0 BOX 66
2700 ETHEL AVE
105 MEADOW LANE N
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
WAYZATA MN 55391
MINNEAPOLI MN 55422
38 20-117-23 23 0011
38 20-117-23 24 0014
38 20-117-23 24 0040
CITY OF ORONO
LAWRENCE D PILLAR
CATHERINE R & JOEL W SHOOP
P 0 BOX 66
6827 CARDINAL COVE DR
2720 ETHEL AVE
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
MOUND NIN 55364
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0012
39 20-117-23 24 0015
38 20-117-23 24 0044
CAMILLE M & JEFFREY P COLE
JOHN C SWENSON
JANET C KAUFFMANN
2776 CASCO POINT RD
MARY JO FIEDLER SWENSON
2696 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
2725 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0018
38 20-117-23 24 0016
38 20-117-23 2.4 0045
REED L LARSON
AMBER M PEIFER.
MARCCOHEN
2773 CASCO POINT RD
2745 ETHEL AVE
2697 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
ttiquettes facilos h paler
A Repliez 6 la hachure af in de 1,
www.avery.com
Utillsez ]a gabarit AVERYO 51600
Sens de F&C I
chargement rdv6ler le rebord Pop-up '6
1 -800 -GO -AVERY
Easy Peelw Labels
AL L - Bend along line to 11
5960TM
Use Avee Template 5160QD
Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTu
ELIZABETH H HABERMAN
WAYZATA MN 55391
2800 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0046
38 20-117-23 31 0071
MICHAEL D REVIER
MARTI LYNN
2691 ETHEL AVE
STEVEN ROBERT GOUDY
#
WAYZATAMN 55391
3750 CASCO AVE
Ittiquettes faciles A peler
Utilisez le gabarlt AVERY(D 5160QD
Sons do
WAYZATA MN 55391
www.avery.com
1
38 20-117-23 31 0003
38 20-117-23 32 OU06
r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up
JILL R & WILLIAM H KOCH 11
BRIAN L & CHRISTINE F SLOAT
3730 CASCO AVE
2824 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATAMN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0009
38 20-117-23 32 0016
ALISA A MILLER
SHANE M WELTZIN
3753 CASCO AVE
ELIZABETH H HABERMAN
WAYZATA MN 55391
2800 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0010
38 20-117-23 32 0017
PA UL J F UHRMAN
TAMMY L WOODIS
COLLEEN FUHRMAN
MARC BRICKMAN
3759 CASCO AVE
2818 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0011
38 20-117-23 32 0018
DEAN V GREIMANN
RANDALL C CHESLEY
3779 CASCO AVE
MICHELLE E CHESLEY
WAYZATA MN 55391
2794 CASCO POINT RD
DEAN V GREIMANN
ORONOMN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 00N 38 20-117-23 32 0021
CITY OF ORONO RUSSELL WYLLIE
P 0 BOX 66 3799 CASCO AVE
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 310015
CITY OF ORONO
P 0 BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0016
CITY OF ORONO
P 0 BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 310058
D R WELTY & M M JIN
3721 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
RECEIVrED
38 20-117-23 31 0066
DEAN V GREIMANN
3779 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA _MN 55391
FEB 0 9 2017
#
3909
CITY OF ORONO
Ittiquettes faciles A peler
Utilisez le gabarlt AVERY(D 5160QD
Sons do
Repilez & la hachure alin de
Mc
www.avery.com
1
charaernant
r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up
-800 -GO -AVERY
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 15
Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3912, Bruce Birkeland, 1298 Wildhurst Trail & Lot 3, Block,
Wildhurst, Variances
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department
Planner Section: Report
1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to facilitate a lot line adjustment to create a second
lakeshore lot.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on February 21, 2017; it was
considered as complete on February 23'. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on April 24,
2017.
3. Background. The applicant owns three lots on Wildhurst Trail. Two of the lots are the subject of
this application: Lot 2, Block 1, Wildhurst (addressed 1298 Wildhurst Trail), and Lot 3, Block 1,
Wildhurst (unaddressed). Currently Lot 2 is a lakeshore lot and Lot 3 is not.
An application for a subdivision exemption was submitted to permit an administrative lot line
rearrangement (also known as a boundary line adjustment) between the two properties in order to
reconfigure (create) Lot 3 as a lakeshore lot. Based on the information provided, there is not
sufficient width at the ordinary high water level and at the 75 -foot setback as required by the Code
to support the new lake lot. Further, the existing home reduces options, almost certainly requiring
a side yard setback variance. New non -conformities are created, variances are necessary to process
the boundary line adjustment.
4. Planning Commission Comment. On March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and reviewed the application. The Planning Commission felt the request was "reasonable",
however they struggled with the lack of practical difficulty as needed to support the variance.
Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to recommend denial. The
Commission further recommended the applicant provide additional practical difficulties analysis
to support their request prior to consideration by the City Council.
5. Public Comment. Comments from the public were received regarding this application and were
included as an exhibit to the Planning Commission report. Additional comments were made at the
meeting; please refer to the Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit D.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff has received a revised practical difficulty form from the applicant.
Staff does not feel they adequately support the variances requested. The Council could refer the
application back to the Commission, or make a decision based on this new information.
The lots are currently conforming. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of variances for lot width
to create the new lakeshore lot. If the applicant is able to show both lots can meet the required 140 -
foot standard at the OHWL and at the 75 -foot setback, staff would support a side setback variance
for the existing home.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Direct Staff to draft a resolution regarding Council's decision for consideration at the April 24 th meeting.
Prepared By: VY)GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: NZ
AGENDAITEM
Exhibits
Exhibit A. Revised Practical Difficulty Analysis — by Applicant
Exhibit B.
Proposed Surveys
Exhibit C.
City Code Sections
Exhibit D.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit E.
PC Staff Report (typo corrected) 03/20/17
Exhibit F.
Additional Comments Received 3/20/17
References
PC Exhibits 03/20/17
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C.
Option I Survey — Side Setback Variance
Exhibit D.
Option 2 Survey — Lot Width Variance
Exhibit E.
Both Surveys — Highlighted to show lot widths
Exhibit F.
Aerial Photos
Exhibit G.
Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit H.
Neighbor Comments
Exhibit I.
Property Owners List
Exhibit J
Plat Map
Prepared By: VY)GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: D5R
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered
complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City.
Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in
order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land
and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order
for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must
be demonstrated.
HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY?
This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the
variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed
below and answer them as clearly as possible.
Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified.
The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave
something out it will not be considered.
Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply,
write NIA in the space provided:
1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter."
The use would be for sinale familv home we believe this meets the codes and zonina reauirements.
2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner."
Please see the Practical Difficulties Statement page.
3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
Correct, the vaiance will not alter the characther of the locality.
4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms of the Zoning Chapter."
Please see the Pracitcal Difficulties Statement page.
5. "Practical difficulties 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 Minnesota Statutes, Section
11 6J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter."
N/A no solar.
6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed
under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located."
N/A we are not changing the permitted use.
Variance Application — January 2017
Page 7
7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family
dwelling."
N/A
8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately
adjoining property."
True, the exisiting house makes it difficult to meet the setbacks . Also the odd configuration of the land
and lotq meqkp-, it doffumcnilt to mppt thp codes
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located."
Unknown
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant."
Yes, we beileive this to be true and correct. We believe our prosposal is the best use of our land.
It harms no one and improves our property.
11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other
respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code."
No, the proposed vaieance will not Pose any danger or harm to the neighbohood or community..
12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to
alleviate demonstrable difficulty."
Yes this is true and correct. The existing house and the shape of the exisiting lot cause the difficulty.
Granting of the variance will allow us to allieviate the difficulty.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical
difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional
sheets if necessary):
#2. "The Dliaht of the land owner"
The existing lot has an unusual triangilar shape which will not allow a home to be built with a lakeview that
meets the set backs. The lot was drawn up many years ago when the codes were far less stringent.
#4."Economic Considerations"
Our primary reason for the lot line redraw is to reconfigure the lot to allow a home to be built away from the road
and with lake views. The odd trianfular shape will not allow a home to be built that can meet the set backs.
This practical difficutly keeps the land from being developed to the full potential and best use.
Variance Application — January 2017
Page 8
PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
ROBERT L. BIRKELAND RESIDENCE TRUST
OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, WILDHURST TRAIL
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
16-344A
.41
q
UNF,
4�
100- AC. DRY C- VOUIL
tS 1.08, AC. TOTAL EXISTNQ
A Lq*'�NG
N
HOUSE
29.4 CONT
............... . .. ....
"A
Z'
(MV
ZUL
T10�ACK'N
VNES PROP
OS -D
DIVIDIN
LINE
4
�tx
101
1-44
1 '45' AC� TOTAL
129' AC. DRY
A
)TA
AC; TOTA
COP EXSTNG
HOUSE
CO
NO
OR,& 1,9
V
�A
_LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, WILDHURST TRAIL
0 denotes iron marker found
a denotes Hennepin County right—of—way monument found
(soa-3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
— —917 — --: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum and
per County maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum-
This,survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property.
the ocation of on existing house, SPO! elev otions and topography. and the
proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroachments.
i7i
E-
�i 5:
-:4 ra >
n
z
3 0
P,
'z
z
0
I --
U
W
CIL
UZ
0
DYE 1)
WES
C?
17" E
24g.83 --
62:
0)
i
8L 14)
Q
\Wm
—7
.. . .. . .. ..
139.32
I
Z
16-344A
.41
q
UNF,
4�
100- AC. DRY C- VOUIL
tS 1.08, AC. TOTAL EXISTNQ
A Lq*'�NG
N
HOUSE
29.4 CONT
............... . .. ....
"A
Z'
(MV
ZUL
T10�ACK'N
VNES PROP
OS -D
DIVIDIN
LINE
4
�tx
101
1-44
1 '45' AC� TOTAL
129' AC. DRY
A
)TA
AC; TOTA
COP EXSTNG
HOUSE
CO
NO
OR,& 1,9
V
�A
_LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, WILDHURST TRAIL
0 denotes iron marker found
a denotes Hennepin County right—of—way monument found
(soa-3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
— —917 — --: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum and
per County maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum-
This,survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property.
the ocation of on existing house, SPO! elev otions and topography. and the
proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroachments.
i7i
E-
�i 5:
-:4 ra >
n
z
3 0
P,
'z
z
0
I --
U
W
CIL
UZ
0
DYE 1)
WES
16-344A
.41
q
UNF,
4�
100- AC. DRY C- VOUIL
tS 1.08, AC. TOTAL EXISTNQ
A Lq*'�NG
N
HOUSE
29.4 CONT
............... . .. ....
"A
Z'
(MV
ZUL
T10�ACK'N
VNES PROP
OS -D
DIVIDIN
LINE
4
�tx
101
1-44
1 '45' AC� TOTAL
129' AC. DRY
A
)TA
AC; TOTA
COP EXSTNG
HOUSE
CO
NO
OR,& 1,9
V
�A
_LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, WILDHURST TRAIL
0 denotes iron marker found
a denotes Hennepin County right—of—way monument found
(soa-3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
— —917 — --: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum and
per County maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum-
This,survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property.
the ocation of on existing house, SPO! elev otions and topography. and the
proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport
to show any other improvements or encroachments.
i7i
E-
�i 5:
-:4 ra >
n
z
3 0
P,
'z
z
0
I --
U
W
CIL
UZ
PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
ROBERT L. BIRKELAND RESIDENCE TRUST
OF LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, WILDHURST TRAIL
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
52'
N 86-02' 17" E
q
AY
b
GRAVEL
DR Ay
Alf
DR
JD)
LIC.
r
fi�C. *OTAL
EXISTINC, t AC- ABOVE 0
I'll- AC.T�TAL HOUSE
1,01 AC,
(A�
PRO�PSED k�
DIVIDING 4! 4:\
4
LINE
BUILDING DWVEWAY
ORA
—�ETDACK
0— Al— BUILDING
�INES *, V
STi,4G CAY11111(NIr Llh"��-�— LO
%
1.42- A
C. TOTAL
:010
OVERKAD 0
1�28-' AC. DRY (1)
\71,
AC11 T I C2
EMTW
&
HOUSE
FRO" Wit
I b
P X. -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Lots 2 and 3. Block T, WILDHURST TRAIL
X
CO denotes Iron marker found
J?J)
JNo 7�0,9 0 denotes Hennepin County right—of—way Monument found
0 1,9 (9D&3): denotes existing spot elevation. mean sea level datum
—917— —: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level claturn and
per County maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed, datum.
ThisIsurvey intends to show the,boundaries of the above described property,
the ocotion of an existing house spot elevations and topography. all visible
" hardcover, and the proposed location of a proposed dividing line theream
it does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
NOTE: Accuracy a! hardcover location, and extent of additional
hardcover is limited by ice and snow cover.
17-061
I_) (n
z
Z W
z
z m
U)
-ell m r
G,
z
-Z
o
zw
0 r!!
LLI
Df
n -
c j�2
Sec. 78-1. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Unless specifically
defined in this section, the words and phrases used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them
in chapter 82.
Lot width means the horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at the following locations:
(1) For lots which do not abut a lake or tributary, at the rear of the required front yard, measured
parallel to the front lot line.
(2) For lots which abut a lake or tributary, at the shoreline measured in a straight line between the
points at which the side lot lines intersect the OHWL, and at the required structure setback from
the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with
the structure setback line.
Sec. 78-330. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1 B district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided
in section 78-1366.
(b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed:
Page I
Side Yard
Side Yard
Lot
Lot
Front
Adjacent
Rear
Adjacent
Area
Width
Ya rd
to Another
Ya rd
to Street
(acre)
(feet)
(feet)
Lot
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
1
140
35
10
35
30
Page I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. 17-3912 BRUCE BIRKELAND, PID 07-117-23-31-0028 (Adjacent to 1298 Wildhurst Trail),
VARIANCES, 8:02 P.M. — 8:38 P.M.
Bruce Birkeland, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a variance to facilitate an administrative lot line adjustment, which is a
subdivision exemption, in order to create an additional one lakeshore lot where there is currently one lakeshore lot and
one non-lakeshore lot. The southern lot is not a lakeshore lot currently.
The applicant owns both lots and has presented two options:
I . Create two conforming lots, each meeting the LR-lB minimum area and width at the 75 -foot setback.
This would require a side setback variance allowing the existing home on Lot 2 to be located within three feet of
the new dividing line. The side setback variance is needed in order to certify the subdivision exemption.
2. Locate the dividing line so that the existing home meets the required 10 -foot side setback. However,
this results in Lot 3 having 132 feet in width where 140 feet is required. A lot width variance would be required
in order to process the subdivision exemption.
Curtis noted Option 2 is the applicant's preferred option.
The LR- I B requires 140 feet in width at the ordinary high water level and at the 75 -foot setback for Lake
Minnetonka. There should be at least 280 feet at these points for supporting two lakeshore lots. The plans submitted
for either option do not appear to reflect conforming measurement of lot widths. The applicant should revise Option I
to meet the width requirement at the OHWL and at the 75 -foot setback if possible. The existing home on the property
is in a conforming location currently. Curtis noted moving the common lot line in order to make the lot width
conforming at the 75 -foot setback results in the house and deck encroaching within three feet of the new lot line.
The purpose for this application is to increase marketability by creating a second lakeshore lot. The Planning
Commission and City Council should determine whether or not it is appropriate to grant a variance based on this type
of need.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
It is unknown whether or not two lakeshore lots can be created that meet the dimensional standards of the LR- I B
requirements if the existing home is removed.
The preferred option of Staff would be to create two conforming lots. The existing home is likely a temporary
situation, suggested by common redevelopment of homes of this age when the properties are sold. There is a
sufficient buildable area on the property to accommodate a new home in a conforming location.
After further analysis, it appears that neither lot in Option I meets the 140 -foot requirement at the lake or at the 75 -
foot setback. There could potentially be an option that meets the requirements but Staff does not have that
information at this time. If the applicant wishes to create a new lakeshore lot, Staff suggests the applicant show that
both lots will meet the 140 -foot requirement in both locations.
Comments from the neighbors have been received and are before the Planning Commission this evening. A comment
from the applicant's engineer was also received and should be read into the record.
Planning Staff recommends denial of lot width variances facilitating an adjustment of the property line. If the
Planning Commission can support the variance from the lot width LR- I B standards, Staff prefers Option I regarding
the site setback variance for the existing home. The applicant is encouraged to explore alternatives which result in
two lots with conforming area and width prior to placement on the City Council agenda.
Thiesse requested City Planner Curtis read the letter from Mark Gronberg into the record.
Curtis read the following letter into the record:
9�
"Bruce, I was very surprised to see the City of Orono interpretation that the lot width at the 75 -foot lakeshore setback
should be measured at the inside of the chord rather than the outside of the chord as we have shown on our survey
drawing.
We have been showing it this way for many years on other projects in Orono and in other adjoining cities as well and
have never been questioned on our interpretation. The purpose of a lot width measurement is to show that you have
enough room to build a house on the lot. You would certainly not be allowed to build the house at the inside chord
line because you would be way too close to the lake. Taking the measurement at the outside of the chord gives a more
correct representation of where you can build."
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted on the back of the letter Staff included the definition of lot width for the Planning Commission's
reference.
Thiesse asked if it should not be measured from where the house can be built.
Gaffron noted the lot width definition reads: "For lots which abut a lake or tributary, at the shoreline measured in a
straight line between the points at which the side lines intersect the OHWL."
Thiesse concurred that that is what the definition says.
Gaffron stated it further reads, "and at the required structure setback from the OHWL, measured in a straight line
between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the structure setback line." Gaffron stated the code says to
measure it in a straight line but Mr. Gronberg is suggesting to measure it in a line that hits the outside of the curve in a
straight line.
Thiesse commented that makes a lot of sense since that is where the house can be built.
Gaffron stated it does and that the City looks at it that way in the past for non-lakeshore lots where there is a cul-de-
sac. Gaffron stated very rarely does the City see a lakeshore subdivision, and in this case the code is very specific on
how it should be measured. Gaffron stated he does not disagree with
Mr. Gronberg's logic that the lot width should be measured from where the house is to be built, but that the code does
not read that way.
Gaffron stated one of the questions he would ask is if it is measured at 125 in a straight line between those two points
and if that same straight line is drawn between two different points, whether it would be more than 125 feet.
Curtis indicated that is 140, which is where it is shown by the applicant.
Thiesse noted they conveniently put it at the curve of the line.
Gaffron stated if the line were skewed another way, it would not meet it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Bruce Birkeland, 128 Wildhurst Trail, stated this definition was a surprise to them and that he basically received
notice of itjust in the last day or two due to some Internet problems. Birkeland indicated they cannot build the house
toward the lake any further and that the house would actually be set back another 35 feet from where Mr. Gronberg
drew his line across.
Birkeland stated he is not sure if Mr. Gronberg is aware of the way the City does it but that the original lot line cannot
meet the setbacks where the house might have a view of the water. Birkeland stated the concept here is to create a
lake lot so that some other family can have a place on the lake and make the best use of the lot. Birkeland stated at
this point he is not quite sure how the Planning Commission interprets this new information and that he would ask for
the advice of the Planning Commission.
Thiesse stated the definition is very specific where the line needs to be drawn and that he does not see how it could be
interpreted differently.
Birkeland asked what his options are at this point.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission will open the public hearing and then discuss the matter.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
John Besseson, 4500 North Shore Drive, stated he is one house down from Bruce Birkeland and that Mr. Birkeland
approached him about what could be done with the property. Besseson indicated he consulted with Mark Gronberg
about the lot and that they also had an architect take a look at it. Besseson stated they spent three or four months on
this project and then met with Staff and looked at the documents, with Mr. Gaffron indicating he would not have a
problem dividing the property if the house is tom down and the two lots are conforming.
Besseson stated approximately five to ten feet of the house sit inside the 10 -foot side yard setback and they are hoping
the Planning Commission will allow it. Besseson stated otherwise they will have to tear the house down. Besseson
commented the house has a lot of value.
Besseson noted the neighbors are in agreement with the project and that they are attempting to create some value for
the property owner and the City by creating this new lot. Besseson stated in the 50 years he has resided in this area,
he has witnessed a huge amount of development along the lake and that Wildhurst Trail is a beautiful road.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Besseson stated the way the property sits now makes it difficult to build anything facing Wildhurst and County Road
19. Besseson commented they would rather see a $2 million house built there rather than a $200,000 house.
Besseson indicated he did talk to Staff about resolving this and that the plan does currently meet the required criteria
except the house happens to be sitting within the 1 0 -foot setback.
Besseson stated they can tear the house down but that they would rather not do that and that they are attempting to
come up with an alternative to make it work. Besseson stated they cannot go forward until they get some direction on
this.
Neil Weber, Architect, stated when they started out with this project, they felt they had enough lineal feet of
shoreland. Weber stated they interpreted it as the actual footage instead of a straight line but that they would still have
enough lineal footage. Weber stated the only reasonable place to construct a house to meet the criteria would be in
this upper area, which is not the best use of the lot. Weber stated they were basically attempting to place the house in
a more ideal location so there would be a view of the lake.
Weber stated they then went to Mark Gronberg and he indicated they need 140 feet at the shore and at the setback
line. Weber stated they had an option of the 140 feet in both areas with the need for a side setback variance or an
option where it met the 10 -foot side setback but does not have the required width.
Weber stated as far as they are concerned, either option works.
Weber noted this area is not a bluff and that Staff agrees with their interpretation. Weber stated without changing the
topography, the house will need to be located significantly behind the setback due to the grade, and no matter how the
line is configured, the house will need to be further back. Weber stated to his understanding somebody from the City
came and verified that the proposed access onto the road was acceptable. Weber noted they probably would not be
able to have access onto County Road 19.
Weber stated the bottom line is, no matter how the lines end up being configured, they will end up with the same site
plan. Weber stated they felt the 140 feet at the building line was the logical interpretation, which is what their plan is
based on. Weber stated no matter how it ends up, the proposed location for the house is the logical site. Weber stated
they are not creating a new lot but that they are trying to rearrange the lines so they can get the best use of the site and
take advantage of the view.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated when the City's interpretation of the definition is subject to a different interpretation, the tie goes to
the runner.
Thiesse stated the definition is pretty straight forward and there really is no other way to interpret it.
Schoenzeit stated the other piece is that the City has also pre -identified the average lakeshore setback and building
site. The lot line rearrangement helps determine the building pad. Schoenzeit stated his assumption that these lots are
sewered and that they will not need to find a septic spot. Schoenzeit stated if someone can steer where the house goes
and it is behind either of the lines that are in discussion, the City should find a way to make this work.
Landgraver stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Schoenzeit.
Leskinen stated the issue from her perspective is not about where the house is being placed but the fact that they are
rearranging the lot lines, which requires them to create two conforming lots. Leskinen stated if it does not meet the
City's requirements, it would be a nonconforming lot, which historically has not been allowed.
Leskinen stated her other concern is with the practical difficulty analysis. Leskinen noted economic conditions alone
cannot determine whether a variance is granted and that in her view it appears to be more of an economic piece than
the other criteria the Planning Commission generally looks at.
Leskinen stated if they can get past the practical difficulty and decide that the lot line rearrangement can create two
conforming lots, that is the option they should choose. Leskinen stated she would be more inclined to grant a setback
variance than a lot line variance because she is not inclined to create a nonconforming lot.
Thiesse noted the lots conform with the area requirement but do not conform to width except at the 75 -foot line.
Thiesse stated based on the width, they cannot build a house where the line is drawn. Thiesse asked if this could be
approved if a condition is added that they have to conform with the lot width at the location the house is constructed.
Gaffron stated the existing lot has a defined width going from one point to another point, which is perhaps 100 feet.
Gaffron indicated the applicants are trying to create two conforming lots from a substandard, nonconforming
lakeshore lot. Gaffron stated the lot is substandard because of the channel that was dredged decades ago. Gaffron
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
stated the question is why the southerly lot was not given lakeshore access at that time. Gaffron indicated it is
unlikely Staff would be able to find the answer to that.
Thiesse asked if there is anything in the Code that prohibits people from having gerrymandered lot lines.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge there is nothing in the code prohibiting it as long as the lots are conforming but that
the City creates nonconforming width lots every time there is a cul-de-sac. hi this situation the applicants are taking
two lots, one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore, and turning the non-lakeshore lot into a lakeshore lot.
Lemke commented it makes sense to create two lakeshore lots by looking at where the building pad will be. Lemke
stated in his view it would not be a horrible situation but that he would like to see it work if at all possible.
Thiesse stated it appears it cannot be granted based on the practical difficulty statement. Thiesse asked whether the
Planning Commission can request a revised practical difficulties statement.
Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty is the shape of the land and not the economics.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission cannot write that for the applicant and that it would have to be revised.
Leskinen stated economics cannot be the only factor in determining a practical difficulty.
Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission could approve the application with the caveat that the applicants
submit a better practical difficulty statement. V466
Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty statement should be more in line with the difficulty of the land.
Barnhart stated the practical difficulty statement is intended to give the Planning Commission reasons to recommend
support or denial. Barnhart stated if the applicants did not meet the practical difficulty standard, the Planning
Commission is obligated to recommend denial. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission uses the practical difficulty
statement when they review the application and that they cannot write the practical difficulty statement for the
applicant.
Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission could give the applicant the option to table it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission could also deny it with the suggestion that they submit a different practical
difficulty statement.
Barnhart stated either option would get them to the same spot. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission
recommends denial because the practical difficulty standards have not been met, the applicant could be encouraged to
address some of the comments made prior to the City Council meeting, which would keep the application moving
forward.
Thiesse stated in his view the intent of the code is that the City is looking for a reasonable width, which will be
satisfied based on the location of the house.
Lemke and Landgraver indicated they are in agreement with that.
Leskinen stated if the applicants could make the argument that it meets the intent of the code but not the letter of the
code, she could live with that.
Birkeland asked if he can amend his practical difficulty statement tonight.
Landgraver stated he would rather the City Council have something in writing.
Birkeland stated the main reason they wanted to do it the way they proposed is because a house could not be built
otherwise to get a view of the lake. Birkeland stated he does not believe he wrote the practical difficulty statement
that way but that he will have to review his document.
Thiesse stated the options are to either table it or recommend denying it, at which point they can modify their practical
difficulty statement prior to the City Council meeting.
Barnhart noted it would be on the April 10 agenda.
Birkeland stated that would be the thing to do then.
Lemke asked if the practical difficulty test has to be met.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated it does and that economics is not the key factor in determining whether there is a practical difficulty.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3912, Bruce Birkeland,
PID 07-117-23-31-0028, for the reasons discussed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 02/21/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/23/17
60 -Day Review Period Expires: 04/24/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner YYIGG
Date: 20 March 2017
Subject: #17-3912, Bruce Birkeland
1298 Wildhurst Trail: Lot 2, Block 1, Wildhurst + Lot 3, Block 1, Wildhurst
Variance — Setback /Lot Width
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to facilitate an administrative
lot line adjustment (subdivision exception).
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of a side setback
variance conditioned upon the new lot configuration meeting the LR -113 dimensional
standard.
Background
The applicant owns the two lots which are the subject of the application, Lot 2, Block 1,
Wildhurst and Lot 3, Block 1, Wildhurst. Currently Lot 3 is not a lakeshore lot. The applicant has
made an application for a subdivision exemption for an administrative lot line rearrangement
between the two properties in order to reconfigure Lot 3 as a lakeshore lot.
The applicant has presented two options:
Create two conforming lots, each meeting the LR -113 minimum area and width (at the 75
foot setback) however would require a side setback variance allowing the existing home
on Lot 2 to be located within 3 feet of the new dividing line. The side setback variance is
needed in order to certify the subdivision exemption; or
Locate the dividing line so that the existing home meets the required 10 -foot side
setback, however, this results in Lot 3 having 132 feet in width where 140 feet is
required. A lot width variance would be required in order to certify the subdivision
exemption.
The applicant has provided surveys reflecting both options for the City's review.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-330 - Setbacks:
LR -1B
Required
La ke
75'
Rear
30'
Interior Side
10,
Side Street
35'
FILE # 17-3912
20 March 2017
Page 2 of 5
As lakeshore lots both properties will be subject to the average lakeshore setback requirements.
Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width:
City Code Section 78-1 Definitions.
Lot width means the horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at the following
locations:
(1) For lots which do not abut a lake or tributary, at the rear of the requiredfiront yard, measured
parallel to the front lot line.
(2) For lots which abut a lake or tributary, at the shoreline measured in a straight line between
the points at which the side lot lines intersect the OHWL, and at the required structure setback
from the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot
lines with the structure setback line.
LR -113 =Lot
Area
Lot Width (OHWL & 75 -foot SB)
Required
143,560 s.f. (1.0 acres)
140'
"Side Setback Variance" Option (Option 1)
Proposed Lot 2
1.08 acre total
±136' @ OHWL — not met
(1298 Wildhurst Trl)
1.00 acre dry
±132' @ 75' SB — not met
Proposed Lot 3
1.45 acre total
±187' @ OHWL
(1298 Wildhurst Trl)
1.29 acre dry
±125' @ 75' SB — not met
"Lot Width Variance" Option (Option 2)
Proposed Lot 2
1.11 acre total
±144' @ OHWL
(1298 Wildhurst Trl)
1.01 acre dry
±130' @ 75' SB— not met
Proposed Lot 3
1.42 acre total
±186 @ OHWL
1.28 acre dry
±125' @ 75' SB— not met
Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
The hardcover numbers provided are based on the Option 2 version of the parcels using the dry,
buildable acreage.
Stormwater
Overlay District
Total Area in Zone
Allowed Hardcover*
Existing Hardcover
Tier I
Proposed Lot 2
44,026 s.f. (1.01 acre)
11,006 s.f.
6,539 s.f.
(1298 Wildhurst Trl)
(25%)
(14.8%)
Proposed Lot 3
55,981 s.f. (1.28 acre)
13,995 s.f.
3,620 s.f.
(25%)
(6.47%)
*Based on Option 2 proposed lot areas
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Width Variance (Sec. 78-330)
LR -1B requires 140 feet in width at the ordinary high water level (OHWL) and at the 75 -foot
setback for Lake Minnetonka. Together, the properties have an approximate 105 feet in width
as measured at the OHWL and 214 feet at the 75 -foot setback. There should be at least 280 feet
at these points for support two lakeshore lots. The plans submitted for Option 1 the side
setback variance do not reflect the accurate measurement of the lot widths. The applicant
should revise Option 1 to meet the width requirement at the OHWL and at the 75 -foot setback,
if possible.
FILE # 17-3912
20 March 2017
Page 3 of 5
Side Setback Variance (Sec. 78-330)
LR -113 side setback requirement is 10 feet. The existing home on the property is in a conforming
location currently. Moving the common lot line in order to make the lot width conforming at the
75 -foot setback results in the house/deck encroaching within ±3 feet of the new lot line.
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 offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approvalfor 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. Two
lots exist currently. The density is not proposed to increase, however, one additional
lakeshore lot is created. The size of the properties are generally consistent with the
other properties in the neighborhood. The lot width variance would also be in
harmony with the Ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Each of the requested
variances allows the redevelopment of each of the single family lots, this use is
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 property owner wishes to realign the
property line, creating two lakeshore lots where only one lakeshore lot
currently exists. The density will not increase. It is likely the properties will be
developed with new single family homes in the future which will be required
to meet the 1_11-113 district and Shoreland district setbacks. To qualify for the
subdivision exemption to reorient the common property line one of the
requested variances must be granted.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
the property owner did not create the original lot size, lake frontage, and
orientation; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed
variance will add additional development on the lake shore, the Planning
Commission should discuss whether this will alter the character of the
neighborhood as the overall lot sizes won't change.
FILE # 17-3912
20 March 2017
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. It would appear
the purpose for the subdivision exception request and resulting variance request are
for the purpose of making Lot 3 more marketable. Therefore economic considerations
are a factor in the variance request.
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 residential use is an allowed use
in the LR -IB 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 unique shape of the properties, the
topography, and the channel -like nature of the shoreline create special conditions
unique to the properties.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The lots are generally consistent with the neighboring properties
with respect to size.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be 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 variance 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 size, shape, and orientation of
the properties create practical difficulties affecting the subject properties; a variance
to permit the lot line to be adjusted is necessary to create two lakeshore lots where
one lakeshore lot and one off -lake lot currently exist.
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 properties are 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.
FILE # 17-3912
20 March 2017
Page 5 of 5
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The purpose for this application is to increase marketability by creating a second lakeshore lot.
The Planning Commission and Council should determine whether or not it is appropriate to
grant a variance based on this type of need.
It is unknown whether or not two lakeshore lots can be created that meet the dimensional
standards of the 1-11-113 requirements if the existing home is removed.
The preferred option for staff would be to create two conforming lots. The existing home is
likely a temporary situation, suggested by common redevelopment of homes of this age when
the properties are sold. There is a sufficient buildable area on the property to accommodate a
new home in a conforming location.
After further analysis, it appears that neither lot in Option 1 meets the 140 foot requirement at
the lake (OHWL) or at the 75 -foot setback. If the applicant wishes to create a new lakeshore lot,
Staff suggests the applicant show that both lots will meet the 140 foot requirement in both
locations.
Public Comments
Comments from neighbors have been received; see Exhibit F.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning staff recommends denial of lot width variances facilitating an adjustment of the
property line. If the Planning Commission can support the variance from the lot width LR -113
standards, staff prefers Option 1 regarding the side setback variance for the existing home. The
applicant is encouraged to explore alternatives which result in two lots with conforming area
and width prior to placement on the City Council's agenda for consideration.
List of Exhibits
ExhibitA. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C Option 1 Survey — Side Setback Variance
Exhibit D. Option 2 Survey — Lot Width Variance
Exhibit E. Both Surveys — Highlighted to show lot widths
Exhibit F. Aerial Photos
Exhibit G. Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit /. Property Owners List
Exhibit J. Plat Map
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING
449 N. WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE, INNESOTA 55356
952-473-4141
FAX: 952-473-4435
March 20, 2017
Bruce Birkeland
1298 Wildhurst Trail
Orono, MN 55364
RE: Lot Line Rearrangement
Lot width at 75 foot setback line
Bruce: I was very surprised to see the City of Orono interpretation that the lot width at the 75 foot
lakeshore setback should be measured at the inside of the chord rather than the outside of the chord as
we have shown on our survey drawing.
We have been showing it this way for many years on other projects in Orono and in other adjoining
cities as well and have never been questioned on our interpretation. The purpose of a lot width
measurement is to show that you have enough room to build a house on the lot. You would certainly
not be allowed to build the house at the inside chord line because you would be way to close to the
lake. Taking the measurement at the outside of the chord gives a more correct representation of where
you can build.
Sincerely,
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 16
Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3914, Phillip & Darcy Otto, 4116 Highwood Road, Variance -
Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department
Planner Section: Report
Purpose. This application is regarding a variance to construct an addition.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and considered complete on
February 21, 2017. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on April 22, 2017.
3. Background. The applicants are proposing to construct a main floor 16' x 16' addition on posts
to the rear of the home. The addition will encroach as close as 3 feet to the side property line
where a I 0 -foot setback is required.
4. Planning Commission Comment. On March 20' the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a
motion to approve the requested side setback variance.
5. Public Comment. Positive neighbor comments received regarding this application and were
included in the Planning Commission staff report. No comments were received during the public
hearing.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance to construct a
16' x 16' addition on posts 3 feet ftorn the side lot line where a 10 -foot setback is required.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit A.
Draft Resolution
Exhibit B.
Proposed Survey
Exhibit C.
Building Plan/Sketch
Exhibit D.
PC Staff Report 03/20/17
Exhibit E.
Draft PC Minutes
References
1) PC Exhibits 03/20/17
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C.
Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D.
Proposed Elevation Drawing
Exhibit E.
Aerial Photos
Exhibit F.
Site Photos
Exhibit G.
Neighbor Comments
Exhibit H.
Property Owners List
Exhibit 1.
Plat Map
Prepared By: VY)GG
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: D5R
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-330
FILE NO. 17-3914
WHEREAS, Phillip Otto, and Darcy Otto, a married couple (hereinafter the
"Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 4116 Highwood Road and legally described
as:
That part of Lot 38, "Highwood Lake Minnetonka', Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described as follows: Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot; thence
Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot a distance of 98 feet to the point
of beginning of the property being described; thence deflecting right 69 degrees a
distance of 6.2 feet; thence deflecting left 90 degrees to said Southeasterly line; thence
Northeasterly to the point of beginning.
That part of Lot 40, "Highwood Lake Minnetonka", Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
Southwesterly of the line drawn from a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot,
distant 22 feet Northeasterly from the Southwest corner of said Lot, to a point on the
most Southeasterly line of said Lot, distant 12 feet Northeasterly from said Southwest
corner.
Lot 39 and 43, "Highwood Lake Minnetonka", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (PID 07-
117-23-44-0088).
(hereinafter the "Property");
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, the Applicants have made application to the
City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow construction
of a 16 foot x 16 foot addition to the existing home 3 feet from the side lot line where a 10 foot
setback is required; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 20,2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variance; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variance 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 #17-3914. 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 -113 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 16,847 square feet (0.38 acre) in area and has a defined lot width
of 113 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 2 and hardcover is limited to 30% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance:
a. Side Setback Variance
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
11 ANALYSIS:
"Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The proposed addition is residential in nature. Due to the
orientation of the adjacent properties and the homes on each property, there is adequate
space for light, air and open space between the proposed addition and the neighboring
home. The variance is in harmony with the Ordinance.
2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The variance allowing improvements to a single family residence in
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of
the neighborhood.
3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties,' as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The request to permit construction of an addition to the home, within the 10 foot
side setback appears to be reasonable as the adjacent properties do not appear
to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography separate the
Property from adjacent neighbors.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The shape and size of the Property were not the result of actions by the landowner.
The existing home was constructed as a replacement home as the result of a fire
in approximately 1989; the new home was constructed in approximately 1994 by
the current owner in the location of the previous fire -damaged home. The nearest
structure on the neighboring property to the northwest is a detached one-story
garage and it is set back and oriented sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open
space between the two structures.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. "
The proposed addition to the home will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed post construction will permit existing drainage patterns to be
maintained. Stormwater drainage in this neighborhood is challenging creating a
practical difficulty.
4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78." This condition is not applicable.
6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located." This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residence is an allowed use in
the LR -1B District.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
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 topography, lot width, and the home's
proximity and orientation to the property line are special conditions 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 topography, which drops off steadily as you move east, the
narrowness of the lot, the angle of the property lines from the road, as well as the
nonconforming location of the home on the lot make the Property unique.
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant." Options for conforming expansions of living
space, including upward expansions, are severely limited on the Property. Staff finds the
variance is necessary to preserve the property right of the applicants.
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 lot width, the location and size of the
existing home, as well as site topography, create practical difficulties affecting the
Property; the variance is necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the
Owner.
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 78-330 to allow construction of a 16' x 16'
addition to the existing home, on posts, 3 feet from the side lot line where a 10 foot setback is
required, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Council approval is based on the survey dated January 23, 2017 by Schoborg Land
Services and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff,
attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plans which are
not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City
Council review.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
2. 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 (April 10, 2018).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall
constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 1 Ot' day of April, 2017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
CITY OF ORONO:
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
lml� ""_i4
Building Permit Survey
Prepared for:
Darcy Otto
Lego
0 Found Iran Monumerif
COD. 0 Existing fievation
Existing Well
Manhodu
RW Retaining W-11
SCALE
Is 30
inch 30 feet
CL,
0
'jb
A,
4 J 110,
'jb
RW- -
6, "P.
L
0,P) .39
ran pipe /ocai,
Of -Zote," 0.2 ft 0
/V10 pwnj
16.
.15 a 66
....... .....
rog,
IJ2
"616
R W;, �,,, -t
No -
Q,
o,'
V2ta� No grading is proposed for this site-
� �,"".W - n—r,'M n ;, client)
vew0y I
13.3 ;z�;ir, of Lot 38, "Highwood Lake Minnetonka",
RW- 959.1 X—W Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as foltows�
e) Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot�
gathence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of
----<a said lot a distance of 98 feet to the point of
- If) od — d �05 beginning of the property being descrfbad, thence
-Wo eterY, dellecting right 59 degrees a Wetance of 6.2 feet.,
C thence deftecting left 90 degrees to said Southeasteriy
line; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning.
Mot part of Lot 40, "Highwood Loke Minnetonka Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
Southwesterly of the line drown from a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot,
65j distant 22 feet Northeasterly From the Southwest corner of sokf lot, to a point an the
most Southeasterly line of said Lot, distant 12 feet Northeasterly from said Southwest
corner.
Lot J9 and 43, 'H;gh�ood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Aitirinesoto-
Bearings based on assumed datum.
)SCHOBORG
LANDSERVICES
1 hereby certify that this cartificate of survey was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the
laws of the of Minnesota.
V
Z1419�11-4'
Site Address
4116 Highwood Rd
Orono� YN 55364
Sirvey Date: 8110116, 8112116
Drawing Narne., otfadwq
INC.
763- 972-3227 8997 Co. Rd, 13 SE
www.Schob�gLand.corn Delono. MN 55326
Drown by. KLB, OUS
Paul S. Schoborg
Date, Registration No 1470C
Calculo vns
(so ft
1E,=,V1 A=r
256
Existing House
976
Deck & Steps
433
aiturnihous Driveway
F, 445
Retaining Walls
J65
Shed
61
J,536
Lot Area
16,847
Total Hardcow
21,OZ
V2ta� No grading is proposed for this site-
� �,"".W - n—r,'M n ;, client)
vew0y I
13.3 ;z�;ir, of Lot 38, "Highwood Lake Minnetonka",
RW- 959.1 X—W Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as foltows�
e) Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot�
gathence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of
----<a said lot a distance of 98 feet to the point of
- If) od — d �05 beginning of the property being descrfbad, thence
-Wo eterY, dellecting right 59 degrees a Wetance of 6.2 feet.,
C thence deftecting left 90 degrees to said Southeasteriy
line; thence Northeasterly to the point of beginning.
Mot part of Lot 40, "Highwood Loke Minnetonka Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying
Southwesterly of the line drown from a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot,
65j distant 22 feet Northeasterly From the Southwest corner of sokf lot, to a point an the
most Southeasterly line of said Lot, distant 12 feet Northeasterly from said Southwest
corner.
Lot J9 and 43, 'H;gh�ood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Aitirinesoto-
Bearings based on assumed datum.
)SCHOBORG
LANDSERVICES
1 hereby certify that this cartificate of survey was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the
laws of the of Minnesota.
V
Z1419�11-4'
Job Number., 8266
B--klPag&,., LL
Sirvey Date: 8110116, 8112116
Drawing Narne., otfadwq
INC.
763- 972-3227 8997 Co. Rd, 13 SE
www.Schob�gLand.corn Delono. MN 55326
Drown by. KLB, OUS
Paul S. Schoborg
Date, Registration No 1470C
Revisions., 112JI77 (prop. cddn. locotion)
TL
jj�
CFO
1-1 --- - -
Lf-
-r �107`771.71
Xq
42
-Ir
TL
jj�
CFO
1-1 --- - -
Lf-
-r �107`771.71
Xq
Ir
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2017
MY OF ORONO
# 3914
A;
k,7
ww",
9
0
0
(b
Q >
co
91)
Cf)
(D
06 L4
ZY
DO IQ, x
rb
C)
z q—< (10 C�-
�70 it "In 'IT,, Irl
(A (b 4.�
(A
kQ
Ti
C,
oo
r\
it'i
I VI
;�Q
Clb
p
Vllf /?;� 'r L(� r<i // \), — Z �:
0" 01- Z�z
Ad. 0� 6.
C5,
Z C14 G) 4
I cl rcy.
0i
Eo —'o (b J A,
cc)
(b
ZE
Lo (b
f
C,4 ED (j)
.0
lb A -
Z3 " -I a () � I
(b QL C) :3
to Q- (b a Cb
7
Z3 I-jo -
o
(b -
-1 El) 0
�51 — -Z % k< ��
I - :e 0 M
Cb
(b 0
nmm
QL
Q CIL
LO
Rc :k w
-I Q " (b Lf�
Z� Z3 QL s'- -
En
Q-
rb a 12, QO I-) Z �11 Z
0,�
01-
,ZL Q 121 2'L
U)
a '21 2-,Q "Q IT Z, D
(b
r- co �13 ui Z) rrl -�) -Tj
Q lb a Z5- CD CnD �S. -I -I 7S
rr
OR,
'D (,b it CI- a a
C) 'b rb Z PQ �51 :z -I ll� <' 19
13, _0 20
co T
C) kQ 0
CD -,I Q
, 11, o " "I Q Q -
(b QL
Q Q) 0 Z6. A)
r -
Z
(A
P (D -I (D
(b D cx
, 0 _ CD 610
CL 2 CD Q� lb (3 LZL
Z3
Q (b co C�L Q Ll)�,
Lf)
Q -
Q (b zi cL Z, 121L
Q
C) Q 0, Q- �QL
Q
(A �x -,z, , (,) , �� ,, " Q,
(A (3 b QI QL
lz z N,3,Z,
Lo
Q- a (3 C (b CD
N3
(14 (14 -4 ko P\)
0) +
CD
l<
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2017
MY OF ORONO
# 3914
A;
—Ad.0
Date Application Received: 02/21/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/21/17
60 -Day Review Period Expires: 04/22/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner YYIGG
Date: 20 March 2017
Subject: #17-3914, Phil & Darcy Otto, 4116 Highwood Road
Variance
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a side yard setback variance in order to
construct an addition to the existing home.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
Background
The applicants are proposing to construct an elevated (main floor) 16' x 16' addition to the rear
of the home which will encroach as close as 3 feet to the side property line where a 10 -foot
setback is required.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Sections 78-330 - Setbacks:
LR -1B
Required
Existing
Proposed
Variance
Needed?
Front
35'
25'
No change
No
Rear
30'
250'
234'
No
Northwest Side
10,
0.3' (house corner)
3' addition
Yes
Southeast Side
10,
15.5'
No change
No
Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width:
LR -1B
Lot Area Lot Width
Required
43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140'
113' along Highwood
Actual
16,847 s.f. (0.38 acre)
±49' at 35' SB
Section 78-1403- Structural Coveraee:
Total Lot Area
Total Structural Coverage
16,847 s.f. (0.38 acre)
Allowed: 2,527 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 1,417 s.f. (8.4%)
Proposed: 1,726 s.f. (10.2%)
Note: Structural Coverage regulation was amended by the City Council on March 13, 2017,
raising the limit to 20% of the lot area, and adjusting what is calculated.
FILE # 17-3914
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 4
Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Total Area in
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
Overlay District
Zone
Hardcover
Hardcover
Hardcover
Tier
5,054 s.f.
2,884 s.f.
3,071 s.f.
Tier 2
16,847 s.f.
(30%)
(17.1%)
(18.2%)
Applicable Regulations:
Side Yard Setback Variances (Code Section 78-330)
The applicants are proposing to expand the main floor of the home on the northwest side; the
16' x 16' upper level addition will not encroach closer to the side lot line than the home
currently, it will be constructed on posts. The home and the property line are situated at an
angle; the applicants' home is set back 0.3 feet from the lot line. With the proposed offset, the
addition to the rear of the home will be as close as 3 feet from the lot line where a 10 foot
setback is required.
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 offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approvalfor 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 addition is residential in nature. Due to the orientation of the adjacent
properties and the homes on each property, there is adequate space for light, air and
open space between the addition and the neighboring home. The variance is in
harmony with the Ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance allowing
improvements to a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of the neighborhood.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of an
addition to the home, within the 10 foot side setback appears to be reasonable
FILE # 17-3914
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 4
as the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature
vegetation and topography separate the Property from adjacent neighbors.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The shape and size of the property were not the result of actions by the
landowner. The existing home was constructed as a replacement home as the
result of a fire in approximately 1989; the new home was constructed in
approximately 1994 by the current owner in the location of the previous fire -
damaged home. The nearest structure on the neighboring property to the
northwest is a detached one-story garage and it is set back and oriented
sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between the two structures;
and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The proposed addition to the home will not alter the character of the
neighborhood. The proposed post construction will permit existing drainage
patterns to be maintained. Stormwater drainage in this neighborhood is
challenging.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The topography, lot width, and the home's
proximity and orientation to the property line are special conditions unique to the
property.
5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The topography, which drops off steadily as you move east, the
narrowness of the lot, the angle of the property lines from the road, as well as the
nonconforming location of the home on the lot make this property unique.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Options for conforming expansions of living
space, including going upward, are severely limited on the property. Staff finds the
variance is necessary to preserve the property right of the applicants.
7. 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.
8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The lot width, the location and size
of the existing home, as well as site topography, create practical difficulties affecting
the Property; the variance is necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to
the Owner.
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.
FILE # 17-3914
March 20, 2017
Page 4 of 4
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 the nonconforming location of the house results in limited to no expansion
opportunities, which constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements
or changing the footprint. The proposal to construct the addition on posts will continue the
existing drainage patterns. The variance is supported by practical difficulties.
Public Comments
Comments from neighbors 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
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C
Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D.
Proposed Elevation Drawing
Exhibit E.
Aerial Photos
Exhibit F.
Site Photos
Exhibit G.
Neighbor Comments
Exhibit H.
Property Owners List
Exhibit /.
Plat Map
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. 17-3914 PHILLIP AND DARCY OTTO, 4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 8:38 P.M. — 8:42
P.M.
Phillip and Darcy Otto, Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are proposing to expand the main floor of their home on the northwest with a 16' x 16'
upper level addition to be constructed on posts. It will not encroach closer to the side lot line than the home currently
is and, in fact, will be located fiarther away. The home is set back three -tenths of a foot from the lot line. With the
proposed offset, the addition to the rear of the home will be as close as three feet from the lot line where a 10 -foot
setback is required.
Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the house and the angled lot lines result in limited to no expansion
opportunities, which constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the
footprint. The proposal to construct the addition on posts will continue the existing drainage patterns. The variance is
supported by practical difficulties.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance.
Curtis noted comments were received from the neighbor and are included in the packet.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Phillip Otto, Applicant, stated the most level spot to put an addition off of the back of the house would be the west
side, which would be the right side on the overhead. Otto indicated they will not be finishing the lower level but will
just be using the footings. Otto stated the proposed location is basically the only spot for an addition.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3914, Phillip and Darcy
Otto, 4116 Highwood Road, granting of a side yard setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 17 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: # 17-3 915, Lecy Brothers o/b/o Charlie & Nora Daum, 1920
Fagerness Point Road, Variances (Lot area, hardcover, setbacks) - Resolution
Presenter: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Agenda Planning Department
Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to adopt a resolution granting variance approval.
2. Application Deadline. Rcvd: 2/22/17 Complete: 2/22/17 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 4/23/17
3. Background. The applicants request lot area, setback and hardcover variances in order to construct a
new residence to replace the existing home on the property.
Please review the attached Planning Commission memo and exhibits.
4. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and
held a public hearing at its March 20th meeting, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances as
requested.
5. Public Comments. No public comments were forthcoming at the public hearing held by the
Planning Commission. Per the City's standard practice, all property owners within 350 feet of the
property were notified of the hearing.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 78-350, 78-12 79 and 78-1680for Property Located at 1920 Fagerness Point
Road —File No. 17-3915.
Exhibits
A — Resolution
B — Notice of PC Action dated 3/27/17
C — Draft PC Minutes of 3/20/17
D — Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 3/20/17
Prepared By: Mike Gaffron
Reviewed By:
Approved By: D5R
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
GRANTING VARIANCES TO
ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-350,78-1279 AND 78-1680
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1920 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD
— FILE NO. 17-3915
Council
Exhibit A
WHEREAS, Charlie and Nora Daum (hereinafter the "Applicants") are owners of
the property located at 1920 Fagemess Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City")
and legally described as follows:
That part of Lot 27, FAGERNESS, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly
of a line bearing South 34 degrees, 14 minutes East from a point on the northwesterly
line of said Lot distant 175 feet Northeasterly from the southwest comer thereof,
(hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017 the Applicants made a complete application to
the City of Orono for variances to Orono Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to construct a new
home on an existing lot of defined contiguous dry buildable area of 18,307 s.f (0,42 acres) where
the minimum lot size requirement is 21,780 s.f. in area; and a variance to Section 78-350 to allow
said new home to located 18.1 feet from the street lot line where a setback of 30 feet is normally
required; and a variance to Section 78-1279 to allow said new home to be located 34.8 feet from
the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where a setback of 75 feet is normally required; and a variance
to Section 78-1680 to allow hardcover associated with said new home to be located within 75 feet
of the OHWL where no such hardcover is normally allowed; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017 after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0
recommended approval of the variances; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City stafE
Page I of 6
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
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
fmdings of fact concerning this property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Al. 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.
A2. The Property is located within the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential District
which normally requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres (21,780 s.f.) and a minimum lot
width of 100' for construction of a single family residence.
A3. The Property is 18,307 s.f. (0.42 acres) in contiguous dry buildable area and is
approximately 3 62 feet in width at the shoreline and 110 feet in width at the 75' setback
line.
A4. Proposed hardcover on the property is 3,715 s.f or 17.65% Of the site, slightly below the
existing hardcover square footage and below the 25% for this Hardcover Tier I property,
but nearly all of the proposed hardcover is within 75 feet of the lake, requiring a variance.
Structural coverage is proposed at 11. 8%, well below the 20% limit.
A5. The requested variances will allow the Applicants to completely replace the existing house,
which was built in 1971, with a new residence, in approximately the same footprint and
setbacks. The property is slightly under the 1/2 -acre lot size requirement and most of the
lot, including the house, is within the 0-75' setback where no structure or hardcover is
normally allowed. Although the lot is very wide with more than 300 feet of shoreline, a
lot area variance is required due to the northerly portion of the lot being wetland above the
929.4' contour.
A6. Proposed street setback for a majority of the house is 20-22' with an entry porch being
18. V from the street lot line. The proposed street setback is slightly less than the existing
22' setback, which allows for greater setback from the lake while still allowing ample room
to park vehicles in the driveway without extending into the street. The lake setback is
proposed at 34.8' which is slightly greater than the 32' lake setback of the existing home.
AT The property is served by municipal sewer and water.
A8. The size, shape and orientation of the lot in relation to the lake makes it impossible to build
on the property without variances. Variances were granted in 1970 for the original
construction of a home on the lot, and an additional variance in 1981 allowed construction
of the existing attached garage. In 1991 a variance was granted for the existing second -
Page 2 of 6
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
story deck located on the lake side of ttie house; a deck is not part of the new home
application, although a grade -level patio similar to the existing patio is proposed.
A9. A variance application was submitted in 2016 for addition of a second story above the
existing garage. Prior to Planning Commission review, that application was put on hold
(later withdrawn) when the Applicants and their builder concluded that drainage issues for
the existing house could not be resolved through remodeling. The current application, for
replacement of the existing house and garage in the same location as the existing, resolves
the drainage issues, and accomplishes the desired added living space, within virtually the
same footprint as the existing home.
A10. The new home with a full story above the garage will increase the livability of the property
while not increasing hardcover, and structural coverage is well below the limit for this site.
The close proximity to the lakeshore as well as the substandard setback to the street are
clearly a function of the lack of lot depth from the street to the lake, and this factor is shared
by the two adjacent homes to the immediate south.
All. Applicants intend to save the existing trees on the lake side of the property, which provides
buffering of the fagade as viewed from the lake. The house across the street sits
significantly higher than Applicants' house, so that lake views enjoyed by that off -lake
owner (views which are not protected by code) will be minimally affected.
Al2. 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.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
B1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." Singlefamily residences are a permitted use within the
LR -1 C zoning district.
B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The proposed residential principal structure is a residential use
which is consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding
propertiesfor residential use.
B3. "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:
i. 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."
Page 3 of 6
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner."
iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
Theproperty owner isproposing to use theproperty in a reasonable manner by replacing
the existing residence with a new residence of similarfootprint, but the size of the lot is
below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code. The plight of the property
owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and shape, and its proximity to the lake.
The lot is almost entirely within 75 feet of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no
structure or hardcover is normally allowed. The existing home was constructed in 1971
and the existing attached garage added in 1982 pursuant to variances granted by the
city. Replacement of the home other than exactly 'in-kind' requires that new variances
be granted. All of these are circumstances that were not created by the property owner.
The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from
replacement of the residence in essentially the same location as the existing home. The
two adjacent homes to the immediate south are on similarly situated lots very near the
lake and are each two stories in height.
B4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic
considerations have not been afactor in the variance approval determination. The design
of the proposed home is related to the desirefor additional living spaces, and the need to
solve an existing waterproblem due to the adjacent grades.
B5. '.'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 Nfinn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78." This condition is not applicable.
B6. "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 condidon is not applicable, as the usefor a singlefamily residence is an
allowed use in the LR -1 C District.
B7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-fanjily dwelling
as a two-family dwelling." This condition is not applicable.
B8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property." The condition of having a lot that is mostly
within the 0-75'lakeshore setback zone is unique to this and the two adjacentproperdes to
the south which each have homes located on a narrow sliver of land between the street and
the lake. The vast majority of developed properties within the LR -_1C district do not have
this condition.
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
B9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
landislocated." The code standards applicable to this property apply to aff other property
in the neighborhood. However, most otherproperdes in the the LR -JC district do not have
the limitations htWosed by close proxindry to Lake Minnetonka to which the Applicants
property is subject.
B10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant." Theproperty owners wish to replace the existing
home in substantially the same location and footprint as the existing home, while
increasing the size of the home by adding second -story living space in the area of the
existing one-story garage. Absent the variances, the home cannot be replaced except in
kind, which wouldnotsolve the existing drainage issues nor allowfor the desired additional
living space.
BI 1. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair he" safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Granting of the
requested variances would not inWair health, safety, comfort or morals and would not be
contrary the intent of the zoning code.
B12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the variances will alleviate a
practical difficulty created by the shape and location of the lot which cannot be resolved
except by the granting of variances.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Orono Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to construct a new home on an existing
lot of defined contiguous dry buildable area of 18,307 s.f. (0,42 acres) where the minimum lot size
requirement is 21,780 s.f. in area; and a variance to Section 78-350 to allow said new home to
located 18.1 feet from the street lot line where a setback of 30 feet is normally required; and a
variance to Section 78-1279 to allow said new home to be located 34.8 feet from the shoreline of
Lake Minnetonka where a setback of 75 feet is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-
1680 to allow hardcover associated with said new home to be located within 75 feet of the OHWL
where no such hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions:
Council approval is based on the survey, site plan and building plans submitted by the
Applicants, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Hardcover on the property shall not
exceed the levels shown on the proposed hardcover worksheet attached as Exhibit B.
Page 5 of 6
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owner, but are
permissive only.
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall
constitute a violation of the zoning code.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 1 Gth day of April, 2017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 6 of 6
L)
w
I!,
I
Extension of the northerly _J)nL_qf_Lot 27, EAGERNESS, Ls_mqnymerk1edL
Resolution
Exhibit A
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2017
CITY OF ORONO
eS
Iro
/ Edge NsMsW LAKE MINNETONKA
................ Water Elevation 91912016 = .9,291
TWwA4 ba* an fold mrvq dab 9*atd ty OqmrB GakW Land SuneM. Int
aW4V1** rV Of M MWARk k FWMW POW AW of
IM &pomus P1 Ali j%mfw = 04 V kve
PROPOSED HARDCOVER (see calculation —* sheet)
g A� A t $ T.P a me &AUM - ftt,. A. -k. - me
N
PIL4 Cont -
RWM: 1112JAMS # 3915
I,./ ME& alli 15 ffew DDWB
SITE AOQQM�
?M F.P. �t
LEGA' DESCRIPTION.
Deno. i—
RNM 9/15/Mli
UN MJYI
� f—d
�,s- �.:=ftff
MM I/a7/2017 ftol:osed House
That part of Lot 27. 1`49emess lning northeaster& of a line beanng
(p- sbk� f
RINW: 2/17/2017 Pmposed patio & dW
South J4 degrees 14 minutes East from a point on thwe narlhweste4y
D-110. --Wow �-
o,,,ai D� P"P." we�
FE%M: 2/2D/2017 G9Jm*N existing *uctum
line of -ad M distant 175 feet Northeasterly fn� the southeast comer thereof.
MM: V21/2017 pmpnd hwa* bm5m godes
DJUARS-GABRML
L=
R" N.
14433 B -P
AWPARED
FM
LAND SURUMS INC
11875 WashInWon A-, Sa.
LECY BROTHERS HOMES
sulle 209
Edina. MN 55439
UWd I
Sow.
Phone,,
?522)) 767-M7
i
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
F..... , 767-0490
9,
Db�- A�t 9, 2016 W- see.
--mmm
illon
MM
IN
I
m
His
City of Orono 'F(ZOPO'>et�- Resolution
Iva Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Exhibit B
Property Address: Lacy Bros. - Daum Residence - 1920 Fagerness Point Road
Prepared by: Demars Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc Date: 2107t2017
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) (ED Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Stop 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER REVISED: 2117/2017
REVISED: Z'211/2017
In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover an the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all eAsting hardcover items that are
intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that wilil be added. Use as many lines as
necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier I properties, identify
any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage
separately for each Dortion.
Key to Hardcover Rom (Describe)
Survey
Length x Width
Total
(Square Fact)
Mwm-Me)
(720 &F.)
A House and attached garage
'28.25'x 80'
2260
S.F.
B Covered entry
20'x 5'
100
S.F.
C Sidewalk
XY x 4'
120
S.
D Patio (With kevstone at eda2)
(4? U4+(5xG)+(19Lq-2)+MbC 7
) 380
.1
S.F.
E uriveway
30'x 23'
690
S.F.
F _ Conc Stoop (with keystone at edge)
25
S.F.
G — Conc Stoop (with KeYstone at edge)
5X5
25
S.F.
H _ Existing Shed
11 .6 x 9.9'
115
S.F.
I
i
S.F.
K
S.F.
L
S.F.
M
S.F.
N
S.F.
0
S.F.
P
S.F.
a
S.F.
R
S.F.
S
S.F.
T
SY.
S.F.
U
S.F.
v
S.F.
W
S.F.
X
S.F.
Y
S.F.
z
S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover
S.F.
Excludabb Hinvicaver fl�n CK
Y Code Sec 784
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S. . I
S.F.
(2) Total Emdudable Hardcover
n/a
S.F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract Ine (2) ftom bw (1)]
M5
S.F.
(4) Tolal Lot Area
21044
S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percen tags (3) 0 (4) 3
17.65 %
*Previous, existing site hardcover = 17.69%
RECEIVED
FEB 2 � 20il
# 3915 CITY OF ORONO
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
952.249.4620
TO: Charlie & Nora Daum
1920 Fagerness Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
ZONING FILE:
17-3915
Council
Exhibit B
DATEOFNOTICE: March27,2017
COPIES: Mike Mann
Lecy Brothers Homes
15012 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
noradaum@gmail.com-
mikemann@ ecybros.com
TYPE OF REQUEST: Lot Area, setback and hardcover variances
DATE OF MEETING: M arch 20, 2017
The Orono Planning Commission voted 5-0 on --� motion to recommend approval of the requested
variances.
VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST
Applicants next meeting is scheduled as: Monday, April 10, 2017
This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City
Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Mike
Gaffron at mqaffron0ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4622.
MINIJTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at
Landgraver moved, Leskinen
and Darcy Otto, 4116
Nays 0.
recommend
Road, granting of a side yard
Council
Exhibit C
of Application No. 17-3914, Phillip
VOTE: Ayes 5,
9. 17-3915 LECY BROTHERS ON BEHALF OF CHARLIE AND NORA DAUM, 1920
FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANES, 8:42 P.M. — 8:53 P.M.
Andy Johnsrud, Lecy Brothers, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting approval of variances to the required lot area, the 0-75 foot
hardcover, street setback, and lakeshore setback, in order to construct a new residence to replace the
existing residence on the property. The property is located on the south side of Fagerness Point Road and
the existing survey depicts the current house.
The applicants submitted an application in 2016 for variances needed to construct an addition that was
built in 107 1. Due to water issues, it was determined a total rebuild would likely be necessary. Gaffron
noted those conditions are illustrated in some photographs provided by the applicant. As a result of the
water issues, the elevation of the home will need to be raised and a total rebuild is necessary.
The current application proposes completely replacing the existing house with a new structure in
approximately the same location and with a similar footprint. The new home with a ffill story above the
garage will increase the livability of the property while not adding to the hardcover or to the structural
coverage percentage. Structural coverage for the lot is well below. The proposed hardcover is 17.5
percent� which wilt all be located in the 0-75 foot zone except for a small portion of the driveway.
The proposed street setback for the house is 20 to 22 feet, with an entry porch proposed to be located I S. I
feet to the street. The take setback is proposed at 34.8 feet, which is greater than the 32 -foot take setback
for the existing home. No average lakeshore setback is necessary since the existing house to the south has
a deck that is closer to the lake than any parts of this house would be.
Page 35 of 64
MIENUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMAHSSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The size, shape and orientation of the lot in relation to the lake make it impossible to build on the property
without variances. Variances were granted in 1970 for the original construction of a home on the lot and
an additional variance was granted in 1981 to allow construction of the existing attached garage. In 1991,
a variance was granted for the existing second -story deck located on the lake side of the house. The
applicants are not proposing a deck as part of the new home application but a grade -level patio that is
similar to the existing patio is proposed.
The close proximity to the lakeshore as well as the substandard setback to the street is clearly a fimction
of the lack of lot depth from the street to the lake. This factor is shared by the two adjacent homes to the
immediate south. The Planning Commission should consider whether there is a need to provide
screening from the lake for the new residence due to the limited lake setback.
Staff would note that the house across the street sits significantly higher than the applicants' house so that
the lake views enjoyed by that off -lake owner will be minimally affected. Gaffron indicated he is not sure
whether the large trees will need to be removed.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. If the Planning Commission determines that the
practical difficulties test is met, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
Landgraver asked if the house is being elevated to get out of the water.
Gaff-ron indicated that is correct.
Schoenzeit noted this is a total rebuild.
Gaffron stated it is a tear down but they will not be utilizing the existing foundation. Gaffron noted the
home will not have a basement. In an effort to meet the intent of the code, the applicants are proposing
essentially the same footprint.
Leskinen stated it is basically being rebuilt in kind but higher.
Gaff-ron stated the applicants are also proposing to add a second story to the garage.
Page 36 of 64
MINUTES OF TBE
ORONO PLANNING COM31ISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse noted both of the trees are shown on the applicants' plans as staying. Thiesse asked whether
those trees can be removed without a variance.
Gaffron indicated the applicants would need to get permission from the City but it would not require a
variance. Gaffron stated it is likely those trees would need to be replaced if they are removed.
Andy Johnsrud, Lecy Brothers, stated this project was started last fall. They are a growing family with
the existing home's footprint being approximately 1200 square feet and no basement. Initially the
property owners looked at remodeling the home and adding an addition over the existing garage. As the
project went on, two major issues were discovered. The water is the first major issue, which remodeling
will not fix. Johnsrud stated the other option was to ask the City to lower the elevation of the street, whch
is not feasible.
The other issue was discovered from the soil borings. There are currently no pilings under the home and
there is approximately seven to eight feet of peat dirt under the home. The house is currently floating
right now. Johnsrud stated their recommendation to the homeowner was to put pilings in the ground to
hold up the new foundation. Between the water and foundation issues, it was felt it would be better to
tear down the existing house and rebuild.
Johnsrud stated they did the best they could to stay within the existing footprint. The proposed location is
actually two feet further away from the lake and two feet closer with the front porch area, but otherwise
the proposed house footprint is really consistent with what currently exists. Johnsrud stated they are not
proposing to construct a deck on the second story currently.
Johnsrud indicated he also has pictures that depict the other two properties on the same side of the street
that have a similar design.
Thiesse asked if they intend to keep the two trees.
Johnsrud indicated they do.
Thiesse encouraged the contractor to consider installing a rain garden.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Page 37 of 64
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Landgraver noted it is not exactly the same footprint but the applicants have demonstrated that they will
be improving some of the current variances. Landgraver stated the neighbor's house across the street is
also higher and their views of the lake will be minimally impacted.
Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with the request.
Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3915, Lecy
Brothers on behalf of Charlie and Nora Daum, 1920 Fagerness Point Road, granting of lot area,
hardcover, and setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
10. 17-3916 PETER
ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:53 P.M.
Peter Eskuche, Applicant, and Sven
ON BEHALF OF FORREST
1020 TONIUWA
were present.
Curtis stated the owner is planning to redevelop the prVrty and would like to construct a new home with
a lakeside terrace. The existing home improvemen ill e h ch as 11 feet lakeward of the
roach
average setback line. The new home is proposeo,' roencroa%cha roasrmuely 30 feet lakeward of the
average lakeshore setback line and the new vated terrace is sho with as much as a 40 -foot
encroachment toward the lake.
I
a
in
ke
e
and the ew with as m h as a 40-f
C
f
I -tu d urther ba
The home on the north side sits hi er than the applicant's property and is situ d further back from the
or g c
I/ . T 10 nl 00 t
lake than the majority of the n i boring homes along the shoreline. The lot is onl 00 feet in width
le
where 140 feet is required. ecause the applicant is requesting ant average lakeshore set -1k variance, the
m 9
lot width variance cannot e administratively approved.
Comments from the neighbors were received and are supportive of the project.
Page 38 of 64
Date Application Received: 2/22/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 2/22/17
60 -Day Review Period Expires: 4/23/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, interim City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner
Date: March 20, 2017
Subject: #17-3915, Lecy Bros. o/b/o Charlie & Nora Daum, 1920 Fagerness Point Road
- Variances (Lot area, hardcover, setbacks)
- Public Hearing
Council
Exhibit D
Application Summary. The applicants request approval of variances to the required lot area,
0-75' hardcover, street setback, and lakeshore setback, in order to construct a new residence to
replace the existing residence on the property.
Staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is
met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
Staff recommends approval of the variances as proposed.
Zoning District: LR -1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 0.5 acres/100' min. width
LotArea/Width: 0.42 acres/362'+ width at shoreline, 110'+ width at 75' setback
Total Lot Area: 21,044 s.f. Wetland Area: 2,527 0. + Contiguous Dry Area: 18,307 s.f. + (0.42 ac.)
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Existing Conditions Survey
Exhibit C.
Proposed Survey/ Site Plan
Exhibit D.
Proposed Building Plans
Exhibit E.
Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit F.
Submitted Hardcover Calculations (Existing & Proposed)
Exhibit G.
Photos
Exhibit H.
Plat Map
Exhibit 1.
Property Owners List
Exhibit J.
Neighbor Acknowledgement Forms
Background
The applicants submitted an application in 2016 for variances needed to construct an addition to
the existing residence which was built in 1971, but soon determined that due to water issues a
total rebuild would be necessary. The current application completely replaces the existing house
with a new residence, in approximately the same footprint and setbacks as the existing. This lot is
just under the 1/2 -acre lot size requirement and most of the lot, including the house, is within the
0-75' setback where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Although the lot is very wide
with more than 300 feet of shoreline, it still requires a lot area variance due to the northerly portion
of the lot being wetland above the 929.4' contour. Proposed street setback for a majority of the
house is 20-22'with an entry porch being 18.1'from the street lot line. The lake setback is proposed
at 34.8' which is slightly greater than the 32' lake setback of the existing home. The property is
served by municipal sewer and water.
FILE #17-3909
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 5
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Variances noted in bold type)
LR -1C Zoning District
Required/Allowed
Proposed
Lot Area (Contiguous non -wetland)
0.50 ac. minimum
0.42 ac existing
Lot Width
100'minimum
110'+ - 362'+ existing
Street Setback
3V
18.1' Proposed (Entry Porch)
Left Side Setback
1(y
218'+
Right Side Setback
10,
17'
Lake setback
75'
34.8'
Average Lakeshore Setback
No encroachment
No encroachmene
*Defined by 26.3'lake setback of 2nd story deck of adjacent home to the south
Structural Coverage.
Total Lot Area (Incl. wetland)
Total Structural Coverage
21,044 s.f.+ (0.48 acre)
Allowed: 44%* 20% = 4,209 s.f.
Proposed: 2,475 s.f. (11.8%)
*On March 13, 2017 the City Council increasing the lot coverage limitfrom 15% to 20%
Hardcover Calculations:
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
78-350: LR -1C Lot Standards & Setback Reguilations.
78-1680:0-75' Setback Hardcover Prohiblition
78-17W(3): Tier Hardcover Limits
Governing Regulations: Variance (Sec. 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 offire. 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.
Allowed
Stormwater
Total Area
Hardcover
Area
Net
Existing
Proposed
Overlay
Outside
Allowed
District Tier
in Tier
in Tiler
I 0-75'Zone
Hardcover
Hardcover
Hardcover
Tier 1
21,044 s.f.
5261 s.f.
1436 s.f.
1
1436 s.f.
3723 s.f.
3715 s.f.
1
1 (25.0%)
1
1 (17.69%)
(17.65%)
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
78-350: LR -1C Lot Standards & Setback Reguilations.
78-1680:0-75' Setback Hardcover Prohiblition
78-17W(3): Tier Hardcover Limits
Governing Regulations: Variance (Sec. 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 offire. 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.
FILE #17-3909
March 20, 2017
Page 3 of 5
According to MN §462-537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when (staff commentary
in bold type):
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single
family residences and the associated amenities are a permitted use within the LR -1C
zoning district.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed residential
principal structure is a residential use which is consistent with the comprehensive plan
guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use.
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 property owner is proposing to use the
property in a reasonable manner by replacing the existing residence with a new
residence of similar footprint, but the size of the lot is below the minimum lot
size standards of the Zoning Code.
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 proximity to the lake. The lot is almost entirely within 75 feet of
the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is normally
allowed. The existing home was constructed in 1971 and the existing attached
garage added in 1982 pursuant to variances granted by the city. Replacement of
the home other than exactly 'in-kind' requires that now variances be granted.
All of these are circumstances that were not created by the property owner; and
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 in essentially the same location as the existing home. The two
adjacent homes to the immediate south are on similarly situated lots very near
the lake and are each two stories in height.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Economic considerations have
not been a factor in the variance approval determination. The design of the proposed
home is related to the desire for additional living spaces, and the need to solve an
existing water problem due to the adjacent grades.
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 single family residence is an
allowed use in the LR -1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
FILE#17-3909
March 20, 2017
Page 4 af 5
City Code Sec. 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as
follows:
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The condition of having a lot that is mostly
within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone is unique to this and the two adjacent properties
to the south which have homes located on a narrow silver of land between the street
and the lake. The vast majority of developed properties within the LR -1C district do not
have this condition.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The code standards applicable to this property apply to all other
property in the LR -1C District. However, most other properties in the the LR -2C district
do not have the limitations imposed by close proximity to Lake Minnetonka to which the
applicants' property is subject.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The property owner wishes to replace the
existing home in substantially the same location and footprint as the existing home,
while increasing the size of the home by adding second -story living space in the area of
the existing one-story garage. Whether these expansions are necessary for the
preservation of a substantial property right is for the Planning Commission and Council
to consider.
11. The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. in the opinion
of staff, 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 variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of the
variances will alleviate a practical difficulty created by the shape and location of the lot
which cannot be resolved except by the granting of variances.
The Commission may recommend and the 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.
Variance Analysis
The size, shape and orientation of the lot in relation to the lake makes it impossible to build on the
property without variances. Variances were granted in 1970 for the original construction of a home
on the lot, and an additional variance in 1981 allowed construction of the existing attached garage.
In 1991 a variance was granted for the existing second -story deck located on the lake side of the
house; a deck is not part of the new home application, although a grade -level patio similar to the
existing patio is proposed.
A variance application was submitted in 2016 for addition of a second story above the existing
garage. Prior to Planning Commission review, that application was put on hold (later withdrawn)
when the owners and their builder concluded that drainage issues for the existing house could not
be resolved through remodeling. The current application, for replacement of the existing house
and garage in the same location as the existing, resolves the drainage issues, and accomplishes the
desired added living space, within virtually the same footprint as the existing home.
FILE #17-3909
March 20, 2017
Page 5 of 5
The new home with a full story above the garage will increase the livability of the property while
not adding to hardcover nor to the structural coverage percentage. The new home is not increasing
hardcover, and structural coverage is well below the limit for this site. The close proximity to the
lakeshore as well as the substandard setback to the street are clearly a function of the lack of lot
depth from the street to the lake, and this factor is shared by the two adjacent homes to the
immediate south. Planning Commission should consider whether there is a need to provide
screening from the lake for the new residence, due to the limited lake setback; will the existing
trees be saved? Staff would note that the house across the street sits significantly higher than
applicants'house, so that lake views enjoyed by that off -lake owner (views which are not protected
by code) will be minimally affected.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has submitted a Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit E, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Neighbor Comments
The City has received no comments as of this writing.
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 variances, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested are justified,
does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any
impacts created by the granting of the variances?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. if Planning Commission determines that
the practical difficulties test is met, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
City of Orono.
Variance Application
Mom: 9"'US."M
fhX 9M449-01 6
&4ffft^*ftW.
P-0. am (W
CfYSW %Y, MN WIZ3.WW
Appka&m 0
Date Received:
fee: $700
Escrow- $700 1
Notes:
i�/ — / —7
Please cOmPlet8. APPlicsfIt Wil be notilled vAthin 15 days as to the Stedus of the applicaton.
Incompleft applica"On Will Mj be placed an Plannlng COMmlasion Agenda.
SITE LOCATION: LMKE—i!ft=M9A
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: 7b
(aftsa admonal sheaft as
APPLICANT INFORMATION: C1 cher S
Applicant: k twe N Aypl"nt addi
Phone (Primary):
Mailing Address:
Ernall-
PC Exhibit A
VWW
$260
should be u8st! for bAlIng
r?Wrr.KtT OWNER INFORMATION.. 13 check here If Property Owner is awns as applicant
)Kcheck here if Property owner addre" MmId be LISW
Nam: 60e, for billing
Phone (Primary. r:
Mailing Address: Fi�
C
Email:
APPLICANT ANDFOR PROPERTY OWNEM-
CedV #W the MrmaWn SUP13116d is MJO and Coned to ths bee of hisilher knowledge. The applicaM
recognize that tilay are solely pasponsibIg forsubmilling a compMe appilcd and ProPerty owner
staff has no alterniaUm but to rejsc
,t it Until it is oMnphft or tD on being awGre that upon faiWe to do so, the
of its Potantim ffWL recommend the request for denitai of the request. ragardiess
The PrOPOrtY Owner hereby adummNledges and agrees to this 8PPlication and further aulhorizes "Mcnablae onto the
Property by City SW consubn1s, ntry
aF this request agents, Commission and Council Membens flor purposes Of invesligation and vertfioadon
Prol"Ity Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be preserd at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
COMMIssion and Council. If 0 aPPlicant and/or Property owner is unable to attend a schedulad meeting, please make
arrangwwts to' have an authOrizsd MI)MOrItstive attend in place Of the aPPOCOMowner and advise the City planmr
assigned to Your projed.
W 1fVftMnW1Gn WIll be distributed
Applicant Signature:
Date:
APPlicant Signature: Date.
Property Owner Signature: Date-, REXEIVED
ProPerly Owner Signature: O�7,5�c- kl. Date: -7- A All ':a
Vadwve AppNmeflan —Janumy 2o i;, Fg�-2 2 2017
PWO 4 # 3915 CITY OF ORONO
..........
'A 0
ctl
'33,
ob to
--A
Ut Ci
b Lo C)
Uko
CL
D
loy
X�l
X� I -
%
C%
Ir
6 .7
C) 00
S
2 5
ILVO 00
OL
0
li to ''I c
C CL,
D
00,01
1-11011-1, C,
0
Cb fire ftq
4
and
'-Geftck from Delineated Watl
rr%
Q.
CL CL to
cp co
25 MCWD WeMand Buffer
W3 -;5
r-5 .V. va,
Ch
8.3
118-
0%39'3r-y—� 931 — —
Cb. . . . . .. .... .. ..
CL
Ln
JPC
LA
cr
x Ir—n Sol
OZ
CD
G tM3
r ul
10,
(oom
-h
Na N)
co
0
M CY)
0
LO
ILO co
CIO
cd g
CD
s
U)
0
:3
0
0
;2
0
0
B
rq
Ci
(/)0
It "I ;
Z c "S
�-; � -4
P- EO
Q.§ E;
lb a -
r
Do
It
0
12
th CL
9x
t-4
J� x 0 0\
gag,
FA fA (a rAll ra III
co -,o Cb �*
8 C'l .0.
43 zt qQ z
2 Q�
0 US :t3li
c
ax C,
lb
3
b
th
M
� \n
0
r)
IP6
C)C:),
'000>'
\01
En Ln V) U)
rr'l m m rIl rrl
C2
-4 �J
C5 C5,
"C
ZZJ zi -'J a) a].
ca -
it th 1�
1110
OR M-44
S.
P
0-4p,
RD Po set,
( Oq L A- 9-6
CL
Cb
a
-bk
CL
\Y
25' Uft
%00d airfor
O.J9 73--&v ky 937
co
0
CIO
CAP
eb
w
it th 1�
1110
OR M-44
S.
P
0-4p,
RD Po set,
( Oq L A- 9-6
CL
Cb
a
-bk
CL
\Y
25' Uft
%00d airfor
O.J9 73--&v ky 937
-11110
0:1 am
00
MOM
Mu
mom
momON
Lu is 0
w co
GT
Ilk 1:1 TTL'
kill
... .......
It
ANEW-
........ . ...........
WAI A!
41
AMIN,
2VA 0
MOE
vw
4to
J -A
AMIN,
2VA 0
MOE
vw
4to
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM PC Exhibit E
This form Is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application VAII not be considered
complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City.
Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in
order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land
and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficuffies. In -drder
for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must
be demonstrated.
HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY?
This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the
variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed
below and answer them as clearly as possible.
Since you, are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified.
The information the City receives is what is used -in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave
something out it will not be considered.
Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply,
write AVA in the space provided.
1. "The property owner proposes to usethe property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the' Zoning Chapter.'
F,
4&.
not created by the landowner.'
3. 'The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.0
on Aev-,� 76 TNEr- xcvq vif - -ME=- Trilm
4. wEconomic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.0
t*02WL toz-ow 14-411- a-0- J+ $gar&
5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energ�
systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
11 6J.06,§ubd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter."
6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed
under th)� 9hapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located."
RECEIVED
variance Applicadon — January 2017 Pp FEB 2 2 2017
Page 7 # 3919
CITY OF ORONO
7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family
A—M.— 11
8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such propertv or immediateiv
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located."
OX Jfe�-�� 71A�AMW O=A -
10. mThe granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant.' ft
11. 7he granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair healtilrNrWaK ffm-f0-R,-=&r—a lslonr- —inacn-'y other
respect be contrary to the intent of =beZgnlng Code."
77/ff 40Y&L ACV—PV &OP
awl
All not merely serve
M'
12. 'r, g 39%v416 rM;V S�=as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to
alleviate demonstrable difficulty: -
Practical Difficulties Statement
Should you feel the practical dnculties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical
difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional
sheets if necessary):
R&I 99�19,rdlz -07!r -F40- e�U SPA& c#2 gLw� AZNU-12- -I.- L& 40
I It ML:hLx
6 224i4fteAlle,
J -/L4" 'A/77*!F lr&yg
Ps
I
of - I
JM
IN
M-mr, "44f-, WW
RECEIVED
Vadence Application — Jenumy 2017 FEB 2 2 2017
page 8 # 3915 CITY OF ORONO
av,!
0. (L
a
0 w
4 . ,
L�
wwdwwwwwm
i -
� U:
1� IL:
'14
�,.k
IL: U: a:
16 W W
M 32
IL: U:
w W
IL: LC
W W
pa
LC U:
W W
Le IL:
W W
CL
.4cD
�A 0
4-0 LL
12
0 r.L c
I
1
02 E
OF)
A
13
'E
E
av,!
0. (L
a
0 w
4 . ,
V11
I k
t
M 0
LU ZO
> ':
0
LL
ul 0
Lu
LZ
0 N-- 0
w
> -0
Ir
10- 0
LU m
LLI
0: M
0%
L�
wwdwwwwwm
Ic U,
� U:
1� IL:
'14
�,.k
IL: U: a:
16 W W
U: L4
Id w
IL: U:
w W
IL: LC
W W
LC U:
W W
LC U:
W W
Le IL:
W W
L�
W
IL: U:
w d
LL:
ad
12
1
A
1 1
Fill
I
ts
I Nil
jj I R
-q
I
V11
I k
t
M 0
LU ZO
> ':
0
LL
ul 0
Lu
LZ
0 N-- 0
w
> -0
Ir
10- 0
LU m
LLI
0: M
0%
I ALI
f
QZ
Z2
4 1 0 -j , � 3- -
k4
4L
4k
6 IL
It
'46
VOIL�
golf.
dr
4L
4k
6 IL
It
'46
VOIL�
�Tw C=
1Z.
]maim
i
CONNECTExpLoRm
nW.Auto. LW1fFMI5(201a)- "MstaO
Emu I ...
1AM
6L
CONNECTExPLORER' 962 la �- - q 1 0 x % a
. IV
. . W, 7:
Im. AWD, WITMiS P018) I OfS
A
m (F) 5- -
F�429% ;-4
I
NAP.,
TIP",
VIP.
0-0
m W C-70 -
CONNECTExpLoReR, ja ...
9d,
IF
-�� L�z
Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map
Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 218/2017
181- 1 17�23-1 1
7--
" 0
I 7-11-7-2-3-2-241�-
C.
qj
d,
2.
7
12;- 117-23144"
A 0-40-2-3-14':
A -
MW
Buffer Size: 350 feet
Map Comments:
1711723230031
GEORGE DAUM
1920 Fagerness Point Road
Orono. MN 55391
T
h L
17-23.M
PC Exhibit H
'A
7=11-7-211'44 ;--l\
A
'A
IN
17,1117-23-24),
dj' n
7A 17-21�32 17- 11-�j
174.11 7--��,O
%,7 X
# 3915
RECEIVED
FEB 2 z 2017
CITY OF ORONO
0 120 240 480 ft
I I I I I I I I I
For more information contact:
Hennepin County GIS Office
300 6th Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55487
gis.infoChennepin.us
^�"Xlv %Jzf %wo
W03'AA9A8'AWM
--Q r—l— -1 op sues
0 09LS qDAv3Av:pjvqefi al ze,
JOHN E WEIST
ap ulp ajntpeq el q zelldeli
jaled q selpq senei
38 17-117-23 22 0025
38 17-117-23 23 OD15
38 17-117-23 23 0031
PAUL & KAREN HANSEN
JAMES R & DEBRA 0 CROOKS
GEORGE DAUM
1800 CONCORDIA ST
TRUST
1920 FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATAMN 55391
1932 FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
6015 GIRARD AVE SO
WAYZATA MN 55391
MPLSMN 55419
WAYZATA MN 55391
PC Exhibit 1
38 17-117-23 23 0001
38 17-117-23 23 0016
FIENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
KURTVEGDAHL
NOT FOR SALEAVATER FRONT
1926 FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 23 GW5 38 17-117-23 23 0017
DONALD & PATII RADEMACHER ANNETTEFUNKE-THOMPSON
1837 FAGERNESS PT RD EFUK THOMPSON
WAYZATAMN 55391 1940 CONCORDIA ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 23 0006
38 17-117-23 23 0019
JOHN E WEIST
DANIEL MCINTOSH
1920 CONCORDIA ST
1945 FAGERNESS POINT RD
ORONO MN 55391-9320
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 23 0007
38 17-117-23 23 0019
LLOYD H DRAPER
PAUL J & PAMELA G 13OZONIE
6015 GIRARD AVE SO
1825 FAGERNESS POINT RD
MPLSMN 55419
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 23 0008
38 17-117-23 23 0020
KURT KROLL JR
PATTI J RADEMACHER
1905 FAGERNESS POINT RD
1937 FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 23 0009
38 17-117-23 23 0021
BRANDON C STOVERN
THOMAS N & STACY L. SHUMAN
1913 FAGERNESS POINT RD
1949 EAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-2323 0010
38 17-117-23 23 0022
DARRYL L PETERSON
GREGORY R COOK
1921 FAGERNESS POINT I?D
1990 CONCORDIA ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 23 0011
LLOYD H DRAPER
38 17-117-23 23 0023
STEPHEN D TOWLE
# 3915
6015 GIRARD AVE SO
1850 CONCORDIA ST
IsPLS MN 55419
WAYZATA MN 5539r
38 17-117-23 23 0012 38 17-117-23 23 0028 RECEIVED
ELLIE L BOLDENOW DANIEL MCINTOSH
1937 FAGERNESS POINT RD 1945 FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 FEB 22 2D17
(M OF ORONO
v
1 ! wuefip3 dn-dad asodxo =,,. jedgd pegj 009LS aleldwajL Wha
vu096S OANSAV it I c% oull Buole pugs
IL
I
A
I
3
%L
CL
ail
E,3
W
Ig
IF
0
a
-d
C6
0
Ai
i 2v
1 P. YL
I p
,1 10
E
Z, I I
I rf
If
!b,2
E�o
Ell
a
I
r—
C%j
a
1�6
0 ep
LL
0
Sal
:9 49,0
E
E IS
G
o
z
0
EL
Lu co 0
Lj
CA
-:�m
MLK—
LD
-S
ai-
I-0
t5
I
r—
C%j
a
1�6
0 ep
LL
0
Sal
:9 49,0
E
E IS
G
o
z
0
EL
Lu co 0
Lj
CA
-:�m
MLK—
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 18
Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3916, Peter Eskuche o/b/o Forrest Burke, 1020 Tonkawa Road,
Variances — Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department
Planner Section: Report
Purpose. This application is regarding variances to build a new residence on the property.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on February 22, 2017; it was
considered as complete on March 6'. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on May 5, 2017.
3. Background. The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for a new home.
The new home is proposed to encroach approximately 30 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore
setback line and the new elevated terrace is shown with as much as a 40 foot encroachment
lakeward of the line. Because setback variances are requested and the lot width is substandard, a
lot width variance is also required.
4. Planning Commission Comment. On March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0
on a motion to approve the variances.
Public Comment. Comments from the public were received regarding this application and were
included to the Planning Conu-nission as Exhibit 1. No comments were received at the public
hearing.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Resolution
Exhibit B. Proposed Survey
Exhibit C. Proposed Plans & Elevations
Exhibit D. PC Staff Report 03/20/17
Exhibit E. Draft PC Minutes
References
1) PC Exhibits 03/20/17
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties
Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and
Elevations
Prepared By: VY)GG
Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Site Photos - Staff
Exhibit G. City Engineer Memo
Exhibit H. Aerial Photos - Staff
Exhibit L Neighbor Comments
Exhibit J. Property Owners List
Exhibit K Plat Map
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: Nz
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-330 & 78-1279
FILE NO. 17-3916
WHEREAS, Forrest G. Burke and Renee M. Burke, a married couple (hereinafter
the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 1020 Tonkawa Road and legally
described as:
Tract B, RLS No. 617, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property");
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017, the Applicants have made application to the
City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow
redevelopment of a property with approximately 100 feet in width where 140 feet is the minimum
required to construct a new residence; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants also made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of portions of the
new residence and terraces to encroach up to 40 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback
line; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 20,2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variance; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2017, 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 #17-3916. 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 -113 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 79,000 square feet (1.8 acres) in area and has a defined lot width
of 100 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]:
a. Lot Width 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:
1 . "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance ...... The lot width variance requested is consistent with the
general intent of the Ordinance. The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in
harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbor sits at a higher elevation and
their lake views will not be impacted by the new home.
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 single family
residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties,' as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The request to permit construction of portions of the proposed home lakeward of
the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the owners of the
adjacent properties have stated that they are not adversely impacted; the mature
vegetation and topography separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors.
b. The plight of the landowneris due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The sub -standard size of the Property was not the result of actions 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 severe average lakeshore
setback applied to the Property.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The lot width variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not
appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit portions
of the new home and elevated terrace will adversely impact views of the lake
currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners.
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 replacement residence is an
allowed use in the LR -1B District.
7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling." This condition is not applicable.
8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property." The substandard lot width of the Property is
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
not uncommon in the surrounding neighborhood. The extreme setback of the northerly
home is not in character with the immediate neighborhood.
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located." The majority of the homes both to the north and south of the Property are
closer in proximity to the lake and are more consistently in line with each other. The home
on the lot directly to the north is set back further than the other immediately adjacent
homes.
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 size of the Property; the topography
and location of the adjacent home to the north create practical difficulties affecting the
Property; 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 78-330 to allow redevelopment of a
property with approximately 100 feet in width where 140 feet is the minimum required to construct
a new residence; and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow
construction of portions of the new residence and terraces to encroach up to 40 feet lakeward of
the average lakeshore setback line, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the survey dated March 3, 2017 and building plans submitted
by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A
& B. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. 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
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on
that date (April 10, 2018).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall
constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 1 01h day of April, 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
A
NL
tk
q
g
VyqoJ3100
Buk DING
PERAdlr SWIVEY
RESIDENCE
MWHRWTMO�
STONEWOOD DESION
cm. P—c�
M i
C�
�70
(D
cn
00
0, 0
>
r)
-A
-Z
SCALE IN FEET
,01' - EXIST14G SPOT ELEVATION,
X(998 O)� PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE
COH - CANTILEVERED OVERHANG
GFE - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
TFE - TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION
LFE LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION
PARAGE]
HOUSE
N '24'E'
734,10
DRtVE
HARDCOVER
EXISTING
HOUSE � 2810 SF
GARAGE - 600 SF (TO RE -MAN)
DECK = 755 SF
DRIVE 9185 SF (TO LOT LINE)
TOTAL =12360 SF / 15.6%
PROPOSED
HOUSE - 3977 SF
PORCH � 576 5F
TERRA CE 1350 SF
COURrYD 2880 SF
DRIVE 3675 SF
TOTAL 14458 5F / 16,JX
EXIST#VG TO REMAN AND
)�ROPOSED � 15056 sr / 19,OX
onu
PROPOSED ELEVA TONS
GARAGE FLOOR� 96aO
MA#V FlOOr � 969-0
W OF FOUNDATION � 966J(VARIES)
LOWES7" FLOOR � 958.4.3
N
0 30
60 00
SCALE IN FEET
,01' - EXIST14G SPOT ELEVATION,
X(998 O)� PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE
COH - CANTILEVERED OVERHANG
GFE - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
TFE - TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION
LFE LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION
PARAGE]
HOUSE
N '24'E'
734,10
DRtVE
HARDCOVER
EXISTING
HOUSE � 2810 SF
GARAGE - 600 SF (TO RE -MAN)
DECK = 755 SF
DRIVE 9185 SF (TO LOT LINE)
TOTAL =12360 SF / 15.6%
PROPOSED
HOUSE - 3977 SF
PORCH � 576 5F
TERRA CE 1350 SF
COURrYD 2880 SF
DRIVE 3675 SF
TOTAL 14458 5F / 16,JX
EXIST#VG TO REMAN AND
)�ROPOSED � 15056 sr / 19,OX
onu
PROPOSED ELEVA TONS
GARAGE FLOOR� 96aO
MA#V FlOOr � 969-0
W OF FOUNDATION � 966J(VARIES)
LOWES7" FLOOR � 958.4.3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION�
TRACT B. R1,S NO. 617.
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.
ADDRESS -1020 TONKAWA ROAD
PID#08-117-23-13-0014
LOT AREA = 79000 SF / 1ZI AC
X 25% � 19750 SF HC ALLOWED
SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER
TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS
VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY
I
V I
�Al r
Nr 4'-
V,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION�
TRACT B. R1,S NO. 617.
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.
ADDRESS -1020 TONKAWA ROAD
PID#08-117-23-13-0014
LOT AREA = 79000 SF / 1ZI AC
X 25% � 19750 SF HC ALLOWED
SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER
TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION
VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND
ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS
VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY
N
V
Nk
1
1020
TONKAWA
RESIDENCE
Concept Drawings
06 MARCH 2017
Ir
0 PROPOSED STRUCTURE COVERAGE
IHOUSE - 2,711 Sl
OVERHANG BEYOND 2'-0" - 150 SF
UP PER TERRACE - 324 SF
EXISTING GARAGE - 636 SF
TOTAL - 3 823 SF
ALLOWED - 11,850
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
HOUSE - 2,713 SF
OVERHANG BEYOND 2'-0" - 150 SF
COURTYARD - 3, 0 30 SF
LOWER TERRACE - Ij 49 SF
UPPER TERRACE - 324 SF
DRIVEWAY ' 6,063 SF
EXISTING GARAGE - 636 SF
NEW DRIVE TO EXISTING GARAGE - 205 SF
EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN - 1635 SF (EXCLUDABLE)
TOTAL - 15,905 SF
NET PROPOSED - 14,270 SF
ALLOWED - 19,750
eSKucHe
D E 5 1 G IN
C.pyHght 2016
Alk
1
1020
TONKAWA
RESIDENCE
Concept Drawings
06 MARCH 2017
Ir
0 PROPOSED STRUCTURE COVERAGE
IHOUSE - 2,711 Sl
OVERHANG BEYOND 2'-0" - 150 SF
UP PER TERRACE - 324 SF
EXISTING GARAGE - 636 SF
TOTAL - 3 823 SF
ALLOWED - 11,850
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
HOUSE - 2,713 SF
OVERHANG BEYOND 2'-0" - 150 SF
COURTYARD - 3, 0 30 SF
LOWER TERRACE - Ij 49 SF
UPPER TERRACE - 324 SF
DRIVEWAY ' 6,063 SF
EXISTING GARAGE - 636 SF
NEW DRIVE TO EXISTING GARAGE - 205 SF
EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN - 1635 SF (EXCLUDABLE)
TOTAL - 15,905 SF
NET PROPOSED - 14,270 SF
ALLOWED - 19,750
eSKucHe
D E 5 1 G IN
C.pyHght 2016
D2C
ilh
D2C
9w
1020
TONKAWA
RESIDENCE
Concept Drawings
06 MARCH 2017
eSKUCHe
D E 5 1 G N
Copyright 2016
1020
TONKAWA
EXISTING SPRUCE
PROPOSED
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
Concept Drawings
EXISTING HOME 06 MARCH 2017
EXISTING SPRUCE
eSKucHe
D E. S I G IN
Copyright 2016
D 2 c
11
Aft'sam PrAm m IrAshm m WAM
Date Application Received: 02/22/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 03/06/17
60 -Day Review Period Expires: 05/05/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner YYIGG
Date: 20 March 2017
Subject: #17-3916, Peter Eskuche o/b/o Forrest Burke, 1020 Tonkawa Road,
Variances
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for
a new home. Because setback variances are requested and the lot width is substandard, a lot
width variance is also required.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
Background
The new owner is planning to redevelop the subject property. They wish to construct the
replacement residence in a similar location as the existing home. In order to do so they are
requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct the home slightly ahead of the
existing and relatively in line with a majority of the neighboring homes on this shoreline. The
home to the north, which determines the subject property's setback, is situated farther back
from the lake than the majority of the neighboring homes.
The subject property has approximately 100 feet of width where 140 feet is required. Because
the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance, the lot width variance cannot
be administratively approved according to Section 78-72.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-330 - Setbacks:
LR -1B
Required Proposed
Rear
50' +350'
North Side
10, 19,
South Side
10, 12'
Lakeshore
75' 188,
Average Lakeshore
Portions of the home encroach 30 feet lakeward of the
average lakeshore setback line; the elevated terrace
encroaches as much as 40 feet.
FILE # 17-3916
20 March 2017
Page 2 of 5
Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width:
LR -1B Lot Area Lot Width
Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140
Actual 79,000 s.f. (1.8 acre) =100 @ 75' /=100' @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Cover
Total Lot Area
Total Structural Coverage
79,000 s.f. (1.8 acre)
Allowed: 11,850 s.f. (15%)
Proposed: 5,153 s.f. (6.5%)
Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Total Area in
Overlay District
Allowed Hardcover
Proposed Hardcover
Tier
Zone
19,750 s.f.
15,358 s.f.
300 s.f.
Tier 1
79,000 s.f.
(25%)
(19.4%)
w/in 75'
1
1
1
(existing)
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Sec. 78-330
Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet
the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard
properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped
without variances if specific standards are met; such as:
1. All setback requirements can be met.
2. A Type I 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
25 percent of the entire lot area.
4. All other zoning district standards can be met.
The applicant's request for an average setback variance results in the property's inability to
conform to #1 above. Therefore, a width variance is also required in order to redevelop the
property.
Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
The applicant is proposing to construct a new home with lakeside terrace on the property. The
existing home improvements are as much as 11 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback
line. The new home is proposed to encroach approximately 30 feet lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback line and the new elevated terrace is shown with as much as a 40 foot
encroachment lakeward of the line.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
FILE # 17-3916
20 March 2017
Page 3 of 5
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approvalfor 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
lot width variance requested is consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance.
The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance
as the most adjacent neighbor sits at a higher elevation and their lake views will not
be impacted by the new home.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a
permit for construction of a 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 request to permit construction of
portions of the proposed home lakeward of the average lakeshore setback
appears to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties have stated
that they are not adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography
separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The sub -standard size of the Property was not the result of actions 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 severe average
lakeshore setback applied to the Property; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lot width
variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not appear
that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit portions of
the new home and elevated terrace 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
FILE # 17-3916
20 March 2017
Page 4 of 5
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 replacement residence
is an allowed use in the 1_11-113 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 conforming lot area, yet substandard
lot width of the property is not uncommon in the surrounding neighborhood. The
extreme setback of the northerly home is not in character with the immediate
neighborhood.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The majority of the homes both to the north and south of the
Property are closer in proximity to the lake and are more consistently in line with each
other. The home on the lot directly to the north is set back further than the other
immediately adjacent homes.
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 size of the Property; the
topography and location of the adjacent home to the north create practical difficulties
affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a
convenience to the owners.
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 lot area and lot width
variance as well as the average lakeshore setback variance requests.
FILE # 17-3916
20 March 2017
Page 5 of 5
Engineer Comments
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided comments to the applicant; attached as
Exhibit G.
Public Comments
The neighbor comments received are supportive of the project and are attached as Exhibit 1.
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 of the variances.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C.
Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D.
Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E.
Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F.
Site Photos - Staff
Exhibit G.
City Engineer Memo
Exhibit H.
Aerial Photos - Staff
Exhibit /.
Neighbor Comments
Exhibit J.
Property Owners List
Exhibit K.
Plat Map
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
10. 17-3916 PETER ESKUCHE ON BEHALF OF FORREST BURKE, 1020 TONKAWA ROAD,
VARIANCES, 8:53 P.M. — 9:03 P.M.
Peter Eskuche, Applicant, and Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Development, were present.
Curtis stated the owner is planning to redevelop the property and would like to construct a new home with a lakeside
terrace. The existing home improvements will encroach as much as I I feet lakeward of the average setback line. The
new home is proposed to encroach approximately 30 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and the new
elevated terrace is shown with as much as a 40 -foot encroachment toward the lake.
The home on the north side sits higher than the applicant's property and is situated further back from the lake than the
majority of the neighboring homes along the shoreline. The lot is only 100 feet in width where 140 feet is required.
Because the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance, the lot width variance cannot be
administratively approved.
Comments from the neighbors were received and are supportive of the project.
Staff finds there are practical difficulties supporting the lot area and lot width variance as well as the average
lakeshore setback variance requests. Planning Staff recommends approval.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Peter Eskuche, Applicant, stated the house is further from the lake than the homes on the other adjoining properties.
The property to the north was constructed approximately 100 feet from the lake, which makes it out of context with
the rest of the neighborhood.
Eskuche stated the red line outlines the existing home, which is quite a bit closer to the property to the north and the
lake than the proposed home. Eskuche stated they are attempting to meet the intent of the Code but that it is difficult
since the location of the home to the north is unusual.
Thiesse noted those property owners did write a letter in support of the project and the location of the proposed home.
Thiesse asked if there will be a new driveway.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Eskuche indicated there will be.
Gustafson noted it is currently a shared driveway with the property to the north.
Thiesse asked whether that neighbor will be able to use the old driveway.
Gustafson stated there is no plan to move the driveway at this point and it is to be determined.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission would approve this if the neighbor to the north said they were not
supportive of it.
Thiesse stated the intent of the ordinance is to protect the person's lakeshore views and they have given that right
away so it is a nonissue. V
.., 4VW
Schoenzeit stated if they had not agreed to this project, the discussion tonight would be different.
Thiesse agreed the discussion would be different.
Schoenzeit commented it is important that the Planning Commission is respectful when there is a sightline change and
take the neighbors' comments into consideration.
Leskinen noted the applicants are replacing the existing home and that they have pulled it back from the lake.
Thiesse pointed out the applicants are also proposing an elevated deck. Thiesse stated the letter from the neighbor
made the sightlines a nonfactor for him.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated the fact that the neighbor is okay with the project was a deciding factor for him.
Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3916, Peter Eskuche on
behalf of Forrest Burke, 1020 Tonkawa Road, granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and a lot
width variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 19
Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3919, Amir & Ashley Mehbod, 2625 North Shore Drive,
Variance — Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department
Planner Section: Report
Purpose. This application is regarding setback and hardcover variances for a small addition.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on February 22'; it was
considered as complete on March 2'. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on May 1,
2017.
3. Background. The applicants are requesting a lake setback, and 75 -foot hardcover variance in
order to construct a small 8 foot by 29.5 foot addition to the home. The addition is proposed for
the northeast comer of the home, away from the lake. The addition would add 93.2 square feet of
hardcover to the 0-75' zone and be 64 feet from the lake; the existing setback of the home is 30
feet from the OffWL.
4. Planning Commission Comment. On March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0
on a motion to approve the variances conditioned upon the applicant installing plantings to screen
the addition from the lake.
Public Comment. Supportive comments from the public were received regarding this application
and were included in the Planning Commission packet.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
Application
Exhibit A.
Draft Resolution
Exhibit B.
Proposed Survey
Exhibit C.
Proposed Plans
Exhibit D.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit E.
PC Staff Report 03/20/17
References
PC Exhibits 03/20/17:
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit E.
Exhibit B.
Practical Difficulties Form
Exhibit F.
Exhibit C.
Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit G.
Exhibit D.
Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit H.
Exhibit I.
Exhibit J
Prepared By: VY)GG
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Neighbor Comments
Site Photos
Aerial Photos
Property Owners List
Plat Map
Approved By: NZ
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-1279 & 78-1680
FILE NO. 17-3919
WHEREAS, Amir A. Mehbod and Ashely K. Mehbod, a married couple (hereinafter
the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 2625 North Shore Drive and legally
described as:
Parcel 1:
That part of Government Lots 4 and 5, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, described as
commencing at the North Quarter corner of said section; thence on a bearing of South (the
North line of the Northeast Quarter of said section being assumed to have a bearing of North
88 degrees 51 minutes West for purposes of this description) a distance of 2878.55 feet;
thence South 70 degrees 37 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 838.42 feet; thence South
67 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 266.25 feet; thence South 59 degrees 5
minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 300 feet to the point of beginning of the property being
described; thence continuing South 59 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of
159.15 feet; thence South 26 degrees 36 minutes West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka;
thence Northwesterly along said shore to its intersection with a line drawn South 32 degrees
16 minutes 30 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 32 degrees 16 minutes
30 seconds East to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2:
That part of Government Lot 4, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows:
Commencing at the North Quarter of said section; thence on a bearing of South (the North
line of the Northeast Quarter of said section being assumed to have a bearing of North 88
degrees 51 minutes West for the purposes of this description) a distance of 2878.55 feet;
thence South 70 degrees 37 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 838.42 feet; thence South
67 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 266.25 feet to "Point A", said Point A,
being the point of beginning of the property being described, and also the point of beginning
of "Line A"; thence South 32 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West along said Line A to a
point on the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and said Line A there ending; thence Southeasterly
along said shore to a point 300 feet Southeasterly from said Line A, said 300 feet being
measured on a bearing of South 59 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East from said Line A;
thence North 32 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 370 feet to an intersection
with a line drawn South 59 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East from said Point A; thence
North 59 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West to said Point A the point of beginning, except
that part of said above-described property lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
Commencing at said Point A; thence South 59 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East a
distance of 246.74 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 34
degrees 54 minutes 30 seconds West to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there ending.
Subject to a mutual easement for common driveway over the southeasterly 7% feet of the
northeasterly 286.81 feet of the above described tract as shown by deed recorded in CR Book
1021 of Deeds, page 276, Doc. No 1146365; (as to Parcel 1).
Subject to a flowage easement set forth in decree in which a certified copy is of record in CR
Book 85 of Miscellaneous Records, page 301, Doc. No. 318546; (as to Parcels 1 and 2).
(hereinafter the "Property");
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017 the Applicants have made application to the
City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow an addition
to the existing home 64 feet from the lake where a 75 foot setback is required; and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2017 the Applicants have made application to the
City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1680 to permit an
additional 93.2 square feet of hardcover within the 75 -foot lake setback where no hardcover is
permitted and 3,710 square feet currently exist in conjunction with the proposed addition; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, after published and mailed notice in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity
to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variances; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2017, 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 #17-3919. 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 -1A One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 1.9 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 267 feet at the
ordinary high water level and 258 feet at the 75 -foot 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 variance[s]:
a. Lake Setback Variance
b. Variance for Hardcover within the 75 -foot Setback
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
OW& ANALYSIS:
1 . "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The proposed addition to the home is reasonable and a
minimal encroachment. The variances are in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance.
2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The requested variances are in line with the residential goals within
the comprehensive plan.
3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties,' as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The variance requests are residential in nature and are reasonable considering the
unique nature of the Property having a large wetland at the rear nudging the
development closer to the lake.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
b. The plight of the landowneris due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The location of the existing home on the Property was not created by the owners.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. "
The visual impacts resulting from the addition will not alter the character of the
neighborhood. Rather, the home will appear to be aesthetically consistent with the
adjacent neighbors as the majority of the neighboring homes are situated within
the 75 -foot setback area.
4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78." This condition is not applicable.
6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located." This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residence is an allowed use in
the LR -1A 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 existing home location and orientation on
Property is unique to the Property. Due to the nature of the wetlands on the properties
along this portion of North Shore Drive the developed homes are nearer to the lake than
the 75 -foot setback; the application of the 75 -foot setback requirement causes a
practical difficulty. The home and the proposed addition are located landward of the
average lakeshore setback line.
9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located." The home location within the 75 -foot setback is relatively unique in this
City, although not in the immediate neighborhood. The application of the lake setback
requirement virtually eliminates the ability to expand or improve the home without a
variance, creating a practical difficulty.
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." Granting the variance to construct the addition
is necessary to increase functionality within the home; as well as for the preservation of
the wide, open space between the Property and the neighbor to the east.
11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The proposed project
will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public.
12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the variance will resolve and
alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty caused by the application of the lake setback
as applied to 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 an addition to the
existing home 64 feet from the lake where a 75 foot setback is required; and a variance to Orono
Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1680 to permit an additional 93.2 square feet of hardcover
within the 75 -foot lake setback where no hardcover is permitted and 3,710 square feet currently
exist in conjunction with the proposed addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the survey dated February 13, 2017 and building plans
submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as
Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes
may require further Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. 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 (April 10, 2018).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall
constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
4. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this
resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 1 01h day of April, 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
. . . . . . . . ...
41
9�"
041
00
.0
IY
sim,
Ri
hp
V/AMLW-J-bNh
0�
z
w
LLI
011 C)
z
w LLI
F-
z
z
r7:
0
C)
0
F-
0
V)
z -1
0 :R
Z
z 0-
0
z
C -L
L"
z
z
LLI
w
m
0 LLJ
LLI
of
LJ
LLJ
x
D
0 Ld
L (n
I
V) v!
LL
Z
Ld
M:
V)
LL]
F-
LLJ
CL U)
Q
ow
o o
z �r
LLI ui
0 0
F-
o
z
LLI
0
Z ZD
EE !2
< 0
Ld LLI
m 0
UJ
�r
z
0
C)
0 0
C)
Ix
W
eV
C"
Al
'Ivy
N
+0
"31
lb
10
z
z
Q
(if
IL
C�
LL
ci 0
(L C")
LL
-z' Or
ci d ci
(1) (A
LO
N C14
M
N (A CI4
N
Z (L U) C14 F2
/W. 3 F- N LLJ
L� - 0�
Ld <
of 11 11 : F
o d L'- 11 o d
P LLJ >- �= V)
U- LL
LLJ ci. <
> LLJ
0 > C14 0�
L>j
LO 0 00 Of -i
of Fl-�o < LO 0
< - - 3r L) C)
V)
0
0
0
CL
4)
q)
0
-0
4)
q,
N
0
DeId: 'Ib, -y 13� M7
Md... EH919 .1 Mim"IMI. LUE
b,,
Ll.m N. 20281
s4s .4edjmk
"N,
z4_
IN
' *"Nk'
A. -
"'e
-4
M
H.-
H�
A
M
0
;o <
0
FIDLJ E 3.U54 SQ. Fl
WAGE 1,07 HS. FT.
ERVININD1 DRI -AY - 7.222 SO. m
CON REM WALK. PATIO
AN. -IS - 1,.I HE. Fl
TOTAL LOT -E - lZSH5 SOL Fl. OR 15 PERCENT
LEGEND
FENCE
_7
HOUSE = 3.589 HQ F DOOMS FOUND IRON MONUMENT
WAGE 1.07 SO. PT.
BETUMNO�S DRI—Y - 7.222 SQ. FT. 0 DOOMS SET PR NAIL
GONCREM. WALK. PATIO 0 DOOMS HENNEPIN COJNTY SECTION CORNER MONUMENT
AND STEPS = 1.2� Stl Ff. (HEARING) BEARING PER TORRIENS CERTIFICATE DESURIPTION
TOTAL LOT COVERAGIL 13.130 W. F� OR 15.2 PFROUNT
C) DECIDUMS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
OM
TI, htl de- md bIIrE,gI bmml th, HmIWII Cwty C-dheo Spt-.
OH, 1. th. bW -Id III pip. I., lh. .-l- 0 th,
EF-tt. 931a
ey RE, Wy 13 he ft. HN, mmAH (hplem! I d.eIg)
I;- '
I TI. ,,, e tiI pmp" dmeIHdl h- I- nOM he I, JIWD mlHu, Ight-Ify N 0.950 111— he
lt,17, aty IF M. I.It I .-W LH -1 A (OH. F.Ily _ F.ImItbi) md I,—
th, b,lldl,a Iebm, km,mb, Rem! IIIII Me th. p,tpNoy I, , �m .1 -1, 1 thr
tv, - OR t. -Ify thIt",= 7.H TI. .- d...
IEId Mpd=%
.0h III Ifty -9
_g` -"bmE (_ M)"I'l-9
L.k, - 75 ft.
I- - SO I. MdRmm FEglImm" Of UmmOtI, LUC
I A.ANDERSON
1* . 30 It. 13605 1 It A- NmIh
S. N, tffl, -k b, 01 MEPP N III ME w y P m,fy I. IN,d hadelm, I, th, If my 7, MN .11
Y lool ;ENGINEERING ;;I
. -I.- . Apo w 763-4124000 K) 76�124090 g)
sum IN FEET —.-- - -H-E-- ---
N
JOL E
lkjHtEY MEH13C,F)
"if
SURVEY FOR
PROPERIX ADDRESS H25 RIel H- HE..
I FGAL DIESCIRS"FIGN:
P71 I:
n mt LIt. . -1 5, SmUm 9. --1, 117. R..ge 23, dIm-11ml It th, N h Wmt� -1 e IdId 'Iel-
e., If IM I
'dI* I* ", I I m tI h- I b-9 f NIeh ER1 111— 51
I'. j..�hotm� I 2876.55 �- th-, S=h57UIg.7,:,HIEF�=.iHI = Emt I dle.I.. If
.S.. -I thmI. H.dh 67 d.y 19 IN-. 23 ...d EH,f I I—. If 266,2 5 30 I..d.
51
EISt I dtemm f PII, If brd��g th. Wy III dl�. thmll 1- .11HI 30 HM,I dh
he " I
MR=SI,dh
d�
ISIAS th-. I -t. Afte t, th. _;F=
t' 1h I.I.I.em MRI -th "' th... 16
I HI. d - -th 32 dI,,Nm, 16 III..ta 30 dI � III, plibt If bIgh.lIT.
30 mm- E-t t. th. IlHA IF b.gIrEII,.
2
"ii A,
P.�.l
n W If L.t 4. SmtI,. 9. TIm,d,lp V7. Rmg. 23. dlemftml .. FdR.. C.-ImIg It III NP,th If -Il
tF.E. . 1 -9 If SI,dh It I N,,tI lh. If N,Nh.A -e, If H�ld CII beIg -m! tI F- I If N.,th N d,g... IF
31 Emd dle.l... .1
�1_t� Ibe h, P.M.. 0 th. m.,lPtim,) , III— If 281&55 bmt: thmm. SPUth 70 d.glll �7 ftft I
858 � �. t_ H�th 67 111— 1. h.t. 23 Ete I I 'It A d PIIItbA,' b.9 ti,. PIIHI If
"'o "h d:�t 1. I-g
bI,RMH, If th. �Ily -9 dmHIbNAL dHd .1. 11"t I b"I", g
ld UH, Al " ptt 3EFG he
E.Eg;
Illd UH. A . PeIt I. th. h- If �. NHH-tm E. d . tIm_ HP.
1 05 :.
SoIthmemly III ..Id Uh, A. IF,t SIDES he It"" SO --d. E.. A,
elHlEq
Z t , . 1
Nmth 31 do". . . 16 -1- 30 dileon It_ In eth I IFE, d. 1-.t.hI.11 2K)
t th.
.... Id .ld P- A, I,— I— 5D ftg,.I 05 -.t.. SH t. mid P.nl PA, U.
FEE,
I III! d -,Ib Ild ht A; thm,I, S,,th IS d.g,,,, 5 ht.
dd =E -et 1 0 M "M C""`Ztgt.td:
'tUNM*l_tt:Ely If ' "T"
p,p,,t " III IF tIm.. Stb 34 &.. S4 3D mh
... md. -t I Md'"" I. I. b.ng
%A W thP II- If Lm. MIFE.eml,. nd E,m, =g.
t,mt
H,I)Id f, I mt ft, --m -y I- th. ,9mly 7 1/2 he If thI I.,thIlemy -B1 III, If th. m� &Imb�d
IFIm by d..d ..mdmI 1. Elt 1.1 If PPI- -. G- -- 11-H% PI'm ')-
tP I E.mN ... III— .-d Im, h M GH ft �f MIm.P..... N.
3).�t
-.1. 1 md 2)
CISHIR'Ec"Ift
d
I.-, -Hy'- thl. -d by d- -Y t�.%;,M
*It I mn I d. y Lmd H=yj th. Z"e th. I hINIed,
DeId: 'Ib, -y 13� M7
Md... EH919 .1 Mim"IMI. LUE
b,,
Ll.m N. 20281
s4s .4edjmk
"N,
z4_
IN
' *"Nk'
A. -
"'e
-4
M
H.-
H�
A
M
0
;o <
0
FIDLJ E 3.U54 SQ. Fl
WAGE 1,07 HS. FT.
ERVININD1 DRI -AY - 7.222 SO. m
CON REM WALK. PATIO
AN. -IS - 1,.I HE. Fl
TOTAL LOT -E - lZSH5 SOL Fl. OR 15 PERCENT
LEGEND
FENCE
_7
HOUSE = 3.589 HQ F DOOMS FOUND IRON MONUMENT
WAGE 1.07 SO. PT.
BETUMNO�S DRI—Y - 7.222 SQ. FT. 0 DOOMS SET PR NAIL
GONCREM. WALK. PATIO 0 DOOMS HENNEPIN COJNTY SECTION CORNER MONUMENT
AND STEPS = 1.2� Stl Ff. (HEARING) BEARING PER TORRIENS CERTIFICATE DESURIPTION
TOTAL LOT COVERAGIL 13.130 W. F� OR 15.2 PFROUNT
C) DECIDUMS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
OM
TI, htl de- md bIIrE,gI bmml th, HmIWII Cwty C-dheo Spt-.
OH, 1. th. bW -Id III pip. I., lh. .-l- 0 th,
EF-tt. 931a
ey RE, Wy 13 he ft. HN, mmAH (hplem! I d.eIg)
I;- '
I TI. ,,, e tiI pmp" dmeIHdl h- I- nOM he I, JIWD mlHu, Ight-Ify N 0.950 111— he
lt,17, aty IF M. I.It I .-W LH -1 A (OH. F.Ily _ F.ImItbi) md I,—
th, b,lldl,a Iebm, km,mb, Rem! IIIII Me th. p,tpNoy I, , �m .1 -1, 1 thr
tv, - OR t. -Ify thIt",= 7.H TI. .- d...
IEId Mpd=%
.0h III Ifty -9
_g` -"bmE (_ M)"I'l-9
L.k, - 75 ft.
I- - SO I. MdRmm FEglImm" Of UmmOtI, LUC
I A.ANDERSON
1* . 30 It. 13605 1 It A- NmIh
S. N, tffl, -k b, 01 MEPP N III ME w y P m,fy I. IN,d hadelm, I, th, If my 7, MN .11
Y lool ;ENGINEERING ;;I
. -I.- . Apo w 763-4124000 K) 76�124090 g)
sum IN FEET —.-- - -H-E-- ---
j — 0
ji zs z
> C'j 0
a:
75 :\J 0
U -
Li 0
L.j
'I -----WMXrTW t- 6 L' I " �, i,
co
Lu
z
0
Lu
X�
i2
0
z
0.
E -1
ZZ
A
1�z
de
A:)A5
1-10
14�j AD be
It, . OP
A:�; IN. . - . . . ..
IL /4,e
-Z�
/P
89
/4
AR
4b
/cl5b
4,3
qs
FE14C0 14
FENCE END 0.5 FEET
NORTHWEST OF PROPERTY LINE ---
A A, -Z)
BENCHMARK — TOP OF
CAPPED PIPE 932.82 FEET -
/FLAGSTONE \%
FIRE PIT AD
A,)
#
V
A), 30
S
S PS
v
L'0%,
0AN11 ....
ARDCOVER AREAS
5,354 SQ. FT. X932.3
1,078 SQ. FT.
DRIVEWAY 7,222 SQ. FT.
X
WALK, PATIO
1,241 SQ. FT.
X931.
, A�
kl� .; 9 , I
PIP,
COVERAGE 12,895 SQ. FT. OR 15 PERCENT 0.
HARDCOVER AREAS
;,589 SQ. FT.
1,078 SQ. FT.
DRIVEWAY = 7,222 SQ. FT.
WALK, PATIO
= 1,241 SQ, FT.
COVERAGE = 13,130 SQ. FT- OR 15.2 PERCENT
-V4, r� —4e& I
46' Af 12',DEC DIJOUS6
p DUO,�S
, .. f, 16, SPRUC
X935 9
J LEGEND
"o 1. 0, 1
;�6 93 2 -PINE
02
cp-
A o SPRUCE
r7Y 14" DECIDUOUS
X9 0" 81 2"PINE
FENCE
4" DECIDUOUS
e horizontal datum and bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System.
964.41 PINE
/cv 2"PINE
X934.2
Z- CO 0
BIR3r
2"PINE
60" CO
I 5'�T
-2"PINE
X93&
2"PINE
14" DECIDUOUS
SPRUCE
0 DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT
0 DENOTES SET PK NAIL
0 DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY SECTION
(BEARING) BEARING PER TORRENS CERTIFICATE
DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
ht�(;EIVED
jo.-. z
Z
N�- �-T FEB 2 Z011 U� .19
9 % U8
zo
r; Rig;[
a E m. t A F=
szw,�.11 -Z 0 CITY OF ORONO 'd
z 0
=0 z z W�
mc U) Ir
R. -a 31 :23 19 9 121-:"5 1 j 1% it Uj
N, 0 Z -
a :Z5 z cd
EA j.- LLI
s W Z
4, z
OE a
LU 0
IL W
E "'s "s Z
E
.19 /Q1 "Y
E
0 LLI
0 a a #
2 -,9 1 i
ti Z Lu
a *aA as— S 1114 -1 1 �- * (t
/,
L
.5 J_
zo .9,>
L5
S I/ '.
4
-9]a 2 K ly 4i_�
-16
g
.3 Olfl 2
f �V
E-
-A
Z. 51 - � All
5 '. - '10;
-.1ra'S r.
:2 VE 121 H S-_
E 17
-A g- -W E
jZ,v ol
, ik
Ile
10
r
fp's
o
E. j 5-
E
, 6,m%
E . .-:: , . - - g " &
Ea
ol
5 q
Am!. iG -6 5 1-:9 1 29
2 .6
m 5 E200_0 E
1E E m Aa 8 A fa MR
ri
4t,
jj R
0
10
P 'L�A
_E _O 66
let!
(L
.5 r:
!9 Jill
f
Fi 5
9
Z.
me N Y)
E
r:
L, H Z- zi-s
, X�le,
It p
:E N 1.
ft 5; . E
Ki g 0
n
z11 A
w
c
Z�
I
4L
I8—'oAbVfU2ll L— — __J.T :.? " "'_
.7
_IFF
L
. . ....... .
L EAST ELEVATION
SCALE, %' = V- W I
... ..... LL
r --T I
LT
L_ - -Aw!!- k _. - '.3
# 3 9 10,
FEB 2 ZU j;'
CITY OF ORONO
MEH50D REMWE DATE, 1 JAMIS
MAIN FLOOR PLAN NORTH ELEVATION 263 NORTH SHORE DR, WAYZATA, MN 020017
SCALE, Y.' = V- tr ScAll, TURNING LEAF DESIGN CO. (763yA4em
Ef=E
12DD KINUVIEW LN K PLYMMM, MN 55447 PAGE: I ofi
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
12. 17-3919 AMIR AND ASHLEY MEHBOD, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 9:24 P.M. —
9:30 P.M.
Andy Anderson and Kareem Radom were present on behalf of the applicants.
Curtis stated the applicant's home was initially constructed in the 1920s and has been remodeled over the years. The
existing home is located 30 feet from the lake. The applicants are requesting a lake setback variance in order to
construct a small 8' x 29.5' addition to the home 64 feet from the ordinary high water level. It would add 93.2 square
feet of hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. The hardcover property calculation is below 25 percent. The majority of the
home is within the 75 -foot setback accounting for 3,700 square feet or 4.3 percent of the site's hardcover.
Both of the adjacent neighbors are aware of the request and the property owner to the east has provided additional
supportive comments that were included in the Planning Commission's packet.
Staff finds the practical difficulties inherent to the existing home's location and its current proximity to the lake
support the requested variances. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for the proposed
addition with the condition that the Planning Commission should consider recommending plantings to screen the
addition from the lake.
Thiesse asked how old the survey Nis. &4�6%
Kareem Radom stated to his recollection the survey was done in 2015.
Andy Anderson, Builder, stated the property owners are currently out of town. Anderson indicated they wanted the
addition to look authentic instead of a little knob off of the side. In order to do that, the addition ended up
encroaching into the lakeside slightly. Anderson noted the addition is not very visible Erom the lake, but in order to
keep the addition consistent with the original roofline, it had to be situated this way.
Thiesse noted one of Staff s recommendations was screening and asked if that is reasonable.
Curtis stated the existing vegetation on the east side of the home will be removed because the addition will be built in
its place. As a result, Staff is recommending the addition be screened from the lake.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Anderson stated that is reasonable.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
Thiesse commented the application seems to be pretty straight forward.
Landgraver stated given the distance between the homes, he is okay with the request.
Leskinen moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3919, Ashley and Amir
Mehbod, 2625 North Shore Drive, granting of lake setback and 75 -foot hardcover variances, subject to Staff's
recommendation for screening. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
I
L-
Date Application Received: 02/22/17
Date Application Considered as Complete: 03/02/17
60 -Day Review Period Expires: 05/01/17
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner YYIGG
Date: 20 March 2017
Subject: #17-3919, Ashley & Amir Mehbod, 2625 North Shore Drive,
Variance
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The applicants are requesting lake setback and 75' hardcover variances
in order to construct a small addition to their existing home.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
Background
The applicants' home was initially built in the 1920's; it has been remodeled over the years.
They are requesting a lake setback variance in order to construct a small 8 foot by 29.5 foot
addition to the home to accommodate improvements to existing bedrooms and bathroom area
on the east side of the home. The addition is proposed for the northeast corner of the home,
away from the lake. The addition would add 93.2 square feet of hardcover to the 0-75' zone
and be 64 feet from the lake; the existing setback of the home is 30 feet from the OHWL.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-305 - Setbacks:
LR -1A
Required
Existing
Proposed
Rear/Street
50'
+250'
No change
East Side
30'
54'
46' (addition)
West Side
30'
110' (house)
No change
Wetland
35'
130' (house)
135' (addition)
Lakeshore
75'
30' (house)
64' (addition)
Average Lakeshore
The existing home conforms to the average lakeshore setback as
both adjacent homes are situated closer to the lake than the
applicants' home.
Section 78-305 - Lot Area/Width:
LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200'
Actual 85,950 s.f. (1.9 acres) 258' @ 75'/ 267'@ OHWL
FILE # 17-3919
20 Mar 2017
Page 2 of 5
Section 78-1403- Structural Cover
Total Lot Area
Total Structural Coverage
85,950 s.f. (1.9 acres)
Allowed: 12,892 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 4,432 s.f. (5.1%)
in Zone
Proposed: 4,667 s.f. (5.4%)
Note: Structural Coverage regulation was amended by the City Council on March 13, 2017,
raising the limit to 20% of the lot area, and adjusting what is calculated.
Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Total Area
Allowed
Overlay District
in Zone
Hardcover
Existing Hardcover
Proposed Hardcover
Tier
Tier 1
85,950 s.f.
21,487 s.f.
12,895 s.f.
3,710 s.f.
�
13, 130)s.f.
� 3,803 s.f.
(25 %)
(15%)
w/in 75'
(15.2%
w/in 75'
Applicable Regulations:
Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-305)
Nearly the entire home is situated within 75 -feet of the OHWL of the lake. The home is as close
as 30 feet to the lake; the proposed addition to the home is set back 64 feet from the OHWL.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1
The property hardcover calculation is below the permitted 25% level. The majority of the
existing home (plus some patios and driveway hardcover) is within the 75 -foot setback
accounting for 3,710 square feet or 4.3 % of the site's hardcover. The addition will add 93.2
square feet of hardcover within the 75 -foot setback.
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 offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approvalfor 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:
FILE # 17-3919
20 Mar 2017
Page 3 of 5
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
proposed addition to the home is reasonable and a minimal encroachment. The
variances are in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested variance is in line
with the residential goals within 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 variance request is residential in nature
and are reasonable considering the unique nature of the Property having a large
wetland at the rear nudging the development closer to the lake.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The location of the existing home on the Property was not created by the
owners; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual
impacts resulting from the addition will not alter the character of the
neighborhood. Rather, the home will appear to be aesthetically consistent with
the adjacent neighbors as the majority of the neighboring homes are situated
within the 75 -foot setback area.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residence is an allowed use in
the LR -1A 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 existing home location and orientation
on Property is unique to the Property. Due to the nature of the wetlands on the
properties along this portion of North Shore Drive the developed homes are nearer to
the lake than the 75 -foot setback; the application of the 75 -foot setback requirement
causes a practical difficulty. The home and the proposed addition are located landward
of the average lakeshore setback line.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The home location within the 75-foopt setback is relatively unique
in this City, although not in the immediate neighborhood. The application of the lake
setback requirement virtually eliminates the ability to expand or improve the home
without a variance, creating a practical difficulty.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the variance to construct the
addition is necessary to increase functionality within the home; as well as for the
FILE # 17-3919
20 Mar 2017
Page 4 of 5
preservation of the wide, open space between the subject property and the neighbor
to the east.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed
project will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Granting of the variance will resolve and
alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty caused by the application of the lake
setback as applied to 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
Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
The applicants' home was originally constructed nearly 100 years ago, since that time
improvements have been made to the property. The large wetland on both sides of North Shore
Drive, situated between the home and the lake likely pushed the applicants' home location, as
well as the two adjacent homes, toward the lake at a time when maintaining a 75 -foot separation
from the lake was unheard of.
Staff finds the practical difficulties inherent to the existing home's location and its current
proximity to the lake may support the requested variances. The applicants' proposal, while
encroaching into the lake setback, may be reasonable considering the desire to perpetuate the
open space between the subject property and the neighbor to the east. The additional living space
could be added to the home in a conforming manner however the open space between homes
would be reduced by 15-20 feet; the existing trees and the open space currently serve as a buffer.
Engineer Comments
The City's engineer will conduct a thorough review at the time of the building permit.
Public Comments
Both of the adjacent neighbors are aware of the variance request; the property owner to the east,
Jeff Andrade, has provided additional supportive comments. His comments are attached as
Exhibit F.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
FILE # 17-3919
20 Mar 2017
Page 5 of 5
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 of the requested variances for the proposed addition with
the condition that the planning commission should consider recommending plantings to screen
the addition from the lake.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C.
Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D.
Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E.
Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F.
Neighbor Comments
Exhibit G.
Site Photos
Exhibit H.
Aerial Photos
Exhibit 1.
Property Owners List
Exhibit J.
Plat Map
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 20 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: #17-3920 City of Orono Text Amendment: Surveys and site plans
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to amend city ordinances pertaining to surveys and site
plans, and the review process for these.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. As this is a city initiated application, this is not applicable.
3. Background/ Summary. The site plan review process was the 12' highest ranked priority item.
Also, the Development Process Review Conunittee has suggested changes to when a survey is required.
The draft ordinance, in summary:
a. Identifies and stipulates the requirement of either a site plan or a certified site plan. A certified site
plan, required for new principal buildings, additions to principal buildings, or grading projects that
otherwise require a permit, is a site plan prepared by an individual registered by the state (surveyors,
engineers, landscape architects). Other projects, including accessory structures/ buildings, decks, minor
grading do not need to be prepared by a registered individual.
b. Clarifies when a foundation and as -built survey is required, only for principal buildings/
c. Identifies the review process for commercial and industrial projects, directing staff to make
decisions on site plan approval for permitted uses not requiring variances. Conditional Use Permits and
variances will continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council.
d. Provides for greater flexibility into what is required for a pen -nit
e. Requires property comers to be located, not necessarily the pins, the removal of which is not
uncommon.
Perhaps the biggest change in the allowance for a non -certified plan for accessory structures/
improvements. The difference in accuracy between non -certified and certified plans is apparent, and
there may be situations that a permit is issued based on inaccurate information provided by the applicant.
The reason for the shift is to address concerns regarding the expense and time associated with getting a
permit for minor projects; the risks associated with inaccurate information are relatively rare.
4. Planning Commission comment. Commissioners questioned what happens if, based on non -certified
site, the improvement is placed in the wrong location. Either the improvement be relocated, or an after the
fact variance be issued, the same as based on a certified site plan, though the likelihood of errors based on
uncertified plans may be higher. It was suggested to monitor issues and after the fact variances for issues
and revisit if necessary. The Cominission noted that the location of the structure and the property lines are
the responsibility of the owner, not the city. Other comments are noted in the minutes, attached as Exhibit
B.
5. Public Comment. No comments have been received for or against the proposed ordinance.
6. Staff Recommendation. Allowing uncertified site plans is expected to ease the permitting process,
but may also increase impacts on adjacent properties, especially in areas where the lots are small. If the
Council is comfortable with this trade-off, Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: D5R
AGENDAITEM
Motion to adopt the ordinance pertaining to surveys and site plans as drafted.
Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit C.
PC Staff Report
References
Exhibit A. PC Exhibits Applicable sections of the city code
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Bamhart Approved By: D5R
Council
Exhibit A
17-3920
ORDINANCE NO. THIRD SERIES April 10, 2017
2
3 CITY OF ORONO
4 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
5
6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
7 PERTAINING TO SURVEYS AND SITE PLANS, WHEN THEY ARE REQUIRED, AND
8 THE REVIEW PROCESS.
9
10
I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
12
13 SECTION 1. Section 86-66 (b) shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as
14 follows:
15
16 Sec. 86-66. - Required.
17 (b) Zoning permit for land alteration. A land alteration and hardcover plan shall be submitted with
18 the site plan or certified site plan suFvey er site plaR and incorporated as part of the building
19 permit approval, including the name of the individual performing the work. If no building permit is
20 necessary, a separate zoning permit application for hardcover and/or land alteration shall be
21 submitted by the individual performing the work prior to conducting any land alteration or
22 hardcover installations on a property, including grading, patios and retaining walls. The zoning
23 permit shall be reviewed and approved by the city prior to issuance.
24
25 SECTION 2. Section 86-68 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as
26 follows:
27
28 Sec. 86-68. - Permit application; information required.
29 (a) The application for a construction permit or land alteration permit shall include such
30 information as may be required by the city, which may vary between types of construction
31 projects.
32 (b) Surveys required:
33 (1) initial suFvey eF site plan. ARY buildiRg, ZE)RORg OF geReral peFRqmt appliGatiGR fE)F
34 GenStFUGtien of a new StFUGWre, . i of aR existing StFUGture or land alteration shall
35 be aGGGrnpanied by a GertifiGate Of —y — site plan drawn to SGale prepared by a person
36 Fegistered by the MinReseta Beard of ArEAite6ture, F=RgineeFiRg, Land SurveyiRg, LandsGape
37 AFGhiteGtUre, and IRterier Design. A GertifiGate of survey er site plaR shall GORfOrrn to the Gity
38 of (Drone SuFvey and Site PlaR Requirernent&-.
39 a. The GertmfoGatiOR of the plaR by a liGeRsed PFOfeSSiGRal Fnay be exempted by the Gity
40 engiReeF of the projeet meets all of the fGIIGWORg�
41 1. An existing survey aGGUrately deSGribes existing prepeFty GORditions;
42 2. Proposed prejeGt exGeeds the setbaG'( requiremeRts by
43 3. Pmpesed PF0j8Gt feetpFint dGeS Rat exE;eed 200 squaFe feet,�
44 4. Ev4deRGe that the Average Lake Shore setbaGk is met is provided, and
45 5. Information neGessary to ensure the prejeGt Genferms tG Gity Gedes aPA-
46 ordonaRees, iRGludiRg hardeover, gradiRg, and landsGapiRg requiremeRtS +'S-
47 provided.
48 (b) Site Plans required: ARy building zen geReral permit appliGatiGR fGF GORStFUGtiOR Of a
49 new structure, or expan-sin-In of —an eX�StiRg stFueture shall be aGGE)MpaRmed by eitheF a Certified
50 Site PlaR, or a Site Plan.
51 (1) Certified Site plan. A certified site plan shall be required for all new principal buildings,
52 building additions to principal buildings, and grading or filling activities requirinq permits in
53 Section 78-1286 of this code shall be accompanied by a certificate of survey or site plan
54 drawn to scale prepared by a person re_qistered by the Minnesota Board of Architecture,
55 Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Interior Design, unless
56 exempted by the City Engineer. A certified site plan shall conform to the reguirements of the
57 city.
58 (2) Site Plan. A site plan shall accompany all required permits for building, structure, and
59 land disturbance activities. The site plan shall include information as reguired by the city,
60 and must provide information necessary to ensure the promect conforms to city codes and
61 ordinances, including hardcover, grading, and landscaping requirements.
62 a. The City Administrator may require a certified site plan where the pro*ect scope,
63 location, or potential impact warrant.
64
65 (c) Foundation survey require . A foundation survey shall be submitted to the city for review
66 and approval, unless exempted by the building official, upon completion of the foundation
67 work for all principal buildings and all additions to principal buildings. The foundation survey,
68 prepared by a Minnesota Registered Land Surveyor, shall certify the lot dimensions; front,
69 side, rear, lakeshore, and wetland setbacks; and foundation elevation. A foundation survey
70 must be submitted before proceeding with framing or further construction. In lieu of a survey
71 a letter prepared by a Minnesota Registered Land Surveyor containing the same information
72 as a foundation survey may be submitted.
73 (d) As -built survey reguire . An as -built survey, prepared by a Minnesota Registered Land
74 Surveyor, shall be submitted to the city for review and approval upon the completion of all
75 principal buildings and all additions to principal buildings, unless exempted by the building
76 official. The as -built survey shall certify the final topography of the site; verify drainage
77 patterns; and provide hardcover calculations for lots in the Shoreland Overlay District. An
78 as -built survey must be approved before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. in the
79 eVeRt that weather E)F other GE)RditiGRG PFeveRt the GE)Fnp'8tmE)R of aR as built survey at the
80 torne the E;eFtifiGate of oE;E;upaRGY is requested, appliGaRt shall pmvide a GUffideRt fiRanGial
81 guarantee and establish an eSGrew agreement to ensure GOrnpletion of the as built survey.
82
83 SECTION 3. Section 78-143 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as
84 follows:
85
86 Sec. 78-143. - Review process.
87 Site plan reviews for permitted or accessory structures shall be reviewed in accordance with
88 the following:
89 (1) Go council. The Gity GE)URGil shall make a deGiSiOR OR site plans reviews W GORStFUGt a
90 buildiRg or enlarge the feetprint gf a pEo� building. PFiGr W GGURGH Gensideratuen
91 the p!aRR"Rg GOMMISSOOR shall hold a publiG heaF!Rg and make a reGemmeRdatiOR regardiRg
92 the site plan review. Notice of the public heaFiRg shall be gGVeFRed by City Code seGtion 78
93 94-5-.
94 (2) Panning and zoning Goordin City Administrator. The City Administrator or designee
95 planning and ZGRiRg Goordinator shall make a decision on site plans reviews to construct a
96 building or enlarge the footprint of a building, change the use of a building or parcel of land;
97 to modify the interior or exterior of a building or site or land feature in any manner that
98 results in a different site design or intensity of use, including the requirement for additional
99 parking or to enlarge a buildiRg by less thaR teR pereeRt Of itS gross flooF aFea. The City
100 Administrator or designee planning and . - jPnato shall have the authority to refer
101 an administrative site plan review to the city council for decision.
102
103 SECTION 4. Section 78-144 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as
104 follows:
105
106 Sec. 78-144. - Application for site plan review.
107 An application for a site plan review shall be made to the city plaRRiRg and ZGRiRg GGE)rdiRateF
108 on a form provided by the city and shall ORGlude the Rame, address, and telephoRe Rumber Of
109 appliGaRt, the narne, address, and telephone Rumber of the property owner, and the dqStF!Gt in whiGh
110 the prapeFty is IE)Gated. The application shall be also be accompanied by thr8e Gepies of the
III following information, unless waived by the plaRRing and ZORiRg GE)OFdoRator-City Administrator:
112 (1) A GUrrent GeFtlfiGate of survey of the property. This survey shall be used as the base for
113 all required plans.
114 �24 A detailed site plan depicting information as required on forms provided by the city4he-
115 follewiw.
116 a. Site d"rne
117 b. Site Genditions and eXiStiRg deve'E)pMeRt OR the subjeGt property and immediately
118 adjaGeRt propeFties.
119 G. Proposed use of all areas of the site-.
120 d. RequiFed and proposed setbaoks.
121 e. LoGatiE)R, setbaGk, and diFReRSiE)RS of all pmpased buildiRgs and stFUGtUF
122 f. LOGation of all adjaGent buildings IGGated within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of -
123 the pFE)peFty OR qUeStOOR.
124 g. l=GGatiE)R, RuFnbeF, diFReRGiE)Rs and setbaGkS E)f pmposed paFkiRg spaG8s, dFive
125 aisles, and leading areas.
126 h. All publiG streets, entranGe and exit droves, and walkway IGGatiens.
127 LOGation, aGGess, and GGreening detail of proposed trash enGIGSUres.
128 j. LOGation of outdoor rneGhaniGal equipment and proposed SGr
129 (3) LandSGaping plan-.
130 (4) T -Fee pFeseFvatOE)R plaR, ORGludiRg the !E)E;atOE)R, type, and size of all eXiStiRg tFees 6.1'1-1
131 0 RGhes or Fnere in diameter to be removed or preserved.
132 (5) Grading and eresien Gentrel plan prepared and signed by a Minnesota IiGensed engineer.
133 (6) Utility plans.
134 (7) App!OE;atOE)R fee and esGFow.
135 (8) Any other information as may be required by the Gity, inGluding but not limite
136 a. AFGhoteGtuFal elevatmORS of all PFORGipal and aGG8SSGFy buildiRgs (iRGludiRg type, GGIG-r-,-
137 and materials used OR all exterier suFfaGes).
138 b. "Typ!Gal" floor plan and "typiGal" room plan drawn W SGale with a surnmary of square -
139 footage for eaGh use or aGtiVity.
140 G. Fore preteGtien plaR.
141 d. Type, IGGation and size (area and height) of all signs to be ereGted upon the PFOperty
142 4 R question.
143 e. LightiRg plaR.
144
145 SECTION 5. Section 78-1405 (a) (9) j shall be amended by adding and deleting text to
146 read as follows:
147
148 A building permit is required for installation. A survey must be submitted dep"Gting where the
149 monuments will be plaGed, and the property corners piRs. must be located for inspection
150 purposes.
151
152 SECTION 6. Section 78-626 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as
153 follows:
154
155 Sec. 78-626. - Development standards.
156 Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each single-family dwelling.
157 A suitable location for a garage measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall
158 be provided and indicated as such on a survey o site plan or certified site plan to be
159 submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing
160 garage.
161 SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
162 passage and publication.
163 ADOPTED this _ day of _, 2017 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the
164 City Council of Orono, Minnesota.
165
166 ATTEST:
167
168
169
170 Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
171
172 Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of 12017.
4
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3920
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
13. 17-3920 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SURVEY REQUIREMENTS
Barnhart stated in the review process of the City's projects, whether it is a building permit or accessory
building permit or a planning application, the City requires a certified plan by a licensed architect, a
surveyor or engineer. Barnhart stated in some cases that is appropriate but sometimes it results in
additional time and expense.
The draft ordinance removes the requirement of a survey and instead requires a site plan or a certified site
plan. Barnhart stated a site plan shows the proposed improvement and a survey represents what is there
on the property. The City requires a plan showing what the person is proposing to do on their property.
Barnhart stated if someone is doing a project that requires grading, the City will require a certified site
plan. The plan helps provide a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The draft ordinance is intended to revise the permitting requirements for projects, such as accessory
structures, in Orono reducing unnecessary steps and expense in getting a project approved. In those
situations the ordinance is requiring a site plan to illustrate what is being proposed, the location of the
improvement in relationship to the property line, the house, and other features of the property. That
information is used in the review process to determine if variances are required.
Section 3 of the draft proposes changes to the site plan review process for permitted uses in commercial
and industrial districts. The City Administrator or designee is to make decisions on site plans but may
refer these to the City Council. Under this change, City Staff would review the permitted and accessory
uses and a public hearing is not required.
Section 4 removes most of what is required for a site plan application, deferring this to forms provided by
the City. This allows for more flexibility to change the form or to waive requirements when appropriate
based on the project.
Section 5 requires a building permit and that the property comers must be located. This deviates from the
current ordinance which requires pins to be located. If pins are not located, the property must be
resurveyed.
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Section 6 continues to require a location for a 20 x 24 foot garage shown on a plan. The change is the
type of the plan based on if the garage is to be connected to the principal structure or not.
Barnhart noted Section 78-144 on Page 3 of the ordinance relates to an application for site plan review.
Thiesse asked if there is a need to be more specific on the specific forms being used by the City.
Barnhart stated he does not believe so and that the use of the term forms allows Staff more flexibility to
change the forms. Barnhart stated the required information could change based on the project.
Schoenzeit stated if someone was putting a shed on the I 0 -foot setback, without a survey or markers from
a surveyor, they would be guessing where that setback is. Schoenzeit asked what the recourse would be if
the shed is in the wrong spot. Schoenzeit stated he has some concerns that the placement will not be
correct and that it could encroach into the setback if the distance is not properly determined. Schoenzeit
stated perhaps they should require that it be placed at 120 percent of the setback.
Barnhart stated if Staff is reviewing a site plan for a shed and the applicant indicates they will retain a 10 -
foot setback, it would be permitted by the City. The property line would need to be identified by the
applicant or his builder. Barnhart stated in that situation, they might lose a little bit of accuracy, but the
City approved it at 10 -feet and not at any other distance. Barnhart stated if evidence is submitted that
shows the shed is in an incorrect position, the person must move it. Barnhart stated in his view that will
only happen in a few cases, but the Planning Commission and City Council will need to decide whether
that is acceptable.
Schoenzeit stated with a $500 shed from Menards or Home Depot, you should not necessarily need a
$3,000 survey, but that someone should not be able to put it right on the 10 -foot line since they are
guessing and that perhaps the City should require it be located at 12 feet.
Barnhart stated there could be some sort of sliding scale of how close it is to a setback line but he chose
not to go that route since it adds more layers of regulation. Barnhart stated he is not confident there is a
lot of benefit to that but he is open to comments from the Planning Commission and City Council.
Page 2 of 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated the issues likely will occur on the smaller lots where people are attempting to maximize
their space and there will be selective interpretation of where the property line. Landgraver stated if the
City receives a number of complaints, that will alert the City of that issue and it can be modified, but that
he is willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Barnhart pointed out the City Administrator may require a survey to verify property lines for those types
of situations, especially if the project is bigger in scope.
Thiesse commented that is a good idea. Thiesse stated if the person is proposing something right up to
the setback line, the City should perhaps require a survey.
Schoenzeit stated there could also be a statement that the applicant is responsible for locating it in the
correct spot and that they may still need a survey or they will have to move it at their expense if it is in the
wrong spot. Schoenzeit stated the issue is that the City is not always diligent with their enforcement.
Thiesse stated he understands what Commissioner Schoenzeit is saying, but that the City has required in
the past structures to be moved if it is in the wrong location.
Schoenzeit commented with this permission comes some responsibility. Schoenzeit stated in his view it
will happen and that it goes back to pitting neighbor against neighbor. Schoenzeit stated in his view it is
crazy to ask for a $3,000 survey for a $500 shed, but at the same time, a person still has to put it in the
right spot.
Thiesse stated this gives them permission to put it in the right spot, and if it is not in the right spot, it
would need to be moved.
Lemke asked what would happen if they place it eight feet from the property line, there is no survey, and
the neighbor complains. Lemke asked whose responsibility it would be to prove that the shed is not in the
proper location.
Thiesse commented it would be in the proper location until proven otherwise.
Page 3 of 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated he would ask the person who registers a complaint where he feels the property line is. If
that differs from what the other property owner says, it then it becomes a dispute between Property Owner
A and Property Owner B. If it turns out that Property Owner B is correct, the shed would need to be
relocated.
Lemke stated the only way to prove that would be for someone to obtain a survey.
Thiesse stated the City is only allowing a shed at a specific location but they are not getting involved in
where the property line is. Thiesse stated requiring a survey for everything is time-consuming and
expensive and a lot of times unnecessary. Thiesse stated if the structure has a permanent foundation, it is
a different story in how easy it can be moved.
Barnhart stated that could happen now with surveys and that it is something that will have to be dealt
with. Barnhart indicated Staff is attempting to have a balance between the 100 cases where it is not a
problem with the two cases where it is a problem. Barnhart stated more inaccuracy is introduced with
less time and expense.
Thiesse stated he is willing to try it.
Leskinen commented it puts some responsibility on the applicant, which is where it should be.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:54 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:54 p.m.
Thiesse noted on Page 2 of 2, it talks about Section 3. Thiesse asked if that is similar to Section 78-144.
Barnhart stated under Section 78-14, starting at Line 82 of the draft ordinance, there are two processes for
site plan review. A site plan review in the existing code is primarily commercial and industrial districts,
Page 4 of 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
such as the Lund's expansion and the Freshwater Business Center. Basically that is a permitted use and
Staff reviews the plan to make sure that the code is being met.
Currently the code says that the planning and zoning district can make a decision on relatively minor
changes to a site plan. If it is a new building, the City Council would need to approve those through a
public hearing process. Barnhart stated that is proposed to be changed in the draft ordinance to allow
Staff to approve a site plan for a permitted use in industrial and commercial properties. Since it is a
permitted use, the Planning Commission or City Council does not have a lot of discretion in approving it
since it basically is already allowed by code. If any part of the code is not met, a variance would be
required. A conditional use permit would also go through the current review process.
Thiesse stated managing expectations is big, but if people do not get a chance to address things, in his
view it is a perception of less transparency.
Barnhart noted the Planning Commission does not review house plans, which is the same thing. An
argument could be made that they impact more residents but the Planning Commission does not review
house plans unless they require a variance. Barnhart stated that is the same process that Staff is proposing
for the commercial and industrial districts.
Landgraver noted starting at Line 140 it talks about monuments. Landgraver noted the Planning
Commission recently had a situation where the monuments were constructed and the citizen indicated that
they did include the monuments on the landscaping plan that the City reviewed. Landgraver asked what
the language regarding monuments relates to.
Barnhart stated the draft ordinance would make monuments similar to any other accessory structure.
Barnhart stated the code currently requires a survey for a monument and the draft ordinance removes that
requirement and instead requires the property owner to identify the comer markers.
Schoenzeit asked what would happen if it was a new project.
Thiesse commented there would be a certified site plan.
Page 5 of 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated that house would require a certified survey under the ordinance just like it did three
months ago. Barnhart stated the challenge in that situation was that the contractor did not show the
monuments on the survey and made the decision later to add the monuments. As an accessory structure,
the City would not require a new survey for the monuments. Barnhart stated the certified site plan can be
modified without a survey.
Landgraver asked how the City will determine if this is successful going into the future.
Barnhart stated if Staff starts receiving negative comments about the impact to the neighborhood or things
like that, it would cause concern. If the City needs to spend more time on code enforcement, that would
also be an indication that the City will need to look at it again. Barnhart stated in his view there will be
more successes than failures.
Thiesse noted this is not going to reduce Staff s work load.
Barnhart stated it will also reduce the amount of Staff time needed to obtain a survey from an applicant.
Landgraver stated an increase in after -the -fact variances would also be an indicator.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3920, City of
Orono, Text Amendment: Survey and site plan requirements. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 6 of 6
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: March 20, 2017
Council
Exhibit C
17-3920
Subject: #17-3920, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Survey and site plan requirements
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The draft ordinance would alter the requirements for permit
application, introducing requirements for a certified site plan for new and expanded principal
structures, and clarifying the process for site plan review for permitted and accessory
structures.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
Background
It is appropriate to occasionally review the permitting process and to evaluate whether the
information required and the process to obtain permits is relevant.
The Development Process Review Committee, as users of our processes, have suggested
changes when a survey is required. Additionally, the site plan review process was the 12 highest
ranked item identified by the Planning Commission and City Council last fall. The City Council
th
formally authorized amendments at their meeting on February 27
The draft ordinance is intended to revise the permitting requirements for projects in Orono
reducing unnecessary steps and expense in getting a project approved.
Primarily, staff reviewed the City Code for mentions of survey, and replaced these references
with "site plan" or a "certified site plan". A certified site plan, required for new principal
buildings, additions to principal buildings, or grading projects that otherwise require a permit, is
a site plan prepared by an individual registered by the state (surveyors, engineers, landscape
architects). Other projects, including accessory structures/ buildings, decks, minor grading do
not need to be prepared by a registered individual.
The Planning Commission and Council should be aware that while the expense and time
associated with a project may be reduced, so too will confidence in the plan. Regardless, staff
will continue to be bound by what the applicant communicates to the city as to the scope of the
project.
Additionally, the draft ordinance alters when a foundation and as -built survey is required, to
only principal buildings.
FILE # 17-3920
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Section 3 of the draft proposes changes to the site plan review process for permitted uses in
commercial and industrial districts. The City administrator or designee (recent goals of
identifying the City Administrator as the title of the individual in charge of implementing the city
continue) is to make decisions on site plans, but may refer these to the city council. The change:
staff reviews permitted and accessory uses, and a public hearing is not required.
Section 4 removes much of what is required for a site plan application, deferring this to forms
provided by the city. This allows for more flexibility to change the form, or to waive
requirements when appropriate based on the project.
Section 5 requires a building permit (which in turns requires a site plan), and that the property
corners must be located. This deviates from the current ordinance, which requires pins to be
located. If pins are not located, the property must be resurveyed.
Section 6 continues to require a location for a 20 x 24 foot garage shown on a plan, the change
is the type of the plan, based on if the garage is to be connected to the principal structure or
not.
Engineer Comments
The city engineer and planning staff are reviewing the site plan/ certified site plan requirements
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the draft ordinance accomplish the goals?
2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposal?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B. Applicable sections of the city code
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 21 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: # 17-3 921 City of Orono Text Amendment: Escrow Agreements and
financial guarantees
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to amend the ordinance to modify the requirements for
financial guarantees and escrows.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. Not applicable
3. Background/ Summary. City code requires a security in the amount of 125% of the value of the
improvements for site plans, implying the city is either completing or guaranteeing the work, which we
will not do. The draft ordinance removes that provision.
The ordinance also is modified to only require as -built surveys for principal buildings. An as -built survey
is intended to guarantee that the structure and all other improvements are consistent with the approved
plans. In many situations, improvements are the result of variances, or at the maximum threshold for
hardcover limits. The reference to escrow agreement is removed, but the financial guarantee is retained.
The Commission reviewed a draft that removed the need for a financial guarantee for a Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy, that section has been retained in this draft, as it allows the city to collect this
guarantee.
Lastly, the draft ordinance also modifies/clarifies the requirement that owners must pay costs incurred as
part of their project.
Going forward related to financial guarantees, the city will no longer require escrow agreements, and is
incorporating language to include in the permits and applications to negate the need for this separate
document.
4. Planning Commission comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft at their meeting on
March 20'. The Commission discussed the purpose of as-builts, and supported changes to the financial
guarantees for site plans.
5. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposed ordinance have been received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the ordinance related to escrow agreements and financial guarantees as presented.
Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit C.
PC Staff Report
Exhibit D.
PC reviewed Ordinance Draft
References
A. PC Exhibit B Existing Ordinances
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By:
Approved By: D5R
Council
Exhibit A
17-3921
ORDINANCE NO. THIRD SERIES April 10, 2017
2
3 CITY OF ORONO
4 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
5
6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
7 PERTAINING TO ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AS
8 PART OF BUILDING AND SITE PLANS
9
10
I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
12
13 SECTION 1. Section 78-147 shall be amended by striking the text and leaving blank, as follows:
14
15 Sec. 78-147. - Seeur-ity agreement-.[Pup2osely Left Blankj
16 Before issuanee of any pet:mit, a let4er- of er-edi! or- eash deposit shall be supplied by the
17 guar-a-ateeing eempletion of required site impr-evements. The ameuf4 of the seour-ity shall be 125 pefeen�
18 of the estimated eost of the improvements other- than the building-.
19 SECTION 2. Section 86-68 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
20
21 Sec. 86-68. - Permit application; information required.
22
23 (b) (3) As -built survey. An as -built survey, prepared by a Minnesota Registered Land Surveyor,
24 shall be submitted to the city for review and approval upon the completion of all principal buildings and
25 all additions to principal buildings, unless exempted by the building official. The as -built survey shall
26 certify the final topography of the site; verify drainage patterns; and provide hardcover calculations for
27 lots in the Shoreland Overlay District. An as -built survey must be approved before the issuance of a
28 certificate of occupancy. In the event that weather or other conditions prevent the completion of an as -
29 built survey at the time the certificate of occupancy is requested, applicant shall provide a sufficient
30 financial guarantee and establish an eser-ew agr-eement to ensure completion of the as -built survey.
31
32 SECTION 3. Section 75-2 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
33
34 Sec. 75-2. - Reimbursement required.
35 Any owner that causes the city to incur costs on behalf of, or on account of, that owner, associated with
36 a proposed development, shall reimburse the city for the actual costs expended by the city on behalf of, or on
37 account of, said owner. An owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for all actual costs, whether
38 the proposed development is gpproved, denied, tabled or withdrawn by the owner.
39
40 SECTION4. Section 75-10 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows:
41 Sec. 75-10. — Collection of ULipaid Service Charges/Costs Cei4ifieatio -
42 The council shall certify all unpaid costs to the county auditor, who shall enter them upon the tax records as -
43 a lien upon sueh !and to be eelleeted in which shall then be collected together with the propeM taxes levied
44 against the propeAy. the same manner- as other- r-ea4 estate ta*es afe eelleeted.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage
and publication.
ADOPTED this - day of _, 2017 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 12017.
MINUTES OF THE Council
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit B
Monday, March 20,2017 17-3921
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. 17-3921 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES, 10:03 P.M. — 10:12 P.M.
Barnhart stated this ordinance primarily deals with financial guarantees associated with projects and with
escrow agreements. Escrows are authorized by City Code Sections 79 and 75. Section 75 deals with
expenses incurred during the development review and Section 79 deals with erosion control. The City
has a land use review process and a building review process. In land use applications, the City collects an
escrow to help guarantee that the city engineer, consulting engineer, and consulting attorney's fees are
paid and that the taxpayers do not have to pick up the costs.
Barnhart stated on the building side, there are erosion control requirements, such as maintenance of
erosion control measures, which are separate from the normal things that are included in the City's
development agreement and subdivision process. If someone is building a new pool or anything that digs
up the ground, the person provides an escrow that guarantees that that will be maintained. In the event it
is not maintained, the City would deploy resources to clean that up and then bill the property owner. In
the event the applicant does not pay those costs, the City would use the escrow.
Barnhart noted he made some modifications to the draft ordinance and that a new draft is before the
Planning Commission tonight. Based on the advice of the City Attorney, Staff would like to clarify
Section 45. The proposed new text goes from Lines 37 through 44 and is intended to modify and clarify
the City's existing deposit rules and regulations. Barnhart stated the idea with the ordinance is instead of
having a separate escrow agreement document, the City will take that key language and include it in the
land use application or the development agreement with the goal of making the process somewhat simpler
for the applicant.
Also as part of the draft ordinance review Staff has removed the portion relating to security agreements.
Chapter 78-147 of the ordinance deals with the site plan process. If someone were to obtain site plan
approval to construct a commercial building, the person would be required, based on the code, to provide
to the City 125 percent of the estimated costs for those improvements. Barnhart stated that implies the
City is going to do something with that money, such as finish the work, and the City is not going to finish
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
a commercial project. Barnhart stated what the City will do is stabilize the site so erosion is not an issue
and safety issues are addressed.
Barnhart stated the draft ordinance removes that requirement for a security agreement for a site plan.
Staff is not proposing with doing away with escrows at this point but is merely recommending
eliminating the need for an escrow agreement.
Thiesse asked why that would not be included under the collection of unpaid service charges instead of
requiring an escrow. Thiesse stated the unpaid amount could be applied to the taxes on the property.
Barnhart stated that is certainly a valid option. Barnhart stated it is his understanding the City Council
will be looking at escrows in the near future and that might be a solution.
Thiesse stated the City is basically holding a lot of money that they may or may not use. Thiesse noted he
does not know how much money is returned after the project is done, but that perhaps the City should
trust the applicant to do the project correctly and then levy the fees against their taxes if something needs
to be corrected by the City.
Barnhart stated if that is the consensus of the Planning Commission, he can recommend that to the City
Council as long as the City Attorney feels there are sufficient safeguards to allow the City to do that.
Barnhart stated he still sees some value to requiring an escrow on certain projects but perhaps some
additional language could be added to the final draft of the ordinance.
Landgraver commented an escrow allows for a lot more skin in the game on the part of the developer or
applicant. Landgraver indicated he is not ready to eliminate escrows at this point.
Schoenzeit stated it also depends on the stage of the project, such as the occupancy stage versus the
permitting stage.
Thiesse asked why there is an as -built survey required and not a final certified site plan under Section
86-68.
Page 2 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart indicated Staff kept the same nomenclature that is currently used. Barnhart noted Staff did
remove a paragraph regarding the certificate of occupancy. If the property owner wants that certificate of
occupancy before the as -built is completed, they will need to provide a security deposit. Barnhart stated
the Development Review Committee will be looking at ways to address temporary certificates of
occupancy but that the draft ordinance still requires an as -built survey but removes the leniency the City
has to allow temporary certificates of occupancy.
Thiesse commented there is the possibility that the City will not allow someone to move into their house
in February if the land has not been grade and a survey cannot be done.
Barnhart indicated Staff has not applied the language that way and that Staff will allow people to move in
but that a deposit will be required. Barnhart stated that can always be changed later and that it basically
encompasses Lines 28 through 30.
Thiesse stated he would like to contemplate leaving some of that in since there are weather factors that
may not allow someone to complete their as -built survey.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10: 11 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10: 11 p.m.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3921, City of
Orono, Text Amendment: Escrow Agreements and Financial Guarantees, and retaining the
language in Lines 28-30. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 3 of 3
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: March 20, 2017
Council
Exhibit C
17-3921
Subject: #17-3921, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Escrow Agreements and financial
guarantees
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The draft ordinance proposes changes to financial guarantees for site
plans, and the escrow agreement requirement for as -built.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
Background
Requirements related to the escrow and escrow agreement process was the 7 th highest priority
item in last fall's review of the ordinance list.
The goal of this ordinance is to remove unnecessary government processes, and reducing
barriers to commercial and industrial investment and reinvestment.
Escrows are commonly required for projects to guarantee their completion, maintenance of
erosion control measures, ensure the site is stabilized post construction, and consultant fees are
paid. Authority to collect escrows is provided in sections 75 and 79 of the city code. When
Orono requires an escrow, an escrow agreement is also required. The agreement stipulates
what the escrow will be used for. While not unique to Orono, other cities handle this issue
through a statement on their building permit/ land use application. The escrow agreements
requires the signature of the property owner; this adds a step to the review/ completeness
verification process.
Section 2 of the ordinance mirrors changes proposed in case number 17-3920, it keeps the
requirement that an as built is necessary prior to occupancy.
City Code also requires provision of financial security equal to 125% of the cost of improvements
for site plans (commercial and industrial projects). This unnecessary. It implies that the city
would complete construction of a project. Section 1 strikes this section entirely.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Is the proposed ordinance appropriate given its goals?
FILE # 17-3921
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 2
2. Should additional changes be introduced?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B. Chapters 75 and 79
Original
PC Exhibit A
17-3921
ORDINANCE NO. THIRD SERIES March 20, 2017
2
3 CITY OF ORONO
4 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
5
6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
7 PERTAINING TO ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AS
8 PART OF BUILDING AND SITE PLANS
9
10
I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
12
13 SECTION 1. Section 78-147 shall be amended by striking the text and leaving blank, as follows:
14
15 Sec. 78-147. - Seeur-ity agreement-.[Pup2osely Left Blankj
16 Before issuanee of any pet:mit, a let4er- of er-edi! or- eash deposit shall be supplied by the
17 guar-a-ateeing eempletion of required site impr-evements. The ameuf4 of the seour-ity shall be 125 pefeen�
18 of the estimated eost of the improvements other- than the building-.
19 SECTION 2. Section 86-68 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
20
21 Sec. 86-68. - Permit application; information required.
22
23 (b) (3) As -built survey. An as -built survey, prepared by a Minnesota Registered Land Surveyor,
24 shall be submitted to the city for review and approval upon the completion of all principal buildings and
25 all additions to principal buildings, unless exempted by the building official. The as -built survey shall
26 certify the final topography of the site; verify drainage patterns; and provide hardcover calculations for
27 lots in the Shoreland Overlay District. An as -built survey must be approved before the issuance of a
28 certificate of occupancy. in the event thM wea4her- E)r- other- eenditions pfe 3Veflt the 60fflpletiOft Of aR as
29 built sur-vey a4 the time the eei4ifieate of oeoupaney is requested, applieant shall provide a stlffieiefl�
30 finaneial guafantee and establish an eser-ow agreement to eastir-e eempletion of the as bttilt sffi=vey.
31
32 SECTION 3. Section 75-2 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
33
34 Sec. 75-2. - Reimbursement required.
35 Any owner that causes the city to incur costs on behalf of, or on account of, that owner, associated with
36 a proposed development, shall reimburse the city for the actual costs expended by the city on behalf of, or on
37 account of, said owner. An owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the city for all actual costs, whether
38 the proposed development is gpproved, denied, tabled or withdrawn by the owner.
39
40 SECTION4. Section 75-10 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows:
41 Sec. 75-10. — Collection of ULipaid Service Charges/Costs Cei4ifieatio -
42 The council shall certify all unpaid costs to the county auditor, who shall enter them upon the tax records as -
43 a lien upon sueh !and to be eelleeted in which shall then be collected together with the propeiU taxes levied
44 against the propegy. the same manner- as other- r-ea4 estate ta*es afe eelleeted.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage
and publication.
ADOPTED this - day of _, 2017 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 12017.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 22 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: 17-3923 City of Orono Text Amendment: Lot Line Adjustments
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve an ordinance amendment allowing staff to
certify new boundary line adjustments, provided no new non -conformities are created.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. Not Applicable
3. Background/Summary. In 2016, the City Council approved an ordinance that allowed for the staff
certification of a boundary line adjustment, provided both lots meet the minimum size and width
requirements, and no new non -conformities are created. Staff certification does not require time
consuming public hearings or Planning Commission/Council review. There are a number of non-
conforming lots by virtue of their size and width, negating the benefit of this ordinance to these
properties. The draft ordinance corrects this issue, does not permit staff to certify the creation of a new,
or increase of an existing nonconformity.
4. Planning Commission comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance at their meeting
on March 20'. They supported the changed, noting the need to prevent the creation of new non -
conformities.
5. Public Comment. No comments have been received in support or opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the ordinance as drafted, amending the regulations pertaining to Boundary Line
Adjustments.
Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B.
Draft PC Minutes dated March 20, 2017
Exhibit C.
PC Staff Report
References
Planning Commission Exhibits
City Code Section 82-200 pertaining to Subdivision Exceptions
Minnesota Statutes 462.352 pertaining to subdivisions
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: D5R
Council
Exhibit A
17-3923
Bv ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES April 10, 2017
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PERTAINING TO SUBDIVISION EXCEPTIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION1. Section 82-200 Exception shall be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 82-200. - Exception.
(a) The following land subdivi-i-11- _1 - -XGepted frern divisions 1 through 4 of this aftiGle. Upon
request, the community development director shall, within ten days, certify that a proposed
subdivision is eXGepted beGause the following are excepted from Chapter 82 of the City Code:
(1) All the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500
feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial
uses, or
(2) Will create cemetery lots, or
(3) Is court ordered, or
(4) Is an adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as IoRg as eaGh of
the two resulting lets rneets the requirements of Ghapter 7 -8 -and no new non -conformities are
created or an existing non -conformity is increased.
a. Adjustment of a 10t IiRe by the FeleE;atiOR of a GE)MMOR bE)URdaFy wheR GRe OF b0th
resulting lots do not meet the requirements, er other non Gonfermities are Greated may
be Gertified following approval of a varianGe.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this _ day of _, 2017 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 12017.
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3923
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
15. 17-3923 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS,
10: 12 P.M. — 10: 21 P.M.
Barnhart noted last year the City adopted a new ordinance that related to boundary line adjustments.
When someone has a common boundary line between two lots and a new lot is not being created, Staff
can certify that that is exempt from the City's subdivision ordinance. The caveat is that both lots need to
meet the minimum lot size requirements. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission saw an application
last month where one lot was made bigger as a result of a lot line rearrangement but they required a
variance since the lot was located in the two -acre zone. Barnhart noted this does not give Staff the
authority to certify a lot line rearrangement where it creates a nonconforming situation nor does it give
Staff the authority to move a lot line closer to an existing structure where a nonconforming situation is
created. The ordinance would allow Staff to certify a modification of common lot lines on basically two
nonconforming lots but that Staff cannot certify nonconforming lots.
Barnhart stated the ordinance would allow certain land activities to be exempted from the City's
subdivision ordinance consistent with state statute. Barnhart stated one deviation from State Statute
462.3 52, Subd. 12, is that the City added the requirement that the two adjusted lots meet the requirements
of the zoning code. In areas where the lot is already non -conforming due to size, a variance would be
necessary to increase the lot area.
Schoenzeit stated if both lots start out as nonconforming and one neighbor purchases a pad for a shed,
they will still both be nonconforming. Schoenzeit asked whether a lot could be made more
nonconforming and be certified by Staff.
Thiesse noted the draft ordinance just applies to a lot line rearrangement.
Barnhart stated they would not be allowed to create any new non -conformities.
Schoenzeit asked if it is possible to do if both lots were under an acre and one of the property owners sold
land to a neighbor but both lots still are under an acre.
Gaffron stated the language would need to say something other than creating new nonconformity.
Page I of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated he listed the following four criteria that would need to be met:
All the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in
width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses, or
2. Will create cemetery lots, or
Is court ordered, or
4. Is an adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary and no new
nonconformities are created.
Barnhart stated in speaking with the City Attorney, he and Staff felt comfortable with the proposed
language. If the Planning Commission would like to specify that no existing nonconformities will be
increased, that could be added.
Schoenzeit noted that would not allow a situation where one lot is made bigger since it would increase the
nonconformity even though both lots would still remain nonconforming. Schoenzeit stated the property
owners would need to swap equal adjustments of land in order to not become more nonconforming under
that language.
Thiesse stated if the lot is already nonconforming in size, making the lot smaller would not be a new
nonconformity.
Leskinen questioned whether increasing the nonconformity should be treated the same as creating a new
nonconformity. Leskinen stated in her opinion that is splitting hairs too much.
Barnhart suggested the following language be added: "No new nonconformities are created or an existing
nonconformity is increased." Barnhart stated he does not want to be in a position where he has to adjust a
lot line resulting in one of the lots becoming smaller. Barnhart noted that could result in a zig-zagging of
lines.
Page 2 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3923, City of
Orono, Text Amendment: Subdivision Exemptions, with the additional language suggested by
Staff. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 3 of 3
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: March 20, 2017
Council
Exhibit C
17-3923
Subject: #17-3923, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Subdivision Exemptions
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The draft ordinance removes the requirement that both lots of a lot
line adjustment meet the width, area requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
Background
In 2016, the city Council adopted an ordinance that allowed for certain land activities to be
exempted from the city's subdivision ordinance, consistent with state statute. One deviation
from state statute (462.352 Subd. 12, attached as Exhibit C) the city made was the requirement
the two adjusted lots meet the requirements of the zoning code. In areas where the lot is
already non -conforming due to size, a variance would be necessary even to increase the lot
area.
The ordinance would allow a boundary line adjustment for one or two lots that don't meet the
minimum lot size or width requirement. It does not grant authority for staff to create a new
non -conformity, for instance moving a lot line creating a substandard setback. In those
situations, a variances would be required.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Is the proposed ordinance appropriate given its goals?
2. Should additional changes be introduced?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit C Minnesota Statutes 462.352
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 23 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: 17-3924 City of Orono Text Amendment: Repeal of Conditional Use
Permit
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to remove an unlawful clause in our zoning ordinance
pertaining to the ability for neighbors to change or repeal a lawfully operating conditional use pernift.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. Not Applicable
3. Background/ Summary. The City Code includes a clause that a group of neighbors can petition the
Council to review a lawfully operating Conditional Use Permit, and the Council could change the
conditions imposed on this conditional use permit. The City Attorney has suggested that this clause is
unlawful, a lawfully operating Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and is not subject to periodic
changes and review. It is recommended to remove this clause, as it gives constituents false hope of
change. The city attorney provided recommended language.
4. Planning Commission comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at their
meeting on March 20t', and recommended adoption, but did recommend retaining language proposed to be
deleted by the City Attorney, (lines 19-21 of the draft ordinance).
5. Public Comment. No comments have been received in support or opposition to the proposed
ordinance.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as provided.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the ordinance pertaining to Conditional Use Permit repeals, case number 17-3924.
Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit C.
PC Staff Report
References
A. PC Exhibit B Existing Ordinance
B. PC Exhibit C State Statute 462.3595
Prepared By: J. Barnhart
Reviewed By:
Approved By:
Council
Exhibit A
17-3924
ORDINANCE NO. THIRD SERIES April 10, 2016
2
3 CITY OF ORONO
4 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
5
6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
7 PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS UPON
8 NEIGHBORS PETITION
9
10
I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
12
13 SECTION 1. Section 78-921 shall be amended by striking text to read as follows:
14
15 See. 78-921. —Conditional Use Permit ReviewReview upon neighboFs' petition.
16 The City hereby reserves the right to inspect the premises where a Conditional Use permit
17 has been issued, after receiving permission from the property owner or receiving the appropriate
18 court order, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance or and conditions
19 imposed. Conditional use permits shall not be subject to periodic council review for the purpose
20 of change or revocation unless such a review is one of the conditions of the original permit or
121 unless the actual land use is determined to be in violation of the terms of the permit. � hewevef,
22 0 of 75 per-eent or- more of the adjaeent property owners (defined hefe as these
23 et4y lies within 1,000 feet of the property subjeet to the eonditional use pefmit), the
24 reounreilishall hold a publie hearing on the eofAinuation of the pefmit. The eouneil shall
25 detefmine, after- sueh ptiblie heafing, whether- the eeatinua4ien of the ea tio-fi-ai 44,QP, j-
26 is eonsisten4 with the health, safety and general welfafe of the r-esiden4s of the eitir The enjin
27 may, aftef stieh petitien and heafing, eenfii+ue the eenditional use pefmit tmehanged; approve a
28 new per -mit with stieh additional eonditions as may be neeessar-y to pr-oteet health, safety or -
29 general welfare; or- terminate the existing eenditional use permit. Upon termination of -a-
30 eenditional use per -mit, the eouneil may allow the former- eenditional use pefmit to continue for -
31 stieh period not in exeess of ane year- as may be r-equir-ed to provide time to move ef ethefwise
32 mloeate in a zone where stiek use is per-tnitteA
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this _ day of _, 2017 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 12017.
MINUTES OF THE Council
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit B
Monday, March 20,2017 17-3924
6:30 o'clock p.m.
16. 17-3924 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, 10:21 P.M. — 10:30 P.M.
Barnhart stated the City Code includes a provision that gives neighbors the authority to petition the City
Council. The current language reads "Upon petition of 75 percent or more of the adjacent property
owners as those whose property lies within 1000 feet of the property subject to the conditional use permit,
the Council shall hold a public hearing on the continuation of the permit."
The City Attorney has recommended that there is no authority in state statute to open up an existing,
conforming, lawfully operating conditional use permit. The objective with the draft ordinance is to
remove that section from the code because in theory it could give a resident false hope that some action
could occur. As a result, the City Attorney has recommended the following language:
"The City hereby reserves the right to inspect the premises where a Conditional Use Permit has been
issued, after receiving permission from the property owner or receiving the appropriate court order, to
ensure compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance and/or conditions imposed."
Barnhart stated the language would basically allow the City to review where required by the courts or if
the property allows the City to review the conditional use permit but it removes the false hope that the
residents can impact a lawfully operated conditional use permit. Barnhart noted once the City issues a
conditional use permit, that permit goes with the land regardless of who owns or operates the land until
the land is abandoned.
Landgraver asked why the sentence following the proposed language was struck.
Barnhart stated the City Attorney recommended replacing it with the new language since it more
accurately reflects state statute.
Landgraver stated he is attempting to relate it to an interim use permit. Landgraver asked if it is saying
that the City does not have the right to do periodic reviews of a conditional use permit.
Page 1 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated an interim use permit is basically a conditional use permit with a timeline. The same
standards that are reviewed for a conditional use permit are basically the same standards that would be
reviewed with an interim use permit but the interim use period would elapse after a period of time.
Barnhart stated if the City grants someone the ability to have an interim use permit for four years, the City
would not necessarily be able to review that use every year unless the property owner agrees to the
review. Barnhart stated the City would have to allow the person to operate under the interim use permit
during that time unless there is a reason to go in and review it.
Barnhart indicated interim use permits are an important tool to use in a transitional area where the use is
not felt to be appropriate long-term or a pennanent use.
Landgraver stated he was struggling with how that relates to an interim use permit if the City decides to
allow them. Landgraver stated under the proposed language the City would not have the right to review a
conditional use permit unless ordered by the court or the property owner agrees to it.
Barnhart stated the first three lines most directly reflect the authority given to the City by the State.
Barnhart indicated the City has some rights under state statute, which are reflected in the draft ordinance,
but if the Planning Commission recommends the second red portion be kept, he would not recommend
against it.
Schoenzeit stated if the City can legally keep that language, it would be a nice tool to have.
Thiesse commented it appears the City is giving up some of their perceived rights whether they exist or
not. Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to look at it again to verify whether the language
could be drafted a little more in the City's favor.
Landgraver stated it could be a tool to say that the City will check back in after a year or two, which could
help placate concerns and build up trust, and that they should try to keep that language. Landgraver stated
if the City does not have that right, then they cannot exercise it.
Leskinen noted the language reads that conditional use permits shall not be subject to periodic Council
review. Leskinen stated the first sentence allows the City to reserve the right to inspect the premises.
Page 2 of 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke stated even if that language is left in, the City would st] I I not have that right under state statute.
Landgraver stated the sentence also goes on to say, "...unless such a review is one of the conditions of the
original permit..." Landgraver stated it does not appear the City has the right to conduct periodic
reviews.
Thiesse stated unless they are in violation of their conditional use permit.
Landgraver stated if the City has the right to conduct periodic reviews, the City should retain that right.
Barnhart indicated he will ask the City Attorney to review those two sentences to see whether the City can
retain or clarify any rights the City may have.
Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to confirin that.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:28 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:28 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to review it one more time but that it does not have to
come back before the Planning Commission.
Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3924, City of
Orono, Text Amendment: Repeal of Conditional Use Permit as draft with the recommendation
that the City Attorney review the language of 78-91. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 3 of 3
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, City Administrator
Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
March 20, 2017
Council
Exhibit C
17-3924
#17-3924, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Petition to repeal CUP
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The draft ordinance removes the ability for a group of residents to
petition the Council to review a lawfully conducted Conditional Use Permit. This authority does
not exist in the state statute.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
Background
The City Code includes a provision that
t1upon petition of 75 percent or more of the adjacent property owners (defined here
as those whose property lies within 1,000 feet of the property subject to the
conditional use permit), the council shall hold a public hearing on the continuation of
the permit. The council shall determine, after such public hearing, whether the
continuation of the conditional use in question is consistent with the health, safety
and general welfare of the residents of the city. The council may, after such petition
and hearing, continue the conditional use permit unchanged; approve a new permit
with such additional conditions as may be necessary to protect health, safety or
general welfare; or terminate the existing conditional use permit."
There is no authority for the City Council to alter a conforming permit unless requested by the
applicant. The right to petition gives neighbors a false sense of authority, and should be
removed, at the recommendation of the City Attorney.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Is the proposed ordinance appropriate given its goals?
2. Should additional changes be introduced?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B. Existing Ordinance
Exhibit C. State Statute 462.3595
FILE # 17-3921
March 20, 2017
Page 2 of 2
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 24 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: 17-3926 City of Orono Text Amendment: Exemption for
Government Signs
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to adopt an ordinance that gives governments the ability
to post sips on their property for government purpose.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. Not applicable
3. Background/ Summary. The Hennepin County Sheriff s department approached the city to install
electronic signs to serve boats approaching the Arcola and Narrows bridges. The signs would be placed
in their right of way, for public service. In the review, staff noted that there is no authority for the city to
allow these and other, similar signs, including the signs promoting the Buckle events, or the Highway 12
safety coalition or other regulatory signs. The City Attorney has suggested adding a clause to the code
that grants an exemption to government agencies to post signs in their right of way.
4. Planning Commission comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at a
public hearing on March 20th . They commented on allowing signs for the park district, and precluding
realty signs, ultimately supporting the ordinance as drafted.
5. Public Comment. The Sheriffs department and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District have
written letters in support of the ordinance. No comments against the ordinance have been received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as written.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt an ordinance exempting Public Signs from the requirements of the Sign Code.
Exhibits
Exhibit A.
Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit C.
PC Staff Report
References
A. PC Exhibit B public comments
Prepared By: J. Barnhart
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: NZ
Council
Exhibit A
17-3926
ORDINANCE NO. THIRD SERIES April 10, 2017
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PROVIDING AN EXEMPTION FOR GOVERNMENT SIGNS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1466 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
12) This Division shall not aDi)lv to Public sians. Public sians. for the oumoses of this section
shall mean any sign defined as a traffic control sign in the Highway Traffic Regulation Act M.S.A.
§ 169.97 et seq., any identification sign installed in a public park or public trail by a public
authority, or any other informational, identification, regulatoKy, or warning sign placed by the
United States, State, County, or city, placed within their right of way.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this _ day of _, 2017 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 12017.
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3926
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
17. #17-3926 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY SIGNS, 10:30 P.M. — 10:36 P.M.
Barnhart stated a strict reading of the City's sign code does not regulate traffic control or public message
signs so therefore they are not permitted. The draft ordinance exempts the placement of traffic control
signs, identification signs placed by a public authority, and signs placed by the city, county, state or U.S.
Governinent. These signs are usually located in rights-of-way, but also on city, state, or government
property. The ordinance in general codifies current practice.
This request was initiated by Hennepin County through their Sheriff s Department since they desire to
place electronic public service signs on bridges to serve boat traffic. Hennepin County currently places
electronic public service signs on area highways for emergencies and public service initiatives.
Barnhart stated one of the goals of the City Council is to review the entire sign ordinance but that Staff
would like to address this issue first since these signs do exist currently throughout the City.
Thiesse asked if there is a reason why the language cannot just say "signs placed by public authority."
Barnhart stated that could be changed.
Lenike asked if there should be any distinction between permanent signs and temporary signs.
Barnhart indicated he does not want that distinction since there are some situations where a temporary
traffic sign is appropriate.
Thiesse asked if this would preclude all the realty signs placed in the right-of-way.
Barnhart indicated it would.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 1 of 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
Thiesse stated he is fine with the language as proposed by Staff.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3926, City of
Orono, Text Amendment: Exemptions for Public Safety Signs, with the language being left as is.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 2 of 2
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
Doug Reeder, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: March 20, 2017
Council
Exhibit C
17-3926
Subject: #17-3926, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Exemption for Government signs
Public Hearing
Application Summary: The draft ordinance exempts the placement of signs placed by
governments, usually in the rights of way but also on their own property. The ordinance in
general codifies current practice.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
Background
Strict reading of the sign code does not regulate traffic control and public message signs,
therefore, they are not permitted. The draft ordinance exempts from the regulations of the sign
code the following: traffic control signs, identification signs placed by a public authority, and
signs placed by the city, county, state, or US government.
This request was initiated by Hennepin County, through their Sheriff's Department; they desire
to place electronic public service signs on bridges to serve boat traffic. Hennepin County
currently places electronic public service signs on area highways for emergencies and public
service initiatives including buckle up messages, and Highway 12 safety.
Public Comments
To date, one letter of support has been received, from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
Issues for Consideration
1. Is the proposed ordinance appropriate given its goals?
2. Should additional changes be introduced?
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B. Public Comment
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 25 Date: April 10, 2017
Item Description: Orono Preserve — Request for Early Building Permits
Presenter: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Agenda Planning Department
Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to determine whether two building permits should be issued
prior to completion of new public road (inconsistent with Development Contract).
2. Application Deadline. Not applicable.
3. Background. Orono Preserve is the residential development under construction at the southwest
quadrant of Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. The developer (Excelsior Group, aka "OP5
Orono") and David Weekley Homes are requesting that building permits be issued for two model homes
prior to the internal road system reaching the minimum level of completion required by the Development
Contract. See the letter of request, Exhibit A.
The Development Contract (see Exhibit B) states that "Grading and one lift of asphalt shall be installed
on all streets prior to issuance of any building permits for homes accessing via said streets". Orono
Subdivision Code Section 82-49(b) states that "Building permits will not be issuedfor any lot which lot
has access only onto proposedpublic or private street unless such street has been improved to the point
so that it is adequatefor vehicular access by the prospective occupant and by police andfire department
and emergency vehicles". Subdivision Code Section 82-214 (a) states that "...no building permits or
certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the required improvements have been completed by the
subdivider".
The developer's request is for building permits for the two comer lots abutting the intersection of their
northerly access road (Bluestein Way) and Old Crystal Bay Road. These two lots will not have direct
access to Old Crystal Bay Road; their driveways will be onto the internal parallel road Sandhill Drive. A
berm separates the two lots from Old Crystal Bay Road. The developers note that the two lots are
accessible now by the yet -to -be -paved gravel roadway; that existing fire hydrants are within 400' of each
lot; and they plan to have roads completed and paved by May 3 1.
Comments regarding this specific request as well as with respect to the overall policy of withholding
building permits until pavement is established are attached from Dave Martini, Adam Edwards and Fire
Chief James VanEyll (Exhibit D). Martini indicates a number of reasons for the existing code and
restrictions, Edwards notes some safeguards that should be in place if the request is granted. VanEyll
recommends denial.
Staff has a number of concerns relative to this request, including:
- Parking and traffic management relative to Old Crystal Bay Road and the immediate internal road
system
- Emergency access to the sites
- Impacts to integrity of the gravel road base (see Martini comments)
- Establishment of existing and final grades for permit approvals
- Address and road signage identification for the sites
- Precedent -setting potential for any other subdivision that has one or more lots abutting an existing
public road
Staff s initial answer to the developer's informal request earlier this year was No, we won't issue permits
before the initial lift of asphalt is in place. The subsequent formal request via letter has prompted staff to
consider whether there are factors so unique to this specific proposal and location that approval would not
Prepared By: Mike Gaffron Reviewed By: Approved By: D5R
AGENDAITEM
become precedent -setting. The difficulty is that most new subdivisions intended to be entirely served by
internal public or private roads will have one or more lots that abut an existing paved street, so we would
anticipate similar future requests. The City's answer to such requests in the past has consistently been to
follow the Development Agreement provisions.
Potential justifications to approve the request might include:
- Accessibility of existing fire hydrants (as opposed to properties not served with municipal water
requiring tanker trucks hauling water)
- Assist developer in their marketing efforts
Potential reasons to deny the request include:
- Potential need for road base reconstruction due to damage during home construction
- Unpredictability of weather conditions that could impact drivability of gravel road surface
- Potential conflict between home construction traffic & parking, and traffic for completing the
development improvements. The logistics of completing the road and infrastructure become more
difficult.
- Establishment of a negative precedent — this is a common request from developers, and the answer
has always been no; approval will make it difficult to say no to others
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the request. However, if Council chooses to
grant approval, there are a number of conditions that would have to be attached to that approval:
- Construction parking plan to be submitted for approval. No construction parking on Old Crystal
Bay Road or Wayzata Blvd.
- Street identification sign and address signage to be in place
- Construction entrance to OCB Rd. must be sufficient to handle both infrastructure construction
traffic and home construction traffic
- The roadway subgrade will be reinspected and must pass roll test prior to paving.
- Emergency access to the individual driveways must be maintained at all times
- No occupancy of homes until all infrastructure/improvements are completed and accepted by the
City. Parade Homes subject to separate City special event permit
- Building permit application to include grading plans showing existing grades at the time of
application as well as proposed final grades which must match the approved overall subdivision
development plan grades.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Determination whether developer should be allowed to begin construction of two homes prior to paving of
road.
Exhibits
A — Letter of Request & Site Map
B — Development Contract Excerpt
C — City Code Excerpts
D — Comments from Dave Martini, Adam Edwards & James VanEyll
Prepared By: Mike Gaffron Reviewed By: Approved By: D5R
EXCELSIOR
Tb v &-cefsk r Gm rip Council
Exhibit A
March 9, 2017
Mike Gaffron
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Dear Mike,
On behalf of OP5 Orono, Owner and Developer of Orono Preserve, we are requesting the City
of Orono Staff and Council Members approve the issuance of building permits prior the
completion of paved roads for 2 lots in Orono Preserve: Lot 12, Block I and Lot 1, Block 2 (see
attached plan). The existing city ordinance does not allow building permits without a paved
road, specifically for public safety reasons. The two lots we are requesting to receive permits
for meet thisintent of the ordinance to ensure public safety. With an abutting paved road,
significant access via gravel road, and close proximity to operating fire hydrants, any concern
from a public safety perspective is addressed. The Developer believes the issuance of these
permits is reasonable, due to the following reasons:
• Both Lot 12, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 abut Old Crystal Bay Rd at the rear lot lines,
which is a paved road.
• The Developer has installed Class 5 gravel at the entrance road of Orono Preserve,
Bluestern Way, which serves as access to the 2 lots.
0 There are two fire hydrants within 400 feet or less of the 2 lots.
Furthermore, the Developer continues to move forward with site construction, and is working
diligently to get the necessary utilities and services installed prior to the builder requesting a
Certificate of Occupancy. Roads will be paved and complete by May 31, 2017, prior to issuance
of any Certificates of Occupancy. By issuing building permits for the above mentioned lots prior
to having completed paved roads, utilities, and services, the builder, David Weekley Homes, will
be able to begin construction of two models, and begin their marketing and sales activity for
the development.
We appreciate staff and council's consideration of this request.
Thank you,
�lelmen—stad
Project Manager
The Excelsior Group, LLC
OP5 Orono, LLC
The Excelsior Group, LLC % 1660 Highway 100 S., Suite 400, St. Wuls Park, MN 55416
952-525-3200 ExcelslorILILC.corn Info@ Excelsio rl.LC.coin
_77-8.
It I bil 41
Lij
Ila
M 'CA 78 YL VZA VM
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — —
Hl
Ila
M 'CA 78 YL VZA VM
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — —
Ila
Council
Exhibit B
,6:YCZR,P'r- - 090AJO 1P"5&W6 bWL-1AOPP4&VN)r e.04/rP2kd..T-
E. Grading and one lift of asphalt shall be irotalled on all streft pnor to
issuance of any budding piermits; for homes accessing via said streets.
F. If building permits we issued prior to the completion of all hWovernents,
the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in compietion. of Iinyavements
and damage to ImPrOvClneuts caused by the CAty, Developer, its contracton, SuWontractm,
material men, employees, agents, or turd parties. No sewer and water connecdon permits may be
issued and no one may occupy a building for which a building Permit is issued on eidw a
or permanent basis until the sftets needed for access have been paved with at least one
lift of biturriinous surface and 1he utilities are accepted by the City Engineer in writing.
rZ T%- __g_ --- AL- . .. -
�"W� 4JL UJW, %,ILY auau JLWL UUIW== a waiver or
amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers; shall be in
wdtLng, signed by the parties and approved by wntten resolution of the City Council, The City9s
Mum to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. This Contn= shall run with the Land and may be recorded agaitM the
Land, The Developer covenants with the City, Its sUCCeSsm and amps, that the Developer is
well seized in fee title of the Land and/or has obtained consents to this contmct, in the form
attached hereto, from all parties who have an intmst in the land, that tbere are no unrWorded
int=sts in the Land; and that the Developer win fiximlify and hold &e City harmless for any
breach of the foregoing covenants.
I. Each n9bt. Power or remedy herein conf=ed upon the City is cumulative
and in addition to every other jigbI, power or reniedy, emmss or iniplied, now or haufter
arising, available to the City� at law or in equity, or under any'od= agreement, and each and
every ngK power and remedy herein ad forthor o&mwise so misting may be ex=sed fiom.
time to time as often and in sucli order as may be deemed evedient by the City and sball not be a
waiver of the right to exercise at any tLme thereafter any &Iier right, power or remedy.
L 7he Developer may not asmp this Contact without the wntt,. pmission
of the City Council. The Developer's obligations hmvmder shall continue in fRU force and effect
even if die Developer sells one or mom lots in the. Plat, the Lmd, or any part of it Upon reques4
the City shall provide, in recordable form, a relase of any lot in &e plat from this Devejopnm=
Conbuct if the City detmmim that the tm= and Wnditions of this Contract have been satafied.
188285VI Palp 16 of 25
Orono, MIN Code of Ordinances
(e:c. L82-4�9uance of building permits and certificates of occupancy. Council
Exhibit C
(a) When public and/or private improvements are required for a subdivision, building permits
and certificates of occupancy may be issued only subject to the approval of the council and
shall be provided for in the subdivider's agreement.
(b) Building permits will not be issued to any lot which lot has access only onto proposed public
I
or private street unless such street has been improved to the point so that it is adequate f6r
vehicular access by the prospective occupant and by police and fire department and
emergency vehicles.
(c) In no case will a certificate of occupancy be issued to any building on any lot in the
subdivision which lot has access only on a new public or private street until a certificate of
satisfactory completion has been issued for that public or private street.
(Code 1984, § 11.16)
about:blank 4/5/2017
Orono, MNI Code of Ordinances Page I of 1
(Sec. =82-214>spection of required public and private improvements.
(a) Generalprocedure and fees. The city may inspect required public and private improvements
during construction. The applicant shall pay to the city an inspection fee based on the current
city fee schedule for public and private improvements required as a result of subdivision
approval. If the city finds upon inspection that any of the required improvements have not
been constructed in accordance with the city's construction standards and specifications, the
subdivider shall be responsible for completing the improvements; and no building permits or
certificates of occupancy shall be issued until the required improvements have been
completed by the subdivider. Wherever the cost of improvements is covered by a
performance bond, the subdivider and the bonding company shall be sever -ally and jointly
liable for completing the improvements according to specifications.
(b) Release or reduction ofperformance bond.
(1) Certificate of satisfactory completion. The city will not accept dedication of required
improvements, nor release nor reduce a performance bond, until the city engineer has
submitted a certificate stating that all required improvements have been satisfactorily
completed and until the subdivider's engineer or surveyor has certified to the city
engineer, through submission of a detailed as -built construction drawing and survey plat
of the subdivision, indicating location, dimensions, materials and other information
required by the city, that the layout of the line and grade of all required improvements is
in accordance with construction plans for the subdivision. The city may require that a title
insurance policy be furnished to and approved by the city attorney, indicating that the
required public improvements are free and clear of any and all liens and encumbrances.
Upon such approval and recommendations, the city may thereafter accept the public
improvements for dedication in accordance with the established procedure.
(2) Reduction ofperformance bond. A performance bond maybe reduced upon actual
dedication of public improvements or upon satisfactory completion of the private
improvement and then only to the ratio that the improvement bears to the total required
improvements for the plat. In no event shal I a performance bond be reduced below 25
percent of the principal amount until satisfactory completion of all required
improvements.
(Code 1984, § 11.13)
about:biank 4/5/2017
Mike Gaffron
Council
From: a@bolton-menk.com> Exhibit D
Sent: em er 08, 2016 9:45 AM
To: Mike Gaffron
Cc: Adam Edwards; Jeremy Barnhart
Subject: Late Season Construction
Mike,
As we discussed, there are several issues that develop when construction extends late into the year:
* Fall conditions are typically wet and soils have no chance to dry up because of the cool weather and short
days. Because of this, it is very common that the subgrade cannot pass a roll test in the last fall. The proposed
solution is typically to increase the depth of the pavement structure (i.e. add sand) to bridge over the soft wet
soils but it does not address the issue completely and drainage of the pavement section can be an issue.
* When the aggregate base is proposed for a traveled surface to allow home construction to begin there are
several issues. For one thing, all components of the pavement structure are needed to provide the intended
strength for the road. A gravel base does not provide the same strength as a complete road, therefore, it more
likely that heavy construction vehicles will rut the pavement section all the way into the subgrade. This can
create thin spots in the sections that are hard to identify. Also, it is very likely that the aggregate base will
become contaminated with clay and/or organic materials because of the construction equipment tracking from
the lot onto the road. Identifying the needed corrections in the spring will be very difficult because the extent of
the damage will be hard to determine.
Drainage is also a concern with a road that is not up to the final grade. Areas that trap water remain soft and
are more susceptible to damage.
Typically, construction proceeds to the 75%-80% complete range very quickly. After that, we have had a very
hard time getting developers to complete the final portions of the project in a timely manner. Waiting until all
of the improvements are substantially completed seems to be the best way to ensure that projects are
completed. Too often final restoration and punch list items hang out there for a very long time (years) because
the incentive to complete the work is reduced once home construction is allowed to begin.
Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks
David P Martin! P.E.
Principal Engineer
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
2638 Shadow Lane
Suite 200
Chaska, MN 55318-1172
Phone: 952-448-8838 ext. 2458
Mobile: 612-756-4315
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
Mike Gaffron
From:
11�,' Adam Edwards
Sent:
ftms&14��, 2017 11:07 AM
To:
Mike Gaffron
Cc:
Jeremy Barnhart; David P. Martini
Subject:
FW: Orono Preserve Permit Request
Mike
From the Public Works/ Engineering perspective, I recommend approval of the request so long as appropriate
safeguards are in place.
1. No occupancy is to be granted until the development improvements are completed and accepted by the city.
2. The construction entrance and graveled roadway must be sufficient to handle both the construction traffic as well
and the parking for contractors working on the homes. No construction traffic of parking on OCB or CSAH 112.
The roadway subgrade will be re -inspected/ roll tested prior to paving.
Justification- It is reasonable for the developer to be able to being construction of some model homes for marketing
purposes. There is sufficient access to the subject properties from the existing infrastructure (streets and fire hydrants)
for any emergency service needs.
My only significant concern is not Engineering or Public Works related but is that we do not want to end up in a situation
where a resident has purchased the lot, built a house but now cannot move in because development is not done. I
think this could be dealt with by clear language spelling out that no occupancy prior to all development work being
completed and accepted by the city.
Adam
From: Mike Gaffron
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4:07 PM
To: David P. Martini <davidma@bolton-menk.com<mailto:davidma@bolton-menk.com>>; Soren Mattick <smattick@ck-
law.com<mailto:smattick@ck-law.com>>
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us<mailto:jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>>; Adam Edwards
<aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us<mailto:aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us>>; Melanie Curtis
<MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us<mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>>; Christine Mattson
<CMattson@ci.orono.mn-us<malito:CMattson@ci.orono.mn.us>>; Roger Peitso
<rpeitso @ci.orono. m n.us<mai Ito: rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us>>; James Van Eyll
<jvaneyll@longlakemn.gov<mailto:jvaneyll@longlakemn.gov>>; Correy Farniok
<CFarniok@ci.orono.mn.us<mailto:CFarniok@ci.orono.mn.us>>
Subject: FW: Orono Preserve Permit Request
Greetings, one and all —
The attached request was received today, and I would like each of you to weigh in on it. The developer of Orono
Preserve (at the SW quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Wayzata Boulevard) wishes to begin constructing two homes
prior to paving of the internal road system. The developer understands that the initial answer is "no" based on the terms
of the Development Contract and our long-standing practice, but that isn't stopping them from asking. See the request
and map attached. Please provide your thoughts and concerns, if any, regarding this proposal. My initial concerns
include:
Parking and traffic management relative to Old Crystal Bay Road and the immediate internal road system;
Emergency access to the sites;
I m pacts to integrity of the gravel road base;
Establishment of existing and final grades for permit approvals;
Address and road signage identification for the sites;
Precedent -setting potential for any other subdivision that has one or more lots abutting an existing public road.
And any other possible issues you might think of.
Any input you can provide within the next week or so would be helpful. Thanks!
Mike
Michael P. Gaffron
Senior Planner
City of Orono
(Street Address) 2750 Kelley Parkway
(Mailing Address) P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay. MN 55323
Phone: (952) 249-4622
Fax: (952) 249-4616
Mike Gaffron
From: r"_ James Van Evil <_h4neyll Vong lakemn.gov>
Sent: '----TMV—ay—,M'arch10, 2017 3:14 PM
To: Mike Gaffron
Subject: Re: Orono Preserve Permit Request
Hi Mike
I agree with your concerns. If we have answered no in the past, we should stay with that answer.
ff AT 0",
James Van Eyll
Fire Chief
Long Lake Fire Department
ivane lQlonglakemn.gov
On Mar 9, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Mike Gaffron <MGaffron ci.orono.rnn.us> wrote:
Greetings, one and all —
The attached request was received today, and I would like each of you to weigh in on it. The developer
of Orono Preserve (at the SW quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Wayzata Boulevard) wishes to begin
constructing two homes prior to paving of the internal road system. The developer understands that the
initial answer is "no" based on the terms of the Development Contract and our long-standing practice,
but that isn't stopping them from asking. See the request and map attached. Please provide your
thoughts and concerns, if any, regarding this proposal. My initial concerns include-,
Parking and traffic management relative to Old Crystal Bay Road and the immediate internal
road system;
Emergency access to the sites;
Impacts to integrity of the gravel road base;
Establishment of existing and tinal grades tor permit approvals;
Address and road signage identification for the sites;
Precedent -setting potential for any other subdivision that has one or more lots abutting an
existing public road.
And any other possible issues you might think of.
Any input you can provide within the next week or so would be helpful. Thanks!
Mike
Michael P. Gaffron
Senior Planner
City of Orono
(Street Addregs) 2750 Kelley Parkway
(Mailing Address) P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Phone: (952) 249-4622
Fax: (952) 249-4616