HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-2017 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, June 26, 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. The City Council may add agenda items to be
considered as part of the Consent motion. 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. Council Meeting of June 12, 2017
3. Claims/Bills
4. Garbage Haulers License
5. Approval of Back Up Generators for the Navarre Water Plant
6. Programmatic Maintenance Agreement with Minnehaha Watershed District
7. Appointment of 2017 Seasonal Employees
8. Approval to Accept Donation from the Crime Prevention Fund
9. #17-3910 — Lake West Development, LLC, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West, Interim Use Permit,
Resolution for Denial
10. #17-3925 — City of Orono, Text Amendment: Small Lots/Setbacks — Corrected Ordinance
11. # 17-3939 — John Bailey, 2807 Casco Point Road, Conditional Use Permit — Resolution
12. Joint Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County — Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) in FY 2018 — 2020 — Resolution
Public Comments — (Limit 5 Minutes per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not
engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council
may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state
their name and home address at the podium before speaking.
Public Works/City Engineer Report
13. Approval of Golf Course Planning Proposal
14. Approval of Golf Course Drainage Proposal
15. Approval of Golf Course / Parks Superintendent Position and Recruiting
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, June 26, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Planning Department Report
16. #16-3883 —Kevin Anderson/ James Franzel, 800 North Arm Drive, Preliminary Plat -Resolution
17. #17-3940 —Jason& Anelise Peterson, 4105 Highwood Road, Variances —Resolution
18. #17-3954 — LLFD/ City of Orono Site Plan Emergency Dock
Mayor/Council Report
19. Appointment of City Administrator
City Administrator's Report
20. Orono Woods Contract
2 1. Report on 2016 Audit
City Attorney's Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events 10000V�
2017
07-03-17 — Holiday Observed, Monday, City Offices Closed
07-04-17 — Independence Day, Tuesday, City Offices Closed
07-09-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
07-17-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Richard Crosby)
07-24-17 — Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
07-24-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
08-07-17 — Park Commission Work Session, Monday, 1:00 p.m.
08-14-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
08-21-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m.
08-28-17 — Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
08-28-17 — Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 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, Community Development Director Jeremy
Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, 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
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 21 and 24 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 17 was removed from the Consent
Agenda.
2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22,2017
3. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF MAY 22,2017
4. CLAINIS/BILLS
5. APPROVAL OF TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE — RENAISSANCE FIREWORKS
6. APPROVAL OF KENNEL LICENSES
V�Kyw 9 t1§111.1 WO a I IT.11) a 01 kta P 101 01MI 0
8. RECHEDULE PUBLIC HEAERING FOR CARMAN BAY LID
9. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER COMPENSTION ADJUSTMENT
ltl]�1117.11 130V F."I Q1 I 04M.11001 Dtollleh I .57.Toj WEIVATIM 41,41XINVA
11. WILLOW DRIVE TRAIL REHABILITATION
12. APPOINT JOHN THIESSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION — THIRD, 3 -YEAR TERM
13. PURCHASE OF TAX FORFEITED PARCELS FOR PERMANENT CONSERVATION
RESOLUTION NO. 6764.
14. #17-3934 JIM KIRKLAND O/B/O NORTH SHORE MARINA, SMITH'S BAY,
1955 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6765.
15. #17-3936 ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — RESOLUTION NO. 6766.
Page I of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA — Continued
16. #17-3937 BLACK BEAR BUILDERS O/B/O JOHN BROOKS, 905 FERNDALE ROAD
WEST, VARIANCES, RESOLUTION NO. 6767.
17. #17-3938 TC HOMES, INC., (Brian Tutt) O/B/O NANCY BLOMS, 1325 REST POINT
LANE, VARIANCES: LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK
RESOLUTION NO. 6768.
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda.
18. RESIGNATION OF RACHEL DODGE — ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ASSISTANT
21. #17-3935 ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 2687 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — RESOLUTION NO. 6769.
24. #17-3941 ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS/CITY OF ORONO, 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY
ROAD NORTH, TEXT AMENDMENT: SCHOOL DISTRICT ZONING — ORDINANCE
NO. 198, THIRD SERIES.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Walsh stated this is the section of the City Council meeting where residents are allowed to make public
comments relating to items not currently on the agenda this evening. Walsh requested the comments be
limited to five minutes.
Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, stated he is here tonight to accept an apology from the City Attorney
and the City. Nygard indicated there was a letter to the editor a few days ago written by him and it
outlines how the City Attorney was not exactly truthful in an article entitled "Latest Orono Lawsuits
Include Neighbors, City and Mayor" published on May 11, 2017, by the Lakeshore Weekly. In that
article City Attorney Soren Mattick stated that a court recently upheld the City's ordinance on SWECS.
Nygard stated the Minnesota Court of Appeals, who did the ruling, did no such thing, and that the actual
wording in the opinion is, "Because Go Green did not assert a declaratory judgment claim, we, like the
District Court, take no position on the reasonableness of the City's SWECS ordinance." Furthermore,
given the negative statewide ramifications of the decision, a petition for review on the case has been
submitted to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Nygard stated it is quite disturbing to him that the City Attorney would misrepresent the truth and attempt
to sway public opinion against him and his family when his job is to be neutral and honest. Nygard stated
he would hereby demand, and hopefully the residents of Orono would also demand, an official public
retraction of Mr. Mattick's statement in the Lakeshore Weekly News. Nygard stated the truth is that the
Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota District Court chose not to decide the wind turbine issue
either way and actually invited them to file a declaratory judgment claim.
Page 2 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS — Continued
Nygard stated it bothers him that Orono's attorney, who is supposed to be telling the truth, especially
when it comes to litigation, would say something so dishonest. Nygard stated he is here tonight to accept
a public apology if Mr. Mattick is man enough to give one.
Crosby requested Mr. Nygard speak for himself and not the citizens of Orono.
Nygard commented it apparently is okay with Council Member Crosby that the City Attorney did not tell
the truth to the public.
Walsh noted this is the public comment section of the City Council meeting and that the City Council will
not be having a dialogue about this subject.
Nygard stated he was responding to the comment by Council Member Crosby.
Crosby commented he is a citizen of Orono and that Mr. Nygard does not speak for him.
Nygard stated he is here to accept an apology from City Attorney Mattick.
Mattick stated there is no apology forthcoming.
Nygard stated the City Council could apologize if he wanted to. Nygard stated the facts are clear that the
appeals court said something and the City Attorney has said something else to the public.
Nygard stated he would like to add to his public comments that there will be an amendment to the lawsuit
filed by him tomorrow. Nygard noted the City sued him for his firewood pile, his clothesline, and a
whirlybird pole. Nygard commented he did not ask for these lawsuits but that is what the City Council is
doing. Nygard stated one of his responses tomorrow will be his claim against the City of Orono and
Third -Party Defendants Soren Mattick and Amy Schuett in their official capacity as city attorneys relating
to first amendment retaliation and due process.
Walsh noted Mr. Nygard's five minutes are up.
Bill Anderson, 1408 Baldur Park Road, requested the City Council consider passing some type of
regulation on short-term rentals. Anderson stated he and his neighbors have been dealing with issues
relating to the rental of a house in their neighborhood. Anderson indicated the house has been rented out
sometimes for a few days or a week at a time and that a few weeks ago there was a bachelor party and the
week before that was a bachelorette party, which has created issues with traffic and noise. Anderson
noted he has photographs of I I cars parked on the narrow street. In addition, the parties go until 11:00,
12:00 at night. Anderson noted this house is 20 feet away from his house and that the renters are raising
cane.
Anderson stated the other issue they have experienced is with dogs, which might have been resolved. In
that situation one of the neighbors had two Rottweilers chase him up on his dock and that at some point it
could be more of an issue.
Walsh noted the City Council had talked about this issue last year and that they struggled with the
language a little bit that was proposed in the ordinance. Walsh stated he would like to follow up with
Mr. Anderson later in the week.
Page 3 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS — Continued
Anderson provided Mayor Walsh with Shorewood's home rental policy. Anderson indicated he has
spoken with the property owner and sent him emails about the issues but that there currently is no rule or
regulation that says he cannot rent his house out. Anderson stated the house sleeps 12 and rents for
$ 1,000 a night, which results in a number of people being in the house. Anderson stated something needs
to be done about the situation.
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
19. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER APPOINTMENT
Edwards reviewed his Staff report dated June 12, 2017. Edwards indicated Mr. Clark has 20 years of
experience and has a positive customer service attitude. Mr. Clark has also been a local contractor in this
area for many years.
Mr. Brian Clark introduced himself to the City Council.
Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to appoint Brian Clark as a Public Works maintenance worker
effective June 26, 2017. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT — REPRESENTATIVE LOREN SCHOENZEIT
17. #1-3938 TC HOMES, INC., (Brian Tutt) ON BEHALF OF NANCY BLOMS, 1325 REST
POINT LANE, VARIANCES: LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK —
RESOLUTION NO. 6768.
Barnhart reviewed his Staff report dated June 12, 2017. The applicants are requesting variances from the
side street setback, lot size and lot width. Staff recommends approval.
Printup asked for clarification on the drainage issues.
Barnhart indicated this property is higher than the neighboring properties so all of the drainage goes into
the area. The neighbors are currently experiencing some runoff, and from a drainage perspective, their
main concern is that issue is not exacerbated. Barnhart noted there is a thorough review of the drainage as
part of the building pen -nit review to ensure water does not flow onto adjacent properties. Preliminary
review of the plan indicates there is an acceptable drainage plan but that the City does not get into
subsurface drainage.
Walsh asked if there is a final determination on the drainage.
Barnhart stated ultimately the applicant will submit a building permit application with full drainage plans
and that based on the preliminary review of Staff, the plan seems reasonable from a building and zoning
perspective.
Edwards stated he has reviewed it from the variance perspective but that he has not reviewed it from a
building permit perspective.
Page 4 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
17. #1-3938 TC HOMES, INC., (Brian Tutt) ON BEHALF OF NANCY BLOMS, 1325 REST
POINT LANE, VARIANCES: LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK —
RESOLUTION NO. 6768. — Continued
Crosby asked where the drainage will be diverted to.
Barnhart stated the water will be funneled to the culvert.
Brian Tutt, TC Homes, indicated he has had a discussion with one of the neighbors about his drainage
concerns. Per the numbers, the drainage works and that he agrees with Staff that this will be a nice
addition to the neighborhood. Tutt stated the drainage should not change the way it currently is.
Walsh asked if there is an engineering report concerning the drainage on the property.
Tutt indicated a survey was done by an engineer showing how the water will flow on the lot and that has
been signed by the surveyor.
Barnhart noted the City does require a signature by a professional engineer.
Walsh asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application.
Steve Hatcher, 4685 North Shore Drive, stated the previous owner of his property actually owned the
subject property. Hatcher stated he has experienced quite a few water issues since purchasing the
property.
Tom Ahren, 1345 Rest Point Lane, indicated he has had quite a number of issues since moving in three
and a half years ago. Ahren stated he did speak with Brian Tutt and that he was talking about the water at
the house. Abren indicated he is not sure what they are going to do with the drainage all the way down
the hill.
Ahren stated they proposed they be allowed to purchase the property from the owner. Ahren noted the
other property across the street sits up and has a great view of the lake, which would be a win/win
situation for everybody. Ahren stated they would like to split the property in half and keep part of it as a
natural area.
Ahren stated they are very concerned about the water runoff. The survey was sent to Mark Gronberg and
his concern was that there is nothing that is really spelled out about the runoff and that there will be more
water coming their way.
Hatcher noted there is a railway tie retaining wall that was built by the previous owner that is already
starting to concave out. Hatcher stated the water is pushing that area out into his driveway and that he has
concerns that if water is going to continue to be diverted to that area, the situation will be exacerbated.
Walsh stated he is aware of how steep the property is but that this is somebody who owns a piece of land
and the City cannot stop them from building on the property or require them to sell the property to a
certain person. Walsh noted the applicants have a professional engineer's signature and that he is not sure
how to stop them from building on the property.
Page 5 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
17. #1-3938 TC HOMES, INC., (Brian Tutt) ON BEHALF OF NANCY BLOMS, 1325 REST
POINT LANE, VARIANCES: LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, STREET SIDE YARD SLTBACK —
RESOLUTION NO. 6768. — Continued
Ahren commented he was attempting to come up with a win-win situation and that the other property
would not require any landscaping and they would not have to deal with any water issues.
Walsh stated that is more of a private party issue. The City Council will be dealing with the variance
issues that are before them and that the City Engineer will review the drainage. Walsh stated the
applicants will need an engineering plan that is signed, and barring that, the City Council does not have
anything that says they cannot approve this plan. Walsh stated the issue is the alley or road where the
water flows and rolls over into Mr. Ahren's yard since that is the natural slope and whether there will be
additional water runoff from the house.
Crosby commented some type of swale might help.
Walsh stated the drainage plan will address that.
Hatcher stated snow removal is also an issue. Hatcher stated he currently has piles of snow six to eight
feet eight from the snow on their two properties, and when the snow melts, that will create a bigger
problem given the additional snow from this driveway. Hatcher stated due to the steep incline, there are
times when he is unable to get out of his driveway and the only way to get out is to go down past Tom's
house. Hatcher stated he is worried about more snow getting pushed towards their properties and that the
snow removal for the new house should be pushed out and down away from their homes.
Walsh stated he is not sure the City has control over snow removal.
Hatcher stated the snow contractor will also likely have to go into Tom's driveway in order to plow this
driveway given the very narrow alley.
Walsh stated the City Council cannot facilitate the purchase of property and snow removal.
Nancy Bloms, Applicant, stated her realtor did remind the two neighbors of the property being for sale
repeatedly and that they now have someone who would like to purchase the property. Bloms stated as it
relates to the 35 -foot setback, that might be changed down the road to ten feet from the access.
Bloms stated the Planning Commissioners looked at the property and can see what happens with the
runoff. Bloms noted there was a variance granted on the property before they purchased it and that it does
not make sense that another variance should not be granted on it. Bloms stated in her view the new
owners have done everything the right way to come up with a solution but there is just no way to avoid
the water going that direction to some extent. Bloms stated those problems have existed from the get -go
even with nothing on the lot and that she is not sure this will impact it any further. Bloms stated in her
view the new house will be an improvement, and as long as everybody works together to resolve any
issues, it should not be a problem.
Seals recommended the City be solid on the drainage plan and that Staff should double check the drainage
on the lot. Seals commented she does not want to penalize the property owner since it is a buildable lot.
Page 6 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
17. #1-3938 TC HOMES, INC., (Brian Tutt) ON BEHALF OF NANCY BLOMS, 1325 REST
POINT LANE, VARIANCES: LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, STREET SIDE YARD SLTBACK —
RESOLUTION NO. 6768. — Continued
Barnhart noted the bottom of the hill will still receive water but that Staff will make sure it meets City
Code and ordinances.
Seals stated she wants to make sure the situation does not make it worse.
Crosby suggested some curbing be looked at to help guide the water.
Walsh stated the responsibility of the City Council is to look at the variances that are before them tonight
and that the City Council is not able to get involved in who should purchase the property.
Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6768, a Resolution Approving a
Variance from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330, File No. 3938, for the property located at
1325 Rest Point Lane, with the recommendation that the City Engineer thoroughly review the
drainage plans as part of the building permit application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
20. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING
Barnhart noted this item was tabled at the last City Council meeting. Barnhart reviewed his Staff report
dated June 12, 2017, noting that the applicant is requesting approval of an interim use permit to allow
temporary staging of construction activities.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, pointed out the distance between the proposed activities on the
subject property and the orchard is approximately one-third mile according to a map on Hennepin
County's website.
A video was played illustrating the layout of the property and the tree line surrounding the property.
Fretham noted there was some concern expressed about the dust and the effect it would have on the
orchard. Fretham stated in his opinion that will not happen due to the distance and the wind block from
the trees. Fretham stated the question is whether it is more of a concern for the apple orchard or for the
business owners in downtown Long Lake.
Fretham noted Staff has supported the request for a number of reasons and the Planning Commission
recommended approval as well. Fretham indicated he has met with over 30 property owners up and down
Wayzata Boulevard and listened to their concerns about the crushing and recycling activities that are
currently taking place in front of their businesses. As a result, a number of signatures in support of
moving the operations to this property was obtained and submitted to the City.
Alan Engleman, 315 North Old Crystal Bay Road, stated he remembers when Orono would not allow
Walgreen's to build on the comer of Willow and Highway 12 because it would impact the drug store
down the business, which did not stop the drug store from leaving six months later. Engleman stated he is
not sure why Orono is worried about Long Lake and that in his view it will not hurt them a bit.
Page 7 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
20. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING —
Continued
Engleman asked how much money Orono will receive if the City Council approves this. Engleman stated
in his view the City should get their palms greased, too, if they allow this since the property owner will be
making money. Engleman asked why the City would allow them to make money at the residents'
expense without compensating the City. Engleman suggested a bond be put up so if the apples are
contaminated, the Dumas' would be compensated.
Engleman stated there has been hardly any mention any more about taking only the material from the
Highway 112 project but that has not been raised lately. Engleman stated if the Council Okays the
crushing permit on the Eisinger property, they will have a hard time saying that someone else cannot buy
a piece of property and do the same thing that is being done here. In addition, Eureka has never been
brought up but they will receive the most money from this. Engleman stated in his view Orono should
not be their scapegoat and let them push everyone around. Engleman stated if the interim use permit is
allowed for this property, there is nothing stopping somebody from buying the two -acre lot or the three -
acre lot and doing the same thing.
Dankey stated she supports the request for a number of reasons, and while those are businesses in Long
Lake, the Orono City Council should work together with Long Lake to make this something that works
for both cities. Dankey stated in her view this is a practical way to deal with this issue to avoid it
affecting every single person on the highway and keep it more contained.
Crosby stated he would also support it with a time limit placed on it. Crosby stated in his view intruding
on less people is more important and that he is also concerned about the impact to the businesses.
Seals stated no matter what the City Council does, the highway project will cause some issues and there
will be some impact to the businesses no matter what the City Council does. Seals stated she does not see
the benefit of placing this next to a wetland or an apple orchard. Seals stated she does not see a place for
it in Orono or Long Lake and that she would not be in support of it.
Printup stated he also is opposed to it for many of the same reasons. Printup stated in his view this is not
anOronoissue. Printup stated Highway 112 goes through the two cities and that it is reasonable to have
this activity kept within the road. Printup stated while it might sound horrible, spreading the pain along
the roadway up and down 112 is reasonable. Printup noted he also is not happy about the Council voting
to approve the interim use permit ordinance.
Walsh stated he also agrees that this is a no win situation. Walsh stated they are looking at issues with
noise, dust, and environmental impacts but there is no silver bullet beyond not having it here at all.
Barnhart noted since it appears the City Council will not be approving this request, Staff will need to put
together a resolution of denial and that Staff will need some findings for denial.
Mattick noted the City Council has discussed concerns about noise, dust, and location, and that Staff
should be directed to draft a denial resolution that is consistent with the concerns expressed by the City
Council. Mattick stated the burden is on the applicant to prove that the dust will be taken care of and
certain things have been presented but the Council still has concerns about that.
Page 8 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
20. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING —
Continued
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to direct Staff to draft a denial resolution for Application No.
17-3910, Lake West Development, LLC, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard, File No. 17-3910.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Dankey and Crosby Opposed.
22. #17-3939 JOHN BAILEY, 2807 CASCO POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Curtis reviewed her Staff report dated June 12, 2017. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
in order to repair and restore slope failures on his property. Staff recommends approval of the plan but
continues to recommend the drainage solutions be certified by a licensed professional engineer.
John Bailey, Applicant, stated three years ago they had a couple of heavy rains and one of them created a
bad slide and then another rain a week later caused another failure. Bailey indicated he has assembled a
very competent team to look at this project and come up with a solution to it. Ron Anderson with Final
Grade has done a number of similar projects on Lake Minnetonka with good results and Tom Wickum.
has already obtained the permit to do the rip -rap. Norling Landscaping will do the plantings. Bailey
stated they are trying to do the project right, keep it natural, and that they have added engineering on the
drain pipes and berms. Bailey stated in his opinion the slope will end up as good as or better than it was
prior to the washout.
Walsh asked how the slope handled the recent rainstorm.
Bailey indicated when the washouts first occurred, they covered the area with fabric and that he is not
worried about runoff anymore.
Walsh stated there were two solutions to this issue: an engineered barrier wall and this option. Walsh
noted Staff had an issue with recommending approval since there was no engineer saying this will be
okay or not cause a bigger problem, which was also one of the recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
Bailey stated they have the engineering on the drainage system, which is what the Planning Commission
asked for, and they have soil borings. Bailey stated they are faced with building an expensive structure
and cutting the slope way back, removing the stairs, denuding the area, and making it a 2:1 slope that
engineers will sign off on or doing what they are proposing. Bailey stated the slope is too steep for that.
In addition, they also have to match into the adjoining properties.
Curtis stated when Staff is presented with a plan to restore the slope, they have to respond to the plan.
The City's engineers will look at the work that went into determining the plan and whether someone is
going to take responsibility for it. Bolton & Menk looked at this plan and they did not say it was not a
logical plan but that he wants an engineer's certification. Curtis noted the City or Bolton & Menk does
not take responsibility for the plan.
Walsh asked whether the City has received that.
Page 9 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
22. #17-3939 JOHN BAILEY, 2807 CASCO POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT —
Continued
Curtis stated they have not, but that she believes Mr. Bailey is saying that the plan has been developed
with an engineering mind but without the certification.
Bailey stated engineers have their requirements or codes that they have to live by. If the City was going
to build a road or a public building, then the City would need to have engineers sign off on it because
there is danger of someone from the public getting hurt. Bailey noted this is a residence where there have
been three washouts. Bailey stated this plan will put the slope back together as good or better than it was
and that he is trying to improve or correct what nature did. Bailey stated he is not refuting engineering
principles.
Walsh stated there is a steep grade there and that there needs to be a solution arrived at. Walsh stated he
does not want to impose a quarter million dollar solution and that the property owner does not want to see
further washouts but that the City Council and engineers have to follow certain rules.
Dankey noted there are other similar situations on the lake.
Walsh commented he does not want to see the situation become worse and that the soil borings show
there are pretty stable soils.
Seals stated the Filtrex system does look like great bank stabilization but that she is not sure how that will
work in conjunction with the pipe underneath and how the size of the pipe was determined. Seals noted
Filtrex calls for a 2:1 slope and asked what the applicant is proposing. Seals commented she wants to
protect the property owner from having further damage without having to cut the whole yard back.
Ron Anderson, Final Grade, noted they have done a number of projects on Lake Minnetonka, such as the
Wayzata Muni, and that they are attempting to come up with a landscape solution to help address the
problem. Anderson stated they will have to export the dirt since the soils are extremely saturated and get
down to a firm base. Anderson indicated they will place some solid clay in there, which will be
compacted in, and that the Filtrex will help to stabilize the slope rapidly. The Filtrex will not change or
become the structure of the slope.
Seals asked how the Filtrex will work with the pipes.
Anderson indicated the pipes will go below the Filtrex. Anderson stated the big reason the slope failed in
those two areas is the drainage split and the water came down continuously resulting in the slope failure.
Anderson stated the pipes will take the drainage away from that slope.
Crosby asked how many culverts there will be.
Anderson indicated there will be two.
Seals asked what slope they are recommending.
Anderson stated the existing slope is less than 1: 1 and that they will keep it to just under a 1: 1. Anderson
stated matching the property comers at the neighbors will be a challenge since they are steeper than this
Page 10 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
22. #17-3939 JOHN BAILEY, 2807 CASCO POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT —
Continued
property. Anderson stated they will have a very solid base. Anderson commented the stairway would
have failed if the soils were bad but that only the sides slid where the surface water went down.
Dankey commented she also heard at the Planning Commission meeting that the Bailey's neighbor also
had a similar slope failure.
Seals stated her only concern is whether Filtrex has been asked to see whether it will work with the slope
being proposed.
Anderson stated the Filtrex will work since there will not be any more surface water coming down the
slope anymore given the pipes diverting that runoff. Anderson commented he is hoping they can save
some of the existing soils, but that if they are saturated, they will be removed. Anderson indicated he will
be working with a soil engineer to make sure the soil compaction is right and the outlet will be located at
the top of the riprap.
Crosby noted the culverts can get clogged with debris, but if they are kept clean, in his view it is a great
idea.
Printup asked what will be done if this plan is not approved.
Anderson indicated nothing. Anderson noted the slope is literally vertical for approximately 15 feet, and
that this is basically a landscaping project that will help stabilize the slope.
Bailey stated one of the things that will be incorporated is deep rooted vegetation, such as prairie grass
and cedar trees.
Printup asked if the City is liable in any way if there is any further failure.
Mattick stated the engineering signature says that they have reviewed it and it should work. Since there is
no engineering signature in this situation, the question before the Council is whether the signature is
needed. Mattick stated city approval does not warrantee the work and that the City Council is reviewing
it in relation to the City's code for what is typically required.
Mattick stated the City Council has received an explanation on why the applicant has not obtained that
and that they have a property owner who wants to proceed forward with the plan and a person who is
willing to do the work. Mattick stated the concern is when you start doing the work and reconfiguring the
area, that could impact the stability, but it does not mean the plan will not work. Mattick stated the City
is approving the plan but not guaranteeing it will work.
Seals stated she is struggling with this since she feels the City is skipping a step in the process but that
does not mean the plan will fail. Seals stated she is more concerned about the Baileys and that she does
not want to see a bigger chunk going into the lake.
Walsh stated the applicant has done a lot of research into finding a qualified person and coming up with a
plan that they feel will work.
Page 11 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
22. #17-3939 JOHN BAILEY, 2807 CASCO POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT —
Continued
Seals noted if this plan is not approved, the slope will remain as is and could potentially become worse.
Crosby moved, Dankey seconded, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution on Application No.
17-3939, John Bailey, 2807 Casco Point Road, granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
23. #17-3940 JASON AND ANALISE PETERSON, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES
Curtis reviewed her Staff report dated June 12, 2017. The applicants would like to construct a new home
to the existing detached garage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application
with the exception of the 2 -foot side setback for the tiered decks. Staff recommends denial of the 2 -foot
side setback and denial of a lake setback variance to permit the tiered decks to encroach into the 75 -foot
lake setback.
Printup asked why a variance is needed for the height.
Curtis stated the height is measured at the highest existing adjacent grade to the mid -point of the peak,
which is 32 feet. Curtis stated the new portion of the house, if it was not attached to the garage, would
meet the height limitation of 30 feet, but attaching it brings it up to the 32 feet. As part of the original
variance that approved the detached garage, the resolution made a stipulation that any future home
connected to the garage would require a height variance due to the topography.
Jason Peterson, Applicant, commented it is a challenging lot but the goal was to improve the lot by
reducing the hardcover, improving the drainage, and enhancing the appearance of the house. The
majority of the existing house is located within the 75 -foot setback. Peterson stated the additional
hardcover being requested is related to the square deck. Peterson noted they had originally proposed a
triangle shaped deck that followed the setback line but the Planning Commission had recommended that
the deck be made square so it would be more functional.
Peterson indicated they tried working with the neighbor on the sightlines. On the southeast comer of the
house, that was cut off an angle to help with the sightlines. Peterson noted there used to be a variance
request for the east side but they have eliminated that to accommodate the neighbor. Peterson stated
moving the house out of the 75 -foot setback created somewhat of a hardship.
Crosby asked if any of the deck will encroach into the 75 -foot setback.
Peterson indicated the deck will encroach into the 75 -foot setback since it has now been squared off.
Gary Germnudsen, 4101 Highwood Road, stated his main concern relates to the 75 -foot setback and the
15 -foot setback. Geminudsen stated there basically will be a wall coming 30 feet straight up from the
edge of the property line. Germnudsen indicated his house sits back 15 feet in that comer and that his
sightline will be affected. The other three homes in that area are all behind the setback. Geminudsen
stated if the applicant wanted to, since he is adding a 41 -foot addition, he could go backwards and take
ten feet off of the house or remove the deck. Gennnudsen noted that would still leave the house within
the 75 -foot setback but it would be less of an encroachment. Geminudsen stated he doesn't want his view
Page 12 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
23. #17-3940 JASON AND ANALISE PETERSON, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES -
Continued
to get blocked anymore and that currently he is looking at a one -level house versus the 3 -level house that
is being proposed.
Peterson stated he wants to work together with the neighbor and that they have worked hard with the
architect to make it work. Peterson noted the lot is narrow and that the originally proposed deck was
triangular, which was not very functional. The Planning Commission recommended squaring the deck off
so a normal size table would be able to fit on it. Peterson indicated he is also looking at having low
visibility railings and doing other things to accommodate the neighbor as best as possible.
Walsh noted Staff was not in favor of the variance to the 75 -foot setback and that it is clean slate since
they will be tearing the existing house down. Walsh stated the skinny lot requires a long, narrow house,
which makes it more difficult.
Walsh noted Staff has recommended denial of the 2 -foot side setback for the tiered decks.
Curtis noted the applicants have resolved the 2 -foot side setback and no longer require a variance.
Walsh stated Staff is recommending denial of a lake setback variance, which means the deck would need
to be removed out of that setback area. Walsh noted Staff is recommending approval of the other
variance requests.
Crosby stated he likes Staff s recommendations. Crosby commented a nice compromise would be to
enforce the 75 -foot setback and allow the other variances.
Seals noted the City Council has required other applicants to comply with the 75 -foot setback.
Printup asked what the hardcover would be reduced to if the deck were removed.
Curtis stated it would still remain at 28 percent since the square footage amount of the deck is rather
small.
Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to direct Staff to draft a resolution for Application No. 17-3940,
Jason and Analise Peterson, 4105 Highwood Road, per Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:48 p.m. to 8:55 p.m.)
25. #17-3925 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SMALL LOTS/SETBACKS
Barnhart reviewed his Staff report dated June 12, 2017. The Planning Commission elected to not
recommend a change to the setbacks for non -conforming lots or changes to the side yard adjacent to street
since they felt the I 0 -foot minimum was a good standard to follow and there did not seem to be much
demand to alter the setbacks in order to reduce requests for variances. Staff recommends adoption of an
ordinance related to setbacks for non -conforming lots.
Page 13 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
25. #17-3925 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SMALL LOTS/SETBACKS —
Continued
Printup asked how someone would benefit under the proposed ordinance if they want an accessory
structure, such as a garage or shed.
Barnhart stated accessory structures have their own set of setbacks but in many cases they are the same as
the principal structure unless it is a lake yard. Barnhart indicated Staff could take a look at those if that is
the direction of the Council, but that the ordinance primarily looks at the principal structure setbacks.
Walsh commented that might be an issue for the Code Review Commitment to look at. Walsh noted
currently the side yard setback in the one -acre zone is 10 feet and that Staff is proposing it be reduced to
eight feet. In the two -acre zone, the setback would be reduced to 10 feet.
Barnhart stated currently the setback in the two -acre zone is either 30 or 50 feet. Barnhart noted the
reduced setbacks would only apply to lots with nonconforming widths but not nonconforming sized lots.
Walsh noted there would still be the same hardcover requirement. Walsh stated this would be another
tool to give people a little more flexibility on a narrow lot. Walsh noted every variance has to go through
the process, and if the number of variances is reduced, that will result in less work for Staff.
Barnhart stated Staff can approve lot size and lot width variances administratively and that over the past
few years changes to hardcover and structural coverage have been made, which also provides some
flexibility.
Randi Carlson, It 85 Arbor Street, stated she lives in an RR- I B zoning district, which has smaller lots, but
when you look at this amendment as a whole, it has very little value. Carlson stated she can imagine most
of the small lot neighborhoods would encounter the same problem as her neighborhood.
Walsh noted this would apply to every lot in her neighborhood.
Carlson stated since they are all nonconforming, they would all be eligible for this reduction in the side
setback. Carlson noted in her neighborhood, when the house bumps out to the side, they will also need a
front and rear setback. Carlson stated she is concerned about the precedent that is being set. Carlson
questioned whether other nonconforming lots will want the same consideration.
Walsh stated the ordinance would cover all nonconforming lots as it relates to width in any RR-lB zone
throughout the City.
Carlson commented she has a lot of issues with the changes and that it will impact the character of the
neighborhood. Carlson stated in her view her neighborhood should be rezoned to one acre.
Barnhart stated in a one acre zone, the minimum front width is 140 feet with a I 0 -foot setback. Under the
new ordinance, the setback would be eight feet. The front and rear setbacks would remain at 35 feet.
Carlson stated all the homes in her neighborhood would meet those setbacks. Carlson stated in her view
rezoning it to one acre would solve more problems in her. Carlson commented the Council seems to be
very concerned about having a concentration of homes, but the boundaries that she is talking about would
Page 14 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
25. #17-3925 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SMALL LOTS/SETBACKS —
Continued
result in only two additional homes in the neighborhood, which is less than a two percent increase since
there are probably 60 houses or more total.
Carlson asked what the specific hurdle is that has to be overcome in order to explore rezoning her
neighborhood. Carlson asked why the Council does not want to look at rezoning the area. Carlson noted
she was told to wait until the City did its Comprehensive Plan update to address the rezoning but now she
is being told they aren't rezoning.
Walsh noted Mrs. Carlson could request a variance to subdivide her property.
Carlson stated that would be costly for her as a homeowner and a lot more work for the City.
Walsh stated he is not sure about that but that is one option she could consider. Walsh stated rezoning an
entire area takes a little more thought and analysis since it could impact other areas as well. Walsh stated
the Council has not discussed any of those issues so they do not know the unintended consequences of
reducing those requirements.
Carlson indicated she did send a letter requesting an analysis of those issues and that she would like her
property to have the potential to be subdivided. Carlson stated having lived in her neighborhood for 35
years, she has seen that there are other neighbors who have issues with how they are able to remodel their
homes. Carlson stated if that is what is being attempted to be addressed with this text amendment, the
City is not going the full scope.
Walsh stated rezoning and setbacks are completely separate issues.
Carlson stated if the City were to rezone, there would be fewer variances required since the front setback
would go to 30 and the side setback would go to ten.
Walsh stated her request will be brought to the Code Review Committee.
Barnhart stated the text amendment deals with the setbacks without increasing the density, which does not
solve or address Mrs. Carlson's concern. Barnhart noted that does not prohibit the Planning Commission
or the Comprehensive Plan Update Committee from reviewing possible rezoning of certain areas, which
will be happening over the next 18 months.
Seals stated in regards to the rezoning, when she was campaigning, she did not hear any requests about
rezoning. Seals stated she did hear how people want the ability to do more with their lots but that they
did not want to see more homes or higher density. Seals stated people are concerned about what the
unintended consequences of rezoning would be and that they are basically looking to put a deck on their
house, which is a pretty reasonable request.
Walsh stated he would like to separate the rezoning issue from this text amendment and that he would like
to refocus back on the setbacks since rezoning is not before the City Council at this time. Walsh noted
with the Orono Preserve development, the Council allowed setbacks at 10 and 5 feet, which basically
averages out to 7.5 feet. Walsh pointed out the text amendment applies only to lots that have widths that
Page 15 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
25. #17-3925 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SMALL LOTS/SETBACKS —
Continued
are nonconforming and does not change the hardcover requirements. If the hardcover maximum has been
reached on the lot, the property owner would not be able to do anything.
Walsh indicated he would be fine with reducing the side yard setback in the one acre zone to 7.5 feet, in
the two acre zone to 10 feet, and adjusting the side street setbacks where the rights-of-way are
unimproved.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve Exhibit B and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 199, Third
Series, an Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Setbacks for Unimproved
Rights -of -Way, reducing the side yard setback to 7.5 feet, requiring a 10 -foot setback in the two -
acre zone, and to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation relating to unimproved
rights-of-way, and to adjust the side yard setback for all lots from 50 and 30 feet to 30, 20, and 15
feet depending on the zoning district per Staff recommendations.
Barnhart noted the ordinance is only proposing changes to four areas and it would not change anything in
the commercial, industrial or five -acre zones.
Walsh stated he does not feel anything needs to be done in the other zones.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Dankey stated two times in the last couple of days while she was watching Channel 5 news, she saw
Orono Mayor Dennis Walsh and Council Member Victoria Seals.
Printup reported great strides have been made with Highway 12 and that additional funding has been
approved and signed into law to create some improvements at Highway 12 and County Road 92.
Seals reported there was a meeting of the Big Island committee and that they visited the Island along with
Channel 5. Seals stated there were a lot of positive ideas exchanged and that a number of improvements
are being discussed for Big Island.
Walsh reported the Police Commission met and they discussed the problem with drugs and opioids.
Walsh stated there was a tour of Big Island, with a segment on the Island airing on Channel 5. Walsh
noted he did ask the City Clerk to include the link to the segment on the City's website.
Walsh reported he attended a Boy Scout Court of Honor earlier today and that it was great to see all the
participation by the Scouts and the interest in earning an Eagle Scout badge.
Walsh noted the Lurton Dog Park grand opening will be held this Saturday, June 17, from 1-3. Walsh
stated the City has issued 300 permits already for the dog park, which has exceeded expectations.
Page 16 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT — Continued
Walsh stated the City will be holding more committee meetings this week and that the City Council will
be interviewing the final candidates this week for the City Administrator position.
26. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO RACHEL DODGE — RESOLUTION NO. 6770
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6770, a Resolution to Rachel Dodge
for more than 16 years of dedicated service to the City of Orono. VOTES: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
27. WAYZATA FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT
Reeder stated the Fire Comnjission met this past week and discussed servicing the portion of Orono that
is currently serviced by Wayzata. The conclusion of the Fire Commission was that the Long Lake Fire
Department could provide that service without compromising their current operations or requiring
additional equipment. Reeder noted a memo from the Long Lake Fire Chief has been submitted
regarding that.
Reeder noted the contract with the City of Wayzata ends at the end of 2017. The Long Lake contract
allows the City to increase or decrease the area of coverage as long as the City gives notice of their intent
by the Pt of July.
Walsh stated the City has to give six months' notice by the end of June and that the City Council has
received the recommendation from the Fire Commission and the memorandum from the Long Lake Fire
Chief.
Crosby asked how the box alarm system works so people understand mutual aid would also be coming.
Chief James Van Eyll stated a box alarm is a predefined group of resources that will come to a
predetermined area, such as the east or west side of Orono. Mutual aid agreements are done by the
Hennepin Chiefs Association. Anyone who is part of the Hennepin Chiefs Association has a mutual aid
agreement set up. Van Eyll indicated they have had conversations with the Wayzata Fire Department and
that they would still respond if they were called to any location Orono needs them at.
Seals noted a few residents from the Chevy Chase neighborhood reached out to the Council. Seals stated
she would like to understand what their concern relates to. Seals asked whether it is a concern relating to
the First Responder. Seals noted there would be mutual aid that would respond if there is a big fire or
emergency.
Van Eyll stated he is not sure exactly where the concern is coming from. Van Eyll stated the box alarms
are set up for 12 significant events and are more based on the fire side than a medical emergency. Van
Eyll stated the concern might be related to medical situations where the Long Lake Fire Department's
response will not be as quick as Wayzata but that the police usually respond faster than the fire
department.
Page 17 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
27. WAYZATA FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT — Continued
Walsh commented this arrangement has existed for a while and that people sometimes are hesitant about
changing. Walsh noted the Long Lake Fire Department would be able to meet the national response times
to this area.
Reeder noted three emails were placed before the City Council tonight expressing some concerns.
Tom Cullum, 785 North Ferndale Road, stated the residents on the eastern end of Orono feel like they
have almost been annexed by Wayzata since they do not receive a lot of city services from Orono.
Cullum stated he struggles with the idea of changing something that is working where the response times
are much faster. Cullum stated he has had two heart attacks and that response time is very important to
him.
Cullum noted he stumbled upon this item by chance and that none of his neighbors are aware of this.
Cullum asked whether there has been any contact by the City with this area.
Walsh noted there was an open house held on this item last summer and that the City Council already has
those comments. Walsh stated the City has not notified anyone in particular and that it is up for a vote
this evening.
Collin stated he is surprised that there was not more notice given to the residents in the area and that most
of his neighbors were unaware that this was being discussed tonight.
Dankey asked if the box alarm is automatic or whether the Long Lake Fire Department has to request help
from other areas.
Van Eyll indicated the system is set up in CAD through Hennepin County Dispatch and that it is set up
for larger fire events. Van Eyll stated when the Long Lake Fire Department gets called to a fire
anywhere, they can raise the box level and ask for additional resources.
Van Eyll stated typically a large volume of resources is not needed for a medical emergency and that the
police will typically respond first, followed by the ambulance, and then the fire department. Van Eyll
stated those smaller medical events are typically handled that way unless it is a larger catastrophe or mass
shooting. Van Eyll stated the Long Lake Fire Department will respond to the priority medical calls, such
as a heart attack, but if it is somebody calling in that is not feeling well, the police will handle those. Van
Eyll stated the Fire Department will only get called if the police are not able to respond on the lesser
emergencies.
Crosby asked what the percentage is where the police officers arrive to the scene before the Fire
Department.
Van Eyll stated it is probably 80 to 90 percent.
Printup asked how many calls there were in that area last year.
Van Eyll stated it is approximately 20 to 25 calls per year and that there are not a lot of major fires or
major emergencies in this area.
Page 18 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
27. WAYZATA FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT — Continued
Walsh noted almost half of those were cancelled calls.
Van Eyll stated the majority of the calls that come through for the Long Lake Fire Department are smaller
events.
Printup asked whether the Highway 112 improvement project has impacted the response from the Fire
Department.
Van Eyll stated they do have the bypass through the cemetery road for emergency services.
Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to notify the Long Lake Fire Department of the City's intent to
increase their service coverage area as of January 1, 2018, and to notify the City of Wayzata of the
City's intent to discontinue Wayzata's Fire Department services at the end of 2017.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Mattick stated he had nothing to report.
&"1 14111"11105 104 "
Seals moved, Dankey seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 10:04 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 19 of 19
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 3 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Claims/Bills
Presenter: Danielle Amira Agenda Consent Agenda
Accountant Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for
services and/or products provided to the City.
2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed
the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks
107627 to 107716, totaling $327,664.42.
3. Noteworthy Payments.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims
list as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the claims list as presented.
Exhibits
A. Check Register
Prepared By: AW Reviewed By: AW Approved By: D5jZ
Amount
Description of Payment
-Vendor
# 107630 Atkinson Construction
$14,285.00
Payment for Well #3 Pump house repair.
#107633 Bond Trust Services
$ 119,377.17
Payment for Interest on Bond 20 1 OA, 2014A, 2016A and
Bond Agent Fees
#107705 TL Stevens
$7,298.57
Payment for Lurton park transition to dog park
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims
list as presented.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the claims list as presented.
Exhibits
A. Check Register
Prepared By: AW Reviewed By: AW Approved By: D5jZ
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page 1
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO
06/26/2017
107627
INV136942
602-49450-401
Printer -06/10/17-07/09/17
Sewer
58.78
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO
06/26/2017
107627
INV136942
101-41900-401
Printer -06/10/17-07/09/17
Central Services
117.57
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO
06/26/2017
107627
INV136942
101-42110-401
Printer -06/10/17-07/09/17
Police Department
117.57
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO
06/26/2017
107627
INV137507
101-41900-221
Toner
Central Services
12.68
Total 107627:
306.60
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER
06/26/2017
107628
69725
101-42110-550
Spare Mics for New Radios
Police Department
321.55
Total 107628:
321.55
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC
06/26/2017
107629
308625
101-42110-550
Spare Remotes for Squad Radios
Police Department
113.50
Total 107629:
113.50
ATKINSON CONSTRUCTION & S
06126/2017
107630
ORONO 052
601-49400-404
Well #3 Pumphouse Repairs
Water
14,285.00
Total 107630:
14,285.00
BANK OF AMERICA NA
06/26/2017
107631
495959
101-42110-311
Case# D053117000623- J. Trujillo
Police Department
26.04
Total 107631:
26.04
BATTERIES PLUS
06/26/2017
107632
021-372679
602-49450-406
Lift Station #10 Batteries
Sewer
104.98
Total 107632:
104.98
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
06/26/2017
107633
36038
321-47000-611
1 nterset 201 OA
34,196.88
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
06/26/2017
107633
36039
322-47000-611
Interset 2014A
46,462.51
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
06/26/2017
107633
36040
322-47000-611
Interset 2016A
37,817.78
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
06/26/2017
107633
36817
321-47000-620
GO Series 201 OA Agent Fees
450.00
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP
06/26/2017
107633
36818
321-47000-620
GO Series 2016A Agent Fees
450.00
Total 107633:
119,377.17
BUDGET PRINTING
06/26/2017
107634
4630
101-41900-201
Mike Gaffron Reirement Plaque
Central Services
95.00
BUDGET PRINTING
06/26/2017
107634
4759
101-41900-352
Business Cards -L. Oakden Planner
Central Services
14.64
Total 107634:
109.64
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page 2
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account Description
Department Invoice
Amount
BURKE, FORREST
06/26/2017
107635
17-3916
101-22205 Escrow refund #17-3916 1020 Tonkawa Rd
2,500.00
Total 107635:
2,500.00
CALIBRE PRESS
06/26/2017
107636
50778
101-42110-437
Tactical Leadership Trg-3 Officers- KK,FVJN
Police Department
477.00
Total 107636:
477.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2017-00OG1
101-41600-307
Gen Legal Review
Law/Legal Services
2,086.85
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2017-00OG1
101-41600-307
Data Practices
Law/Legal Services
1,234.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2017-00OG1
101-41600-307
Council Communications -05/20117
Law/Legal Services
1,038.50
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717.407.G
101-43280-307
Credit Over Pay-16-380OMacMillan/Brooks
Special Services
75.00-
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-004G 1
101-42110-307
Police Matters -05/17
Police Department
1,046.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-115G 8
101-41600-308
Code Enforement-05/2017
Law/Legal Services
77.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-15OG 7
101-41600-307
Nygard Matter -05/2017
Law/Legal Services
736.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-201 G 6
101-41600-307
Misc Record i ngs-05/17
Law/Legal Services
1,034.30
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-398G 1
101-41600-307
Van Riemsdyk Matter 05/17
Law/Legal Services
31.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-44OG 7
101-43280-307
16-3860 Kintyre Preserve
Special Services
100.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-440G.7
101-43280-307
16-3860 Kintyre Preserve
Special Services
100.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
06126/2017
107637
2717-441 G 6
101-41600-307
Azad Land Reg Matter -05/2017
Law/Legal Services
155.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-471G 5
101-41600-307
Nygard Nuisance
Law/Legal Services
914.50
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-473G 5
101-41600-307
Johnson/Feldsnon Matter
Law/Legal Services
87.50
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-485G 3
101-43280-307
17-3911 3245 Wayzata Blvd
Special Services
75.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-495G 1
101-43280-307
17-3910-3245 Wayzata Blvd
Special Services
50.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-497G 1
101-43280-307
17-3929 1699 North Farm Rd
Special Services
100.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-80OG 2
101-42400-307
B & Z Staff Mtgs-05/17
Building & Zoning
852.50
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-801 G 2
101-41600-307
Council Mtgs-05/17
Law/Legal Services
1,224.50
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-802G 2
101-42400-307
B & Z Assistance -05/2017
Building & Zoning
945.50
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
2717-803G 2
101-43280-307
Ordinances -5/2017
Special Services
651.00
CAMPBELLKNUTSON
06/26/2017
107637
27-496G 1
101-43280-307
17-3931 Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 Casco Point
Special Services
400.00
Total 107637:
12,864.65
CANVAS SOLUTIONS INC
06/26/2017
107638
40331579/84
101-42110-437
2017/2018 -software firearms training tracking -K. Be
Police Department
372.00
Total 107638:
372.00
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.
06/26/2017
107639
1903924
101-45210-091
beer for resale -Golf COurse
Golf Course
166.95
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.
06/26/2017
107639
1912503
101-45210-091
beer for resale -Golf Course
Golf Course
188.20
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Total 107639:
CARDMEMBEIR SERVICE
06/26/2017
107640
R0061217
101-41300-439
Bagels -Welcome Laura Oakden B&Z
Total 107640:
CARGILL SALT
06/26/2017
107641
2903459897
601-49400-216
salt
Total 107641:
CCP INDUSTRIES INC.
06/26/2017
107642
IN01905563
602-49450-227
Gloves -PPE
Total 107642:
CENTURY LINK
06/26/2017
107643
1909 447 M
101-45210-321
GC phone 5/19-6/18 2017
Total 107643:
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO
06/26/2017
107644
0014822
101-42110-402
#245 Oil change, filter, inspection
Total 107644:
CROSSROADS ANIMAL SHELTE
06/2612017
107645
8260
101-42110-317
animal control
Total 107645:
DAVID WIPSON
06/26/2017
107646
2016-00515
101-22205
Escrow Refund -2016-00515 2264 Shadywood Road
Total 107646:
DELTA DENTAL
06/26/2017
107647
6940940
101-21709
003722072- July/2017- Dental
DELTA DENTAL
06/26/2017
107647
6940940
101-15998
003722072- July/2017- Dental
Total 107647:
DPC INDUSTRIES
06/26/2017
107648
827000739-1
601-49400-216
Chlorine
DPC INDUSTRIES
06/26/2017
107648
OAP -000306
601-49400-216
Credit
Department
Administration
Water
Sewer
Golf Course
Police Department
Police Department
Water
Water
Page: 3
Jun 22. 2017 09:46AM
Invoice
Amount
355.15
30.02
30.02
4,663.24
4,663.24
121.75
121.75
204.53
204.53
45.79
45.79
84.81
84.81
2,500.00
2,500.00
tbb.bu
I b.UU-
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page 4
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Department Invoice
Amount
Storm Water
Central Services
Central Services
Sewer
Water
Central Services
Central Services
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Central Services
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
1,159.00
240.50
240.50
1,942.50
671.42
671.42
21.92
54.12
2.63
14.40
2.63
54.12
2.63
54.12
54.12
11.04
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Total 107648:
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC
06/26/2017
107649
0113961 -IN
651-49910-227
Marker Signs
Total 107649:
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
06/26/2017
107650
499127
101-41900-352
Publish Ord 228
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
06/26/2017
107650
499128
101-41900-352
Publish Ord 195
Total 107650:
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES INC
06/26/2017
107651
73805
235-45690-319
Shelly Eldridge Review TI F
Total 107651:
ELMER J PETERSON CO
06/26/2017
107652
06062017
602-49450-406
pumper LS #7
Total 107652:
FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25
06/26/2017
107653
0241021-1
601-49400-227
meter parts
Total 107653:
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6000652910
101-41900-404
mats
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6000652910
101-41900-404
mats
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006493464
101-43000-226
uniforms
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006493464
101-43000-221
towels
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006504529
101-41900-404
mats
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006504529
101-43000-221
towels
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006504529
101-43000-226
uniforms
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006515608
101-43000-221
towels
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006515608
101-43000-226
uniforms
G & K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107654
6006526755
101-43000-226
uniforms
G & K SERVICES
06126/2017
107654
6006526755
101-43000-221
towels
Total 107654:
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA
06/26/2017
107655
365317
101-43000-403
Rubber Straps for Hoses Unit 450
Department Invoice
Amount
Storm Water
Central Services
Central Services
Sewer
Water
Central Services
Central Services
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Central Services
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
1,159.00
240.50
240.50
1,942.50
671.42
671.42
21.92
54.12
2.63
14.40
2.63
54.12
2.63
54.12
54.12
11.04
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
Total 107655:
GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA
06126/2017
107656
3602203925
101-45210-092
beverages for concessions resale -GC
GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA
06126/2017
107656
3602203972
101-45210-092
beverages for concessions resale -GC
Total 107656:
GREG & GAYLE HAYHURST
06/26/2017
107657
2016-00746
101-22205
Escrow Refund -2016-00746 2660 Pheasant Rd
Total 107657:
HEALTH PARTNERS
06/26/2017
107658
73726499
101-21706
July/2017-HP HRA
HEALTH PARTNERS
06/26/2017
107658
73726499
101-15998
July/20117-HP HRA
HEALTH PARTNERS
06/26/2017
107658
73726499
101-42110-135
July/2017-HP HRA
Total 107658:
HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY
06/26/2017
107659
1000094923
101-43000-414
Radio Fee -05/2017
Total 107659:
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE
06/26/2017
107660
100094892
101-42110-414
radio fees & MDC support PD -0512017
Total 107660:
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
06/26/2017
107661
1000094671
101-41600-309
jail charges-May/2017
Total 107661:
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR
06/26/2017
107662
0617-38
602-49450-489
Special Assessment Charge -2017
Total 107662:
IKE'S PLUMBING & DRAIN CLEA
06/26/2017
107663
11155
101-45210-404
Unplug Drain at GC Basement
Total 107663:
INTOXIMETERS
06/26/2017
107664
565870
101-42110-403
breathylizer repair
Department
Golf Course
Golf Course
Police Department
Public Works Department
Police Department
Law/Legal Services
Sewer
Golf Course
Police Department
Page: 5
Jun 22. 2017 09:46AM
Invoice
11.04
285.31
281.06
38,949.00
5,826.50
591.50
95.30
95.30
2,521.86
2,521.86
784.20
784.20
467.00
237.50
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Department Invoice
Amount
Golf Course
Golf Course
Police Department
Police Department
Police Department
Police Department
Central Services
Central Services
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
B398682
101-41900-403
Supplies To Clean Bronze Plaque CH Court Yard
Central Services
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
B401282
Total 107664:
Twist Fluo Reel
Parks
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL
06126/2017
107665
2665815
101-45210-091
beer for resale -GC
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL
06126/2017
107665
2670306
101-45210-091
beer for resale -GC
Total 107665:
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS
06/26/2017
107666
0261172 -IN
101-42110-550
Lights Input, Ignition Input, Battery Power
Total 107666:
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR
06/26/2017
107667
10003335.2
703-49960-361
2nd half 2017 Comprehensive Municipal Liability Ins
Total 107667:
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS
06/26/2017
107668
1297291-201
101-42110-311
May/1 7- contract fee
Total 107668:
LOGIS
06/26/2017
107669
432624
101-42110-310
Police Record/05/2017
LOGIS
06/26/2017
107669
432624
101-42110-329
Internet -05/2017
LOGIS
06/26/2017
107669
432624
101-41900-329
Internet -05/2017
LOGIS
06/2612017
107669
432624
101-41900-319
Backups 05/2017
Total 107669:
Department Invoice
Amount
Golf Course
Golf Course
Police Department
Police Department
Police Department
Police Department
Central Services
Central Services
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
B398630
101-41900-404
Supplies To Clean Plaque CH
Central Services
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
B398682
101-41900-403
Supplies To Clean Bronze Plaque CH Court Yard
Central Services
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
B401282
101-45200-221
Twist Fluo Reel
Parks
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
B402129
101-41900-223
POtting Soil for Pot CH
Central Services
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107670
B402994
101-45210-223
Dish Soap Golf Course
Golf Course
Total 107670:
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/26/2017 107671 20317672 101-42110-212 Fuel Police Department
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/26/2017 107671 20317673 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department
Total 107671:
237.50
254.80
212.40
467.20
38.00
38.00
31,878.00
31,878.00
122.00
122.00
6,499.00
198.00
198.00
925.00
6.28
12.99
17.98
14.26
706.49
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GIL Account Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
MEDIACOM
06/26/2017
107672
GC MAY 26 2
101-45210-321
GC cable -05/2017
Total 107672:
MHSRC/Range
06126/2017
107673
629430-5683
101-42110-437
EVOC Law Enforecement Trg-T. Datwyler
MHSRC/Range
06/26/2017
107673
629430-5813
101-42110-437
PIT Trg-J. Raze & K. Kirschner
MHSRC/Range
06/26/2017
107673
629430-5829
101-42110-437
EVOC Law Enforcement Trg-T. Sonnek
Total 107673:
MICHAEL HART
06/26/2017
107674
17-3928
101-22205
Escrow Refund -1 7-3928 2510 Casco Point Rd
Total 107674:
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA
06/26/2017
107675
00010066
101-43000-415
oxygen
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA
06/26/2017
107675
00010067
101-42110-221
Medical Oxygen
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA
06/26/2017
107675
00010068
101-42110-221
Medical Oxygen
Total 107675:
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT
06/26/2017
107676
P37611
101-43000-222
OCM Repairs/Parts Manuels for Unit 351
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT
06/26/2017
107676
P37611
101-45200-221
OCM Repairs/Parts Manuels for Unit 351
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT
06/26/2017
107676
P57370
101-43000-403
Repair Chain saw Unit 866
Total 107676:
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMEN
06/26/2017
107677
0373595
601-49400-227
Repair Clamps
MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMEN
06126/2017
107677
0373595
602-49450-227
Repair Clamps
Total 107677:
MINT ROOFING
06/26/2017
107678
511213
101-41900-404
Roof Repairs Public Works
Total 107678:
MINUTEMAN PRESS
06/26/2017
107679
19755
101-41900-352
summer newsletter
Total 107679:
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
101-34210
May/17--General Sales tax
Department
Golf Course
Police Department
Police Department
Police Department
Public Works Department
Police Department
Police Department
Public Works Department
Parks
Public Works Department
Water
Sewer
Central Services
Central Services
Page 7
Jun 22. 2017 09:46AM
Invoice
Amount
405.00
240.00
405.00
700.00
25.11
41.85
5.27
72.23
60.00
60.00
34.06
154.06
108.47
108.47
216.94
14,560.00
1,528.64
1,528.64
2.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
601-39610
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
601-20806
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
101-37910
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
101-37920
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
101-37930
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
101-37940
MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE
06/26/2017
107680
MAY 17 SAL
101-37970
Total 107680:
31.98
Cables for Conf Room Monitor
Central Services
30.97
MOUND TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107681
144327
101-42110-221
MOUND TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107681
144404
101-42110-221
MOUND TRUE VALUE
06/26/2017
107681
144523
101-42110-223
Total 107681:
MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATI
06/26/2017
107682
00286867
101-41900-352
Total 107682:
NAVARRE HARDWARE
06/26/2017
107683
302328
601-49400-240
NAVARRE HARDWARE
06/26/2017
107683
302332
101-43000-240
NAVARRE HARDWARE
06/26/2017
107683
302460
101-43000-240
NAVARRE HARDWARE
06/26/2017
107683
302723
101-41900-223
Total 107683:
NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR RE
06/26/2017
107684
8148
602-49450-406
Total 107684:
NEWEGG INC
06/26/2017
107685
1300394466
101-43000-221
NEWEGG INC
06/26/2017
107685
1300401964
101-41900-221
Total 107685:
NORLINGS
06/26/2017
107686
32680
601-49400-404
NORLINGS
06/26/2017
107686
32681
101-41900-404
Description
Department Invoice
Amount
May/1 7 -Water Meter Sales Tax
121.00
May/1 7 -Water Taxable Services
6.00
May/1 7 -GC Green Fees Sales Tax
1,180.00
May/17-GC Rentals Sales Tax
471.00
Mayll 7 -GC Beer Sales Tax
34.00
May/1 7 -GC Concessions Sales Tax
73.00
May/1 7 -GC -Pro Shop Sales Tax
23.00
Garage Light Bulbs
Police Department
106.75
Black Paint, Wobble Ext, Staples, Brush Set
Police Department
29.76
Cleaning Wipes, Dixie Cups, Plastic Cutlery
Police Department
21.75
158.26
code updates
Central Services
998.00
998.00
Broom
Water
27.98
Cable Ties -Banners Street Lights Navarre Area
Public Works Department
16.98
Tape Measure
Public Works Department
23.17
Paint, Potting Mix City Hall
Central Services
18.98
87.11
GS#9 Bracketts Point -Electric Service
Sewer
250.00
250.00
Line Amplifer for PW SCADA
Public Works Department
31.98
Cables for Conf Room Monitor
Central Services
30.97
Repair Rut Damage from Boom Truck for Cell Tower Water
2017 -City Hall Spring Clean Up Central Services
1,271.00
400.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
Total 107686:
1,671.00
NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH
06/26/2017
107687
8885027
101-42110-437
EMIR reresher: Datwyler, Needham, Szczepanik, De
Police Department
420.00
Total 107687:
420.00
0 SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546
06/26/2017
107688
MARCH 31 2
101-42110-402
car washes
Police Department
38.50-
0 SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546
06/26/2017
107688
MAY 2017
101-42110-402
car washes
Police Department
49.50
Total 107688:
11.00
0 SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547
06/26/2017
107689
MAY 2017
101-42110-402
May/1 7- Car Washes
Police Department
230.67
Total 107689:
230.67
OFFICE DEPOT
06/26/2017
107690
93204110200
101-42110-201
Tape, Batteries, Makers, Folders, White out, Note p
Police Department
68.57
OFFICE DEPOT
06/26/2017
107690
9320414300
101-42110-201
Dishwasher Detergent
Police Department
5.99
OFFICE DEPOT
06/26/2017
107690
9338179320
101-41900-201
Envelopes, Note pad, Tissues
Central Services
145.69
OFFICE DEPOT
06126/2017
107690
9338179650
101-41900-201
Bulletin Bar Board
Central Services
19.58
OFFICE DEPOT
06/26/2017
107690
9357805670
101-42110-201
USB, Book Memo, Markers, Mailer
Police Department
123.59
Total 107690:
363.42
OTTEN BROTHERS
06/26/2017
107691
1-1495772
225-45025-404
landscape Lurton Dog Park
465.46
Total 107691:
465.46
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR
06/26/2017
107692
16864
231-45650-436
Tow/Siezed Case#OR17006706
149.10
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR
06/26/2017
107692
46973
651-49910-402
Repair UNit 460
Storm Water
15.00
Total 107692:
164.10
PIRTEK
06/26/2017
107693
S2502617.00
101-43000-403
Repair Hydraulic Hose Unit 450
Public Works Department
323.67
Total 107693:
323.67
PLUNKETT S
06/26/2017
107694
W15941419
101-41900-404
City Hall pest control
Central Services
223.60
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GIL Account
Payee Issue Date Number Number
Total 107694:
PUMP AND METER SERVICE IN 06/26/2017 107695 117026-2J 101-41900-404
Total 107695:
REED WHOLESAILE/OFFICE CO 06/26/2017 107696 9383 101-45210-093
Total 107696:
RESTORATION PROFESSIONAL 06/26/2017 107697 55294 602-49450-406
Total 107697:
SMOOTH ROCK, LLC. 06/26/2017 107698 2016-01090 101-22205
Total 107698
STA SAFE LOCKSMITH
0612612017
107699
0020573
601-49400-404
STA SAFE LOCKSMITH
06/26/2017
107699
0020579
101-41110-489
Total 107699:
134.10
Ryan Alness Residence Restoration Svcs
Sewer
1,086.69
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
CM276574
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11261272
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11261754
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11262086
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11262767
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11263227
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11263464
101-42110-550
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11263466
101-42110-550
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11263469
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11264877
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06126/2017
107700
11265282
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11265371
101-42110-226
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP
06/26/2017
107700
11265488
101-42110-226
Total 107700
Description
Department Invoice
Amount
223.60
fuel System Upgrade
Central Services
3,690.35
3,690.35
concessions Resale -GC
Golf Course
134.10
134.10
Ryan Alness Residence Restoration Svcs
Sewer
1,086.69
1,086.69
Escrow Refund -#2016-01090 3145 North Shore Dr
2,500.00
2,500.00
repair Locks South Water Plant Chemical Room &
Water
812.00
Council Chambers Lock
Mayor & Council
453.00
1,265.00
Returned Boots (Inv#11255205)-J. Mccoy
Police Department
194.99
Ball vest, Trauma Plate -K. Beck
Police Department
877.50
Battery & Pants -Fischer
Police Department
83.99
Irritant Holder & Aerosol
Police Department
42.49
Custom Cut Out -Kirschner
Police Department
39.98
Shirt & Boots-B.Schoenherr
Police Department
199.99
Partial Teardown Squad #233
Police Department
560.00
Partial Teardown Squad #236
Police Department
560.00
Boots -J. McCoy
Police Department
219.99
Shirt, Boots, Shirt Alteration, Pants, Embroidery -J. B
Police Department
211.99
Buckle, Tactical Combat, Application-Wocken
Police Department
79.96
Shirt, Shirt Alteration, Pants -J. Barnes
Police Department
131.99
Duty Shirt -Vince Po
Police Department
45.00
City of Orono
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017
Total 107705:
Check
Check
Invoice
Invoice GL Account
Description
Payee
Issue Date
Number
Number
101-43000-415
cylinder & Demurrage
SUMMIT COMPANIES
06/26/2017
107701
1191600
101-42110-404
Fire extinguisher Service PD
Total 107701:
06/26/2017
107707
1700045
601-49400-489
P/A Total Coliform
T W TUPY INC
06/26/2017
107702
061117
602-49450-226
Sewer Digs Replace Road Class 5
Total 107702:
06/26/2017
107708
050317
101-43000-224
Black Dirt
THE HOME DEPOT
06/26/2017
107703
2808 00001
234-45680-221
Concrete Footing Forms for Shade Sails-Picinic Tabl
Total 107703:
06/26/2017
107708
73.29
101-43000-224
topsoil
TIM SONNEK
06/26/2017
107704
TS060617
101-42110-226
Remibruse-Uniforms
TIM SONNEK
06/26/2017
107704
TS060617
101-42110-437
Rernibruse-Food Training
Total 107704:
06/26/2017
107709
40427
234-45680-221
WBucker for Well Head
TLSTEVENS
06/26/2017
107705
8917
225-45025-404
Lurton Park Transition To Dog Park
Total 107705:
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY
06/26/2017
107706
40065601
101-43000-415
cylinder & Demurrage
Total 107706:
TRI CITY LAB
06/26/2017
107707
1700045
601-49400-489
P/A Total Coliform
Total 107707:
TRI K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107708
050317
101-43000-224
Black Dirt
TRI K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107708
050317
101-45200-223
Black Dirt
TRI K SERVICES
06/26/2017
107708
73.29
101-43000-224
topsoil
TRI K SERVICES
06126/2017
107708
7329
101-43000-224
topsoil
Total 107708:
UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI
06/26/2017
107709
40427
234-45680-221
WBucker for Well Head
UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI
06/26/2017
107709
40459
234-45680-221
Buckets for Well Head
Department
Police Department
Sewer
Police Department
Police Department
Public Works Department
Water
Public Works Department
Parks
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Page: 11
Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Invoice
Amount
236.80
236.80
2,371.57
2,371.57
183.03
183.03
341.73
10.28
352.01
7,298.57
7,298.57
11.04
11.04
44.00
44.00
93.72
93.72
12.99
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017 Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Payee
Check
Issue Date
Check
Number
Invoice
Number
Invoice GIL Account
Description
Department
Invoice
Amount
Total 107709:
38.97
VACKERINC
06126/2017
107710
1730
225-45025-223
Lurton Park Project signs
300.00
VACKERINC
06126/2017
107710
1730
225-45025-223
SAGA Hills Park Project
299.00
Total 107710:
599.00
VALLEY RICH CO
06/26/2017
107711
24174
601-49400-405
Tractor Tamper Hydraulic, Tractor Breaker,
Water
3,904.21
VALLEY RICH CO
06/26/2017
107711
24200
602-49450-406
Trench Box, Yard Excavator, Hydraulic Breaker, Tra
Sewer
5,598.50
Total 107711:
9,502.71
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL
06/26/2017
107712
5629
101-43000-402
Repairs Unit 431
Public Works Department
196.63
VARNER MOBILE SERVICES ILL
06/26/2017
107712
5630
602-49450-402
Vactor Repair Unit 713
Sewer
346.50
Total 107712:
543.13
VERIZON WIRELESS
06/26/2017
107713
9787016941
101-42110-321
Cell Phones -05/07/17-06/06/17
Police Department
1,628.24
VERIZON WIRELESS
0612612017
107713
9787016941
101-45210-321
Cell Phones -05/07/17-06/06/17
Golf Course
74.39
VERIZON WIRELESS
06/26/2017
107713
9787016941
601-49400-321
Cell Phones -05/07/17-06/06/17
Water
70.02
VERIZON WIRELESS
06/26/2017
107713
9787016941
602-49450-321
Cell Phones -05/07/17-06/06/17
Sewer
70.02
VERIZON WIRELESS
06/26/2017
107713
9787016941
101-43000-321
Cell Phones -05/07/17-06/06/17
Public Works Department
35.01
VERIZON WIRELESS
06/2612017
107713
9787016941
101-42400-321
Cell Phones -05/07/17-06/06/17
Building & Zoning
56.48
VERIZON WIRELESS
06/26/2017
107713
9787016941
101-42400-221
2 Ipads Building Inspectors -05/07/17-06/06/17
Building & Zoning
836.44
Total 107713:
2,770.60
WILLIAMS TOWING
06/26/2017
107714
144573
231-45650-436
tow case #17-17078
315.00
Total 107714:
315.00
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
06126/2017
107715
3502565367
101-43000-386
Electrical Svc -05/01/17-06/01/17
Public Works Department
156.49
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
06/26/2017
107715
3502565367
602-49450-381
Electrical Svc -05101/17-06/01/17
Sewer
33.94
Total 107715:
190.43
YAMAHA MOTOR FINANCE COR 06/26/2017 107716 MAN1 706116 101-45210-415 June/July 2017 cart rental Golf Course 1,647.00
City of Orono
Payee
Total 107716:
Grand Totals:
Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT
Check Issue Dates: 6/13/2017 - 6/26/2017
Check Check Invoice Invoice GIL Account
Issue Date Number Number
Description
Department
Page: 1 1�
Jun 22, 2017 09:46AM
Invoice
Amount
1,647.00
327,664.42
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 4 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval
Presenter: Anna Carlson Agenda Consent Agenda
City Clerk Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the below listed garbage & refuse
collector license.
2. Background. The garbage & refuse collector license applicant has met the requirements
and has submitted a complete application. A notice of spring road restrictions was
provided to each hauler.
3. List of Garbage & Refuse Collector Licenses to be Approved
a. Blackowiak Disposal Inc.
1195 Sunnyfield Rd N
Mound, MN 55364
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff is recommending approval of the above listed license
based on the applicant meeting the licensing requirements and having a history of
compliance with no complaints in recent years.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the above listed license.
Exhibit
A. Garbage & Refuse Collector License application.
Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: W
I/
city Of Ovens, RECEIVED
BOX 66 (2750 Kelley parkway) Licen"Yow 2017-2019
JUN 14 2017 Date Receiwk� -
CrYBW Bah MN W23 _L -L__
(M) 24%4600 Fee Paid 0 initwe
Garbap & Refugft?"R�acmse �r_ W
The undersigned widw to Application
license to do so. Weraft the indicated business in the aty of omw and herewith maW M,,cWM.6re.
Business Phone Number
Check One:
Check All That Apply in Owso:
Applicanes Nam
AAA�..
13 bdivwuai
;S RmW=UW
6�
rrx= Number ! z & 3 - Y Email
NOTE: The City of Orono Whroes
restrictions zun fiont Marc spring w0ot restrictions each ym Orono
ch lot -May 15* each year, Fh=WMbC follows the Sgit ty�y
�ous W Wtel. Enclosed is a copy of ft Orono p
public .0cludon Sim ifvehicles we Over' =61 Hmits of 7
cstab"ft ftwotW Wetht restrictions on Omo
city strees and & OVY of ow current Year &e schedule.
PdftkULYftJz (aftch Hat if nw.)
xW M&L annim
±?± &Mkr,_ -,V,6,29 0,
�d 3 Alt. Wt
,Omew "It Of City served:
Schedule of Conwtion rhm�&A.j A.§—. -.A-
Appmimgto number of owtomm m Orono:
Location of ftmpM am
IN ORDER poR TWA L
FOLLOWINCe. Rwy ATION To BE PROCn=, YOU MUST ZNCLOsz THR
Im I( be- e- Mal& b
'y oa4 A en-t-
Applicatiort VnW be filled am in its entirety
Surety bond in the amo= of $1,000
Proof of insurance in the amount of Sl00000 . $300.00(). $50,000 and I%c* cancellation Clouse
AmuW fim is a S75.00 fiat raft fiv,- 1
2LU 11&98 g kWj6 and a $30A *=der he (if appIleable)
I am the owner and Vmtor of the above business and I have paid an libense fees and t4fts raquired by law. I jWVr
vedfied �!g e inAwmation u coftftL
Signatum
c�_: �_
Date
P�Urry USE ONLY: Afteir review of lff"oRtion, StRff MOMMends:
Appooval 0DenW �(4=jfy)
;g;0wM4 +Of AtY _Offf�41dal_L_
Form SP -CI
LICENSE APPLICANT:
Pursuant to Minnesota statute 270.72 Tax Clearance: Issuance of Licenses, the licensing authority is required to
provide to the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification number and the
social security number of each license applicant.
Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, we are required to advise
you of the following regarding the use of this information:
I . This information may be used to deny the issuance, renewal or transfer of your license in the event you
owe the Minnesota Department of Revenue delinquent taxes, penalties or interest;
2. Upon receiving this information, the licensing authority will supply it only to the Minnesota
Department of Revenue. However, under the Federal Exchange of Information Agreement the
Department of Revenue may supply this information to the Internal Revenue Service;
3. Failure to supply this information may jeopardize or delay the processing of your licensing issuance or
renewal application.
Please supply the following information and return along with your application to the agency
issuing the license. DO NOT RETURN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
LICENSE BEING APPLIED FOR OR RENEWED: Garbage Hauler'.
LICENSING AUTHORITY: City of Orono, HeMepin Cognty, Minnesota
LICENSE RENEWAL DATE: May 31, 2017
PERSONAL INFORMATION (If applicable):
Applicant's NameSJy-VeA BLAC&UAak
Applicant's Address
City I State ' zip
Social Security Number:_
BUSINESS INFORMLATION (If applicable):
I'tusiness Name RIM&W IAK MNSA L T&L
Business Address
city State zip
'I IJA
MINNESOTA TAX IDENTIFICATION NO: —�y
I A
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO: C�-)u
If a Minnesota Tax Identification number is -not required, please explain on the reyerse side.
no
Signature Position (Officer, Partner, etc.)
AGENDAITEM
Item No.:
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Approval of Back Up Generators for the Navarre Water Plant
Presenter: Scott Oberaigner Agenda Consent
Public Works Supervisor Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council acceptance of the proposal/quotes to
procure and install a backup generator at the Navarre Water Plant.
2. Background. The Navarre Water plant is susceptible to fairly frequent power outages. The current
generator is a 24 years old portable diesel generator which is becoming unreliable.
3. Project Scope. This project will provide a 100kw fixed site natural gas backup generator for the
Navarre Water.
4. Cost. The City received two quotes for generators and one quote for the associated electrical work
(Automatic Transfer switch). The lowest quote from a qualified contractor for Generators was from Ziegler
Power Systems. The lowest Quote for electrical installation is from Gephardt Electric. Total cost for both
Generator projects is $103,720.00.
a. Generator
Contractor Quote
Ziegler Power Systems (CAT) $70,320.00
Quality Flow $99,860.00
b. Electrical Installation
Contractor Quote
Gephardt Electric $33,400.00
5. Funding. This project will be ftmded through the Water Enterprise Fund. The Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) programmed $100,000 for each backup generator project. The Water Fund balance is
projected to be $960.849 at the end of 2017.
6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council accept the quotes from Ziegler Power Systems
and Gephardt Electric.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quote in the amount of $70,320 from Ziegler Power Systems for the provision of and
installation of a backup Generator at the water plant and of $33,400 from Gephardt Electric for electrical
installation.
Prepared By: SO
Reviewed By: �F—
Approved By: W
AGENDAITEM
Item No.:
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Programmatic Maintenance Agreement with Minnehaha Watershed
District
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Agenda
Public Works Director/City Engineer Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council approval of the Programmatic
Maintenance Agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
2. Background. As a condition of the City's Waterbody Crossing and Erosion Control Permit for the
Fox Street Project the Watershed is requiring a maintenance agreement with the City of Orono. Rather
than do a separate agreement for each permit the City requests from the watershed, staff requested the city
be able to enter into a programmatic agreement.
3. Cost. There are no direct costs associated with this agreement as these are maintenance items the city
already undertakes.
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that council approve the programmatic maintenance
agreement with the Watershed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to enter into a Programmatic Maintenance Agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
Exhibits
A. Maintenance Agreement
Prepared By: �E
Reviewed By: 7E
Approved By: W
PROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Stormwater Management Facilities, Waterbody Crossings & Structures and Wetland Buffers
Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
and the City of Orono
This programmatic maintenance agreement is made by and between the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers set forth at Minnesota Statutes chapters
103B and 103D (MCWD), and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota (CITY).
Recitals and Statement of Purpose
WHEREAS pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 103D.345, the MCWD has adopted and implements
the Ston-nwater Management Rule, Wetland Protection Rule and the Waterbody Crossings & Structures
Rule;
WHEREAS under the Stormwater Management Rule, certain land development activity triggers
the requirement that the landowner record a declaration establishing the landowner's perpetual obligation
to inspect and maintain stormwater-management facilities;
WHEREAS, under the Waterbody Crossings & Structures Rule, certain land development
activity requires the landowner to record a declaration establishing the landowner's perpetual obligation
to inspect and maintain waterbody crossings and structures to ensure that the hydraulic and navigational
capacity of the associated waterbody are maintained in accordance with approved plans;
WHEREAS under the Wetland Protection Rule, certain land development activity triggers the
requirement that the landowner record a declaration establishing the landowner's perpetual obligation to
protect undisturbed buffer adjacent to wetland;
WHEREAS in each case, a public landowner, as an alternative to a recorded instrument, may
meet the maintenance requirement by documenting its obligations in an unrecorded written agreement
with the MCWD;
WHEREAS CITY from time to time is subject to stormwater management, wetland buffer and
waterbody crossings and structures maintenance requirements pursuant to the terms of an MCWD permit;
and
WHEREAS the parties concur that it is clearer and procedurally more efficient for the MCWD
and CITY to agree at this time on standard requirements for stormwater management, wetland buffer
protection, and waterbody crossings and structures maintenance, so that this agreement may be
incorporated into future permits as applicable.
THEREFORE MCWD and CITY agree as follows:
1. WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. CITY, at its cost, will maintain buffer areas in accordance with
the following:
a. Buffer vegetation will not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized,
subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except
for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to
address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public safety,
temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities. Pesticides and
herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture
rules and guidelines. No new structure or hard surface will be placed within a
buffer, except that construction of a trail or path of no more than 4 feet in width
to provide riparian access through the buffer is acceptable. No fill, debris or other
material will be excavated from or placed within a buffer.
b. Permanent wetland buffer monuments or markers will be maintained in the
locations shown on the approved site plan. Monument or marker language will
indicate the purpose of the buffer, restrictions and the name and phone number of
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
2. WATERBODY CROSSINGS & STRUCTURES. CITY, at its cost, will maintain waterbody
crossings and structures in accordance with the following:
a. Crossings and structures in contact with the bed or bank of a waterbody will be inspected
at least once a year and maintained in good repair in perpetuity to ensure continuing
adequate hydraulic and navigational capacity is retained in accordance with approved
plans, to ensure no net increase in the flood stage beyond that achieved by the approved
plans, to prevent adverse effects on water quality, changes to the existing
flowline/gradient and increased scour, erosion or sedimentation, and to minimize the
potential for obstruction of the waterbody.
3. STORMWATER FACILITIES. CITY, at its cost, will maintain stormwater facilities in
accordance with the following:
a. Stormwater retention and treatment basin(s). Stormwater retention and treatment
basin(s) must be inspected at least once a year to determine if the basin's retention and
treatment characteristics are adequate and continue to perform per design. Culverts and
outfall structures must be inspected at least annually and kept clear of any obstructions or
sediment accumulation. Sediment accumulation must be measured by a method accurate
to within one vertical foot. A storage treatment basin will be considered inadequate if
sediment has decreased the wet storage volume by 50 percent of its original design
volume. Based on this inspection, if the stormwater basin(s) is identified for sediment
cleanout, the basin(s) will be restored to its original design contours and vegetation in
disturbed areas restored within one year of the inspection date.
b. Raingardens, infiltration basins and filtration basins. Raingardens, infiltration basins
and filtration basins will be inspected annually to ensure continued live storage capacity
at or above the design volume. Invasive vegetation, excess sediment and debris will be
removed as needed and healthy plant growth will be maintained to ensure that the
facilities continue to perform per design.
Iron -enhanced sand filters. Iron -enhanced sand media must be inspected every three
years to determine if the iron's binding capacity has been reached. The phosphorus
binding capacity of the iron -sand bed is exhausted and must be replaced to the original
specifications when the total -phosphorus -to -total -iron ratio exceeds 5 milligrams of
phosphorus per I gram of elemental iron or when the total phosphorus at the outlet of the
iron -sand filter consistently exceeds 60 to 70 micrograms per liter.
d. Vegetated swales. Vegetated swales may be mowed for public safety, but otherwise
must remain free from vegetative disturbance, fertilizer application, yard or other waste
disposal, the placement of structures unless approved within the permit, or any other
alteration that impedes function.
e. Pervious pavement and permeable pavers. Pervious pavement or pavers will be
inspected at least one per year after a major storm event and otherwise annually to ensure
continuing performance per design. Surface openings will be vacuumed at least annually
at the end of winter in dry weather to remove dry, encrusted sediment as necessary.
Broken units that impair the structural integrity of the surface will be replaced. If water
stands for an extended period of time, the base materials will be removed and replaced.
f. Underground storage facilities. Underground storage facilities will be inspected at least
annually to ensure continuing performance per design. Capacity will be considered
inadequate if sediment has decreased the storage volume by 50 percent of the original
design volume. Accumulated debris and sediment will be removed, and inlet and outlet
structures will be kept clear of any flow impediments.
g. Grit chambers, sump catch basins and sump manholes. Grit chambers, sump catch
basins and sump manholes will be inspected in the spring, summer and fall of each year.
All sediment and debris will be removed as needed such that the storinwater facilities
operate as designed and permitted.
h. Reuse systems. Runoff -management systems relying on capture and reuse of stormwater
(e.g., for irrigation) must be operated and maintained in accordance with terms of permit
approval and the manufacturer's or installer's specifications for any proprietary
equipment.
i. Proprietary stormwater facilities. Proprietary stormwater facilities will be inspected at
least annually and maintained as specified or recommended by the manufacturer and/or
installer. Current manufacturer's and/or installer's maintenance specification must be
maintained on file at both the MCWD office and appropriate CITY office.
J . Reporting. The Declarant will submit to the MCWD annually a brief written report that
describes storinwater facility maintenance activities perfon-ned under this declaration,
including dates, locations of inspections and the maintenance activities performed.
4. An MCWD permit for a specific project may contain additional maintenance conditions in
accordance with MCWD rules, as they may be amended from time to time.
If CITY conveys into private ownership a fee interest in any property that has become subject to
this agreement, it must require as a condition of sale, and enforce: (a) that the purchaser record a
declaration on the property incorporating the maintenance requirements of this agreement; and (b)
that recordation occur either before any other encumbrance is recorded on the property or, if after,
only as accompanied by a subordination and consent executed by the encumbrance holder
ensuring that the declaration will run with the land in perpetuity. If CITY conveys into public
ownership a fee interest in any property that has become subject to this agreement, it must require
as a condition of the purchase and sale agreement that the purchaser accept an assignment of all
obligations vested under this agreement.
3
6. CITY may enter into contracts with third parties for the performance of its responsibilities under
this agreement. CITY may assign its responsibilities to another governmental unit, with prior or
concurrent written notice to MCWD. Such agreements notwithstanding, CITY will remain liable
to MCWD for compliance with the terms and requirements of any permit that explicitly applies
this agreement.
7. This agreement may be amended only in a writing signed by the parties.
8. This agreement is in force for five years from the date on which it has been fully executed and
will renew automatically for five year terms unless terminated. Either party may terminate the
agreement on 30 days' written notice to the other. Any obligations vested in CITY through
incorporation into an issued permit before the effective date of termination will survive
expiration.
9. The recitals above are incorporated into and made a part of this agreement.
10. The individuals below by their execution represent that they have the authority to enter into this
agreement on behalf of the respective parties and to bind the parties to the terms herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement.
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
US
President, Board of Managers
APPROVED AS TO FORM and EXECUTION
By
Its Attorney
CITY OF CITY
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its Administrator
4
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 7 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Appointment of 2017 Seasonal Employees
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Agenda
Public Work Director/City Engineer Section:
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; Golf Course Maintenance Assistants and Parks Maintenance Workers; a pay range of
$10.25-15.22 for the Utilities Maintenance Worker; and a pay range of $15.00-$20.00 for the
Assistant Superintendent and Clubhouse Manager. The clubhouse manager will be enrolled in
the coordinated PERA plan. All other seasonal employees will fall under the 6 month PERA
Classification and are there for excluded from PERA membership.
3. Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates.
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employee as in the list above.
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
Name
Position
Wage
Remarks
($/hr)
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
Paul Tolzmarm
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
Calvin Schmidt
G.C. Maintenance Assistant
$10.00
Returnee
UWE
> 2
Marshall Hambro
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$11.00
Returnee
Wendy Middendorf
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$10.00
New
Ron Vanacora
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$10.00
New
Sam Baurle
G.C. Maintenance Assistant
$10.00
New
Patrick Codute
G.C. Clubhouse Assistant
$10.00
New
Pending
Rodney Gerhardson
G.C. Maintenance Assistant
$10.00
New
approval
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:
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 8 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Approval to Accept Donation From the Crime Prevention Fund
Presenter: Correy Famiok Agenda Section: Consent Agenda
Police Chief
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to accept a donation from the Crime
Prevention Fund.
2. Background. The Police Department has received multiple requests for extra patrol on area streets
relating to traffic volume and speed. The police department utilizes two radar/speed trailers that are
placed along the side of the road to make drivers aware of their speed, as well as collecting data related to
volume of traffic, speeds of vehicles and traffic counts by the hour. A shoulder or a level area along the
roadway is required for placement for both of these trailers. We need additional signs to keep up with the
requests and smaller more portable signs would assist us in placement on majority of roads and streets in
our cornmunities. The Crime Prevention Fund has approved $3000.00 toward the purchase of a portable
radar sign. The Crime Prevention Fund was established in 1987 to promote crime prevention and support
local police departments. The Crime Prevention Fund covers the communities within the Orono and
Minnetrista Police Department service areas.
3. Project Scope. Purchasing of two portable battery powered radar signs.
4. Cost. The Police Department has received a quote to purchase two signs at a total cost of $6230.00
from Radarsign.
5. Funding. The Crime Prevention Fund has approved $3000 toward the purchase of the two portable
radar signs.
6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the donation of $3,000 be accepted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept a donation of $3,000 toward the purchase of two portable radar signs.
Exhibits
A. Radarsign Quote
B. Radarsign Information
Prepared By: Correy Famiok Reviewed By: Correy Famiok
Approvcd By: W
�radarsi gm.
MAKING ROADS SAFER
�1095 Windward Ridge Pkwy
Suite 150
Alpharetta, GA 30005
Date: 6/7/2017
SQLDWROPOSED_�
X, PROPOSED
Name
Lee Robeson
Phone
678-622-6658
ax
678-278-1266
Date: 6/7/2017
SQLDWROPOSED_�
-;- -T
_-4- A �i�SHIP 0.
I
Orono Police Dept.
Orono Police Dept.
Account
2730 Kelley Pkwy.
2730 Kelley Pkvvy.
Address
Orono, IVIN 56366
Orono, MIN 55356
City, ST, Zip
952-249-4700
962-249-4700
Phone
inwocken@cLorono.mn.us ...
mwocken(cDcl.orono.mn.us
Email
Mike Wocken
I Mike Wocken
Attention
Authorized Signature
Print Name/Title
Date 00
Orono Police Dept 06-07-17 CONFIDENTIAL
I
—
Alpharetta, GA
4E
1;�� T-Y�--�,
Q
__
� #----
UP ART�
- 1 � --,L�--"""-�,,__�,���-,,�-s�----",-.-"""��")� DE SC y
RIRTION
'PRICE-, EACHI
TOTALS,
1
2
TC -400
ModularBattery Power RadarSign - 11" Display
$2,895.00
$5,790.00
11" LED display area - superbright amber with est. 100,000 hourlife
Included
2
Two 12V 18 amp hour NI -MH battery packs, provides up to 14 days operation
Included
3
AC battery charger (24 hours for full charge)
Included
24" w x 21" h YOUR SPEED faceplate with 3" lettering on one line
Included
Battery Housing (field accessible to swap batteries), holds 2 battery packs, lock included
Included
4
Universal GoBracket mounting - accepts bolting, banding or strapping to existing poles
Included
BashplateTM (provides the ultimate In vandal protection of sign)
Included
Wifi wireless transmitter, communication range up to 300 feet
Included
5
2
RWO02
Two year warranty (includes parts & labor)
Included
Turnaround time to repair after receipt, 10 business days
6
2
SS002
StreetSmartTm Data Collection software license (per sign) 36 charts & graphs
$275.00
$550.00
Provides weekly, daily, hourly, and 1/2 hour data on of vehicles, # of speeders, average speeds,
peak speeds, 50th & 85th percentile
7
2
SH400
Ground Shipping for TC -400
$95.00
—$190.00
8
,a_,
1 Customer DiSGOunt
-
($300.00)
($300.00)
__ -1. - -
-N-2,�� wstoc ee,_
�.]Vlinlmum.rei-6
D,valid f
41,
60 daVs�-c u -do -'a, n"v",
or- - �_Ipricincl - 'does -not in- internaiio j nr- ifflok-tir I Pq Q.1
:.T
Authorized Signature
Print Name/Title
Date 00
Orono Police Dept 06-07-17 CONFIDENTIAL
TC -400 Radar Speed Sign
radarsign. Effective. Portable. Affordable
MAKING ROADS SAFER
Durable Design: Thick aluminum Bashplate shields the LED display and protects electronic
components from abuse and vandalism.
Lightweight: Radar speed sign weighs only 20 lbs.
Exceptional Visibility: 11 " LED display with directional beam technology focus light toward the road;
automatically adjusts to ambient light conditions, providing the highest quality viewable display with
minimum energy usage. Easily readable up to 400 feet.
Speed Violator Alert: 2 speeds of flashing LEDS to notify drivers that are exceeding the speed limit
Faceplate: 24"W x 21"H YOUR SPEED faceplate with 3" high lettering; Available in white, fluorescent
yellow/green, or safety orange.
Design Standards: 100% MUTCD compliant. 1/4" Makrolon@) polycarbonate cover provides maximum
UV protection and is abrasion, shatter, and graffiti resistant.
Field Exchangeable Battery Packs: Runs for +/- 2 weeks on two fully charged battery packs. The
modular design allows the battery packs to be easily swapped in the field for the extended use of
the sign in a location.
Radar: Detects vehicles up to 1200 feet away.
Value: The TC -400 is a portable system that allows a single radar speed sign to be used in multiple
locations making it a valuable investment for any community, police department, school, or business.
At half the price of a speed trailer, you can get two TC -400 radar speed signs resulting in twice the
coverage.
Flexibility: A TC -400 radar speed sign can be used in many places a speed trailer simply will not fit
or would be unsafe, and can be securely mounted to any existing pole. Use temporarily for back to
school, seasonal tourist activity, special events, holiday shopping - anywhere a short term use is
desired.
Wi-Fi Enabled: Allows access to program signs from most any web enabled devices
(Apple devices, Android devices, Windows devices, etc.).
Ideal for: 5-35 mph speed limit roads
Warranty: Two year warranty on parts and labor; One year on battery packs. Does not cover malicious
abuse, theft, or damage due to unauthorized modification.
Optional Feature:
Streetsmart Traffic Data Reporting: Records traffic data that can be used to confirm date,
time, and severity of speeding problem.
YOUR SPEED
TC -400 with 11" LED display
or,
Quick Mount Go Bracket
Easy Carry Handle
for Ultimate Portability
Install in Minutes
llllillllg� Our
V ertified Quality System Radar Speed Signs Proudly Engineered and
ISO 9001:2008 are 100% M UTOD -Manufactured in the USA
Compliant
info@radarsign.com radarsign.com 678-965-4814
POWER OPTIONS/BATTERY SPECIFICATIONS
TC -400 (Battery Powered): Dual 12 -volt, 18 AN Ni -MH
battery packs; includes battery charger
Power Consumption: < 2.5 amps (24w) at maximum intensity;
Idle mode < 1/2 watt; Circuit Breaker: Multi -circuit, 5 amp fuses
Field exchangeable battery packs
Runs for +/- 2 weeks on two fully charged battery packs.
Modular design allows the battery packs to be easily swapped
in the field for the extended use of the sign in a location.
Battery Status: Via Wi-Fi can check battery charge levels and
solar amperage
HOUSING SPECIFICATIONS
Radar Speed Sign Housing
Dimensions: 16.25"H x 22.75"W x 2.375"D
.185 thick aluminum with silver powder coat finish
NEMA 3R level compliant
Humidity Maximum: 100%
Provides maximum protection from the elements & vandalism
Bashplate TM with LED Cones
Thick aluminum Bashplate shields the LED display and pro-
tects electronic components from abuse and vandalism.
Individual holes for each LED focus and reflect light toward
the road, providing the highest quality viewable display with
minimum energy usage.
LEDs
2 digits, 11 " high super bright amber LEDs
(life up to 100,000 hours) with directional beam technology
Easily readable up to 400 feet
Automatic intensity adjustment to ambient light conditions for
maximum visibility
Provides directed viewing or display to oncoming traffic
Makrolon@ Polycarbonate Display Cover
.25" thick protective cover
Abrasion, graffiti and shatter resistant and UV protection
Battery Housing
12.5"H x 17W x 2.75"D
.1875" thick powder -coated aluminum
Holds up to two 12 volt, Ni -MH battery packs
(field exchangeable)
Stainless Steel Universal Go Bracket
12.75"H x 4.5"W x 2.9"D
Universal design allows strapping, banding, pipe clamps,
or bolting to almost any size/style of pole.
Go Bracket allows for easy mounting of battery housing and
radar speed sign in about a minute.
WEIGHT AND OPERATING TEMPERATURE
Weight: Radar speed sign: 20 lbs.
Operating Temperature: -40'Fto +138' F
MY1111 !11!T11Uq h ILIA
2 year warranty on parts and labor; 1 year on battery packs.
Exceptions: Does not cover malicious abuse, theft, or damage
due to unauthorized modification.
DISPLAY AND RADAR SPECIFICATIONS
YOUR SPEED Faceplate
24"W x 21"H YOUR SPEED faceplate with 3" high lettering
Manufactured with highest grade reflectivity backing
Ideal for 5-35 mph speed limit roads or lower
Available in white, fluorescent yellow/green, or safety orange
Violator Alert
2 speeds of flashing LEDS to notify drivers that are exceeding
the speed limit: Slow flash and Fast flash of actual speed
Radar
Type: K Band, single direction Doppler radar, FCC part 15
compliant; no license required
Sensor Range: Detects vehicles up to 1200 feet
Beam Width: 12 degrees, +/- 2 degrees
Operating Frequency: 24.125 GHz, +/- 50 MHz
Accuracy: +/- 1.0 mph
Speed Detection Range: 5 - 127 mph
Standard Programming
On/Off Timer Options: 4 timers per day, also by day of week
Settings allow lower speed limits for school zone times and
for late night display shutoff.
Display On/Off: Allows traffic data collection to continue even
when display is off.
Display Brightness Control: Auto adjusts to light conditions,
up to 100 levels.
Setup Functions: Easy to follow menu — software managed,
no mechanical switches to operate
Maximum Speed Cutoff: Prevents unwanted high speed
displays; up to 99 mph; discourages "racing" of sign.
Choice of flashing matrix, or LED display cutoff.
Date/Time Control: Battery backed real-time clock auto -adjusts
for daylight savings time.
Wi-Fi Enabled
Allows access to program signs from most web enabled
devices (Apple, Android, Windows, etc.)
WPA2 encrypted security
Password protection
Range of up to 300 feet from sign
TRAFFIC REPORTING
StreetSmart (optional)
Traffic data reporting software to report, organize & analyze
speed & traffic data. The information collected by the radar
sign is loaded into ExcelTm ready csv files, and can generate
35 charts and graphs.
Mini SD Memory Card
System Storage Capacity: stores data on up to 5 million
vehicles
Retains data for retrieval for 12 months.
170
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 9
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3910, Lake West Development, LLC, 3245 Wayzata
Boulevard Interim Use Permit: Temporary Use for Construction Staging
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda
Development Director Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the resolution of denial for a proposed
temporary staging of construction activities associated with Hennepin County's CSAH 112
(Wayzata Boulevard) Improvement Project at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard.
2. Application Deadline. A decision must be made by June 27, 2017. The timeline has been
extended once previously. If the applicant has not waived the 60 day rule, or the Council has not
made a decision by June 27, the project is approved.
3. Background. On June 12, 2017 the Council, directed staff to draft a resolution denying the
application for interim use of the property. Concerns including dust mitigation, appropriateness
of surrounding land uses, noise, and other environmental impacts were noted. Minutes are
attached as Exhibit B.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approve by motion the resolution denying the interim use permit application, 17-3 9 10.
Exhibits
A — Draft IUP` Denial Resolution
B — Draft Council Minutes of 6-12-17
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: DSR
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR
ROAD CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND
MATERIAL STORAGE AND RECYCLING USE
PER THE PROVISIONS OF
ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-421
AT 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
FILE NO. 17-3910
WHEREAS, LAKEWEST, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company
(hereinafter "the Owner") represented by Curt Fretham, is Owner of the property located at 3245
Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City"), identified as Hennepin
County PINS 32-118-23 14 0002, and legally described as:
Exhibit A (attached) (hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the City of Orono for an Interim
Use Permit (hereinafter "IUP") to allow the operation of a temporary facility for construction
staging, materials and equipment storage, and materials recycling use on the Property, primarily in
support of the Wayzata Boulevard Improvement Project being conducted by Hennepin County;
and
WHEREAS, within the RR -113 One -family Rural Residential Zoning District in
which the Property is located, "Temporary facilities for construction staging, materials and equipment
storage, and materials recycling" may be allowed as an Interim Use, when such facilities are associated
with adjacent public road construction or reconstruction projects in the City of Orono, subject to the
provisions of Orono Zoning Code Section 78-421.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 17-3910.
2. 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 I of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
3. The Property is zoned RR -IB One -family Rural Residential District requiring a
minimum lot area of 2.00 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet. The Property
is approximately 26 acres in area of which approximately 13 acres is wetland and
approximately 10 acres is a closed landfill.
4. The Property and an adjacent parcel are the subject of City of Orono Resolution
No. 6655 which grants preliminary plat approval for a 27 -lot single family
residential development within the adjacent parcel and within a portion of the
Property.
5. The site plan suggests that temporary lighting may be employed, and it is possible
that to minimize impact on traffic flow, some work on the highway improvements
may be at night. It would be appropriate to establish that any temporary lighting be
downcast and directed away from residential areas.
6. The submitted site plan indicates a proposed visual and noise -screening berm along
the west and south boundaries of the site. Applicant is working with the MPCA to
establish parameters and obtain permits for this berm, which will become an
amenity for future residential development, but has not received the necessary
permits.
7-. The applicants' narrative suggests that this site might be used as a recycling yard
for projects other than just the Wayzata Boulevard improvements.
8. Review per Zoning Code Section 78-916. The Interim Use standards require that
an IUP request be considered with respect to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
standards of Zoning Code Section 78-916. Following is an analysis of the requested
IUP in relation to those standards. Council's findings following each criterion are
shown in bold italics.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
Conditional use permit approval shall be granted only when the following
criteria are met:
(1) The proposed Interim Use is consistent with the Community Management
Plan (CMP). Theproposed temporaty use is commerciallindustrial in nature
and such use is inconsistent with the CMP guiding for this residential
neighborhood and the RR -1B Zoning District.
(2) The proposed use is compliant with the zoning code, including any
conditions imposed on specific uses as required by Article V, Division 3 of the
City Code. The proposed temporary use is compliant with the zoning
standards established for this interim use. Article V Division 3 does not
address the specific construction staging use proposed.
(3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management. The
Page 2 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
proposed temporaty use is anticipated to be adequately served by existing
services andfacilities.
(4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. The
needsfor water supply and sewage disposal will beprovided by the operators
of the site, as municipal sewer and water are not currently available.
(5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public
cost. No excessivepublic services orpublic costs are anticipated based on the
proposed temporary use. Any costs of monitoring the sitefor compliance will
be charged back to the applicant.
(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 area is guided for residential
development. To the east, an active commercial apple orchard exists. The
owners of this orchard have expressed concern with dust and contaminants into
their Orchard. The applicant has failed to provide evidence that these concerns
can be mitigated
(7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of
character is called for in the community management plan. The proposed
temporary use is bordered on the south, west and north by arterial roadways.
The temporary use is not consistent with the character of the surrounding
area as the area is dominated by rural andpassive uses.
(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. Material storage is inconsistent with buildings and site
improvements surrounding the site, as they are rural residential uses.
(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.
Neighboring property owners have expressed concerns regarding the
potential for air, water and noise pollution associated with the construction
staging and materials storage and recycling temporary uses. The applicant
hasfailed to demonstrate how the noisefrom rock crushing activities will be
mitigated or addressed to ensure the activities will not disrupt neighboring
properties.
(10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable
views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses. The applicant has not
shown to the satisfaction of the City Council that dust and other potential
Page 3 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
contaminants can be effectively mitigated.
(11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration,
odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other
means. The applicant has notprovided evidence that the vibration, dust, and
general unsightliness concerns are sufficiently mitigated
(12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking
needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic
congestion, or unsafe access. The only access to the temporary use will be
from a single entrance to County Road 11Z There are no local streets which
would be impacted by traffic from the temporary use, and no local streets
would experience parking impacts as a result of the use. Truck traffic
associated with the temporary use is anticipated to be almost entirely on
Wayzata Boulevard which is a Hennepin County arterial road
(13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of
the area and to minimize environmental impact. The use of the property is
independent of the natural resources.
(14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or
onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts. The
applicant did not provide a lighting photometric plan to verify impact on
adjacentpublic rights of way, which are heavily traveled roads.
(15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the dust will not negatively impact
health, safety, and general wey�are.
9. 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 interim use permit on
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
10. 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.
Page 4 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the Interim Use
Permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-421 to allow the operation of a
temporary facility for construction staging, materials and equipment storage, and materials recycling
use on the Property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the day of � 2017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 5 of 5
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 17-3910
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
20. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING
Barnhart noted this item was tabled at the last City Council meeting. Barnhart reviewed his Staff report
dated June 12, 2017, noting that the applicant is requesting approval of an interim use permit to allow
temporary staging of construction activities.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, pointed out the distance between the proposed activities on the
subject property and the orchard is approximately one-third mile according to a map on Hennepin
County's website.
A video was played illustrating the layout of the property and the tree line surrounding the property.
Fretham noted there was some concern expressed about the dust and the effect it would have on the
orchard. Fretham stated in his opinion that will not happen due to the distance and the wind block from
the trees. Fretham stated the question is whether it is more of a concern for the apple orchard or for the
business owners in downtown Long Lake.
Fretham noted Staff has supported the request for a number of reasons and the Planning Commission
recommended approval as well. Fretham indicated he has met with over 30 property owners up and down
Wayzata Boulevard and listened to their concerns about the crushing and recycling activities that are
currently taking place in front of their businesses. As a result, a number of signatures in support of
moving the operations to this property was obtained and submitted to the City.
Alan Engleman, 315 North Old Crystal Bay Road, stated he remembers when Orono would not allow
Walgreen's to build on the comer of Willow and Highway 12 because it would impact the drug store
down the business, which did not stop the drug store from leaving six months later. Engleman stated he is
not sure why Orono is worried about Long Lake and that in his view it will not hurt them a bit.
Engleman asked how much money Orono will receive if the City Council approves this. Engleman stated
in his view the City should get their palms greased, too, if they allow this since the property owner will be
making money. Engleman asked why the City would allow them to make money at the residents'
expense without compensating the City. Engleman suggested a bond be put up so if the apples are
contaminated, the Dumas' would be compensated.
Engleman stated there has been hardly any mention any more about taking only the material from the
Highway 112 project but that has not been raised lately. Engleman stated if the Council Okays the
crushing permit on the Eisinger property, they will have a hard time saying that someone else cannot buy
a piece of property and do the same thing that is being done here. In addition, Eureka has never been
brought up but they will receive the most money from this. Engleman stated in his view Orono should
not be their scapegoat and let them push everyone around. Engleman stated if the interim use permit is
allowed for this property, there is nothing stopping somebody from buying the two -acre lot or the three -
acre lot and doing the same thing.
Dankey stated she supports the request for a number of reasons, and while those are businesses in Long
Lake, the Orono City Council should work together with Long Lake to make this something that works
for both cities. Dankey stated in her view this is a practical way to deal with this issue to avoid it
affecting every single person on the highway and keep it more contained.
Page I of 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Crosby stated he would also support it with a time limit placed on it. Crosby stated in his view intruding
on less people is more important and that he is also concerned about the impact to the businesses.
Seals stated no matter what the City Council does, the highway project will cause some issues and there
will be some impact to the businesses no matter what the City Council does. Seals stated she does not see
the benefit of placing this next to a wetland or an apple orchard. Seals stated she does not see a place for
it in Orono or Long Lake and that she would not be in support of it.
Printup stated he also is opposed to it for many of the same reasons. Printup stated in his view this is not
an0ronoissue. Printup stated Highway 112 goes through the two cities and that it is reasonable to have
this activity kept within the road. Printup stated while it might sound horrible, spreading the pain along
the roadway up and down 112 is reasonable. Printup noted he also is not happy about the Council voting
to approve the interim use permit ordinance.
Walsh stated he also agrees that this is a no win situation. Walsh stated they are looking at issues with
noise, dust, and environmental impacts but there is no silver bullet beyond not having it here at all.
Barnhart noted since it appears the City Council will not be approving this request, Staff will need to put
together a resolution of denial and that Staff will need some findings for denial.
Mattick noted the City Council has discussed concerns about noise, dust, and location, and that Staff
should be directed to draft a denial resolution that is consistent with the concerns expressed by the City
Council. Mattick stated the burden is on the applicant to prove that the dust will be taken care of and
certain things have been presented but the Council still has concerns about that.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to direct Staff to draft a denial resolution for Application No.
17-3910, Lake West Development, LLC, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard, File No. 17-3910.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Dankey and Crosby Opposed.
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 2 of 2
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 9
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3910, Lake West Development, LLC, 3245 Wayzata
Boulevard Interim Use Permit: Temporary Use for Construction Staging
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda
Development Director Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the resolution of denial for a proposed
temporary staging of construction activities associated with Hennepin County's CSAH 112
(Wayzata Boulevard) Improvement Project at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard.
2. Application Deadline. A decision must be made by June 27, 2017. The timeline has been
extended once previously. If the applicant has not waived the 60 day rule, or the Council has not
made a decision by June 27, the project is approved.
3. Background. On June 12, 2017 the Council, directed staff to draft a resolution denying the
application for interim use of the property. Concerns including dust mitigation, appropriateness
of surrounding land uses, noise, and other environmental impacts were noted. Minutes are
attached as Exhibit B.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approve by motion the resolution denying the interim use permit application, 17-3 9 10.
Exhibits
A — Draft IUP` Denial Resolution
B — Draft Council Minutes of 6-12-17
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: DSR
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR
ROAD CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND
MATERIAL STORAGE AND RECYCLING USE
PER THE PROVISIONS OF
ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-421
AT 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
FILE NO. 17-3910
WHEREAS, LAKEWEST, LLC a Minnesota limited liability company
(hereinafter "the Owner") represented by Curt Fretham, is Owner of the property located at 3245
Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City"), identified as Hennepin
County PINS 32-118-23 14 0002, and legally described as:
Exhibit A (attached) (hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the City of Orono for an Interim
Use Permit (hereinafter "IUP") to allow the operation of a temporary facility for construction
staging, materials and equipment storage, and materials recycling use on the Property, primarily in
support of the Wayzata Boulevard Improvement Project being conducted by Hennepin County;
and
WHEREAS, within the RR -113 One -family Rural Residential Zoning District in
which the Property is located, "Temporary facilities for construction staging, materials and equipment
storage, and materials recycling" may be allowed as an Interim Use, when such facilities are associated
with adjacent public road construction or reconstruction projects in the City of Orono, subject to the
provisions of Orono Zoning Code Section 78-421.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 17-3910.
2. 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 I of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
3. The Property is zoned RR -IB One -family Rural Residential District requiring a
minimum lot area of 2.00 acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet. The Property
is approximately 26 acres in area of which approximately 13 acres is wetland and
approximately 10 acres is a closed landfill.
4. The Property and an adjacent parcel are the subject of City of Orono Resolution
No. 6655 which grants preliminary plat approval for a 27 -lot single family
residential development within the adjacent parcel and within a portion of the
Property.
5. The site plan suggests that temporary lighting may be employed, and it is possible
that to minimize impact on traffic flow, some work on the highway improvements
may be at night. It would be appropriate to establish that any temporary lighting be
downcast and directed away from residential areas.
6. The submitted site plan indicates a proposed visual and noise -screening berm along
the west and south boundaries of the site. Applicant is working with the MPCA to
establish parameters and obtain permits for this berm, which will become an
amenity for future residential development, but has not received the necessary
permits.
7-. The applicants' narrative suggests that this site might be used as a recycling yard
for projects other than just the Wayzata Boulevard improvements.
8. Review per Zoning Code Section 78-916. The Interim Use standards require that
an IUP request be considered with respect to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
standards of Zoning Code Section 78-916. Following is an analysis of the requested
IUP in relation to those standards. Council's findings following each criterion are
shown in bold italics.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
Conditional use permit approval shall be granted only when the following
criteria are met:
(1) The proposed Interim Use is consistent with the Community Management
Plan (CMP). Theproposed temporaty use is commerciallindustrial in nature
and such use is inconsistent with the CMP guiding for this residential
neighborhood and the RR -1B Zoning District.
(2) The proposed use is compliant with the zoning code, including any
conditions imposed on specific uses as required by Article V, Division 3 of the
City Code. The proposed temporary use is compliant with the zoning
standards established for this interim use. Article V Division 3 does not
address the specific construction staging use proposed.
(3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management. The
Page 2 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
proposed temporaty use is anticipated to be adequately served by existing
services andfacilities.
(4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. The
needsfor water supply and sewage disposal will beprovided by the operators
of the site, as municipal sewer and water are not currently available.
(5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public
cost. No excessivepublic services orpublic costs are anticipated based on the
proposed temporary use. Any costs of monitoring the sitefor compliance will
be charged back to the applicant.
(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 area is guided for residential
development. To the east, an active commercial apple orchard exists. The
owners of this orchard have expressed concern with dust and contaminants into
their Orchard. The applicant has failed to provide evidence that these concerns
can be mitigated
(7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of
character is called for in the community management plan. The proposed
temporary use is bordered on the south, west and north by arterial roadways.
The temporary use is not consistent with the character of the surrounding
area as the area is dominated by rural andpassive uses.
(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. Material storage is inconsistent with buildings and site
improvements surrounding the site, as they are rural residential uses.
(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.
Neighboring property owners have expressed concerns regarding the
potential for air, water and noise pollution associated with the construction
staging and materials storage and recycling temporary uses. The applicant
hasfailed to demonstrate how the noisefrom rock crushing activities will be
mitigated or addressed to ensure the activities will not disrupt neighboring
properties.
(10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable
views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses. The applicant has not
shown to the satisfaction of the City Council that dust and other potential
Page 3 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
contaminants can be effectively mitigated.
(11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration,
odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other
means. The applicant has notprovided evidence that the vibration, dust, and
general unsightliness concerns are sufficiently mitigated
(12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking
needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic
congestion, or unsafe access. The only access to the temporary use will be
from a single entrance to County Road 11Z There are no local streets which
would be impacted by traffic from the temporary use, and no local streets
would experience parking impacts as a result of the use. Truck traffic
associated with the temporary use is anticipated to be almost entirely on
Wayzata Boulevard which is a Hennepin County arterial road
(13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of
the area and to minimize environmental impact. The use of the property is
independent of the natural resources.
(14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or
onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts. The
applicant did not provide a lighting photometric plan to verify impact on
adjacentpublic rights of way, which are heavily traveled roads.
(15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The
applicant has failed to demonstrate that the dust will not negatively impact
health, safety, and general wey�are.
9. 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 interim use permit on
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
10. 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.
Page 4 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the Interim Use
Permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-421 to allow the operation of a
temporary facility for construction staging, materials and equipment storage, and materials recycling
use on the Property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the day of � 2017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 5 of 5
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 17-3910
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
20. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
INTERIM USE PERMIT: TEMPORARY USE FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING
Barnhart noted this item was tabled at the last City Council meeting. Barnhart reviewed his Staff report
dated June 12, 2017, noting that the applicant is requesting approval of an interim use permit to allow
temporary staging of construction activities.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, pointed out the distance between the proposed activities on the
subject property and the orchard is approximately one-third mile according to a map on Hennepin
County's website.
A video was played illustrating the layout of the property and the tree line surrounding the property.
Fretham noted there was some concern expressed about the dust and the effect it would have on the
orchard. Fretham stated in his opinion that will not happen due to the distance and the wind block from
the trees. Fretham stated the question is whether it is more of a concern for the apple orchard or for the
business owners in downtown Long Lake.
Fretham noted Staff has supported the request for a number of reasons and the Planning Commission
recommended approval as well. Fretham indicated he has met with over 30 property owners up and down
Wayzata Boulevard and listened to their concerns about the crushing and recycling activities that are
currently taking place in front of their businesses. As a result, a number of signatures in support of
moving the operations to this property was obtained and submitted to the City.
Alan Engleman, 315 North Old Crystal Bay Road, stated he remembers when Orono would not allow
Walgreen's to build on the comer of Willow and Highway 12 because it would impact the drug store
down the business, which did not stop the drug store from leaving six months later. Engleman stated he is
not sure why Orono is worried about Long Lake and that in his view it will not hurt them a bit.
Engleman asked how much money Orono will receive if the City Council approves this. Engleman stated
in his view the City should get their palms greased, too, if they allow this since the property owner will be
making money. Engleman asked why the City would allow them to make money at the residents'
expense without compensating the City. Engleman suggested a bond be put up so if the apples are
contaminated, the Dumas' would be compensated.
Engleman stated there has been hardly any mention any more about taking only the material from the
Highway 112 project but that has not been raised lately. Engleman stated if the Council Okays the
crushing permit on the Eisinger property, they will have a hard time saying that someone else cannot buy
a piece of property and do the same thing that is being done here. In addition, Eureka has never been
brought up but they will receive the most money from this. Engleman stated in his view Orono should
not be their scapegoat and let them push everyone around. Engleman stated if the interim use permit is
allowed for this property, there is nothing stopping somebody from buying the two -acre lot or the three -
acre lot and doing the same thing.
Dankey stated she supports the request for a number of reasons, and while those are businesses in Long
Lake, the Orono City Council should work together with Long Lake to make this something that works
for both cities. Dankey stated in her view this is a practical way to deal with this issue to avoid it
affecting every single person on the highway and keep it more contained.
Page I of 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 12, 2017
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Crosby stated he would also support it with a time limit placed on it. Crosby stated in his view intruding
on less people is more important and that he is also concerned about the impact to the businesses.
Seals stated no matter what the City Council does, the highway project will cause some issues and there
will be some impact to the businesses no matter what the City Council does. Seals stated she does not see
the benefit of placing this next to a wetland or an apple orchard. Seals stated she does not see a place for
it in Orono or Long Lake and that she would not be in support of it.
Printup stated he also is opposed to it for many of the same reasons. Printup stated in his view this is not
an0ronoissue. Printup stated Highway 112 goes through the two cities and that it is reasonable to have
this activity kept within the road. Printup stated while it might sound horrible, spreading the pain along
the roadway up and down 112 is reasonable. Printup noted he also is not happy about the Council voting
to approve the interim use permit ordinance.
Walsh stated he also agrees that this is a no win situation. Walsh stated they are looking at issues with
noise, dust, and environmental impacts but there is no silver bullet beyond not having it here at all.
Barnhart noted since it appears the City Council will not be approving this request, Staff will need to put
together a resolution of denial and that Staff will need some findings for denial.
Mattick noted the City Council has discussed concerns about noise, dust, and location, and that Staff
should be directed to draft a denial resolution that is consistent with the concerns expressed by the City
Council. Mattick stated the burden is on the applicant to prove that the dust will be taken care of and
certain things have been presented but the Council still has concerns about that.
Printup moved, Seals seconded, to direct Staff to draft a denial resolution for Application No.
17-3910, Lake West Development, LLC, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard, File No. 17-3910.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Dankey and Crosby Opposed.
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Page 2 of 2
'A
-75-'J
��kE S Fi q
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 10 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3925 — City of Orono Text Amendment: Small Lots/ Setbacks —
Corrected Ordinance
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda
Development Director Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance related
to setbacks for non -conforming lots, correcting minor errors identified post approval.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. Not applicable
3. Background/ Summary. On June 12, the Council approved an ordinance approving changes to the
side yard setbacks, side yards adjacent to streets, and side yards adjacent to unimproved rights of way.
Included in the draft ordinance where several tables, two of which containing inaccurate information:
The corrections are in bold text.
78-330 Oriainal in ordinance
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
1
140
35
10
W 20
35
78-330 Corrected
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
1
140
35
10
3-520
30
78-350 Ori2inal in Ordinance
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
0.5
100
30
10
3015
15
78-350 Corrected
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
0.5
100
30
10
15
30.15
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Bamhart Approved By: M
AGENDAITEM
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of the corrected ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the corrected ordinance.
Exhibits
A. Corrected Ordinance
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W
ORDINANCE NO. 199, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PERTAINING TO SETBACKS FOR NON -CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL LOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1406 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-1406. — Additional yard provisions.
Required yards in the districts specified shall be subject to the following additional
requirements:
(1) Through lots. Through lots in any district shall have a required front yard on each street.
(2) B and / districts: adjacent lots. In the B and I districts, where the average depth of at least
two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question are less or greater
than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, required front yards shall not be
less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard
shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet.
(3) R districts: adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two
existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same
block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the
required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards;
however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed
50 feet.
(4) R districts: Side Yards adiacent to unimproved r4ghts-of-way, In any residential district,
the setback for side yards aduacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the
applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean
not improved or maintained bV the citV or countV for vehicular travel.
SECTION 2. Section 78-305 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-305. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1A district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as
provided in section 78-1366.
(b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
2
200
50
30
W 30
50
(c) Within the LR -1A zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their width
shall be the lessor of 30 feet or eaual to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However. in no case shall the
side yard setback be less than 10 feet.
SECTION 3. Section 78-330 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
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:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
1
140
35
10
-3�5 20
30
(c) Within the LR -113 zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their
width shall be the lessor of 10 feet or eaual to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However. in no case
shall the side vard setback be less than 7.5 feet.
SECTION 4. Section 78-350 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-350. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1C district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as
provided in section 78-1366.
(b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
0.5
100
30
10
15
30
(c) Within the LR -IC zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their
width shall be the lessor of 10 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case
shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet.
SECTION 5. Section 78-420 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-420. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the RR -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:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
2
200
50
30
W 30
50
(c) Within the RR -113 zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to thei
width shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case shall
the side yard setback be less than 10 feet.
SECTION 6. 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.
'A
-75-'J
��kE S Fi q
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 10 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3925 — City of Orono Text Amendment: Small Lots/ Setbacks —
Corrected Ordinance
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda
Development Director Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance related
to setbacks for non -conforming lots, correcting minor errors identified post approval.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. Not applicable
3. Background/ Summary. On June 12, the Council approved an ordinance approving changes to the
side yard setbacks, side yards adjacent to streets, and side yards adjacent to unimproved rights of way.
Included in the draft ordinance where several tables, two of which containing inaccurate information:
The corrections are in bold text.
78-330 Oriainal in ordinance
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
1
140
35
10
W 20
35
78-330 Corrected
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
1
140
35
10
3-520
30
78-350 Ori2inal in Ordinance
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
0.5
100
30
10
3015
15
78-350 Corrected
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
0.5
100
30
10
15
30.15
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Bamhart Approved By: M
AGENDAITEM
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption of the corrected ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the corrected ordinance.
Exhibits
A. Corrected Ordinance
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W
ORDINANCE NO. 199, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PERTAINING TO SETBACKS FOR NON -CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL LOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1406 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-1406. — Additional yard provisions.
Required yards in the districts specified shall be subject to the following additional
requirements:
(1) Through lots. Through lots in any district shall have a required front yard on each street.
(2) B and / districts: adjacent lots. In the B and I districts, where the average depth of at least
two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question are less or greater
than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, required front yards shall not be
less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard
shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet.
(3) R districts: adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two
existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same
block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the
required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards;
however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed
50 feet.
(4) R districts: Side Yards adiacent to unimproved r4ghts-of-way, In any residential district,
the setback for side yards aduacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the
applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean
not improved or maintained bV the citV or countV for vehicular travel.
SECTION 2. Section 78-305 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-305. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1A district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as
provided in section 78-1366.
(b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
2
200
50
30
W 30
50
(c) Within the LR -1A zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their width
shall be the lessor of 30 feet or eaual to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However. in no case shall the
side yard setback be less than 10 feet.
SECTION 3. Section 78-330 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
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:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
1
140
35
10
-3�5 20
30
(c) Within the LR -113 zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their
width shall be the lessor of 10 feet or eaual to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However. in no case
shall the side vard setback be less than 7.5 feet.
SECTION 4. Section 78-350 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-350. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1C district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as
provided in section 78-1366.
(b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
0.5
100
30
10
15
30
(c) Within the LR -IC zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their
width shall be the lessor of 10 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case
shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet.
SECTION 5. Section 78-420 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 78-420. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
(a) Height. No structure or building in the RR -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:
Lot
Lot
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Area
Width
Yard
Yard
Yard
Yard
(Acre)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Adjacent
(feet)
to Street
(feet)
2
200
50
30
W 30
50
(c) Within the RR -113 zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to thei
width shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to 10% of the Lot Width as defined. However, in no case shall
the side yard setback be less than 10 feet.
SECTION 6. 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.: 11
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3939, John Bailey, 2807 Casco Point Road, Conditional Use
Permit — Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Consent Agenda
Planner Section:
Purpose. To consider a resolution approving a conditional use permit to repair a lake slope
failure.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on April 19, 2017; and
considered as complete on May 13. The 60 -Day review period expires on July 12, 2017.
Background. At the June 12' meeting the Council reviewed the applicant's proposal to restore
their lake slope. The Council voted 5 to 0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of the
CUP.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution as drafted.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
References
Draft City Council Minutes — June 12, 2017
Council Memo & Exhibits of June 12, 2017:
Exhibit A.
Proposed Plans - Original
Exhibit B.
Updated Plan Information
Exhibit C.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit D.
PC Staff Report
Exhibit E.
City Engineer Comments
PC Exhibits of May 15, 2017:
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Existing Survey
Exhibit C.
Proposed Plans
Exhibit D.
Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit E.
Plant List
Exhibit F.
Site Photos
Exhibit G. Aerial Photos
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit 1. Plat Map
Prepared By: VY)GG
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: DRS
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-967; 78-1283; and 78-1286
FILE NO.17-3939
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2017, John Bailey (the "Applicant"), applied for a conditional
use permit (a "CUP") pursuant to City Code for the property addressed 2807 Casco Point Road and
legally described as:
Lots 123 and 124, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
Also
That part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue and of the tract of land lying between said
avenue and shore of lake which lies between the Southwesterly extension of the
Northwesterly line of Lot 124 and the Southeasterly line of Lot 123. (hereinafter the
"Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a CUP
pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-967; 78-1283; and 78-1286 to allow
removal of approximately 300 cubic yards of compromised soil material on the Property's failed
lake slope and replace it with approximately 500 cubic yards of angular soil to be compacted and
restored as shown on the plans within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the lake; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 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 May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the CUP; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2017, the City Council directed preparation of findings for
approval of the CUP; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2017the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested CUP as described above based on one or more of the following
findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #17-3939. The analysis contained within
staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above
mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are
hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR -1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. Applicant has applied for the following approval[s]:
a. Conditional Use Permit for Grading over 500 cubic yards within the Shoreland.
b. Conditional Use Permit for Grading over 50 cubic yards within the 75 -foot Setback
from the lake.
4. The plans provided by the Applicant include landscaping solutions to deal with site
drainage and slope stabilization; the scope of work includes subsurface drainage
infrastructure along with grading and vegetation.
5. In considering this application for CUP, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed CUP upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS:
1) Consistent with the community management plan; The intent for the proposed grading
is residential in nature, is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property, and is
compliant with the zoning code and comprehensive 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; The proposed slope restoration,
grading, and plantings are residential in nature and are compliant with the zoning code.
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This statement
is true.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; This statement
is true.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This
statement is true.
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 proposed restoration work within the 75 -foot
setback area should have no impact on surrounding lands and is intended to avoid
further damage. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the adjacent sites will not be
significantly altered. Once completed the existing staircase and new plantings should
be the only visual changes when viewed from the lake.
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is
called for in the community management plan; The proposed restoration work within
the 75 -foot setback area is intended to avoid further damage. Drainage patterns for
runoff leaving the site will not be significantly altered. The import and export of materials
is necessary to restore the slope failure, once completed, it will have no impact on
surrounding lands. The slope, once vegetated and landscaped should not have an
adverse impact on the neighborhood or the lake.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
The Applicant is proposing to remove approximately 300 cubic yards of unstable
material and replace with approximately 500 cubic yards of clean, angular soil to
stabilize the slope and aid in stormwater management. It is likely adjacent lakeshore
properties will not be impacted. The transfer of materials on and off the site will be
reviewed and monitored closely by the City's engineer to assure that adjacent
properties and the lake are not adversely impacted.
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area
or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared
to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed use of the
Property will not be changing as a result of the proposed grading activity so there should
be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The finished slope will be vegetated and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
landscaped; it should blend into the Property. The project, once completed, should not
result in undesirable views requiring mitigation.
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This statement is
true.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause
a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe
access; The Applicant will be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The
noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around
the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading project will be monitored
by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project.
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and
to minimize environmental impact; The project has been designed to take into account
the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental
impact. The long term effect of the project should result in minimal environmental
impacts. The project will be monitored by the City to prevent erosion from the site.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public
right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; there should be no lighting or
glare resulting from the grading project; and
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This statement is
true.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
CUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-967; 78-1283; and 78-1286 to allow
removal of approximately 300 cubic yards of compromised soil material on the Property's failed
lake slope and replace it with approximately 500 cubic yards of angular soil to be compacted and
restored as shown on the plans within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the lake, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the grading plan from Otto Associates dated
03/10/17 and revised 06/01/17 and plans submitted by the Applicant (hereinafter
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
collectively the "Plans") and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as
Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Hauling shall occur during allowed construction hours only Monday through Friday 7 am
to 8 pm (and between 8 am and 8 pm on weekends and holidays).
5. The street shall be swept daily, or as needed, to keep debris off of City streets.
6. Contractor(s) shall post a contact number and be able to respond to complaints in a timely
fashion.
7. Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
8. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining an administrative Zoning Permit for
the work and commencing construction of said project. A Zoning Permit must be received
by the Applicant within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire
on that date (June 26, 2018).
9. Applicant shall submit an as -built survey in order to final the permit and for the City to
refund any escrow funds held.
10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 26 th day of June, 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
5
0
G
OZ6—
N
969.60
0;
Qi
0
0
o 9b
C�
Oo
00 10
00
0 x
0 0
0000 -b
00
0
0
lb ep
C6
oi
ol
LU
§43
10
cb C3
zl� L,
1:110
9 A*
q lu.op
1�1
lb
Q)
Q)
Q�
Q)
N
Q)
6
rl:
N
61
0
G
OZ6—
N
969.60
0;
Qi
0
0
o 9b
C�
Oo
00 10
00
0 x
0 0
0000 -b
00
0
0
lb ep
C6
oi
ol
LU
§43
10
cb C3
zl� L,
1:110
9 A*
q lu.op
1�1
lb
Q)
Q)
Q�
Q)
N
Q)
6
rl:
N
00
CD
I
0 0
I�Y
, 52
co
clq
-7
IIL
CN
""v Lu
04
ji
Aw
rl
cl)
4, cu
Xz Q0
t3)
0
uj
13
El
CL
QC
0 0
4-0 . - ,e I C,� f
N/ CCP
,j
'LOB
N-1 0 LQ
x
x
196
LLJ
A,(
CD
*% 40, e'
Cj) c6
�41
LL
Al/v
Q,
4-1
4.
CTJ
01
CL
C�_ 2L
t4 14 Lk: L: U: k:
W G1 bi W 14 Ll V5 Q5 G1 Ld 0
; R R I It'! Z� :4 —a R 14
x
t
LE L, 61
—b S
tj En
The Building Materials:
* Excavate the silt and mud. Export off site.
0 Import topsoil (structural) blended and screened with no rocks or sticks.
* The three washout areas are 35 x 40.
• The geostructural product will be staked deep. See brochure on product.
• 7:30 AM start time and 6:00 PM end time in the evening. No weekend work.
• Start as soon as possible to gain the growing season for plant root structure.
• We will practice minimal traffic impediment as we drop off and pick up
equipment. There is room to load trucks at the driveway.
• The site is quite private. Normal Skid Steer noise. All new tier 4 equipment
deletes any smoke smell.
RECEIVED
APR 19 2017
GVTY OF ORONO
3441 Bluff Drive - Jordan, MN 55352
952-492-5100 - Fax 952-492-5101 # 3939
|
__/| | | Ll
__z_ _ _ |_____.
_
I r
14,
jA-
tl
E-
I
7K.
ud
I
ILA
F -J 1�7
1�7
t7l,
A.
T-1
APR.11 S ZO 7
-KC ffo._._,__
J-1
L I -JII --I J..
I
I
I I I --L L
F-1 F F -
.2i
_90
71
L J
T T.' - -----
17. .7
Filtrexx Bank Stabilization Solutions, Reliable Stabilization Systems with Filtrexx Techn... Page 6 of 6
livingwatts@fittrexx.com (mailto:tivingwaLLs@f!Ltrexx.com) (maj [to: MAI LTO �Jv� ngwalts(df i[trexx.com)
FILTREXX.COM (http://www.fiLtrexx.com)
ABOUT (http://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/`about)
APPLICATIONS (httl2://www.fiLtrexx.com/enjapp�ications)
INDUSTRIES (http://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/industries)
PRODUCTS Chttp://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/products)
TECHNOLOGY (http*//www.fiLtrexx.com/en,/`techroLogy)
RESOURCES (httR://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/resources)
LEGAL (http://Www.fiLtrexx.com/en/[eF[aL)
SiTEMAP (httr)://www.fiLtrexx,com/en/sitemaD)
SEEDED FILTREXX@ GROSOXX""(8"-12" TYP.)
OR LIVE PLANTED (SEE NOTE 5)
LIVE WILLOW STAKES OR OTHER PLANT
MATERIAL FROM SEED OR FROM LIVE PLUGS
ORANGE WITNESS BARRIER OVERLYING
FLW 20 GEOGRID WRAPPED AROUND FILTRFXX8
GROSOXXTm FASCIA OR OTHER STRENGTH
(FLW 35 OR FLW 55)
kK................ . .. . .. .........
FACE BATTER (MAX 2:1):
A& W
... ..... . .. ....
RIPRAP/BOULDERS �:'XIS-ING GqAD_E6
. . .........
CREEK BED
EXCAVATE BELOW FILTREXX BANK TOE ROCKSOXX
EXPECTED SCOUR LINE (LOOSE STONE WRAPPED IN FABRIC)
R
140TES:
1� ALL MATERIAL To MEET nLTREXX6 spEcinCATIONS.
2. GROSOXX— FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
3 ' ALL GROSOXX- TO BE SEEDED PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS.
4. SACKFILL TO BE PLACED PER ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS.
5. GEOGRO STRENGTH, LENGTH AND V`ERPCAt. SPACING TO 5E DETERMINED BY ENGINEER,
GFOGRiD — NO STRANDS
ARE TO BE CUT DURING PLANTING, ETC. WE RECOMMEND 81—DIRECTIONAL STRENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION EASE.
6. NAnVE AND DRAINAGE SACKFILL TO BE SEPARATED BY NON—WOVEN F�LTER FABRIC.
7. MAXIMUM HEIGHT RECOMMENDED: TEN FEFT EXPOSED HEIGHT.
8. FILTREXXO GROSOXX- DEPENDS ON APPLICATION (SIZE DEPENDENT ON PROJECT)
9. WITNESS BARRIER SHOULD BE OPEN MESH GRID TO PERMIT PLANTING.
11es%gr,',phib representationsnaro �ntended for
"eirn " y design PtArposes a p y and am not
f i I t rex
SCALE:
NONE
FOLTREXX EDGESAVER STREAM
to be used for canstruction without the
-jfgnature of a registered professional engine
BANK STABILIZATION SYSTEM
FiLtrexx Bank StabiLization System
http://www.filtrexx.com/en/applications/stabilization/bank-stabilization 511012017
Katherine Marxen
From:
Ron Anderson
Sent:
Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:29 PM
To:
Katherine Marxen
Subject:
Fwd: Bailey - Plantings
Sent from my Verizorl, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Ellie Dahl <elIieanorIing§.net>
Date: 4/18/17 3:24 PM (GMT -06:00)
To: Ron Anderson <randcrson&f1naIg!ade.com>
Subject: Bailey - Plantings
Ron,
I have reviewed the documents that were sent over to us and spoke with George about some plant options we
would suggest for the slope. Below are a few I'd suggest:
Red -Osier Dogwood (shrub) - cornus stolonifera
Ninebark (shrub) -physocarpus capitatus
Snowberry (shrub) - sympthoricarpos albus
GroLow Sumac (groundcover) - rhus aromatica
Crown Vetch (groundcover) - coronilla varia
Allium (native wildflower) - allium stellatum
Yarrow (native wildflower) - achillea millefolium RECEIVED
Blue Rug Juniper (low growing evergreen) -juniperus horizontalis Wiltonfi' APR 19 Z017
CITY OF ORONO
There a quite a few options available but these are the few I suggest that are easy to get and seem to do well in
our area. I tried to give a variety of both shrubs, wildflower, and groundcover that all do well in a very sunny
climate. Not only is having a variety nice aesthetically, but it has it's benefits with erosion as well. Having the
variety of sizes will do a good job of breaking up/slowing down rainfall as it falls and hits the slope which in
turn minimizes erosion during a rainfall event.
DRAINAGE -968.77X
Gorden-----,.
AREA MAP
969. 74 X
969.24X Ret, /S <
Window Well
969.42X
X969.58
6jx
J-,
969.5 10. 1 a Lor 5 AV 0000
00
&Q 0 0
0
0
-969 12' YARD\ 0
IQ
X96725 x9c;
X96& 70
eps,,
eps-, p<
Q)
7
967
.56
8
966.58>4
9
70.7-1
0
-1C DRAIN INLET. 0 0
TOP=9678A 0
0 70.61
0
0
Flog P
10
X 9 79,X
970-
96& GRADE 12"— 18"
HIGH BERM
N X969.79 969.j8x
12" YARD
DRAIN INLET
TOP=967.8
'Q 0
A-
Q \-Qu'
IQ,
COT
-0 *1 'IQ
IQ N
IN,
1p X968.54
0�14
V60
9 969.JlX
6_9 /J1X
X9&
Fence
X9
X968.97
X968.76
N 3P
is ---v A
To NW inlet
NW Depression
NZ
2S 4P
To SE inlet SW Depression
4 L Zin k
160478 HydroCAD MSE24-hr3 10- Year Rainfall=4.26
Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/1/2017
HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 03113 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
Summary for Subcatchment 1S: To NW inlet
Runoff 0.29 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth> 1.85"
Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
MSE24-hr3 10-YearRainfall=4.26"
Area (ac) CN Adj Description
0.010 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C
0.070 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
0.080 77 76 Weighted Average, Ul Adjusted
0.070 87.50% Pervious Area
0.010 12.50% Impervious Area
0.010 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment 2S: To SE inlet
Runoff 0.34 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.015af, Depth> 1.78"
Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
MSE24-hr3 10-YearRainfall=4.26"
Area (ac) CN
Adj
Description
0.010 98
Inflow
Unconnected pavement, HSG C
0.090 74
0.012 af
>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
0.100 76
75
Weighted Average, Ul Adjusted
0.090
0.28 cfs @
90.00% Pervious Area
0.010
10.00% Impervious Area
0.010
100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length
Slope
Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet)
(ft/ft)
(ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0
Direct Entry,
Summary for Pond 3P: NW Depression
Inflow Area
0.080 ac,
12.50% Impervious,
Inflow Depth > 1.85" for 10 -Year event
Inflow
0.29 cfs @
12.12 hrs, Volume=
0.012 af
Outflow
0.28 cfs @
12.14 hrs, Volume=
0.012 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.9 min
Primary
0.28 cfs @
12.14 hrs, Volume=
0.012 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 968.10'@ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area=68sf Storage=9cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 0.4 min calculated for 0.012 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.4 min ( 788.6 - 788.2 )
160478 HydroCAD MSE24-hr3 10- Year Rainfall=4.26
Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/1/2017
HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 03113 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3
Volume
Invert Avail.Storage Storage
Description
#1
967.80'
137 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)-isted below (Recalc)
Elevation
Surf.Area
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
(feet)
(sq -ft)
(cubic -feet)
(cubic -feet)
967.80
0
0
0
968.00
35
4
4
968.80
300
134
137
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Device 2 967.80' 0.4" x 3.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 45.00 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#2 Primary 967.80' 8.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 967.80'/ 966.92' S=0.0126'/' Cc=0.900
n=0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, FlowArea=0.35sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.27 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=968.09' (Free Discharge)
't--2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.27 cfs @ 1.84 fps)
't--1 =0 rifi ce/G rate (Passes 0.27 cfs of 0.98 cfs potential flow)
Summary for Pond 4P: SW Depression
Inflow Area 0.100 ac, 10.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.78" for 10 -Year event
Inflow 0.34 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af
Outflow 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 0.9 min
Primary 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 968.13'@ 12.14 hrs Surf.Area= 77 sf Storage= 11 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 0.5 min calculated for 0.015 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.4 min ( 790.1 - 789.8 )
Volume
Invert Avail.Storage Storage
Description
#1
967.80'
131 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc)
Elevation
Surf.Area
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
(feet)
(sq -ft)
(cubic -feet)
(cubic -feet)
967.80
0
0
0
968.00
35
4
4
968.80
285
128
131
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Device 2 967.80' 0.4" x 3.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 45.00 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#2 Primary 967.80' 8.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 967.80'/ 966.92' S=0.0126'/' Cc=0.900
n=0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, FlowArea=0.35sf
160478 HydroCAD MSE24-hr3 10- Year Rainfall=4.26
Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/1/2017
HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 03113 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4
Primary OutFlow Max=0.33 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=968.12' (Free Discharge)
't--2=Culvert (inlet Controls 0.33 cfs @ 1.94 fps)
't--1 =0 rifi ce/G rate (Passes 0.33 cfs of 1.03 cfs potential flow)
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
PROJECT:
Proposed Slope Reconstruction
2807 Casco Point Road
Orono, Minnesota
PREPARED FOR:
Final Grade, Inc.
3441 Bluff Drive
Jordan, MN 55352
PREPARED BY:
Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC
2825 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 16-0978
January 3, 2017
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
�Iwl bA��
John T. Carlson, P.E.
Senior Engineer
License Number: 20663
Expires June, 2018
F
ER
20663
..........
01: M to
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Final Grade, Inc. (Final Grade) is preparing to reconstruct the failed slope at 2807 Casco
Point Road in Orono, Minnesota. We understand that Barr Engineering previously
evaluated the slope failure and presented the owner with several different design options
to repair the slope failure.
Final Grade retained Haugo GeoTechnical Services to perform a geotechnical exploration
to evaluate the suitability of site soil and groundwater conditions and provide our opinion
on the proposed slope reconstruction at the site.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and provide our opinion on the proposed slope reconstruction at
the site.
1.3 Site Description
The project site is located at 2807 Casco Point Road in Orono, MN. The site currently
contains one residential home that is located about 55 feet northeast of the crest (top) of an
existing slope along Lake 1�finnetonka.
The house area and backyard of the project site is relatively flat with the surface elevations
at the soil boring locations ranging from about 970 feet to 9691/2 feet. The slope is relatively
steep and is indicated at about 40 degrees on the Barr Engineering documents provided.
The height of the slope from the crest to Lake Minnetonka is about 30 feet. The slope face
generally contains small trees and brush with an existing stairway to Lake Minnetonka.
Portions of the slope face failed during a period of heavy rain in June 2014. The slope
failure was not repaired and portions were covered with plastic sheeting.
1.4 Scope of Services
Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC
proposal 16-0978 dated November 15, 2016. Our scope of services was performed under
the terms of our General Conditions and limited to the following tasks:
• Completing two (2) standard penetration test soil borings and extending each to a
nominal depth of 40 feet.
• Recording GPS coordinates of the soil boring locations and elevations.
• Visually/ manually classifying the samples recovered from the soil borings.
• Performing laboratory tests on selected samples.
1
A field log of each boring was prepared by the HGTS drill crew. The logs contained visual
classifications of the soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's
interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes.
The final boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs
and include modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples.
The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and
classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil
boring logs identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or
consistency based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N -value, "blows per foot") and
groundwater observations.
The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The
depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely
transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the boring.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Soil Conditions
The soil borings encountered about I foot of topsoil at the surface. The topsoil consisted
of sandy lean clay that was black in color.
Beneath the topsoil, the borings encountered native alluvial lean clay soils that extended
to around 4 feet below the ground surface. Penetration resistance values (N -values),
shown as blows per foot (bpf) on the boring logs, of 8 blows per foot (bpo were recorded
in the lean clays which indicate a medium consistency.
Underlying the topsoil and alluvial clay soils, the soil borings encountered glacial till soils
that extended to the boring termination depths of about 40 feet. The glacial till soils
consisted mainly of clayey sand, with upper layers of sandy lean clays and lean clays
encountered at boring SB -I. N -values of 10 to 26 bpf were recorded in the glacial till soils.
These values indicate the clayey sands had a medium dense relative density with upper
loose zones while the sandy lean clays/lean clays had a stiff consistency.
3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in both soil borings after drilling between depths of about
31 1/2 to 34 feet which correspond to elevations of about 936 to 938. Water levels were
measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water level
observations was relatively short. Given the cohesive nature of the glacial till soils
encountered, it is likely that insufficient time was available for possible perched
groundwater to seep into the bore hole and rise to its hydrostatic level.
The Minnesota DNR reports the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka
to be around an elevation of 929 1/2feet.
3
Groundwater monitoring wells or piezon-teters would be required to more accurately
determine water levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in groundwater levels should be
expected.
3.3 Laboratory Tests
Laboratory moisture content and percent passing the Number 200 sieve (P-200 content)
tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the soil borings. A summary of
the laboratory testing is presented in the Table 1 below. The moisture contents of the
samples are also provided on the soil boring logs opposite the sample tested.
Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Tests
Boring
Number
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
Moisture
Content
N*
P-200
N*
SB -I
S-2
21/2
271/2
-
SB -1
S-3
5
26
591/2
SB -1
S-4
7 Y2
231/2
-
S13-1
5-6
121/2
16 Y2
-
SB -1
S-7
15
161/2
39
SB -1
S-8
20
161/2
-
SB -1
9-10
30
141/2
28
SB -1
S-12
40
141/2
-
SB -2
S-14
2 Y2
261/2
-
SB -2
S-15
5
17 Y2
35
SB -2
S-16
71/2
17 Y2
-
SB -2
S-18
121/2
18
SB -2
S-19
15
14
SB -2
S-20
20
171/2
-
SB -2
S-21
25
16
32 '/2
SB -2
S-22
30
151/2
-
SB -2
S-24
40
16
*P-200 tests and moisture contents were rounded to the nearest 112 percent
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification
The soils encountered in the borings consisted of both granular (sand) and cohesive (clay)
soils. The cohesive soils will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, while the granular
soils will generally classify as Type C soils.
APPENDIX
& = Approximate Soil Boring Location
GPS Boring Locations
a
Referencing Minnesota County Coordinates Basis - Hennepin County (GEOID09 Conus model)
Haugo GeoTechnical
Services.
2825 Cedar Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Soil Boring Location Sketch
2807 Casco Point Road
Orono, Minnesota
Figure #: I
Drawn By: RD
Date: 11/22/16
Scale: None
Project 4: 16-0978
Elevation
Northing
Easting
Boring Number
(US Survey Feet)
Coordinate
Coordinate
SB -1
970.0
149485-379
438364.937
S13-2
9693
1 149530.864
1 438303.037
Referencing Minnesota County Coordinates Basis - Hennepin County (GEOID09 Conus model)
Haugo GeoTechnical
Services.
2825 Cedar Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Soil Boring Location Sketch
2807 Casco Point Road
Orono, Minnesota
Figure #: I
Drawn By: RD
Date: 11/22/16
Scale: None
Project 4: 16-0978
HAUGO Haugo GeoTechnical Services
AFeTECHNIrAL 2825 Cedar Ave
g4.
"jyj jig Minneapolis, MN 554057
Telephone: 612-729-2959
CLIENT Final Grade
PROJECT NUMBER 16-0978
DATE STARTED 11121/16 COMPLETED 11121/16
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS
DRILUNGMETHOD Hollow Stem AunedSplit Spoon
LOGGED BY NIS CHECKED BY JG
NOTES
BORING NUMBER SB -1
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME 2807 Casco Point Road
PROJECT LOCATION Orono, Minnesota
GROUND ELEVATION 970 ft HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
AT TIME OF DRILLING —NotEncountered
AT END OF DRILLING — Not Encountered
7 AFTER DRILLING
LU
IL
A SPT N VALUE A
lwl�
a uj
CL
20 40 60 80
PL MC LL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Uj M
-i
W 0
>
0 z
Z) Z CL
:D
ui
CL
0
_j —
0
20 40 60 80
0 FINES CONTENT (%) Ll
C3
CD
z
b
Lu
L) Z 0 >-
0 x
20 40 60 80
Sandy Lean Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
AU
Ev
(CL) Lean ClaYT trace Fibers, brown, moist, medium. (Alluvium)
2-4-4
VFSS
/N
2
(8)
............... .......
5
6-7-8
a a
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, rust staining, brown, moist, stiff.
117
SS
(Glacial Till)
3-5-8
. ......... .......
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and light brown, moist, stiff.
x
Ss
(Glacial Tilt)
4
(13)
4-7-8
(15)
..... . ..... .
SS
6-6-7
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium gralined, trace Gravel, brown to
dark brown at 39 feet, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till)
/\j
6
(13)
3-5-7
(12)
SS
7
20
4-6-8
(14)
....... ............... ------
......................
\/I SS
8
25
7-10-14
(24)
.......
....... -------- ....... ......
SS
9
30
9 1-3
\A
SS
0
(22)
............
35
6-6-8
(14)
.......
S
Ss
............. .......
rl
.......... ......
SS
3�8-1 0
2
(18)
Bottom of borehole at 41.0 feet.
BORING NUMBER SB -2
HAUGO
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave
PAGE I OF 1
,QFnTECHNICAL
III
Minneapolis, MN 554057
Eva
Telephone: 612-729-2959
CLIENT Final Grade
PROJECT NAME 2807
Casco Point Road
PROJECT NUMBER 16-0978
PROJECT LOCATION
Orono, Minnesota
DATE STARTED 11121/16 COMPLETED 11121116
GROUND ELEVATION
969.3 It HOLE SIZE -3 1/4 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLJNGMETHOD Hollow Stem Au(jerlSplit Spoon
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
MS CHECKED BY JC
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
NOTES
ZAFTERDRILLING
31.30 ft I Elev938,00 ftwith Cave-in Depth of 33.8 i�et
AL SPT N VALUE A
CL
>-
co 20 40 60 80
a- Z?
(9
0-0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LU ix
Lu 0
iL PL MC LL
z —j �- =� "3 i
Z
* '
w
<
Of
' Z' -5 20 40 60 80
ME y
2F z
< Lu
0 z L) >-
0 Of 0 FINES CONTENT (0/6) E]
0
20 40 60 80
Sandy Lean Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
AU
E-
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Fibers, brown, moist, medium. CAlluvium) —Ul �3
SS
2-4-4
1
...............
(8)
5
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, [race Fibers, rust
staining at 8 feet, brown and light brown, moist, loose to medium SS
15
3-4-7 ............ .
0
dense. (Glaclial Till)
-------
Ss
..............
44-6
16
16
(10)
. ... .............
10
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel,
moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till)
brown,
SS
� SS
17
17
3-5-6 ... ... .
(11)
SS
3-5-7 As.
. . ........ .
�5 15
SS
2-5-6 .......
19
. ...........
............ .. .... .......
20
\/I SS
4-5-6
/\j 20
---------- ...... ....... 4
............
LU
25
\A Ss
. .......... ...........
3-7-9
W............
21
(16) .......
....... ......
30
Ss
5-6-8
22
_J14 ......
\/I SS
5-13-13
/\j 23
(26) ............
40
Ss
5-7-8
2 4
(15)
0
ul
Bottom of borehole at 4 1.0 feet.
01
Descriptive Terminology of Soii
Standard D 2487 - 00
;U Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
corves czcve' ,,urt:ws V tolt.. to gioup nam. e
c C" - ui,; D., C - 'o' -
D., x D,
�0:3 A.Msaria topu�-'naple
ttm: sy"Ws
GWGM
GW -GC �,ell-gradedgra-elve4lic:ae
GP -GC rL10WlY;1a1_q1ZlVaV0.ithCldf
0 lines c:250i as CL MIL -se dual symtk�,r l3C-GM cr SC SM
ad-, :oWo�pra,,rle
If iioif comm'ns � 15�i gra..31 adi W�jf, D,*VelF to Der,",
I Sands viln 5 tc! fPAS T�--#-.Wil Ci,*1 S$ rrll!N�iS
S`A;-sf%j ve"1jFqrace3 sa,,-,wrth sit.
SVV-SC ml� riay
SP -SPA roorl�- qa-M50 s�r" —M Sill
SP -SC g�O�Oy OIQ1-41 SAIC �Ih Ibr
1 :1 Altervefg limits p:.oi �r rixchvn aztiji so I is a CL,FAL silly sra�-
10402ch PUM 2X Of -W1X!Wa'0.
zlW'sa�dl, ringtoLpname
ado 9,a,e::5�
P1 � 4 a" plots on of ai A ,�e
P i < 4 of Plots oeluw A- ;ine
P P I p ots on at above A' Ve
Q r'I F �-: S De4q& A I �Q
Go
so
Z-
R-� 40
x
30
20
10
7
A
0
Criteria for Assiqmng Group Symbols and
S i i s Classification
F7]
cobbles
Group
Names Usillo Laboratory Tests
roup
I
Dy dEtISFIY PC�
Oc Orgamccontem
WD
Wel density PCI
Symboli
G roup Name
C
0
Gravels
Clean Gravels
C, Z� 4 and I <
GW
Vifell.g.aciec, gravel;
-0
in 0
fillort than 50-11, of
coarse traction
Vit ,I less fines
C 4 and/of 1 C Z. 3
GP
Poorly gladed gravel
Gravels with Fines
Fines classify a::. IAL or Nill-I
GM
Silly gravel
'ro Q
retafnedon
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
clavey-9 ravel
No 4 sieve
Marc than 12% lines
a',
Sands
Clean Sands
nd 1 < C, < 3 o
SW
Well -graded sand
G
Z
50% or Mori: of
coarse fraction
51,- or less fines
C� < 6 anditor I , C,::- 3 c
SP
Poorly giraded sand
0 W
pas$es
Sands witTh Fines
j:F:ine:s classify as NIL or MH
Silly sand
Pines Classify as CL or CH
SC
Cla�c�- sand'�
No 4 sieve
More than 12�,t
is
Incfganic
PJ > 7 and plots cn or above'A'brie I
CL
L eian clay
0 W I
Silts and Clays
Liquid 111%1;1
P1 < 4 or pto'.s befowA- finel
MI.
.
Sill -
0-ganic
Liquid limit - oven dried 0 75
OL
Organic clay
gri - l,
M 9?
:eSS Irian 1,0
MH or
OH
Liquid limit - not dried
0L
organic sill
Zi
E
Silts and clays
Incrgaric
PI plots on or above 'A' line
-
CH
Fat cfav
P1 Plots below'A'fine
MH
lastir sw'
a Z
Liquid limit
50 or more
Organic
Liquid limit - oven cried
OH
-;ay
Organic f -
< 075
Liquid limit - not dried
OH
Organic Sli,
High.ly Organic Soils i
Pirmarily orgtmc mallec daf� in color and organic odor
PT
Peat
corves czcve' ,,urt:ws V tolt.. to gioup nam. e
c C" - ui,; D., C - 'o' -
D., x D,
�0:3 A.Msaria topu�-'naple
ttm: sy"Ws
GWGM
GW -GC �,ell-gradedgra-elve4lic:ae
GP -GC rL10WlY;1a1_q1ZlVaV0.ithCldf
0 lines c:250i as CL MIL -se dual symtk�,r l3C-GM cr SC SM
ad-, :oWo�pra,,rle
If iioif comm'ns � 15�i gra..31 adi W�jf, D,*VelF to Der,",
I Sands viln 5 tc! fPAS T�--#-.Wil Ci,*1 S$ rrll!N�iS
S`A;-sf%j ve"1jFqrace3 sa,,-,wrth sit.
SVV-SC ml� riay
SP -SPA roorl�- qa-M50 s�r" —M Sill
SP -SC g�O�Oy OIQ1-41 SAIC �Ih Ibr
1 :1 Altervefg limits p:.oi �r rixchvn aztiji so I is a CL,FAL silly sra�-
10402ch PUM 2X Of -W1X!Wa'0.
zlW'sa�dl, ringtoLpname
ado 9,a,e::5�
P1 � 4 a" plots on of ai A ,�e
P i < 4 of Plots oeluw A- ;ine
P P I p ots on at above A' Ve
Q r'I F �-: S De4q& A I �Q
Go
so
Z-
R-� 40
x
30
20
10
7
A
0
to is 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
nnuldefs
Liquid Limit tLL)
cobbles
3' to 12'
L.aboratory Tests
00
Dy dEtISFIY PC�
Oc Orgamccontem
WD
Wel density PCI
S Percent of saturation v:
fin C
Nalualmoisjureconteril
SG S,"ecific gravity
LL
Liquid limit 74
C Cohesion Psi
PL
Plaszic lim.1 �4
0 Angle of internal hiclion
P1
PJ30CITLY InUes
qu Unconfined compressive strength- psi
P200
',, PaSVng 200 sievie
qP Pocxel penelfornelef strength, t5t
011
MH or
OH
rdlL or 0
or 0
'�77�7
to is 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
Parlicle Size Identification
nnuldefs
Liquid Limit tLL)
cobbles
3' to 12'
L.aboratory Tests
00
Dy dEtISFIY PC�
Oc Orgamccontem
WD
Wel density PCI
S Percent of saturation v:
fin C
Nalualmoisjureconteril
SG S,"ecific gravity
LL
Liquid limit 74
C Cohesion Psi
PL
Plaszic lim.1 �4
0 Angle of internal hiclion
P1
PJ30CITLY InUes
qu Unconfined compressive strength- psi
P200
',, PaSVng 200 sievie
qP Pocxel penelfornelef strength, t5t
Parlicle Size Identification
nnuldefs
over 12'
cobbles
3' to 12'
Gravel
MedLOM
Coarse
314' to 3'
Fine
No 4 to 314'
Sand
Very S I it.,
Coarse
No 4 to No 10
Mediurn
No 10 to No 40
Fwie
No 40 to No 200
Silt
< No. 200. V[< 4 or
belciv; 'A- line
Clay
< No 200. PI it 4 and
an or aboveA' line
Relative Density of
Cohesionless Soils
Very loose 0 10 4 8PF
Loose 5 to ICBPF
Medium dense I! to 30 OPF
clanse 31 to 50 SPF
Very dens e over So OPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
wry soft
0 to I BP '
Soft
2 lo 3 BPF
Rather so�,
4 to 5 6PF
MedLOM
6 !a 8 BPF
Rather stir
9 to 12 BPF
&M
1310 16 BPF
Very S I it.,
17 to 30 BPF
Halo
over 30 BPF
Drilling Notes
&'andard penelratiori ItLlst rQnngs were advanced t�y 3 114- or 6 $14'
ID hol!ow-stepri augers unless noted 01herw[se. Jelling waler was used
to clean out auger Prior 10 sampling only where indicated an logs
Slancaid peneiralion test borings are designated by the prefix 'ST'
(Split Tube) All samples were taken viith the Standard 2' 00 spId-lube
sampler elx�epj where noted
Power auger Wrings wele advanced by 4 or 6' diameter continuous -
night solid-slem augers Bad classifications and strala depths were in.
FE!rrpd learn disturbed Samples augered to the surfaceand are, therefore,
Si�imewhat approximate Power auger barings are designated by the
p,efix "B -
Hand aucef bonras were advanced manually with a 1 1/2' or 3 1/4'
diameter augerandwere limited tolhedeplh f(arnwhch Ine augericould
bernanuallywithdrawn Hand auger borm9l; ale Indl=ed by the prefix
BPF: Numbers rrldrc�qle b!cws per toot reCorded in standard penetration
test, also known as'N' value. The sampler was sel 6- into urnoisturb2d
SOLibelc�w-t,.etiollow-steinatiget Driving resistances were then counted
to, Secant! and third 6' increments arid added 10 get BPF Where they
Mitered sign-ficarilly iney are reported in Me raltowipq form 2112 for the
second and ihird 6' ioCiernentS respec!ivaly,
WK liARI indcales the sampler penetrated Soil undef weight at hamnier
and rods alone driving not required
WR: WR rid,ra[es the samrier Perlelialea $011 under weight at rods
al,Dna hammcr vireighland driving not requrred
TW ind,cales lhrr�.,Vaijpa iL)ndl$hntaedj1 fVba Sal
Nolrli� All Tests �-de;e run in aeneral aC1.0faafTe w4h aDp4cahleASTM
slandairds
Rev "V,
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 11
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3939, John Bailey, 2807 Casco Point Road, Conditional Use
Permit — Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Consent Agenda
Planner Section:
Purpose. To consider a resolution approving a conditional use permit to repair a lake slope
failure.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on April 19, 2017; and
considered as complete on May 13. The 60 -Day review period expires on July 12, 2017.
Background. At the June 12' meeting the Council reviewed the applicant's proposal to restore
their lake slope. The Council voted 5 to 0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for approval of the
CUP.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution as drafted.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
References
Draft City Council Minutes — June 12, 2017
Council Memo & Exhibits of June 12, 2017:
Exhibit A.
Proposed Plans - Original
Exhibit B.
Updated Plan Information
Exhibit C.
Draft PC Minutes
Exhibit D.
PC Staff Report
Exhibit E.
City Engineer Comments
PC Exhibits of May 15, 2017:
Exhibit A.
Application
Exhibit B.
Existing Survey
Exhibit C.
Proposed Plans
Exhibit D.
Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit E.
Plant List
Exhibit F.
Site Photos
Exhibit G. Aerial Photos
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit 1. Plat Map
Prepared By: VY)GG
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: DRS
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-967; 78-1283; and 78-1286
FILE NO.17-3939
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2017, John Bailey (the "Applicant"), applied for a conditional
use permit (a "CUP") pursuant to City Code for the property addressed 2807 Casco Point Road and
legally described as:
Lots 123 and 124, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the
recorded plat thereof.
Also
That part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue and of the tract of land lying between said
avenue and shore of lake which lies between the Southwesterly extension of the
Northwesterly line of Lot 124 and the Southeasterly line of Lot 123. (hereinafter the
"Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a CUP
pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-967; 78-1283; and 78-1286 to allow
removal of approximately 300 cubic yards of compromised soil material on the Property's failed
lake slope and replace it with approximately 500 cubic yards of angular soil to be compacted and
restored as shown on the plans within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the lake; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 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 May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the CUP; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2017, the City Council directed preparation of findings for
approval of the CUP; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2017the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested CUP as described above based on one or more of the following
findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #17-3939. The analysis contained within
staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above
mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are
hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR -1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. Applicant has applied for the following approval[s]:
a. Conditional Use Permit for Grading over 500 cubic yards within the Shoreland.
b. Conditional Use Permit for Grading over 50 cubic yards within the 75 -foot Setback
from the lake.
4. The plans provided by the Applicant include landscaping solutions to deal with site
drainage and slope stabilization; the scope of work includes subsurface drainage
infrastructure along with grading and vegetation.
5. In considering this application for CUP, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed CUP upon
the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in
the surrounding area.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS:
1) Consistent with the community management plan; The intent for the proposed grading
is residential in nature, is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property, and is
compliant with the zoning code and comprehensive 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; The proposed slope restoration,
grading, and plantings are residential in nature and are compliant with the zoning code.
3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This statement
is true.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; This statement
is true.
5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This
statement is true.
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 proposed restoration work within the 75 -foot
setback area should have no impact on surrounding lands and is intended to avoid
further damage. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the adjacent sites will not be
significantly altered. Once completed the existing staircase and new plantings should
be the only visual changes when viewed from the lake.
7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is
called for in the community management plan; The proposed restoration work within
the 75 -foot setback area is intended to avoid further damage. Drainage patterns for
runoff leaving the site will not be significantly altered. The import and export of materials
is necessary to restore the slope failure, once completed, it will have no impact on
surrounding lands. The slope, once vegetated and landscaped should not have an
adverse impact on the neighborhood or the lake.
8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding
area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
The Applicant is proposing to remove approximately 300 cubic yards of unstable
material and replace with approximately 500 cubic yards of clean, angular soil to
stabilize the slope and aid in stormwater management. It is likely adjacent lakeshore
properties will not be impacted. The transfer of materials on and off the site will be
reviewed and monitored closely by the City's engineer to assure that adjacent
properties and the lake are not adversely impacted.
9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area
or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared
to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed use of the
Property will not be changing as a result of the proposed grading activity so there should
be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The finished slope will be vegetated and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
landscaped; it should blend into the Property. The project, once completed, should not
result in undesirable views requiring mitigation.
11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This statement is
true.
12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause
a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe
access; The Applicant will be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The
noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around
the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading project will be monitored
by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project.
13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and
to minimize environmental impact; The project has been designed to take into account
the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental
impact. The long term effect of the project should result in minimal environmental
impacts. The project will be monitored by the City to prevent erosion from the site.
14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public
right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; there should be no lighting or
glare resulting from the grading project; and
15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This statement is
true.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
CUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-967; 78-1283; and 78-1286 to allow
removal of approximately 300 cubic yards of compromised soil material on the Property's failed
lake slope and replace it with approximately 500 cubic yards of angular soil to be compacted and
restored as shown on the plans within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the lake, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the grading plan from Otto Associates dated
03/10/17 and revised 06/01/17 and plans submitted by the Applicant (hereinafter
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
collectively the "Plans") and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as
Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Hauling shall occur during allowed construction hours only Monday through Friday 7 am
to 8 pm (and between 8 am and 8 pm on weekends and holidays).
5. The street shall be swept daily, or as needed, to keep debris off of City streets.
6. Contractor(s) shall post a contact number and be able to respond to complaints in a timely
fashion.
7. Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
8. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining an administrative Zoning Permit for
the work and commencing construction of said project. A Zoning Permit must be received
by the Applicant within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire
on that date (June 26, 2018).
9. Applicant shall submit an as -built survey in order to final the permit and for the City to
refund any escrow funds held.
10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 26 th day of June, 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
5
0
G
OZ6—
N
969.60
0;
Qi
0
0
o 9b
C�
Oo
00 10
00
0 x
0 0
0000 -b
00
0
0
lb ep
C6
oi
ol
LU
§43
10
cb C3
zl� L,
1:110
9 A*
q lu.op
1�1
lb
Q)
Q)
Q�
Q)
N
Q)
6
rl:
N
61
0
G
OZ6—
N
969.60
0;
Qi
0
0
o 9b
C�
Oo
00 10
00
0 x
0 0
0000 -b
00
0
0
lb ep
C6
oi
ol
LU
§43
10
cb C3
zl� L,
1:110
9 A*
q lu.op
1�1
lb
Q)
Q)
Q�
Q)
N
Q)
6
rl:
N
00
CD
I
0 0
I�Y
, 52
co
clq
-7
IIL
CN
""v Lu
04
ji
Aw
rl
cl)
4, cu
Xz Q0
t3)
0
uj
13
El
CL
QC
0 0
4-0 . - ,e I C,� f
N/ CCP
,j
'LOB
N-1 0 LQ
x
x
196
LLJ
A,(
CD
*% 40, e'
Cj) c6
�41
LL
Al/v
Q,
4-1
4.
CTJ
01
CL
C�_ 2L
t4 14 Lk: L: U: k:
W G1 bi W 14 Ll V5 Q5 G1 Ld 0
; R R I It'! Z� :4 —a R 14
x
t
LE L, 61
—b S
tj En
The Building Materials:
* Excavate the silt and mud. Export off site.
0 Import topsoil (structural) blended and screened with no rocks or sticks.
* The three washout areas are 35 x 40.
• The geostructural product will be staked deep. See brochure on product.
• 7:30 AM start time and 6:00 PM end time in the evening. No weekend work.
• Start as soon as possible to gain the growing season for plant root structure.
• We will practice minimal traffic impediment as we drop off and pick up
equipment. There is room to load trucks at the driveway.
• The site is quite private. Normal Skid Steer noise. All new tier 4 equipment
deletes any smoke smell.
RECEIVED
APR 19 2017
GVTY OF ORONO
3441 Bluff Drive - Jordan, MN 55352
952-492-5100 - Fax 952-492-5101 # 3939
|
__/| | | Ll
__z_ _ _ |_____.
_
I r
14,
jA-
tl
E-
I
7K.
ud
I
ILA
F -J 1�7
1�7
t7l,
A.
T-1
APR.11 S ZO 7
-KC ffo._._,__
J-1
L I -JII --I J..
I
I
I I I --L L
F-1 F F -
.2i
_90
71
L J
T T.' - -----
17. .7
Filtrexx Bank Stabilization Solutions, Reliable Stabilization Systems with Filtrexx Techn... Page 6 of 6
livingwatts@fittrexx.com (mailto:tivingwaLLs@f!Ltrexx.com) (maj [to: MAI LTO �Jv� ngwalts(df i[trexx.com)
FILTREXX.COM (http://www.fiLtrexx.com)
ABOUT (http://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/`about)
APPLICATIONS (httl2://www.fiLtrexx.com/enjapp�ications)
INDUSTRIES (http://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/industries)
PRODUCTS Chttp://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/products)
TECHNOLOGY (http*//www.fiLtrexx.com/en,/`techroLogy)
RESOURCES (httR://www.fiLtrexx.com/en/resources)
LEGAL (http://Www.fiLtrexx.com/en/[eF[aL)
SiTEMAP (httr)://www.fiLtrexx,com/en/sitemaD)
SEEDED FILTREXX@ GROSOXX""(8"-12" TYP.)
OR LIVE PLANTED (SEE NOTE 5)
LIVE WILLOW STAKES OR OTHER PLANT
MATERIAL FROM SEED OR FROM LIVE PLUGS
ORANGE WITNESS BARRIER OVERLYING
FLW 20 GEOGRID WRAPPED AROUND FILTRFXX8
GROSOXXTm FASCIA OR OTHER STRENGTH
(FLW 35 OR FLW 55)
kK................ . .. . .. .........
FACE BATTER (MAX 2:1):
A& W
... ..... . .. ....
RIPRAP/BOULDERS �:'XIS-ING GqAD_E6
. . .........
CREEK BED
EXCAVATE BELOW FILTREXX BANK TOE ROCKSOXX
EXPECTED SCOUR LINE (LOOSE STONE WRAPPED IN FABRIC)
R
140TES:
1� ALL MATERIAL To MEET nLTREXX6 spEcinCATIONS.
2. GROSOXX— FILL TO MEET APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
3 ' ALL GROSOXX- TO BE SEEDED PER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS.
4. SACKFILL TO BE PLACED PER ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS.
5. GEOGRO STRENGTH, LENGTH AND V`ERPCAt. SPACING TO 5E DETERMINED BY ENGINEER,
GFOGRiD — NO STRANDS
ARE TO BE CUT DURING PLANTING, ETC. WE RECOMMEND 81—DIRECTIONAL STRENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION EASE.
6. NAnVE AND DRAINAGE SACKFILL TO BE SEPARATED BY NON—WOVEN F�LTER FABRIC.
7. MAXIMUM HEIGHT RECOMMENDED: TEN FEFT EXPOSED HEIGHT.
8. FILTREXXO GROSOXX- DEPENDS ON APPLICATION (SIZE DEPENDENT ON PROJECT)
9. WITNESS BARRIER SHOULD BE OPEN MESH GRID TO PERMIT PLANTING.
11es%gr,',phib representationsnaro �ntended for
"eirn " y design PtArposes a p y and am not
f i I t rex
SCALE:
NONE
FOLTREXX EDGESAVER STREAM
to be used for canstruction without the
-jfgnature of a registered professional engine
BANK STABILIZATION SYSTEM
FiLtrexx Bank StabiLization System
http://www.filtrexx.com/en/applications/stabilization/bank-stabilization 511012017
Katherine Marxen
From:
Ron Anderson
Sent:
Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:29 PM
To:
Katherine Marxen
Subject:
Fwd: Bailey - Plantings
Sent from my Verizorl, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Ellie Dahl <elIieanorIing§.net>
Date: 4/18/17 3:24 PM (GMT -06:00)
To: Ron Anderson <randcrson&f1naIg!ade.com>
Subject: Bailey - Plantings
Ron,
I have reviewed the documents that were sent over to us and spoke with George about some plant options we
would suggest for the slope. Below are a few I'd suggest:
Red -Osier Dogwood (shrub) - cornus stolonifera
Ninebark (shrub) -physocarpus capitatus
Snowberry (shrub) - sympthoricarpos albus
GroLow Sumac (groundcover) - rhus aromatica
Crown Vetch (groundcover) - coronilla varia
Allium (native wildflower) - allium stellatum
Yarrow (native wildflower) - achillea millefolium RECEIVED
Blue Rug Juniper (low growing evergreen) -juniperus horizontalis Wiltonfi' APR 19 Z017
CITY OF ORONO
There a quite a few options available but these are the few I suggest that are easy to get and seem to do well in
our area. I tried to give a variety of both shrubs, wildflower, and groundcover that all do well in a very sunny
climate. Not only is having a variety nice aesthetically, but it has it's benefits with erosion as well. Having the
variety of sizes will do a good job of breaking up/slowing down rainfall as it falls and hits the slope which in
turn minimizes erosion during a rainfall event.
DRAINAGE -968.77X
Gorden-----,.
AREA MAP
969. 74 X
969.24X Ret, /S <
Window Well
969.42X
X969.58
6jx
J-,
969.5 10. 1 a Lor 5 AV 0000
00
&Q 0 0
0
0
-969 12' YARD\ 0
IQ
X96725 x9c;
X96& 70
eps,,
eps-, p<
Q)
7
967
.56
8
966.58>4
9
70.7-1
0
-1C DRAIN INLET. 0 0
TOP=9678A 0
0 70.61
0
0
Flog P
10
X 9 79,X
970-
96& GRADE 12"— 18"
HIGH BERM
N X969.79 969.j8x
12" YARD
DRAIN INLET
TOP=967.8
'Q 0
A-
Q \-Qu'
IQ,
COT
-0 *1 'IQ
IQ N
IN,
1p X968.54
0�14
V60
9 969.JlX
6_9 /J1X
X9&
Fence
X9
X968.97
X968.76
N 3P
is ---v A
To NW inlet
NW Depression
NZ
2S 4P
To SE inlet SW Depression
4 L Zin k
160478 HydroCAD MSE24-hr3 10- Year Rainfall=4.26
Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/1/2017
HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 03113 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2
Summary for Subcatchment 1S: To NW inlet
Runoff 0.29 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth> 1.85"
Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
MSE24-hr3 10-YearRainfall=4.26"
Area (ac) CN Adj Description
0.010 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C
0.070 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
0.080 77 76 Weighted Average, Ul Adjusted
0.070 87.50% Pervious Area
0.010 12.50% Impervious Area
0.010 100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0 Direct Entry,
Summary for Subcatchment 2S: To SE inlet
Runoff 0.34 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.015af, Depth> 1.78"
Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
MSE24-hr3 10-YearRainfall=4.26"
Area (ac) CN
Adj
Description
0.010 98
Inflow
Unconnected pavement, HSG C
0.090 74
0.012 af
>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C
0.100 76
75
Weighted Average, Ul Adjusted
0.090
0.28 cfs @
90.00% Pervious Area
0.010
10.00% Impervious Area
0.010
100.00% Unconnected
Tc Length
Slope
Velocity Capacity Description
(min) (feet)
(ft/ft)
(ft/sec) (cfs)
5.0
Direct Entry,
Summary for Pond 3P: NW Depression
Inflow Area
0.080 ac,
12.50% Impervious,
Inflow Depth > 1.85" for 10 -Year event
Inflow
0.29 cfs @
12.12 hrs, Volume=
0.012 af
Outflow
0.28 cfs @
12.14 hrs, Volume=
0.012 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.9 min
Primary
0.28 cfs @
12.14 hrs, Volume=
0.012 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 968.10'@ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area=68sf Storage=9cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 0.4 min calculated for 0.012 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.4 min ( 788.6 - 788.2 )
160478 HydroCAD MSE24-hr3 10- Year Rainfall=4.26
Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/1/2017
HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 03113 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3
Volume
Invert Avail.Storage Storage
Description
#1
967.80'
137 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)-isted below (Recalc)
Elevation
Surf.Area
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
(feet)
(sq -ft)
(cubic -feet)
(cubic -feet)
967.80
0
0
0
968.00
35
4
4
968.80
300
134
137
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Device 2 967.80' 0.4" x 3.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 45.00 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#2 Primary 967.80' 8.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 967.80'/ 966.92' S=0.0126'/' Cc=0.900
n=0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, FlowArea=0.35sf
Primary OutFlow Max=0.27 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=968.09' (Free Discharge)
't--2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.27 cfs @ 1.84 fps)
't--1 =0 rifi ce/G rate (Passes 0.27 cfs of 0.98 cfs potential flow)
Summary for Pond 4P: SW Depression
Inflow Area 0.100 ac, 10.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.78" for 10 -Year event
Inflow 0.34 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af
Outflow 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 0.9 min
Primary 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af
Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs
Peak Elev= 968.13'@ 12.14 hrs Surf.Area= 77 sf Storage= 11 cf
Plug -Flow detention time= 0.5 min calculated for 0.015 af (100% of inflow)
Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.4 min ( 790.1 - 789.8 )
Volume
Invert Avail.Storage Storage
Description
#1
967.80'
131 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc)
Elevation
Surf.Area
Inc.Store
Cum.Store
(feet)
(sq -ft)
(cubic -feet)
(cubic -feet)
967.80
0
0
0
968.00
35
4
4
968.80
285
128
131
Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices
#1 Device 2 967.80' 0.4" x 3.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 45.00 C= 0.600
Limited to weir flow at low heads
#2 Primary 967.80' 8.0" Round Culvert
L= 70.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500
Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 967.80'/ 966.92' S=0.0126'/' Cc=0.900
n=0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, FlowArea=0.35sf
160478 HydroCAD MSE24-hr3 10- Year Rainfall=4.26
Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/1/2017
HydroCAD@ 10.00-20 s/n 03113 @ 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4
Primary OutFlow Max=0.33 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=968.12' (Free Discharge)
't--2=Culvert (inlet Controls 0.33 cfs @ 1.94 fps)
't--1 =0 rifi ce/G rate (Passes 0.33 cfs of 1.03 cfs potential flow)
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
PROJECT:
Proposed Slope Reconstruction
2807 Casco Point Road
Orono, Minnesota
PREPARED FOR:
Final Grade, Inc.
3441 Bluff Drive
Jordan, MN 55352
PREPARED BY:
Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC
2825 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 16-0978
January 3, 2017
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
�Iwl bA��
John T. Carlson, P.E.
Senior Engineer
License Number: 20663
Expires June, 2018
F
ER
20663
..........
01: M to
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Final Grade, Inc. (Final Grade) is preparing to reconstruct the failed slope at 2807 Casco
Point Road in Orono, Minnesota. We understand that Barr Engineering previously
evaluated the slope failure and presented the owner with several different design options
to repair the slope failure.
Final Grade retained Haugo GeoTechnical Services to perform a geotechnical exploration
to evaluate the suitability of site soil and groundwater conditions and provide our opinion
on the proposed slope reconstruction at the site.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and provide our opinion on the proposed slope reconstruction at
the site.
1.3 Site Description
The project site is located at 2807 Casco Point Road in Orono, MN. The site currently
contains one residential home that is located about 55 feet northeast of the crest (top) of an
existing slope along Lake 1�finnetonka.
The house area and backyard of the project site is relatively flat with the surface elevations
at the soil boring locations ranging from about 970 feet to 9691/2 feet. The slope is relatively
steep and is indicated at about 40 degrees on the Barr Engineering documents provided.
The height of the slope from the crest to Lake Minnetonka is about 30 feet. The slope face
generally contains small trees and brush with an existing stairway to Lake Minnetonka.
Portions of the slope face failed during a period of heavy rain in June 2014. The slope
failure was not repaired and portions were covered with plastic sheeting.
1.4 Scope of Services
Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC
proposal 16-0978 dated November 15, 2016. Our scope of services was performed under
the terms of our General Conditions and limited to the following tasks:
• Completing two (2) standard penetration test soil borings and extending each to a
nominal depth of 40 feet.
• Recording GPS coordinates of the soil boring locations and elevations.
• Visually/ manually classifying the samples recovered from the soil borings.
• Performing laboratory tests on selected samples.
1
A field log of each boring was prepared by the HGTS drill crew. The logs contained visual
classifications of the soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's
interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes.
The final boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs
and include modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples.
The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and
classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil
boring logs identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or
consistency based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N -value, "blows per foot") and
groundwater observations.
The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The
depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely
transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the boring.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Soil Conditions
The soil borings encountered about I foot of topsoil at the surface. The topsoil consisted
of sandy lean clay that was black in color.
Beneath the topsoil, the borings encountered native alluvial lean clay soils that extended
to around 4 feet below the ground surface. Penetration resistance values (N -values),
shown as blows per foot (bpf) on the boring logs, of 8 blows per foot (bpo were recorded
in the lean clays which indicate a medium consistency.
Underlying the topsoil and alluvial clay soils, the soil borings encountered glacial till soils
that extended to the boring termination depths of about 40 feet. The glacial till soils
consisted mainly of clayey sand, with upper layers of sandy lean clays and lean clays
encountered at boring SB -I. N -values of 10 to 26 bpf were recorded in the glacial till soils.
These values indicate the clayey sands had a medium dense relative density with upper
loose zones while the sandy lean clays/lean clays had a stiff consistency.
3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in both soil borings after drilling between depths of about
31 1/2 to 34 feet which correspond to elevations of about 936 to 938. Water levels were
measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water level
observations was relatively short. Given the cohesive nature of the glacial till soils
encountered, it is likely that insufficient time was available for possible perched
groundwater to seep into the bore hole and rise to its hydrostatic level.
The Minnesota DNR reports the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Lake Minnetonka
to be around an elevation of 929 1/2feet.
3
Groundwater monitoring wells or piezon-teters would be required to more accurately
determine water levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in groundwater levels should be
expected.
3.3 Laboratory Tests
Laboratory moisture content and percent passing the Number 200 sieve (P-200 content)
tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the soil borings. A summary of
the laboratory testing is presented in the Table 1 below. The moisture contents of the
samples are also provided on the soil boring logs opposite the sample tested.
Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Tests
Boring
Number
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
Moisture
Content
N*
P-200
N*
SB -I
S-2
21/2
271/2
-
SB -1
S-3
5
26
591/2
SB -1
S-4
7 Y2
231/2
-
S13-1
5-6
121/2
16 Y2
-
SB -1
S-7
15
161/2
39
SB -1
S-8
20
161/2
-
SB -1
9-10
30
141/2
28
SB -1
S-12
40
141/2
-
SB -2
S-14
2 Y2
261/2
-
SB -2
S-15
5
17 Y2
35
SB -2
S-16
71/2
17 Y2
-
SB -2
S-18
121/2
18
SB -2
S-19
15
14
SB -2
S-20
20
171/2
-
SB -2
S-21
25
16
32 '/2
SB -2
S-22
30
151/2
-
SB -2
S-24
40
16
*P-200 tests and moisture contents were rounded to the nearest 112 percent
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification
The soils encountered in the borings consisted of both granular (sand) and cohesive (clay)
soils. The cohesive soils will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, while the granular
soils will generally classify as Type C soils.
APPENDIX
& = Approximate Soil Boring Location
GPS Boring Locations
a
Referencing Minnesota County Coordinates Basis - Hennepin County (GEOID09 Conus model)
Haugo GeoTechnical
Services.
2825 Cedar Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Soil Boring Location Sketch
2807 Casco Point Road
Orono, Minnesota
Figure #: I
Drawn By: RD
Date: 11/22/16
Scale: None
Project 4: 16-0978
Elevation
Northing
Easting
Boring Number
(US Survey Feet)
Coordinate
Coordinate
SB -1
970.0
149485-379
438364.937
S13-2
9693
1 149530.864
1 438303.037
Referencing Minnesota County Coordinates Basis - Hennepin County (GEOID09 Conus model)
Haugo GeoTechnical
Services.
2825 Cedar Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Soil Boring Location Sketch
2807 Casco Point Road
Orono, Minnesota
Figure #: I
Drawn By: RD
Date: 11/22/16
Scale: None
Project 4: 16-0978
HAUGO Haugo GeoTechnical Services
AFeTECHNIrAL 2825 Cedar Ave
g4.
"jyj jig Minneapolis, MN 554057
Telephone: 612-729-2959
CLIENT Final Grade
PROJECT NUMBER 16-0978
DATE STARTED 11121/16 COMPLETED 11121/16
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS
DRILUNGMETHOD Hollow Stem AunedSplit Spoon
LOGGED BY NIS CHECKED BY JG
NOTES
BORING NUMBER SB -1
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME 2807 Casco Point Road
PROJECT LOCATION Orono, Minnesota
GROUND ELEVATION 970 ft HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
AT TIME OF DRILLING —NotEncountered
AT END OF DRILLING — Not Encountered
7 AFTER DRILLING
LU
IL
A SPT N VALUE A
lwl�
a uj
CL
20 40 60 80
PL MC LL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Uj M
-i
W 0
>
0 z
Z) Z CL
:D
ui
CL
0
_j —
0
20 40 60 80
0 FINES CONTENT (%) Ll
C3
CD
z
b
Lu
L) Z 0 >-
0 x
20 40 60 80
Sandy Lean Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
AU
Ev
(CL) Lean ClaYT trace Fibers, brown, moist, medium. (Alluvium)
2-4-4
VFSS
/N
2
(8)
............... .......
5
6-7-8
a a
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, rust staining, brown, moist, stiff.
117
SS
(Glacial Till)
3-5-8
. ......... .......
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and light brown, moist, stiff.
x
Ss
(Glacial Tilt)
4
(13)
4-7-8
(15)
..... . ..... .
SS
6-6-7
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium gralined, trace Gravel, brown to
dark brown at 39 feet, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till)
/\j
6
(13)
3-5-7
(12)
SS
7
20
4-6-8
(14)
....... ............... ------
......................
\/I SS
8
25
7-10-14
(24)
.......
....... -------- ....... ......
SS
9
30
9 1-3
\A
SS
0
(22)
............
35
6-6-8
(14)
.......
S
Ss
............. .......
rl
.......... ......
SS
3�8-1 0
2
(18)
Bottom of borehole at 41.0 feet.
BORING NUMBER SB -2
HAUGO
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave
PAGE I OF 1
,QFnTECHNICAL
III
Minneapolis, MN 554057
Eva
Telephone: 612-729-2959
CLIENT Final Grade
PROJECT NAME 2807
Casco Point Road
PROJECT NUMBER 16-0978
PROJECT LOCATION
Orono, Minnesota
DATE STARTED 11121/16 COMPLETED 11121116
GROUND ELEVATION
969.3 It HOLE SIZE -3 1/4 inches
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLJNGMETHOD Hollow Stem Au(jerlSplit Spoon
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
MS CHECKED BY JC
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
NOTES
ZAFTERDRILLING
31.30 ft I Elev938,00 ftwith Cave-in Depth of 33.8 i�et
AL SPT N VALUE A
CL
>-
co 20 40 60 80
a- Z?
(9
0-0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LU ix
Lu 0
iL PL MC LL
z —j �- =� "3 i
Z
* '
w
<
Of
' Z' -5 20 40 60 80
ME y
2F z
< Lu
0 z L) >-
0 Of 0 FINES CONTENT (0/6) E]
0
20 40 60 80
Sandy Lean Clay, black, moist. (Topsoil)
AU
E-
(CL) Lean Clay, trace Fibers, brown, moist, medium. CAlluvium) —Ul �3
SS
2-4-4
1
...............
(8)
5
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, [race Fibers, rust
staining at 8 feet, brown and light brown, moist, loose to medium SS
15
3-4-7 ............ .
0
dense. (Glaclial Till)
-------
Ss
..............
44-6
16
16
(10)
. ... .............
10
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel,
moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till)
brown,
SS
� SS
17
17
3-5-6 ... ... .
(11)
SS
3-5-7 As.
. . ........ .
�5 15
SS
2-5-6 .......
19
. ...........
............ .. .... .......
20
\/I SS
4-5-6
/\j 20
---------- ...... ....... 4
............
LU
25
\A Ss
. .......... ...........
3-7-9
W............
21
(16) .......
....... ......
30
Ss
5-6-8
22
_J14 ......
\/I SS
5-13-13
/\j 23
(26) ............
40
Ss
5-7-8
2 4
(15)
0
ul
Bottom of borehole at 4 1.0 feet.
01
Descriptive Terminology of Soii
Standard D 2487 - 00
;U Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
corves czcve' ,,urt:ws V tolt.. to gioup nam. e
c C" - ui,; D., C - 'o' -
D., x D,
�0:3 A.Msaria topu�-'naple
ttm: sy"Ws
GWGM
GW -GC �,ell-gradedgra-elve4lic:ae
GP -GC rL10WlY;1a1_q1ZlVaV0.ithCldf
0 lines c:250i as CL MIL -se dual symtk�,r l3C-GM cr SC SM
ad-, :oWo�pra,,rle
If iioif comm'ns � 15�i gra..31 adi W�jf, D,*VelF to Der,",
I Sands viln 5 tc! fPAS T�--#-.Wil Ci,*1 S$ rrll!N�iS
S`A;-sf%j ve"1jFqrace3 sa,,-,wrth sit.
SVV-SC ml� riay
SP -SPA roorl�- qa-M50 s�r" —M Sill
SP -SC g�O�Oy OIQ1-41 SAIC �Ih Ibr
1 :1 Altervefg limits p:.oi �r rixchvn aztiji so I is a CL,FAL silly sra�-
10402ch PUM 2X Of -W1X!Wa'0.
zlW'sa�dl, ringtoLpname
ado 9,a,e::5�
P1 � 4 a" plots on of ai A ,�e
P i < 4 of Plots oeluw A- ;ine
P P I p ots on at above A' Ve
Q r'I F �-: S De4q& A I �Q
Go
so
Z-
R-� 40
x
30
20
10
7
A
0
Criteria for Assiqmng Group Symbols and
S i i s Classification
F7]
cobbles
Group
Names Usillo Laboratory Tests
roup
I
Dy dEtISFIY PC�
Oc Orgamccontem
WD
Wel density PCI
Symboli
G roup Name
C
0
Gravels
Clean Gravels
C, Z� 4 and I <
GW
Vifell.g.aciec, gravel;
-0
in 0
fillort than 50-11, of
coarse traction
Vit ,I less fines
C 4 and/of 1 C Z. 3
GP
Poorly gladed gravel
Gravels with Fines
Fines classify a::. IAL or Nill-I
GM
Silly gravel
'ro Q
retafnedon
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
clavey-9 ravel
No 4 sieve
Marc than 12% lines
a',
Sands
Clean Sands
nd 1 < C, < 3 o
SW
Well -graded sand
G
Z
50% or Mori: of
coarse fraction
51,- or less fines
C� < 6 anditor I , C,::- 3 c
SP
Poorly giraded sand
0 W
pas$es
Sands witTh Fines
j:F:ine:s classify as NIL or MH
Silly sand
Pines Classify as CL or CH
SC
Cla�c�- sand'�
No 4 sieve
More than 12�,t
is
Incfganic
PJ > 7 and plots cn or above'A'brie I
CL
L eian clay
0 W I
Silts and Clays
Liquid 111%1;1
P1 < 4 or pto'.s befowA- finel
MI.
.
Sill -
0-ganic
Liquid limit - oven dried 0 75
OL
Organic clay
gri - l,
M 9?
:eSS Irian 1,0
MH or
OH
Liquid limit - not dried
0L
organic sill
Zi
E
Silts and clays
Incrgaric
PI plots on or above 'A' line
-
CH
Fat cfav
P1 Plots below'A'fine
MH
lastir sw'
a Z
Liquid limit
50 or more
Organic
Liquid limit - oven cried
OH
-;ay
Organic f -
< 075
Liquid limit - not dried
OH
Organic Sli,
High.ly Organic Soils i
Pirmarily orgtmc mallec daf� in color and organic odor
PT
Peat
corves czcve' ,,urt:ws V tolt.. to gioup nam. e
c C" - ui,; D., C - 'o' -
D., x D,
�0:3 A.Msaria topu�-'naple
ttm: sy"Ws
GWGM
GW -GC �,ell-gradedgra-elve4lic:ae
GP -GC rL10WlY;1a1_q1ZlVaV0.ithCldf
0 lines c:250i as CL MIL -se dual symtk�,r l3C-GM cr SC SM
ad-, :oWo�pra,,rle
If iioif comm'ns � 15�i gra..31 adi W�jf, D,*VelF to Der,",
I Sands viln 5 tc! fPAS T�--#-.Wil Ci,*1 S$ rrll!N�iS
S`A;-sf%j ve"1jFqrace3 sa,,-,wrth sit.
SVV-SC ml� riay
SP -SPA roorl�- qa-M50 s�r" —M Sill
SP -SC g�O�Oy OIQ1-41 SAIC �Ih Ibr
1 :1 Altervefg limits p:.oi �r rixchvn aztiji so I is a CL,FAL silly sra�-
10402ch PUM 2X Of -W1X!Wa'0.
zlW'sa�dl, ringtoLpname
ado 9,a,e::5�
P1 � 4 a" plots on of ai A ,�e
P i < 4 of Plots oeluw A- ;ine
P P I p ots on at above A' Ve
Q r'I F �-: S De4q& A I �Q
Go
so
Z-
R-� 40
x
30
20
10
7
A
0
to is 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
nnuldefs
Liquid Limit tLL)
cobbles
3' to 12'
L.aboratory Tests
00
Dy dEtISFIY PC�
Oc Orgamccontem
WD
Wel density PCI
S Percent of saturation v:
fin C
Nalualmoisjureconteril
SG S,"ecific gravity
LL
Liquid limit 74
C Cohesion Psi
PL
Plaszic lim.1 �4
0 Angle of internal hiclion
P1
PJ30CITLY InUes
qu Unconfined compressive strength- psi
P200
',, PaSVng 200 sievie
qP Pocxel penelfornelef strength, t5t
011
MH or
OH
rdlL or 0
or 0
'�77�7
to is 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110
Parlicle Size Identification
nnuldefs
Liquid Limit tLL)
cobbles
3' to 12'
L.aboratory Tests
00
Dy dEtISFIY PC�
Oc Orgamccontem
WD
Wel density PCI
S Percent of saturation v:
fin C
Nalualmoisjureconteril
SG S,"ecific gravity
LL
Liquid limit 74
C Cohesion Psi
PL
Plaszic lim.1 �4
0 Angle of internal hiclion
P1
PJ30CITLY InUes
qu Unconfined compressive strength- psi
P200
',, PaSVng 200 sievie
qP Pocxel penelfornelef strength, t5t
Parlicle Size Identification
nnuldefs
over 12'
cobbles
3' to 12'
Gravel
MedLOM
Coarse
314' to 3'
Fine
No 4 to 314'
Sand
Very S I it.,
Coarse
No 4 to No 10
Mediurn
No 10 to No 40
Fwie
No 40 to No 200
Silt
< No. 200. V[< 4 or
belciv; 'A- line
Clay
< No 200. PI it 4 and
an or aboveA' line
Relative Density of
Cohesionless Soils
Very loose 0 10 4 8PF
Loose 5 to ICBPF
Medium dense I! to 30 OPF
clanse 31 to 50 SPF
Very dens e over So OPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
wry soft
0 to I BP '
Soft
2 lo 3 BPF
Rather so�,
4 to 5 6PF
MedLOM
6 !a 8 BPF
Rather stir
9 to 12 BPF
&M
1310 16 BPF
Very S I it.,
17 to 30 BPF
Halo
over 30 BPF
Drilling Notes
&'andard penelratiori ItLlst rQnngs were advanced t�y 3 114- or 6 $14'
ID hol!ow-stepri augers unless noted 01herw[se. Jelling waler was used
to clean out auger Prior 10 sampling only where indicated an logs
Slancaid peneiralion test borings are designated by the prefix 'ST'
(Split Tube) All samples were taken viith the Standard 2' 00 spId-lube
sampler elx�epj where noted
Power auger Wrings wele advanced by 4 or 6' diameter continuous -
night solid-slem augers Bad classifications and strala depths were in.
FE!rrpd learn disturbed Samples augered to the surfaceand are, therefore,
Si�imewhat approximate Power auger barings are designated by the
p,efix "B -
Hand aucef bonras were advanced manually with a 1 1/2' or 3 1/4'
diameter augerandwere limited tolhedeplh f(arnwhch Ine augericould
bernanuallywithdrawn Hand auger borm9l; ale Indl=ed by the prefix
BPF: Numbers rrldrc�qle b!cws per toot reCorded in standard penetration
test, also known as'N' value. The sampler was sel 6- into urnoisturb2d
SOLibelc�w-t,.etiollow-steinatiget Driving resistances were then counted
to, Secant! and third 6' increments arid added 10 get BPF Where they
Mitered sign-ficarilly iney are reported in Me raltowipq form 2112 for the
second and ihird 6' ioCiernentS respec!ivaly,
WK liARI indcales the sampler penetrated Soil undef weight at hamnier
and rods alone driving not required
WR: WR rid,ra[es the samrier Perlelialea $011 under weight at rods
al,Dna hammcr vireighland driving not requrred
TW ind,cales lhrr�.,Vaijpa iL)ndl$hntaedj1 fVba Sal
Nolrli� All Tests �-de;e run in aeneral aC1.0faafTe w4h aDp4cahleASTM
slandairds
Rev "V,
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 12 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Joint Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County- Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) in FY 2018 — 2020 — Resolution
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda
Development Director Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain authorization to participate in the Hennepin
County CDBG program.
2. Background. Hennepin County has requested the City of Orono enter into a 3 -year Joint
Cooperation Agreement as partner in Hennepin County's CDBG Program. While the city is not
an active partner in receiving funds, it is advantageous to the city as future projects maybe
eligible. Future redevelopment planning efforts for the Navarre area may be a potential
consideration.
3. Project Scope. The CDBG is a grant program form the Federal Government intended assist
local governments in achieving goals in housing and infrastructure development and
redevelopment. Since Orono is not a large community, we partner with other, smaller Hennepin
County communities in a consolidated pool. This participation allows the city, and its residents
request CDBG grant funds for eligible projects.
4. Cost. There is no cost to the city until a project is identified.
5. Funding. N/A
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends authorization of the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt resolution authorizing the execution of agreement between the City of Orono and
Hennepin County.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Joint Cooperation Agreement — Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approwd By: W
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 12 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Joint Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County- Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) in FY 2018 — 2020 — Resolution
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda
Development Director Section:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain authorization to participate in the Hennepin
County CDBG program.
2. Background. Hennepin County has requested the City of Orono enter into a 3 -year Joint
Cooperation Agreement as partner in Hennepin County's CDBG Program. While the city is not
an active partner in receiving funds, it is advantageous to the city as future projects maybe
eligible. Future redevelopment planning efforts for the Navarre area may be a potential
consideration.
3. Project Scope. The CDBG is a grant program form the Federal Government intended assist
local governments in achieving goals in housing and infrastructure development and
redevelopment. Since Orono is not a large community, we partner with other, smaller Hennepin
County communities in a consolidated pool. This participation allows the city, and its residents
request CDBG grant funds for eligible projects.
4. Cost. There is no cost to the city until a project is identified.
5. Funding. N/A
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends authorization of the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt resolution authorizing the execution of agreement between the City of Orono and
Hennepin County.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Joint Cooperation Agreement — Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program
Prepared By: J. Bamhart
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approwd By: W
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORONO AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEARS 2018 — 2020
WHEREAS, the City of Orono, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a
Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program, and HOME Investment Partnerships
(HOME) Programs; and
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in
order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development
Block Grant, ESG and HOME Programs.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the
City and County be executed effective October 1, 2017 and that the Mayor and the City
Administrator be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this day of 20
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Council
Exhibit B
CDBG
Program
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487,
and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING
UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59.
WITNESSETH:
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that
COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities
with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant
and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined
and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties
mutually agree to the following terms and conditions.
it
COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that
May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal
years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and
2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County.
May not receive a formula allocation under the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program
except through the Urban County.
1. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 U.S.C. 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings
given them:
A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42
U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
B. "Activity" means a CDBG-ftmded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity.
C. "Annual Program" means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY for
CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan.
D. "Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice" or "Al" means an assessment of how laws,
regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing,
and how conditions, both private and public, affect fair housing choice. All HUD grantees must
certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing, which means conducting an Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of
any impediments identified through that analysis, and keeping records of these actions.
E. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or
documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is
developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community
Development Block Grant Program.
F. "Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a
cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a
party to each Agreement.
G. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
H. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified
by I -IUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people, or which has previously been granted
Metropolitan City status by HUD.
1. "Program" means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title
I of the Housing and Connnunity Development Act of 1974, as amended.
J. "Program Income" means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated
from the use of CDBG.
K. "Public service activities" means the provision of public services described in 24 CFR 570.201(e).
L. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not
limited to 24 CFR Part 570.
M. "Urban County" means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes the
suburban Hennepin County municipalities which are signatories to this Agreement.
11. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to
undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and
authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who
reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be ftmded from annual Community
Development Block Grant, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Programs and HOME appropriations for the
Federal Fiscal Years 2018, 2019 and 2020 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such
funds.
111. AGREEMENT
The initial term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2017 and terminating no sooner
than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year
2020, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted
to the County for such period. Prior to the end of the initial term and the end of each subsequent qualification
period, the COUNTY, as the lead agency of the URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, shall provide a written notice to the COOPERATING UNIT
of their right not to participate in a subsequent qualification period. The written notice will provide the
COOPERATING UNIT a minimum thirty (30) day period to submit a written withdrawal. If the
COOPERATING UNIT does not submit to the COUNTY a written withdrawal during the notice period, this
Agreement shall be automatically extended for a subsequent three-year qualifying period.
This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any future changes
necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification
Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party
to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the
expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction.
This Agreement shall remain in effect until the CDBG, HOME and ESG funds and program income
received (with respect to activities carried out during the three-year qualification period, and any successive
qualification periods under agreements that provide for automatic renewals) are expended and the funded
activities completed. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT cannot terminate or withdraw form this Agreement
while it remains in effect.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of
the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County under
the Act.
This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY
pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution
and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County
Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit so that the Agreement can be submitted to HUD by July
24,2017.
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the
urban county's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act,
and affirmatively furthering fair housing. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall also take all actions
necessary to assure compliance with Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 (which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975),
and other applicable laws.
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within
the terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees and will
assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified
in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the
Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts.
Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY's responsibility to assume all
obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24
CFR Part 91.
COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with a COUNTY -established schedule, prepare and provide
to the COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant
Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County
Consolidated Plan.
B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject to the
same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient
Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the
implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly
executed with and in a form prescribed by the COUNTY.
C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated
in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity
pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a written Third
Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form
prescribed by COUNTY.
D. COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to the
Subrecipient Agreement.
All funds not expended pursuant to the terms of the Subrecipient Agreement will be
relinquished to the COUNTY and will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation
on a competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total of
such funds is $100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $100,000 shall be allocated by
COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and
Consolidated Plan goals.
E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this
Agreement as provided below:
Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will
be incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY. The pool will be administered
by COUNTY and will be used for housing rehabilitation projects located throughout the
entire Urban County. When possible, COUNTY will give priority to funding housing
rehabilitation projects within the COOPERATING UNIT where the program income was
generated. Funds expended in this manner would be secured by a Repayment
Agreement/Mortgage running in favor of the COUNTY. Program income generated by
METROPOLITAN CITY COOPERATING UNITS that administer their own housing
rehabilitation activities may be retained by the COOPERATING UNIT at its discretion.
2. COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated by non -housing
rehabilitation activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of
being generated. These funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on
a competitive request for proposal basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of
such funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be reallocated by COUNTY to other existing
activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals.
F. COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of
funding when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure
goals.
G. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely
expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by HUD
according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING
UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly.
H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community
development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated
Plan, and will comply with COUNTY's direction to redirect the use of fimds when necessary to
accomplish said goals.
1. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds
received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing,
employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all
programs and/or activities fimded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and
Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and
equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY.
J. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges the recommendations set forth in the current Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further
fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its
certifications to HUD may be prohibited from receiving part or all CDBG funding for its activities,
and may be required to reimburse COUNTY for part or all of funds it has received.
K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by
COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended.
L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure deterrmined by HUD or
COUNTY to be ineligible.
M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the
interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY.
N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing:
A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its
jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to
or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights
demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
0. COOPERATING UNIT shall not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of grant funds to
another metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular
area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or non -
Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of the Act.
COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis,
all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the
Act.
B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating
services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding.
C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in
fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and
housing goals.
D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing
rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive
Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement
for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity.
E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to
administer, for a possible fee, other activities ftmded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of
COOPERATING UNIT.
F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop
and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative
directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY; and COOPERATING UNIT shall comply
with said Administrative Rules.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows:
A. Planning and administration costs are capped to 20 percent of the sum of the basic grant amount
plus program income that is received during the program year. During the term of this Agreement
the COUNTY will receive a planning and administrative retainage of up to fifteen percent (15%)
of the basic grant amount; included in this administrative amount is funding for county -wide Fair
Housing activities.
B. Funding for public service activities are capped to 15 percent of the sum of the basic grant amount
plus program income that is received during the previous program year. During the term of this
Agreement the COUNTY will retain up to 15% of the basic grant amount for allocation to public
service activities county -wide. Funds retained for public service activities will be awarded in a
manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal basis.
C. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING
UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part D and the procedure stated in part E of this
section utilizing U.S. Census Bureau data. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a
guarantee of funding.
D. Allocation of funding will be based upon a formula using U.S. Census Bureau data that bears the
same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between:
1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING
UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all
COOPERATING UNITS.
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of
overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS.
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall
be counted twice.
E. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in
the following manner:
All COOPERATING UNITS which are also METROPOLITAN CITIES will receive
funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations.
2. All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than five
percent (5%) of the total using the procedure in part D. of this section will receive funding
allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations, unless the resulting
allocation would total less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 100,000.00).
3. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of five percent (5%) or less
of the total using the procedure in part D. of this section or with funding allocations of less
than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 100,000.00) will have their funds consolidated into
a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal
basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding has been pooled
will be eligible to compete for these funds.
4. COOPERATING UNITS shall have the option to opt -in to the consolidated pool specified
in item 3. of this part by providing written notice to COUNTY by November 15' annually.
F. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any
errors in the data.
G. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the
amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner
determined by COUNTY.
VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES
Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of
Urban Hennepin County.
This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion
of the re -qualification process for fiscal years 2018-2020, that it is newly eligible to become a metropolitan city
and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis
of the COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 16, 2017, the COOPERATING
UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of the COUNTY qualification.
VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL
The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby
opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the
COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community
development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly -assisted housing.
Assistant County Attorney
LVA I I M Is I WOO 04 9 100011KIN IkId W4 prei 11KIMI
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
2017, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY
agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
INUM41M 0
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chair of its County Board
Attest:
Deputy Clerk of the County Board
Date:
By:
County Administrator
Date:
By:
Assistant County Administrator — Public Works
Date:
Recommended for Approval:
Director, Community Works
Date:
I r4[81112
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing
body having duly approved this Agreement on 1 2017, and pursuant to such approval and the
proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions
of this Joint Cooperation Agreement.
CITY OF
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Manager
ATTEST:
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
10
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 13
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Approval of Golf Course Planning Proposal
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to proceed with preparation of a Golf
Course planning document to guide future capital improvements at the Orono Golf Course.
2. Background. Since taking over oversight of the Golf Course, the Park Commission has been
interested in developing a plan of capital improvements at the Golf Course for both golf related and other
recreational opportunities. In particular, the Commission is interested in opportunities to increase
revenues such as: gathering areas; an outdoor deck; as well as non -golf activities such as sledding, tubing
and a trail system.
3. Project Scope. Develop a comprehensive plan for the golf course focused on new public amenities.
Plan will include a site map and programming level estimates.
4. Cost. The City received two quotes. Listed below. The lowest quote from a qualified contractor was
from Bolton and Menk for $5800.
Contractor
Qu te
Bolton and Menk
$5800
SRF
$7625
5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Park Enterprise Fund. The Park Enterprise fund
has an estimated EOY17 balance of $618,540.
6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the council accept Bolton and Menk proposal to
complete a concept plan for the Golf Course. This plan would then be used to develop and refine the golf
course Capital Improvement Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept Bolton and Menk proposal to complete a concept plan for the Golf Course for a fee not
to exceed $5800.
Exhibits
A. Bolton and Menk Proposal
B. SRF Proposal
Prepared By: 7E
Reviewed By: ;�E
Approved By: W
CBOLTON
D& MENK
Real People. Real Solutions.
June 1, 2017
City of Orono
Attn: Adam Edwards
P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55323
RE: Proposal for Golf Course Conceptual Plans and Preliminary Cost Estimate.
Dear Adam:
2638 Shadow Lane
Suite 200
Chaska, MN 55318-1172
Ph: (952) 448-8838
Fax: (952) 448-8805
BoLton-Menk.com
Thank you for meeting with us to discuss and visit the Orono Public Golf Course. We look forward to
working with you and the Community to develop a vision for the Golf Course property. Based on our site
visit and conversation we have a strong understanding of the basic wants and needs associated with the
property. The concept plans and estimate will provide focus and assist with prioritizing and securing
funding.
Proposed Scope of Services
We propose to complete the following Golf Course tasks:
0 Create 2-3 Golf Course Conceptual Plans for review with City Staff/Community
- Concept plans to include but not limited to the following items:
I . Multi -use trail
2. Sledding hill/tow rope
3. Picnic zone/seasonal tent space
4. Fire pit/gathering space
5. Clubhouse deck
• Develop preliminary cost estimates for the various conceptual plans
• Attend 2 meetings with City Staff to review/refine/present concepts
Fee Estimate
Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a total not -to -exceed fee of $5,800 to be
billed on an hourly basis.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
MIN
David P. Martini, P.E.
Principal Engineer
H:\ORNO\2017 New Projects\Fee Estimate - GolfCourse Planning.docx
Botton & Menk is an equat opportunity employer.
19 E N G ' N E E R 5
P I A N N E R S
1 D ESIGNERS
Consulting Group, Inc.
SRF 10644.PP
April 28, 2017
Mr. Adam Edwards
Public Works Director
City of Orono
2700 K-elley Parkway
Orono,MN 55346
Subject: Master Planning Services for New Programming and Site Improvements at
Orono Public Golf Course
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Based on your request, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) is pleased to submit this proposal to
provide master planning services for exploring new progranuning and site improvement
opportunities for the City of Orono's public golf course.
Project Background/Understanding
The golf course is high value public land resource in the City and is in need of some capital
investment to improve its programming potential and update amenities to better meet the needs of
golf user groups. The development of a comprehensive master plan for the golf course will allow for
-new public use activities to be considered for the site to expand its revenue potential to host small
group gatherings, accommodate winter recreation activitities, and provide trail systems which can be
used year round by local residents. Developing cost estimates for recommended improvements will
also allow for priorities and funding sources to be planned and implemented as part of the City's five
year capital improvement plan.
Scope of Services
Based on the above initiatives, SRF proposes to complete the following work tasks for developing a
master plan for the City's public golf course:
Prepare site base map using Hennepin County aerial photography and 2 -foot LIDAR contour
data.
2. Complete a site visitwith City Staff and identify site programming issues and opportunities for
the golf course property.
www.s rf cons u Iting.com
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 1 Minneapolis, MN S5447-4443 1 763.475.0010 Fax: 763A75.2429
Apt Equal Opportut4ty Employer
Mr. Adam Edwards April 28, 2017
City of Orono Page 2
3. Develop conceptual ideas for site and parking lot improvements around the club house,
incorporating a festival rental spacewith an adjoining picnic area, outdoor patio space, and fire
pit space.
4. Develop conceptual ideas for incorporating a perimeter trail system which can be used for
hiking and/or cross country ski trail use.
5. Study opportunities for incorporating a sledding and/or tubing hill on the golf course with tow
rope provisions.
6. Develop preliminary cost estimate for all desired site improvements and trail systems.
7. Attend two (2) meetings with City Staff to review preliminary and final master plan concepts and
concept alternatives and one (t) meeting with Parks Commission to review master plan
recommendations
8. Prepare a memorandum summary with plan graphics, site improvement descriptions, and cost
estimates.
Schedule
SRF will complete this work upon a mutally agreed-upon schedule with the City of Orono and is
anticipating an approximate two month timeline to complete the master planning process.
Budget/Basis of Payment
SRF proposes to be compensated for the abovc-described work on an hourly basis for actual time
expended. The estimated cost for completing the above cost of services is as follows:
Complete site visit/identify site issues and opportunities $ 750
Develop site improvement concept alternatives $3,060
Develop refined master plan recommendations $2,720
Attend two (2) City Staff and one (1) Park Commission Meeting $1,020
Reirnbursables S 75
TOTAL $7,625
For direct reimbursable project expenses such as mileage, printing, supplies, reproduction, etc.,
we propose to be reimbursed at cost, and mileage be reimbursed at the current allowable IRS -rate
for business miles. Invoices are submitted on a monthly basis for work performed during the
previous month. Payment is due within 30 days.
Changes In Scope of Services
It is understood that if the scope or extent of work changes, the cost will be adjusted accordingly.
Before any out -of -scope work is initiated, however, we will submit a budget request for the new
work and will not begin work until we receive authorization from you.
Mr. Adam Edwards April 28, 2017
City of Orono Page 3
Standard Terms and Conditions
The attached Standard Terms and Conditions (Attachment A), togetherwith this proposal for
professional services, constitute the entire agreement between the Client and SRF Consulting
Group, Inc. and supersede all prior written or oral understandings. This agreement may only be
amended, supplemented, modified or canceled by a duly executed written instrument.
Notice to Proceed
A signed copy of this proposal, either mailed or emailed to our office, will serve as our notice to
proceed. The email address is: kgdeshabcr@srfconsulting.com.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with
developing new programming and site improvement initiatives for your public golf course. Please
feel free to contact us if you have additional questions regarding the scope of work identified in this
proposal.
Sincerely,
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, I
4
r&6AWQ
Ken J. Grieshaber, ASLA (NIN 1A)
Principal
KfG/Jal
Attachments: Attachment A — Standard Terms and Conditions
Parks, Open Space and Trail Planning and Design Services
APPROVC-D:
(signaftar)
Name
Title
Date
TAis costpToposalis vafld for a pedod of 90 days. SRF reserves the dght to adjust its cost
estimate after 90 days from the date of thisp-roposal.
s.-\iiiarkeiiiig\pi-oposals\2017 lelterprofiaxals\ 10544pp—o1vnogoftox3-e.dorx
ATTACHMENT A
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Standard Terms and Conditions together with the attached Proposal for Professional Services constitute the entire Agreement
between the CLIENT and SRF Consulting Group, Inc. ("SRF") and supersede all prior written or oral understandings. This Agreement
may only be amended, supplemented, modified, or canceled by a duly executed written instrument.
1. STANDARD OF CARE
a. The standard of care for all professional services performed or famished by SRF under this Agreement will be the care and skill
ordinarily used by members of SRF's profession practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same
locality. SRF makes no warranties, expressed or implied, under the Agreement or otherwise, in connection with SRF's service.
b. The CLIENT shall be responsible for, and SRF may rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all requirements, programs,
instructions, reports, data, and other information fat-nished by CLIENT to SRF pursuant to this Agreement. SRF may use such
requirements, reports, data, and information in performing or famishing services under this Agreement.
2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
All duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the CLIENT and
SRF and not for the benefit of any other party. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a
cause of action in favor of a third party against either the CLIENT or SRF. SRF's services under this Agreement are being performed
solely for the CLIENT's benefit, and no other entity shall have any claims against SRF because of this Agreement or the performance
or nonperformance of services hereunder.
3. PAYMENT TO SRF
Invoices will be prepared in accordance with SRF's standard invoicing practices and will be submitted to the CLIENT by SRF
monthly, unless otherwise agreed. Invoices arc due and payable within thirty (30) days of receipt. If the CLIENT fails to make any
payment due SRF for services and expenses within forty-five (45) days after receipt of SRF's invoice thereafter, the amounts due
SRF will be increased at the rate of 1-1/2% per month (or the maximum rate of interest permitted by law, if less). In addition, SRF
may, after giving seven days written notice to the CLIENT, suspend services under this Agreement until SRF has been paid in full of
amounts due for services, expenses, and other related charges.
4. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
Any opinions of costs prepared by SRf represent its judgment as a design professional and are furnished for the general guidance of
the CLIENT. Since SRF has no control over the cost of labor, materials, market condition, or competitive bidding, SRF does not
guarantee the accuracy of such cost opinions as compared to contractor or supplier bids or actual cost to the CLIENT.
5. INSURANCE
SRF will maintain insurance coverage for Workers' Compensation, General Liability, Automobile Liability and Professional
Liability and will provide certificates of insurance to the CLIENT upon request.
6. INDEMNIFICATION AND ALLOCATION OF RISK
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, SRF agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the CLIENT, their officers, directors and
employees against all damages, liabilities or costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs) to the extent caused
by SRF's negligent acts under this Agreement and that of its subconsultants or anyone for whom SRF is legally liable.
b. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the CLIENT agrees to indemnify and hold harmless SRF, their officers, directors and
employees against all damages, liabilities or costs to the extent caused by the CLIENT's negligent acts under this Agreement and
anyone for whom the CLIENT is legally liable.
7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
Either party may at any time, upon seven days prior written notice to the other party, terminate this Agreement. Upon such
termination, the CLIENT shall pay to SRF all amounts owing to SRF under this Agreement, for all work performed up to the
effective date of termination.
8. OWNERSHIP AND REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
All documents prepared or famished by SRF pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service, and SRF shall retain an
ownership and property interest therein. Reuse of any such documents by the CLIENT shall be at CLIENT's sole risk; and the
CLIENT agrees to indemnify, and hold SRF harmless from all claims, damages, and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of
such reuse of documents by the CLIENT or by others acting through the CLIENT.
Page 1 of 2
(MN Standard Terins and Conditions)
Rev: March 5, 2014
9. USE OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA
a. Copies of Documents that may be relied upon by the CLIENT are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that
are signed or sealed by SRF. Files in electronic media format of text, data, graphics, or of other types that are furnished by SRF
to the CLIENT are only for convenience of the CLIENT. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived from such
electronic files will be at the user's sole risk.
b. When transferring documents in electronic media format, SRF makes no representations as to long-term compatibility, usability,
or readability of documents resulting from the use of software application packages, operating systems, or computer hardware
differing from those used by SRF at the beginning of this Assignment.
c. If there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies govern.
d. Because data stored in electronic media format can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise without authorization of
this data's creator, the party receiving electronic files agrees that it will perform acceptance tests or procedures within sixty (60)
days, after which the receiving party shall be deemed to have accepted the data thus transferred. Any errors detected within the
sixty (60) day acceptance period will be corrected by the party delivering the electronic files. SRF shall not be responsible to
maintain documents stored in electronic media format after acceptance by the CLIENT.
10. FORCE MAJEURE
SRF shall not be liable for any loss or damage due to failure or delay in rendering any service called for under this Agreement
resulting from any cause beyond SRF's reasonable control.
11. ASSIGNMENT
Neitherparty shall assignits rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of the other party.
12. BINDING EFFECT
This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits thereof shall inure to the respective parties hereto, their legal representatives, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns.
13. SEVERABILITY AND WAIVER OF PROVISIONS
Any provisions or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any laws or regulations shall be deemed stricken, and
all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding -upon the CLIENT and SRF, who agree that the Agreement shall be
reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to
expressing the intention of the stricken provision. Non -enforcement of any provision by either party shall not constitute a waiver of
that provision, nor shall it affect the enforceability of that provision or of the remainder of this Agreement.
14. SURVIVAL
All provisions of this Agreement regarding Ownership of Documents and Reuse of Documents, Electronic Media provisions,
Indemnification and Allocation of Risk, and Dispute Resolution shall remain in effect.
15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If negotiation in good faith fails to resolve a dispute within the thirty (30) days of notice of the dispute, or time period specified by
applicable law, then the parties agree that each dispute, claim or controversy arising from or related to this Agreement or the
relationships which result from this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to initiating legal or equitable
actions by either party. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the mediation shall be in accordance with the Commercial Mediation
Procedures of the American Arbitration Association then currently in effect. A request for mediation shall be filed in writing with the
American Arbitration Association and the other party. No legal or equitable action may be instituted for a period of ninety (90) days
from the filing of the request for mediation unless a longer period of time is provided by agreement of the parties. Cost of mediation
shall be shared equally between the parties. Mediation shall be held in a location mutually agreed upon by the parties. The parties
shall memorialize any agreement resulting from the mediation in a mediated settlement agreement, which agreement shall be
enforceable as a settlement in any court having jurisdiction thereof
16. CONTROLLING LAW
This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the principal place of business of SRF.
17. SITE SAFETY
SRF shall not at any time supervise, direct, control or have authority over or charge of, nor be responsible for, the construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety and security precautions and programs in connection with the work
performed by any Contractor for the Project, nor for any failure of any Contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to
such Contractor's work, since these are solely the Contractor's rights and responsibilities. SRF shall not be responsible for the acts or
omissions of any Contractor or Owner, or any of their agents or employees, or of any other persons (except SRF's own employees
and consultants), furnishing or performing any work for the Project, except as specifically outlined in SRF's scope of services.
Page 2 of 2
(MN Standard Terms and Conditions)
Rev: March 5, 2014
PARK, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL
PLANNING AND DESIGN SERVICES
Recreation - parks, open space and trails - plays a key role
in defining community identity and enhancing residents'
quality of life.
Quality in terms of aesthetics, function and resource
management demands careful planning and creative design.
As a full-service firm, SRF melds landscape architecture with
other disciplines to generate the innovative and original
design solutions demanded by the public.
SRF offers comprehensive services, outstanding public
involvement skills, established agency rapport, a focus
on implementable yet creative solutions and sensitivity to
ecological resources. We have a reputation for clear and
responsive communication with clients.
SRF's park, open space, and trail planning and design
services include:
PLANNING
• Comprehensive System Planning
• Master Planning
• Trail and Bicycle Planning and Design
• Funding Documentation
• Feasibility Analyses
• Natural Resources Management and Planning
• Environmental Impact Analysis
DESIGN
• Preliminary Design
• Detail Design
• Construction Documents
• Envirom-nental Permits
CONSTRUCTION
* Surveying and Construction Staking
* Construction Supervision and Administration
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 14
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Approval of Golf Course Drainage Proposal
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to proceed with preparation of a project
to improve the drainage on the golf course.
2. Background. For the past several years the Golf Course has been suffering from drainage issues.
The system of drain tiles that does exist are very old and no longer serve their purpose. Public Works
undertook a project two years ago to rebuild the main drainage line which now appears to be functioning
well. However the smaller drain tiles that feed it are not functioning. Installation of these small drain
tiles is not within Public Works core competences and therefore should be performed by an experienced
contractor. The Golf Course Superintendent solicited quotes from several contractors. Based on the cost
and the impact to the golf course we recommend the project be phased over several years.
3. Project Scope. Install Drain Tiles on #9 fairway, regrade and install catch basins.
4. Cost. The City received three quotes (exhibit A). Listed below. Note: two of the contractors provided
a quote for all of the proposed proj ects on the golf course and one provided a quote just for #9 fairway. For
comparison purposes only the #9 fairway portions of the quotes are shown. Also the American Landscape
Quote does not include regrading and seeding of the work site. Therefore staff recommends accepting the
quote from Duininck Gold from $12,800
Contractor
Quote
American Landscape Company
$12,490
Duininck Golf
$12,800
Hartman Companies
$22,360
5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Park Enterprise Fund. The Park Enterprise fund
has an estimated EOY 17 balance of $618,540.
6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the council accept the quote from Duininck Gold for
$12,800.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quote from Duininck Golf for $12,800 to install drain tile in Fairway #9
Exhibits
A. Quotes
Prepared By: �V_
Reviewed By: �F—
Approved By: W
pw
�12
i F7
A,
I wb-m
a
t�on� ko
I'M
-duo
Mr. Ron Steffenhagen
Orono Golf Club
265 Orono Orchard Road S.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Orono Golf Club Drainage Project
DUININCK
April 18", 2017
Duininck Golf is pleased to provide an estimate to the Orono Golf Club for the drainage improvement
project. Our bid has been built from a site review and the drawing designed by Duininck Golf.
General Notes:
• Materials purchased by contractor: sand, drainage pea rock, HDPE dual wall drainage pipe, seed.
Materials purchased by owner: 8" perforated pipe. Estimated that the existing 8" perforated tile
on hand will be very close to sufficient for the quantity needed for project.
• Install a perforated drainage herringbone system in the requested areas of holes 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9.
• All perforated drainage lines to be backfilled with pea rock and a sand capping to bridge with the
pea rock.
• Excess soils from the excavations to be hauled to a nearby onsite owner -provided location.
• Holes under construction to be "out of play" until workers are finished with each hole.
• Owner to assist in locating/marking existing drainage lines for taps and tie-ins.
• Owner to locate all private utilities including irrigation.
• Any irrigation modifications by owner if needed.
• Any permit fees are by owner if needed.
• Timing of project dependent on weather and site conditions.
• Any cart path or haul road repair or replacement is by owner if necessary.
• After drainage areas have soaked up some of the ground moisture, contractor will remobilize
and prep/seed the areas around the new drainage lines to smooth out. Bluegrass seed provided
by contractor. Watering or maintenance of finished work areas is by owner.
• Price is good for 30 days from date above.
• Prevailing wages are not included in the price below.
• Base Bid must be accepted before any of the option pricing can be selected.
Base Bid: Hole #1 Project
Option 1: Hole #2 Project
Option 2: Hole #4 Project
Option 3: Hole #8 Project
Option 4: Hole #9 Project
Sincerely,
Steve Wolbeck, Estimator
Duininck Golf
Cc: Ahren Habicht, Project Manager
$15,700
$ 6,200
$ 4,500
$21,400
$12,800 >
Accepted by:
Date:
Owner Representative
A DIVISION OF DUININCK INCORPORATED
An EQual Omortunfitv Ennolover
American Landscape Company
1472492 n1 P1 N.
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763-557-0155
americanlandscapecompanv@gmaii.com
Website: http://alandscapecompany.com
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO:
Ron/Orono Golf Course
265 Orono Orchard Rd.
Orono, MN
952-215-8160
rsteffenhagen@ci.orono.oln.us
PROPOSAL
Proposal Number 301471
May 25, 2017
WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT:
Same
We hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of
For drainage issue strip sod and save to reuse as much as possible. Dig trenches as designated with feeder lines.
Use 1 main line with pipe supplied by golf course. For other lines use 4" drain pipe with a sock. Lower 2 storm
sewers to catch more water. Haul away excess dirt to designated area. Install 10 catch basins and drain pipe. Fill
trenches 2/3rds full of %" river rock. Put down fabric, dirt and existing sod over trench areas. Golf course will seed
as needed.
"This project will take approx. 4 days to complete.
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the
specifications sub mitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of
Twelve Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Dollars and No/00 ($12,490.00) with payments to be made as follows Y
upon starting and Y2 upon completion.
Respectfully submitted Gregory Klesk
Per American Landscape Company
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs
Will be executed only upon written order, and will become an extra charge over
And above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes,
Accidents, or delays beyond our control.
Note — This proposal may
Be withdrawn by us if not
Accepted within 30 days.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do
the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above.
Date Signature
8099 Bavaria Road
Victoria. MN 55386
Name / Address
Orono Public Golf Course
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Attention: Ron Steffienhagen
*U�E -
Phone # 9524432990
Fax# 952.443.2835
ww�v.hartmancompanies.com
Job Location
265 Orono Orchard Road
Orono, NIN 55391
Date
Contract #
4/19/2017
6341
jr-j0p�r�posal
Expires
I Contact
I Terms
1
5/19/2017
om
Net 7
Qty
U/M
Description
Price
Total
HOLE #9 LANDING ZONE AREA - 200'X 80'
0.36
ACRE
Till existing turf and re grade to surface drain - Area 200'x 80'
6,000.00
2,160.00
800
LN FT
Install 4" perforated tile, backfill with gravel
16.75
13,400.00
3
EA
IS" catch basins installed on existing 8" tile
450.00
1,350.00
2
EA
Perforate, repair and lower existing catch basins
250.00
500.00
1,800
YDS
Install Futerra seed blanket and 70/30 blue/rye grass
2.75
4,950.00
HOLE#7-8
I
EA
Install new 18" catch basin in #9 for 97-8 tile outlet
800.00
SO'
250
LN FT
InsLall owner supplied 8" pipe from #7 to new basin in #9
16.00
4.0W'.()
1
EA
Cart path cold patch repairs
300.00
300.00
3
EA
18" catch basin and drainage hollows
800.00
2,400.00
HOLE # 1
250
LN FT
installation of owner supplied 8" pipe from existing catch basin to new drainage hollow and
16.00
4,000.00
catch basin
2
EA
Drainage hollow and 18" catch basin
800.00
1,600.00
1
EA
EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION
1,000.00
1,000.00T
"Excess wil hauled to an onsite location
"Seeding 70/30 blue/rye and futema blanket installed as needed @ $2.75 yd
"Estimated start: Summer 2017
Subtotal
$36,460.00
Job Name: 2017 Course work
Sales Tax (0.0%) $0.00
Customer Initial
Total
$36,460.00
Contractor Initial
) 11
) 3
)z
Item No.: 15 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Approval of Golf Course/ Parks Superintendent Position and
Recruiting
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/
Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: City Engineer's Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to adjust the duties and responsibilities
of the Golf Course Superintendent to include responsibility for all of the Orono Parks and to begin the
hiring process for the position.
2. Background. The current Golf Course Superintendent is on his fifth of five phased retirement years.
Since he began phased retirement the position has been a 0.5 FTE. Since its reinstitution in 2014 the
Parks Commission through the Council has raised the level of expected service at our 23 Parks. This has
resulted in a significant amount of supervisory time and effort being directed away from other public
works functions to support the park system. Therefor as we look to replace the Golf Course
Superintendent and meet the increasing demands of our park system, I recommend the creation of a new
position that combines the Superintendent and Parks Supervisor roles into one full time position.
3. Position Scope. Parks and Golf Course Supervisor (Grade 10). The position would be a full time
position responsible for all of the city's parks to include the golf course as well as duties as the tree and
weed inspector. The position would be responsible for the supervision of all of the seasonal golf and
parks employees as well as managing all of the golf and parks related contracts.
4. Advantages. The creation of the position would allow for the redistribution of duties within Public
Works allowing for increased focus on the city's infrastructure and services.
a. It would allow the redistribution of duties among the three supervisor positions: Parks would
move to the new position. Facilities would move from the Utilities Supervisor to the Streets Supervisor.
The result is that both the Utilities and Streets Supervisors would have increased time to focus on their
areas and we would have someone dedicated to parks.
b. The Parks and Golf Supervisor would become the supervisor for all of the golf and parks seasonal
employees, allowing him/her to more easily shift assets to meet the needs of all of the city's parks.
c. The Parks and Golf Supervisor would pick up some of the daily/ routine parks tasks the Public
Works Director has to do thereby allowing more time to focus on project management and engineering
support to the city.
d. Having a full time position to recruit for should allow for a much higher quality pool of
applicants. Note- the superintendent positon was full time but then moved to half time when the
incumbent went into the phased retirement plan.
5. Cost. The cost to change the position back to a full time position is roughly $35,000 plus benefits
per year at the top of the pay scale.
6. Funding. This position will be funded through the Parks and Golf Course Operating Budgets. This
cost however would be distributed amongst multiple Public Works budget lines (Sewer, Water, Parks,
Streets and Storm) based on the adjustment of duties amongst the supervisors.
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
AGENDA ITEM
7. Recruitment. The selection process for the position will involve advertising the position, application
screening, an interview panel and reference checking. Upon completion of the process a candidate will
be presented to the council for consideration for appointment. The timeline for the process is as follows:
When
What
1 July — 28 July 17
Advertise position
31 July -4 August 17
Review Applications
7-11 August 17
Conduct Interviews
I I September 17
Council Approval/Appointment
8. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the position and request authority to begin
recruiting for the position.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the creation of the Golf course Parks Supervisor position and authorize staff to begin
the recruitment process.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Job Description.
B. Public Works Organization Chart
CITY OF ORONO
Position Title: Parks and Golf Course Supervisor
Document Date:
May 30, 2017
Department:
Public Works
Accountable to:
Public Works Director/City Engineer
FLSA Status:
Non -Exempt
Nature of Work
Plans, organizes, directs, supervises, and evaluates the activities of staff and contractors engaged in the
improvement and maintenance of city parks, trails, natural/open space, grounds, playground equipment,
streetscapes, and golf course.
Supervision Received and Exercised
This position is supervised by the Public Works Director and upon receiving guidance from the Director
operates independently to supervise the work of the Maintenance personnel.
Examples of Work
Essential functions listed below are intended as illustrations of the various types of work that may be
performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them if the work is similar,
related or a logical assignment to the position.
• Leads and manages the daily, periodic, and emergency maintenance and repair activities to
maintain the City's parks, trails and golf course in safe and operational/useable condition.
• Directs the maintenance practices of the golf course, supervising the planting and growing of
various turf grasses, ensuring proper maintenance of equipment, lead, direct and train employees
regarding safe performance practices, ensures proper mixing and application of golf course
chemicals/fertilizers
• Plans and manages the maintenance of other city grounds and open spaces.
• Prepare project plans, specifications, and contracts and also provide management oversight for
work/projects assigned.
• Assists with the implementation of the comprehensive safety program for employees;
• Communicates with the general public in a professional manor and sets the example for, excellent
customer service.
• Interviews, hires, trains and supervises a staff of employees for the purpose of maintaining the
properties. The superintendent has authority to terminate employment of subordinates.
• Supervises the Golf Course and Park Staff.
The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer
• Works with the other Public Works Supervisors in developing daily, weekly, and seasonal work
plans to ensure effective and efficient maintenance operations.
• Coordinate the bidding of equipment and materials for parks, trails and the golf course.
• Establish and maintain safety programs related to parks, trails and the golf course.
• Assist Public Works Director in preparing short term and long term goals and objectives for
Parks, Trails and the Golf course
• Assist in developing an annual budget covering all functions of the Parks, Trails and the Golf
course, and monitor expenditures to ensure compliance with the budget.
• Staff the Park Commission as needed.
• Act as liaison to assigned partner organizations and with community groups for volunteer
activities within the parks.
• Maintains a variety of records relating to inspections and maintenance activity.
• Drives trucks and operates equipment of various sizes and weights in loading, hauling and
unloading various equipment or materials.
• Serves as the city's tree inspector and assistant weed inspector.
• Assists with Snow Plowing during the winter months.
• Performs other duties and assumes other responsibilities as assigned.
Required Knowled2e, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge:
• Mechanical — Knowledge of machines and tools, including their designs, uses, repair, and
maintenance.
• Public Safety and Security — Knowledge of relevant equipment, policies, procedures, and
strategies to promote effective local, state, or national security operations for the protection of
people, data, property, and institutions.
• Customer and Personal Service — Knowledge of principles and processes for providing customer
and personal services. This includes customer needs assessment, meeting quality standards for
services, and evaluation of customer satisfaction.
• Administration and Management — Knowledge of business and management principles involved
in strategic planning, resource allocation, human resources modeling, leadership technique,
production methods, and coordination of people and resources.
• English Language — Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including
the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar.
• Personnel and Human Resources — Knowledge of principles and procedures for personnel
recruitment, selection, training, compensation and benefits, labor relations and negotiation, and
personnel information systems.
Skills:
Active Listening — Give full attention to what other people are saying, taking time to understand
the points being made, asking questions as appropriate, and not interrupting at inappropriate
times.
• Monitoring — Monitor/Assess performance of yourself, other individuals, or organizations to
make improvements or take corrective action.
• Speaking — Talk to others to convey information effectively.
• Coordination — Adjust actions in relation to others' actions.
• Management of Personnel Resources — Motivate, develop, and direct people as they work,
identifying the best people for the job.
• Time Management — manage one's own time and the time of others.
• Critical Thinking — Use logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems.
The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Abilities:
• Oral Comprehension — Able to listen to and understand information and ideas presented through
spoken words and sentences.
• Oral Expression — Able to communicate information and ideas in speaking so others will
understand.
• Problem Sensitivity — Able to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong. It does not
involve solving the problem, only recognizing there is a problem.
• Written Comprehension — Able to read and understand information and ideas presented in
writing.
• Deductive Reasoning — Able to apply general rules to specific problems to produce answers that
make sense.
• Inductive Reasoning — Able to combine pieces of information to form general rules or
conclusions (includes finding a relationship among seemingly unrelated events).
Minimum Requirements
0 High School Diploma or equivalent.
e Five (5) years of experience in parks or golf course maintenance.
0 Two (2) years of experience planning and coordinating projects.
0 Two (2) years of experience as crew leader, field supervisor, or equivalent.
0 Valid MN Class "B" Driver's License or ability to obtain within one-year of employment.
0 2 year turf certificate
0 Certified tree inspector
0 Current state certification or licensing as a pesticide applicator.
0 Must live within a 30 minute travel time of the Orono Public Works facility within one (1) year of
employment.
0 No physical limitation required.
0 Satisfactory results from drug test, physical examination, motor vehicle records check, and
criminal background investigation.
Desirable Oualifications
• Ten (10) years of parks or golf course experience.
• Five (5) to seven (7) supervisory experience.
• Certified Arborist
0 Bachelor's degree with major work in turf management, horticulture, or park management.
Physical Demands and Workini! Environment
See Physical and Environmental Addendum
The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Organization
Objective
MIN III
Clubhouse
Attendant
L
Clubhouse
Attendant
Clubhouse
Att ndant
Clubhouse
Attendant
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 16 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #16-3883 Kevin Anderson/ James Franzel, 800 North Arm Drive —
Preliminary Plat
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider a preliminary plat to subdivide a 4 acre
property into three lots.
2. 15.99 Deadline. The wetland delineation was completed on June 13, 2017; completing the
application. Action must be taken on this application by October 13, 2017.
3. Background/ Summary. The project is the subdivision of a 4 acre lot into three lots, all within a I
acre zone (LR-lB). Access to the three lots will be via a private cul de sac off of North Ann Drive. The
lots are within the MUSA, and will be served by private wells and public sanitary. The project is
consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of use and density.
The sanitary sewer system serving the project consists of two pipes, a gravity fed pipe running to an
existing lift station on the north line of lot 1, then to a pressure line running to the south line of proposed
lot 3. Both lines run through the project. The existing access path to the lift station is outside the original
easement, this is being corrected with this plat. The force main is drawn incorrectly, is stays within the
prescribed easement.
The Planning Commission staff report, attached as Exhibit D provides additional information on the plat.
Planning Commission vote and comment. Discussion at the staff and Planning Commission level
centered on the lot width of Lot 1. At the lake, the lot width is 100 feet; 140 feet is required. At the lake
setback line, the lot is +180 feet. The lot line could be angled to support the required lake frontage; the
applicant requests approval to avoid the lot line encroaching in front of the likely view of the lake for Lot
2. The Planning Commission discussed the average lake setback, and suggested that it be prescribed in
advance of building to ensure all lots were afforded protected lake views, regardless of when they are
constructed. The proposed house on Lot 2 does not need to angle to the north.
Other issues the Planning Commission discussed included the average lake setback, the bluff and visual
impact for lot 1.
After the public hearing on April 17, 2017, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the
preliminary plat, subject to several conditions. The Planning Commission did not support the lot width
variance for Lot 1.
4. Public Comment. One person spoke at the public hearing and had comments and concerns with the
eventual dock configuration and its impact on sightlines and LMCD rules, house impact the bluff on Lot 1,
and the views from 790 North Arm to the side of the house on Lot 1. The PC minutes are attached as
Exhibit C.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1) Revise plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1.
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
AGENDAITEM
2) Work with Public Works Department to identify, stake and show on survey an appropriate
corridor through the property for sewer maintenance vehicle access.
3) House on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet 75' lake setback.
4) Average setback for each of the lots will be per the conceptual building pads shown on
preliminary plat. However, once those initial homes are constructed, any future rebuild on any of
those lots must meet the average setback established per the standard method based on then -
existing adjacent lakeshore homes.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve, by resolution, the Preliminary Plat for Franzel Addition, 800 North Arm Drive.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Final PC Minutes
D. PC Staff Report
References
A. PC Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Prelim. Plat Drawing (4/11/17) & Prelim. Road & Grading Plan (10/ 19/16)
Exhibit C Sketch Highlighting Sewer Easements & Average Setback
Exhibit D. Sewer As Built (Airphoto)
Exhibit E. Site Airphotos
Exhibit F Conservation Design Report
Exhibit G. Plat Map
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit I. Sketch Plan Minutes 4/18/16
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W
Council
Exhibit A
16-3883
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING
APPROVAL
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
800 NORTH ARM ROAD
FILE NO. 16-3883
WHEREAS, Kevin Anderson, an individual (hereinafter the "Developer") is the
agent for James Franzel, an individual, the owner of the property at 800 North Ann Drive
(hereinafter the "Owner") within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described
as follows:
Lot 9, Auditors Subdivision No. 362 and Outlot 1, Pirates Cove
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested Preliminary Plat Approval for
subdivision of the Property for construction into 3 single family lots; and
ViTHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 the Developer completed their application
originally filed on October 19, 2016 for preliminary plat approval for the proposed subdivision of
the Property; and
WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing for the application and reviewed it on April 17, 2017, at which
time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to
speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on April 17, 2017 recommended on a vote
of 6-0 that the Council approve the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions and
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in regard to
this application for Preliminary Plat approval:
Page I
FINDINGS
The Property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and
is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and water. Municipal sewer
will serve the property.
2. The property contains approximately 4.02 gross acres.
3. Conservation Design. Pursuant to the City's Conservation Design ordinances the
Developer has submitted a Conservation Development report prepared by ISG
dated January 3, 2017. Key elements of the report include a Natural Resources
Inventory of the non -developing portions of the site including review of the
MLCCS Land Cover Classification data, wetland delineations (approved by the
MCVV`D), site vegetation review, and outlining of a basic Conservation Design
Master Plan.
4. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted. The property contains a small wetland
generally along the shoreline, primarily in Lot 1. This wetland is not proposed to
be impacted. The reported MCWD base buffer width requirement is reported as 25
feet.
The City code requires a minimum structure setback of 10' from the wetland buffer.
The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands
being preserved.
5. Streets. All 3 lots will be served by a new private cul de sac to be platted as an
Outlot and be constructed by the developer to City standards. All 3 lots will have
driveways accessing the new road system.
6. Easements Required. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around
all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the
delineated wetlands will be required. A new easement is proposed to provide for
vehicular access to the existing lift station serving the Project.
7. Park and Trail Dedication. There are no identifiable public parkland needs at this
location. However, development of the proposed housing will generate additional
use of existing City park facilities in the area. The Council finds that no park lands
need to be dedicated and the park dedication should be in the form of a Cash
Page 2
Contribution in Lieu of Lands as allowed by the Municipal Code. Additionally, the
Council finds that although no public trails along the property boundaries are
planned. Park dedication will be $11,100.00
8. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees. The property will be subject
to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee. The Trunk Fee established
in the 2016 Fee Schedule for I -acre zoning districts is $5,250 per acre for each new
lot being created, with a fee cap of 1.0 acre per new lot. Per Section 14-284, if the
existing residence is intended to remain (on Lot 3), only Lots I and 2 would be
subject to the SW&DT Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will be $10,500, based on the
2017 fee schedule.
9. Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees. The property was
assessed for 2 sewer units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer
project. For the proposed subdivision, no additional footage charge would be
required, but a third sewer unit at the 2017 Connection Charge rate of $5,100
would be due upon final plat approval.
10. The applicant has provided a Certificate of Survey and Preliminary Plat attached to
this Resolution as Exhibit B. Council finds that the plans submitted are generally
sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the
project.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Orono hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for development of the property at 800 North Ann
Drive subject to the following declarations and conditions:
A. Project Specific Conditions
1) Revise the plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1.
2) Work with Public Works Department to identify, stake and show on survey an
appropriate corridor through the property for sewer maintenance vehicle access.
3) House on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet 75' lake setback.
Page 3
4) Average setback for each of the lots will be per the conceptual building pads shown
on preliminary plat. However, once those initial homes are constructed, any future
rebuild on any of those lots must meet the average setback established per the
standard method based on then -existing adjacent lakeshore homes.
B. General conditions imposed on preliminary plats shall apply, and are as follow:
1) Significant trees identified to remain shall be protected with snow fence at the drip line,
and no material storage may occur within the fenced area.
2) Applicant to confirm with SHPO that that there are no archaeological sites within the
property.
3) Appropriate traffic control signage within and pertinent to the site shall be installed by
the Developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval.
4) Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that all requirements
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as administrator of the WCA regulations
on Orono's behalf, are complied with.
5) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas" and to the approved SWPPP. All erosion controls as
required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing grading
and excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in
working order until the site is vegetated and stabilized.
6) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any
construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the
construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall
mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing,
signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed.
7) The applicable general engineering comments and or conditions provided by City
Engineer Robert Bean dated July 21, 2016 and August 11, 2016 attached hereto as
Exhibit C shall be suitably addressed by applicant in the development plan submittal.
8) This approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this
approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the
Page 4
review process continues.
9) This Approval shall be effective until June 26, 2018 per the provisions of Zoning Code
Section78-628. If General Development Plan and Final Plat Approval is not granted
by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The
City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period.
C. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions:
1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including
any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided
to the City for final review and approval with the Final Plan set. The Public Works
Department and any other pertinent reviewing agencies shall review and approve all
utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and
are subject to approval by the Public Works Department and City Engineer.
2) Final Street and Storm Sewer Plans.
3) Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP showing existing and
proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and
calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction.
General Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans.
4) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review
progresses.
D. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as
follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the City
Administrator 2 weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second
and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows:
1). Record plat drawings in the forin of two (3) mylar copies (one copy for the City's
records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to V
200'. Drawing to include:
A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Gronberg
and Associates dated May 15, 2017attached hereto as Exhibit B,
Page 5
except as modified herein.
B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along exterior
property lines and 5' along the interior property lines.
C. Dedication of areas shown as wetlands.
D. Dedication of "Drainage Easements" over all drainageways
E. Name of plat.
2). Legal documents required:
A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor
of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property
interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents
affected by such interest.
B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded
easements currently affecting the property.
C. Signed Conservation and Flowage Easement to be granted over all
delineated wetlands on the plat.
D. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction
of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to
be provided in the Letter of Credit.
E. Signed Trail Easement over the northerly 10 feet of the property.
3). Final plat approval fee to be paid: Total due: $ 700.00
E. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the
successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the
City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the
development.
F. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial
guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City
Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not
limited to private streets, curb & gutter, sidewalks, storm sewers, landscaping,
grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks,
retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant
shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs.
Page 6
G. Fees. The following fees are due at the time of Final Plat approval.
Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The property will be subject to the
Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, due at the time of final plat approval. The fee,
based on the 2017 fee schedule, is 10,500.00.
Park Dedication The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public
park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The City Council has determined
there is no need for dedication of land from the proposed development. Therefore
the park dedication due at the time of Final Plat is $11, 100.
Sewer Connection Charges. Based on 2017 fee schedule, the fees are $5, 100.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this _ day of 12017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Page 7
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
FRANZEL ADDITION
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOJ
JAMES F_1�-, L-VZEL
OF LOT 9, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 362, AND OUTLOT 1, PIRATES COVE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
�,9005'
4�
I A
I "AMM
MINNETONKA
Council
Exhibit B
16-3883
NORTH ARM
00
-930
�D, 4
55" 'WLL"
7
iap\
4-- �SURVEY LINE
51 \OVA -934
___936-
\51 I
1pf-9, DOC. 929.4 CONTOUR-. 938
100+ LINE (O.H.W.)
0 V.7,
_70 EXISTING
............. ................................. ::., ��v 1
S, 940---- BUILDING
_100�_�
��WETLAND STAKE
of \,N By OTH
ERS (TYP)
G
12" ASH
102'.07
2X8" ASH
ED
A
DELINEATED BY
8
A
1.031 AC. TOTAL
--- #ASH 20#ASH
ERAGE- RTIL—D—ING —SE T BA CK J_ASGE OF WETLAND
— — — — -- OTHERS
+1 2
4" ASH 22' S
EXISTING 1.00+- AC. DRY 2S -75..
6� ..........
WOOD
HOUSE .. ...
#790 R!4 �* I I
le '— .1-76 7t.... WALL
xv-
0
FROM AERIAL PHOTO
7& 13.3
--950 6EE_CKJ—
_8"' 0,A q q
---------------- 7 R/P
A�) X #OA1'1
.14'
10, BAI#�000, 18"VALNU 0 10.0 3.0 3� 0
BASSWOOD
K FPORCH 170 EXISTING R/P
\ -, ��\ , . \ / �_ I- POSSIBLE
5AA kQ HOUSE
10'\BASSwoob,," SEPARINDER---.�( '4
/ / /PROPO
PUMP SEVER
11 BorSWOOD A) HOUSE" 929.4 CONTOUR
SqWCE
DECK
R/P
#800 --LINE (O.H.W.)
At
A� '.j.
%
# *'
�SSW�
Ir\ BASSW OD
70 1.07' 4.7
PROPOSE�N2'0' \SEWE`R-"*"" --7— A C. TOT A
/ /� � " \� 1.051 A C 4) RY
ACCESS E SEMEW, NO ",\ /0 1�1\ 1_� A ------ --------
, \ / 70 / : -----
ALNUT 10 4%
04 CN -4
o,40
_/39" 0
4" A 28" W 140
�QSSIBLE VITY X
1P
1. (5611\ PROPOSED GK(A
\,�SEWER SERVIC� J� CONCRETE DRIVEWAY '25.2
H04JSE
1.53+ AC. TOTAL
- Q, ----------- __—WOOD
0� Nq,
1.51+- AC. DRY 7" 3
STEP
Ilk
AAK30 OA
X
6k
19
SEWER�ASEME�T, P .........
r Tt--
NJ-
ER
d0o-�� DOC* NO* 148999'6 \%
. ...... i"o 0
00 04
.0
13" BASSWOOD\
_N_ A"X
*6'
poSSIBLE\DRIVEWAY
ow�
14ROPOStp
0 . 5 1 --- "_<
"N OF A�
%
Y. \ \
0, .0000.., DtYIDII�G
.\VA
10 SHE[
19;72- LINES,-�-
,.0-' 2811 SIL A_
M E
APL
000,
IQ N
-0, "0,000 Uqffl N OW 7" OAK
_,J 11 1. : : -1- . :�., . : , I A�
: 1: : : SETB 0?
LIN _S
BUILDING 0.391 AC. 35
SETBACK Q)
LINi
Qi
ES
Q)
oQi
I I - - - - - - - - 55- Q)
'00P
.........
— �Vy
oy 'D)
0
IS BE F -VI
cr
C?
go
J4
J
BLACK�OP`,�
0-0—
ROADWAY
66
NORTH
ARM
DRIVE
16097REVISED3.SCJ
DATE
3-14-17 PROPOSED DIVIDING LINES REVISED
4-11-17 REVISED LOT LINES
5-15-17 ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN
16-097
.........................
ADDRESS 800 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN
Area 4.02' Ac.
3.98'- Ac. Dry
Zoning = LR— 1 B
REMARKS
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision,
and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755
A '%,�
EXISTING SHED%
-7
W00— MH
SJNTX0" C),
c3oo 0
EXISTING,q A A a.-/- i I I \N 111111 � I
% _.- *'-*-,--.-. .................. 00
�ol GARAGE
6-- N C3
tA
o>
40. ()o - 00
00
00�1
001,
EXISTING
HOUSE
#830
FROM AERIAL PHOTO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 362, and Outlot 1, PIRATES COVE
o : denotes iron marker
—917 — —: denotes contour line, per city maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey
intends to show the boundaries of
the above
described property, the
location of
six existing buildings, driveway, deck,
porches,
topography from city maps,
the location
of all visible "hardcover", and the
proposed
location of two proposed
dividing lines, two possible houses, and adjacent
houses from aerial photos thereon.
It does not
purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. SCALE
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 111=30'
DATE
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN 55356 10-18-16
952-473-4141 JOB NO.
1 16-097
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit C
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16-3883
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT,
6:33 P.M. — 7:22 P.M.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a preliminary plat application for a 4 -acre property proposed to be developed into
three single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road and would be served
with municipal sewer and individual wells. The property is located on North Arm Drive just east of the
east end of the Lakeview Golf Course.
The property has frontage on North Arm Bay. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east
with steep slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition and the property contains an existing residence at the east end and a
number of outbuildings served by a 750 -foot driveway. The property is zoned LR -113, One Family
Lakeshore Residential District, and is guided in the Orono Community Management Plan for residential
use.
The current proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from the sketch plan review that was
conducted by the Planning Commission in April of 2016. It includes shortening of the private road. The
initial proposal showed the road further to the east. The lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes
that provide more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography but results in
the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot 1. Each of the three lots appears to meet the one acre
dry buildable requirement.
Lots 2 and 3 each meet the width requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75 -foot setback.
Lot I only meets the 140 -foot standard in the 75 -foot setback. The reason for the lot width variance
request is based on the topography and the desired orientation for the house on Lot 2. If the variance is
not allowed, the house on Lot 2 would have its main views overlooking a triangular lakeshore portion of
Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot I completely conforming. If the Planning
Commission is comfortable granting the variance, it should be clearly established why it is appropriate to
grant that variance in order to avoid setting a precedent.
Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique relationships between homes. In this proposed
subdivision, Lots I and 2 each have a home site that meets the 75 -foot setback as well as the average
setback when it is defined by the house at 790 North Arm and the existing house.
The following scenarios could happen based on the City's current setback ordinance:
If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2, that changes the average
setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3 and would force such
replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on.
2. If the first home built is on Lot I and is placed farther west than shown, the average setback for
a home on Lot 2 would change.
Page 1 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3 and it is moved further
back in order to have a house, decks, etc. meet the 75 -foot setback, then the average setback for
Lot 2 would be affected and potentially also the average setback for Lot 1.
Gaffton stated the most logical solution is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as
part of the subdivision approvals. These would be in effect regardless of how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average setback
lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Ann Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane. Those homes
are set back far enough so as to likely not be impacted since proposed and existing homes on Lots I and 3
are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. The Planning Commission should consider whether the
proposed house site on Lot I will be nearer the lakeshore than the home at 790 North Arm and whether
that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be blocked by the house on Lot 1.
The proposed home site on Lot I is located more than 30 feet from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30 feet of the top of bluff and the top of bluff as depicted.
As it relates to Lot 2, the topography and location of the existing municipal sewer lines are complicating
factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from north to south. The sewer lines
consist of a gravity line flowing from south to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very
north end of the property at the shore.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20 feet wide and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75 -foot setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse, the
actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department is also located in this area. It is necessary on a
regular basis to bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance since there is no other way to access
the lift station. The City needs to preserve this non -easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
Lot 3 contains the existing house. Replacing the house will likely require it to move back from the lake
some distance, as the 75 -foot setback line appears to run through the east side of the structure. With or
without the proposed subdivision, an average lakeshore setback variance would be required for
replacement of this house.
The developer is proposing the road be private. Even though only a small number of homes will be
served, City code requires for 3-6 lots a 24 -foot paved road within a 50 -foot road corridor, ending in a
100 -foot diameter cul-de-sac with 80 feet paved width. At slightly less than 300 feet in length, the cul-de-
sac meets the City's I 000 -foot maximum length limitation.
In. addition, the proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835
Windjammer Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private
driveway at that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800 North Arm has
existed at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic air photos.
Moving the private road further north to provide some buffer might be feasible but would result in a less
usable street yard area for Lot 1.
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Arm Drive. No sidewalks exist in this area of
Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks or anticipated park needs relative to
development of this property. The total park fees would be $11,100.
Page 2 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems. Ponding
areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be credited as dry
buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier 1 of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject to a
maximum hardcover per lot of 25 percent.
The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will
be either $10,500 or $15,750 and is dependent on whether the existing house will remain.
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. This property was assessed for two sewer
units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. A third sewer unit at the 2017 connection
charge rate of $5, 100 would be due upon final plat approval.
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots I and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding sewer
stubs to serve Lots I and 2 is likely necessary but may be difficult since the existing gravity line is
approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections may be
necessary. Private wells will be required.
There is a narrow wetland located on the north side of the property delineated in 2011. The applicants
have not been able to find the paperwork on that delineation and are planning to have the wetland re -
delineated in the spring. No changes are anticipated. There will likely be buffer setbacks required from
the MCWD. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands.
Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal sewer maintenance, the City will require that buffer
widths and locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design report and recommendations. The property has been
reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an
inventory of the natural resources on the site, discussed how the proposed site design interplays with
existing features, and establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive
species control. It is likely some of the trees will need to be removed as a result of construction of the
road and driveways.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent of
when new homes get built on the site, with an eye toward not having negative impacts to the
average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot 1 and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
Discuss with the applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot, the
75 -foot setback, the average setback, and sewer easements.
Page 3 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties, and if so,
are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of the
subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width averaging.
6. A new sewer connection for Lots 1 and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for the
connection for Lot 3 over Lots 1 and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision process.
The Planning Commission should review the Staff report as well as the submitted documentation. The
Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and then make a recommendation for either
approval or denial. Staff will not present this application to the City Council for review until the updated
wetland delineation has been submitted.
In addition, the applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor
as soon as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
Lemke asked if there is any advantage to having the cul-de-sac go in so far.
Gaftron stated that results in shorter driveways but noted the cul-de-sac could be shortened up further. If
the area on the west side of Lot I has value as yard, changing the length of the cul-de-sac might change
the nature of the yard.
Landgraver asked if there is precedent for the city maintenance road.
Gaftron stated it is likely there are other places where the Public Works Department has to drive over
private property to maintain the sewer system since the City has approximately 40 lift stations. There is
an agreement currently for maintenance of this road up to a certain point and that agreement will have to
be revised.
Landgraver commented it is possible to envision friction between the homeowners and the maintenance
workers given that situation. Landgraver noted the existing sewer gravity line goes from Lot 3 downhill
and that it looks like there is a rain garden on top of that.
Gaftron stated the expectation would be that that sewer line would need to be moved.
Thiesse asked if the 40' x 80' house footprint standard.
Gaffron noted they are shown as a possible house and that the homes that are being built today have a
number of angles. Gaftron stated it is unlikely someone will construct a house that is rectangular in
shape.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, stated in regards to relocating the house on Lot 2. it gets pretty tight given all
the different angles and that they have reworked the lot lines significantly to try to provide as much
flexibility as possible.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.
Page 4 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Ray Wahlender, 1070 Tonkawa Road, stated he is one of the owners of 800 North Ann. Wahlender
stated while he is generally positive about the prospect for improvements on this property, in his view
splitting this parcel into three lots is quite a stretch and that there are a lot of contortions being done to try
to achieve three lakeshore lots.
Wahlender stated the developer will have some real problems with lake access for Lot I and that he
knows from personal experience that it is too shallow to catch pan fish in that area. Wahlender indicated
it is a wetland area that seeps into a marshy wetland area and that you cannot get a pontoon in there. If
you look at the contours with 790 North Arm, any dock that is installed will likely violate the provisions
of LMCD Section 201, Subdivision 213, which requires that any slip which opens towards a sight line be
20 feet back from that sight line. Wahlender stated in his view it will be problematic to try to get a dock
in there parallel to the sight line, and in order to get it out to any sort of depth, it would probably violate
the sight line for Lot 2. Wahlender stated calling it a lakeshore lot is problematic for them and that it
appears to be jammed in there.
With regards to Lot 2, Wahlender stated he also believe that has some shallow areas and it would be
difficult to get a boat in and out of there. Wahlender commented putting two lakeshore lots on the north
side of the peninsula sounds like a recipe for people fighting about dock placement.
Wahlender stated if one were to construct a house of any height right there on Lot 1, it would block the
light to the adjoining property's back yard. There will also likely be issues with runoff given the close
proximity of the house. Over time that blockage of light and possible drainage issues are going to create a
much damper back yard. If you go from what is immediately behind 790 North Arm, there is a steep
drop-off right before the lakeshore that goes down to a little grassy area just above the lakeshore, which is
where the pump station is. Wahlender stated he would want somebody to take a look at that, because if
there is too much moisture, the area could slide down. Wahlender stated it has ramifications to 800 North
Arm and the sewer system that is located down there, which is very concerning to them.
Wahlender stated on the very south end of 790 North Arm there is a very nice screened in porch that does
have some view of the lakeshore. Based on the placement of the house on Lot 1, it is very likely that they
will be looking at HVAC systems, generators, exhaust pipes and things of that nature. Wahlender stated
he would not like that either.
Wahlender stated it appears they are wedging three parcels where it would be better if there were only
two lots. Wahlender requested the City look into some of these issues prior to approving anything and
that he would also be happy to discuss this with the property owners.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would like to start with the average setback. Thiesse stated he would like to see that
average setback maintained until the first two homes are constructed, at which time it comes back to the
City for review. Thiesse asked if the City has any control over mandating that a new house be pulled
back behind the 75 -foot line if the existing house is reconstructed.
Gaffron stated to his belief the City can do that. Gaffron stated assuming there was no subdivision, the
existing house is way forward of the average setback. Once there is a subdivision, depending on how
many lots there are, he does not believe there is any way that the existing house will be behind the
Page 5 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
average setback line. Gaffron indicated it would have to be pushed back if it is rebuilt in order to meet
the setback to the lake unless some special arrangements are made now.
Thiesse stated he would like to see the same footprint on all the homes and that he would like the house to
be out of the 75 -foot setback. Thiesse stated because this is a peninsula, to his knowledge the City has
been a little more lenient on the average lakeshore setback, but that he would like it out of the 75 -foot
area.
Lemke noted if they rebuild in kind, it can be rebuilt in exactly the same location.
Gaffron stated it is very unlikely that someone will rebuild that house in kind to the extent in kind means
the same shape, the same rooflines, etc.
Thiesse stated if a house on any lot is built, that house could establish the setback and not the building pad
where the existing house is.
Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about the lot width variance.
Leskinen stated she does not see a compelling reason to create a nonconforming lot, especially since the
City historically has not done that.
Thiesse noted there is no practical difficulty.
Landgraver stated the house will be pretty far back on the bluff and that this is a way of securing visibility
for Lot 1. Landgraver concurred that there is not a strong argument for creating a nonconforming lot and
that Lot 2 also has a number of constraints.
Thiesse stated it is difficult to come up with a practical difficulty for the variance since there is adequate
space. Thiesse stated in his view they should be measuring from where the house is rather than at the
shoreline but that is not what the ordinance says.
Landgraver stated it appears the house on Lot 2 will be tight but that it may be possible to orient it to
maximize views.
Thiesse noted the building pad is proposed to consist of 3,200 square feet. Thiesse asked whether there
will be headlights shining into the proposed house on Lot 2.
Anderson indicated there will be.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on Item 4, which is significant impacts of the
road location to adjoining properties.
Leskinen stated having shortened the cul-de-sac makes a big difference.
Thiesse asked if the developer has looked at pulling it further back.
Anderson indicated he has not.
Page 6 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated in regards to Item 5, the City does need an easement to access the lift station.
Gaffron noted Staff has recommended that the applicant meet with the Public Works supervisor to discuss
that. Staff has suggested the applicant's surveyor stake the easement and depict the easement on the
survey since he is familiar with the property. Gaffron stated this issue has existed for a long time, and if
this was not a subdivision application, this discussion would not be happening.
Lemke asked if there would have to be any type of treatment to make it an accessible road.
Gaffron stated there would need to be a sufficient road base to drive a loaded truck over it. Gaffron
commented the topography is such that the trucks cannot traverse much of a side slope and that it is
critical to identify a route.
Leskinen commented she recalls a very lengthy discussion about this last year and that to her recollection
the consensus was that it needs to be where it is.
Thiesse noted Item 6 relates to new sewer connections for Lots 1 and 2. Thiesse asked if the developer
has a plan for how sewer will be provided.
Anderson indicated not at this point.
Thiesse stated that is a piece of information that will need to be provided and addressed.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on the issues expressed by Mr. Wahlender.
Thiesse stated this area is not a lot different from other areas on North Arm and that there are some areas
that are inaccessible.
Wahlender stated based on his experience, the dock would need to be extended way back and that they
would have to go out into the main part of the channel and then come back in. As you go southeast along
the shoreline, it is very shallow.
Thiesse noted that is outside of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and that the LMCD will need to
look at it.
Gaffron stated the applicant will need to speak with the LMCD and that the City would not be involved in
that.
Thiesse asked if the developer is requesting any variances for the house on Lot 1.
Gaffron noted there is a 30 -foot setback from top of bluff and that the proposed house meets the side
setbacks as well as street. Gaffron stated the depicted rectangle meets code standards, but the question is
whether someone would be doing a disserve to the neighborhood if they construct right up to the 10 -foot
setback.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern is that light and air come into play when asking for a variance. Thiesse
asked if those two things come into play when a variance is not being requested.
Page 7 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaftron stated he is not aware of a situation in the past where that was a factor when someone was
meeting the setback requirements as well as the height requirement. Across the bay there was a situation
where someone was building a house that did meet the City's height requirement and the neighbors had
an issue with someone building a house that would block their garden. Gaffron commented it is unusual
for the City to take that into account, especially when a variance is not being requested.
Wahlender stated if you add in the fact that a house is constructed directly to the north of the yard and the
drainage is altered along the ridge, he would have some questions about the structural integrity of the
drop-off. Wahlender stated if the house is tall enough, that will make it very soggy back there and there
will be very soggy ground that overlooks the sloped pitch which overlooks the lift station. Wahlender
stated in his view those are some important issues that the Planning Commission needs to look at.
Lemke asked if the house location is exactly 30 feet back from the bluff.
Gaffron illustrated the 30 -foot setback on the survey and noted that the house could be moved to be as
much as 20 or 30 feet away from the lot line.
Landgraver stated the solution seems to be to simply move the house on Lot 1, depending on its size, to
allow ample light to that area.
Thiesse asked if it is possible to move the house over.
Anderson indicated that would make the most sense and that the people that he has talked to about this lot
would like to construct a walkout rambler.
Landgraver stated the other item that would be favorably viewed is some landscaping that would help
screen the area.
Thiesse suggested some contours also be provided showing how the drainage will work.
Landgraver moved to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3883, Kevin Anderson, 800
North Arm Drive, granting of preliminary plat approval and denial of a lot width variance, with
the average lakeshore setback being established by the existing houses as constructed with the
original plat and subject to Staff recommendations.
Gaffron noted if the house on Lot 3 is torn down, it will need to meet the 75 -foot setback. Gaffron asked
whether that house should meet the average setback as defined by 830 North Ann.
Thiesse stated it probably cannot.
Landgraver asked if the objective is to make it conform.
Thiesse indicated it is to get it out of the 75 -foot zone.
Schwingler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Page 8 of 8
Date Application Received: 10/20/16
Date Application Considered as Complete: 3/23/17*
120 -Day Review Period Expires: 7/21/17*
*Pending Updated Wetland Delineation
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner
Date: April 17, 2017
Council
Exhibit D
16-3883
Subject: #16-3883 Kevin Anderson / James Franzel, 800 North Arm Drive —
- Preliminary Plat
- Public hearing
Application Summary: This is a preliminary plat for a 4 -acre property proposed to be
developed into 3 single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road
and would be served with municipal sewer and individual wells.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should review the staff report as well as the
submitted documentation. Hold the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend
approval with conditions or table for further information and/or revisions.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
ExhibitB. Prelim. Plat Drawing (4/11/17) &Prelim. Road& Grading Plan (10/19/16)
Exhibit C Sketch Highlighting Sewer Easements & Average Setback
Exhibit D. Sewer As Built (Airphoto)
Exhibit E. Site Airphotos
Exhibit F. Conservation Design Report
Exhibit G. Plat Map
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit I. Sketch Plan Minutes 4/18/16
Zoning District: LR- I B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre/ 140' width)
CMP Land Use Designation: Low -Medium Density Residential — 2-3 units/acre
Existing Property Area: 4.02 ac. (Wetland: 0.04 ac. Dry: 3.98 ac.)
Background
The property under review is on the cast side of North Ann Drive, near the southeast comer of the
Lakeview development. It has frontage on North Arm Bay. The property to the immediate north
at 790 North Arm is also a lake lot, while the properties to the immediate south include two off
lake lots and a lakeshore lot. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east, with steep
slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition. The property contains an existing residence and a number of
outbuildings, served by a 700' long driveway along the south lot line.
The property is zoned LR -113, One Family Lakeshore Residential, and is guided in the Orono
Community Management Plan (CMP) for residential use. The property is located within the
MUSA and is intended to be served with public sanitary sewer and private wells.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 2 of 7
This property was the subject of a sketch plan review in April 2016 (minutes attached). The current
proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from that review, including shortening of the
private road and cul-de-sac length. Lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes that provide
more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography. However, the
result is the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot I (discussed below).
Lot & Outlot Areas
Wetland (acres)
Total Dry (acres)
Total Wet + Dry (acres)
Lot 1
0.01
1.52
1.53
Lot 2
0.03
1.00
1.03
Lot 3
0.01
1.06
1.07
Total in Lots 1-3
0.05
3.58
3.63
Outlot A (Private Road)
0.00
0.39
0.39
Totals
0.05
3.97
4.02
Conformity with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan Update
The proposed subdivision would generally be in conformity with the 2030 CMP which guides the
property for low -medium density single family residential use.
Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements
The LR- I B District, allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 1.0 dry
buildable acres, and minimum lot width of 140' measured at the shoreline and at the 75' lakeshore
setback line. Each of the three lots appears to meet the 1.00 acre dry buildable requirement. Lots
2 and 3 each appear to meet the width requirement for lakeshore lots, while Lot I only meets the
140' standard at the 75' setback line.
Lot width measurement for lakeshore lots is defined in the zoning code as follows: "Lot width
means the horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at the following locations: (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 setbackfrom
the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines
with the structure setback line. "
Applicants are requesting a lot width variance for Lot 1, which is only 100' in width at the
shoreline. The reason for this request is based on the topography and desired orientation of the
house on Lot 2. While there is sufficient lakeshore such that each lot could meet the 140' width
at the shore, the probable orientation of the house on Lot 2 would have its primary views directly
to the north. If the variance is not allowed, the house on Lot 2 will have its main views overlooking
a triangular lakeshore portion of Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot I
completely conforming. Planning Commission should discuss whether this variance is justified.
If so, the reasons for an approval recommendation must clearly establish why this is appropriate
at this location for this subdivision while it would not generally be allowed. The intent would be
to not establish a precedent.
The setback lines depicted on the survey would appear to meet the minimum LR- I B requirements
of 35' street, 35' side street, 10' sides, and 75' lakeshore.
Avera.ze lakeshore setback. Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique
relationships between homes. In this proposed subdivision, Lots I and 2 each have a hornesite
depicted that meets the 75' setback, as well as the average setback as defined by a line between
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 3 of 7
the existing residence at 800 North Arm and the existing residence at 790 North Arm. However,
a number of scenarios could result in encroachments of an average setback line that is redefined
as development of each new home occurs:
If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2, that changes the
average setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3, and would force
such replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on;
If the first home built is on Lot I and is placed farther west than shown, the average setback
for a home on Lot 2 would change.
If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3, and it's moved
further back in order to have house, decks, etc. meet the 75' setback, then the average
setback for Lot 2 would be affected, and potentially also the average setback for Lot I
The most logical solution here is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as part
of the subdivision approvals, and these would be in effect regardless how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average
setback lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Arm Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane,
although those homes are setback far enough so as to likely not be impacted, since proposed &
existing homes on Lots I and 3 are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. One additional
item for consideration: the proposed house site on Lot I appears to be nearer the lakeshore than
the home at 790 North Arm. Whether that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be
blocked by the house on Lot I appears unlikely, but should be reviewed.
Relationship to Surrounding Development
The proposed single-family development is similar in character to surrounding development. To
the immediate south, the homes on Windjammer Lane are all on approximately I acre lots. To the
north, lakeshore lots generally range in size from just under V2acre to as much as 1.3 acres. The
newly platted lots in Lakeview are within the 2 -acre zone and typically 2-2.5 acres in area.
General Site Characteristics
The westerly 2/3 of the property is generally open, while the steeply sloped bluff area along the
lakeshore of proposed Lot I is heavily wooded. The area around the existing house contains a
number of mature trees. The shape of the existing property is somewhat of a point jutting into
North Arm Bay, and as such has shoreline running north south and shoreline running east -west.
The linear shape of the property forces the proposed lots to be long and narrow in order for each
lot to have at least 140' of width. There are a few small areas of wetland along the northerly
shoreline which were delineated in 2011 but that information is being updated this spring; no
changes to the wetland boundaries are anticipated.
Lot Layout and Lot Standards
The property consists of a single tax parcels totaling 3.98 dry buildable acres, proposed to be
subdivided to create 3 single family lots. The subdivision layout of the site is dictated primarily
by the long, narrow shape of the parcel and the desire to create 3 conforming 1 -acre lots each
having lake access, and each with a building site that overlooks the lake.
The proposed house site on Lot 1 is located more than 30' from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30' of the top of bluff, and the top of bluff as depicted.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 4 of 7
For Lot 2, topography and the location (and maintenance needs) of the existing municipal sewer
lines are complicating factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from
north to south. See Exhibits C & D. The sewer lines consist of a gravity line flowing from south
to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very north end of the property at the
shore, which in turn pumps into a parallel forcemain that runs back up the hill adjacent to the
gravity line, discharging to a manhole in Windjammer Lane.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20' wide, and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75' setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse,
the actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department follows the dashed line on Exhibit
C for maintenance of the lift station, due to the topography. It is necessary on a regular basis to
bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance, and there is no other way to access the lift
station. The City needs to preserve this non -easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
The 40'x8O' "possible house" site depicted on Lot 2 is virtually the only area of Lot 2 that is a
desirable house location under the proposed subdivision layout; but also consider that it is likely a
house at this will be expected to have decks, patios, and a walkout configuration. City code will
disallow any grading or filling within the 75' zone, and there is barely 5 feet of elevation change
from the 75' line to the sewer easement. All of these factors dictate the need for careful and
creative house design for Lot 2.
Lot 3 contains the existing house, built in 1956 according to tax records. Replacing the house will
likely require it to move back from the lake some distance, as the 75' setback line appears to run
through the east side of the structure. With or without the proposed subdivision, an average
lakeshore setback variance would be required for replacement of this house, again suggesting that
this should be addressed as part of the plat approval process.
Road Layout and Standards
An initial question for discussion was whether the road serving the proposed 3 -lot development
should be public or private. During the sketch plan review it was indicated by the developer that
a private road would be most appropriate, and that is what is proposed.
Although only a small number of homes will be served, the City code requires for 3-6 lots a road
of 24' paved width in a 50' road corridor, ending in a 100' diameter cul-de-sac with 80' paved
width.
The road access onto North Arm Drive is at the outside of a curve, and would not be expected to
have any sight -distance concerns. At slightly less than 300 feet in length the cul-de-sac meets the
City's I 000 -foot maximum length limitation.
It is unknown at this time whether curb and gutter would be required in order to manage stormwater
runoff. Preliminary street design and grading information will be reviewed by the City Engineer
prior to the preliminary plat review by the City Council.
The proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835 Windjammer
Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private driveway at
that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800 North Arm has existed
at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic airphotos.
Conversion of the driveway to a road may have negative impacts to those neighbors, who have not
commented on the project as of this writing. Moving the private road further north to provide some
buffer might be feasible but would result in less usable street yard area for Lot 1.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 5 of 7
Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed
Assuming the road will be private, the City will require a Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement
over it. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well
as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. An
additional easement for sewer system maintenance would be appropriate to obtain as a condition
of subdivision approval.
Parks, Trails, Sidewalks; Park Dedication
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Ann Drive. No sidewalks exist in this
area of Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks nor anticipated park
needs relative to development of this property.
The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent
value in cash. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of
the standard Park Dedication Fee for 2 new building lots would be appropriate; because these are
lakeshore lots each with a predevelopment value of greater than $69,375, the park fee would be
capped at the maximum of $5,550 per lot, for a total Park Fee of $11,100.
Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees
Creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems.
Ponding areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be
creditable as dry buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD
review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier I of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject
to a maximum hardcover per lot of 25%.
The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee. The Trunk
Fee established in the 2016 Fee Schedule for I -acre zoning districts is $5,250 per acre for each
new lot being created, with a fee cap of 1.0 acre per new lot. Per Section 14-284, if the existing
residence is intended to remain (on Lot 3), only Lots I and 2 would be subject to the SW&DT Fee;
if the home on Lot 3 is intended to be removed, it would also be subject to the Fee. Therefore, the
total SW&DT Fee will be either $10,500 or $15,750.
Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. The property was assessed for 2
sewer units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. For the proposed
subdivision, no additional footage charge would be required, but a third sewer unit at the 2017
Connection Charge rate of $5,100 would be due upon final plat approval. (Note: this is the
reduced rate based on the 2017 Fee Schedule which established a standard connection fee for sewer
and water project areas past their 15 -year assessment period, a savings of more than $6,000
compared to the fee in 2016).
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots I and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as -is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding
sewer stubs to serve Lots I and 2 is likely necessary, and may be difficult, as the existing gravity
line is approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections
may be necessary.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Municipal water is not available and not planned to be extended to this area of Orono. Private
wells will be required.
Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted
The property contains a narrow strip of delineated wetland (updated delineation pending) along
the northerly shoreline, which would presumably remain untouched. The MCWD-required
wetland buffers would likely be coincident with and protected by the City's 75' lakeshore setback
requirements and hardcover/land alteration limitations. The City will require a Conservation and
Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands. Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal
sewer maintenance (discussed elsewhere in this memo) the City will require that buffer widths and
locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
Tree and/or Woodland Impacts
The site is relatively open, with the only significant wooded area being the steep slope (bluff) area
directly downhill from the proposed building site on Lot 1. As this wooded area is primarily within
the 75' setback zone and is within a bluff impact zone, only minimal clearing would be allowed
per Shoreland Ordinance Sections 78-1285. The developer is encouraged to preserve existing
vegetation to the extent possible. It is likely that connection to the municipal sewer along the shore
will require some disruption to the wooded area. Please review the discussion in the Conservation
Design Report (pages 3-4) regarding tree preservation.
Conservation Design
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design Report and recommendations prepared by
Lucas Mueller of ISG, Inc. (Exhibit F). The property has been reviewed in terms of the Rural
Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an inventory of the natural
resources on the site, discusses how the proposed site design interplays with existing features, and
establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive species control.
The report supports the proposed site layout and does not suggest the need for any site plan
revisions.
Archaeological Site Proximity
Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm.
Summary of Issues for Consideration
Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission
should include the following topics:
I . Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent
of when new homes get built on the site; with an eye toward not having negative impacts
to the average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot I and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
3. Discuss with applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot,
75' setback, average setback, and sewer easements (existing and needed).
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 7 of 7
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties,
and if so, are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts
if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of
the subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width
averaging.
6. A new sewer connections for Lots I and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for
the connection for Lot 3 over Lots I and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision
process.
7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should review the staff report as well as the submitted documentation. Hold
the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend approval with conditions that address
any concerns noted, or table for further information and/or revisions. Staff will not present this
application to the City Council for review until the updated wetland delineation has been
submitted.
Applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor as soon
as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 16 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #16-3883 Kevin Anderson/ James Franzel, 800 North Arm Drive —
Preliminary Plat — Resolution
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider a preliminary plat to subdivide a 4 acre
property into three lots.
2. 15.99 Deadline. The wetland delineation was completed on June 13, 2017; completing the
application. Action must be taken on this application by October 13, 2017.
3. Background/ Summary. The project is the subdivision of a 4 acre lot into three lots, all within a I
acre zone (LR-lB). Access to the three lots will be via a private cul de sac off of North Ann Drive. The
lots are within the MUSA, and will be served by private wells and public sanitary. The project is
consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of use and density.
The sanitary sewer system serving the project consists of two pipes, a gravity fed pipe running to an
existing lift station on the north line of lot 1, then to a pressure line running to the south line of proposed
lot 3. Both lines run through the project. The existing access path to the lift station is outside the original
easement, this is being corrected with this plat. The force main is drawn incorrectly, is stays within the
prescribed easement.
The Planning Commission staff report, attached as Exhibit D provides additional information on the plat.
Planning Commission vote and comment. Discussion at the staff and Planning Commission level
centered on the lot width of Lot 1. At the lake, the lot width is 100 feet; 140 feet is required. At the lake
setback line, the lot is +180 feet. The lot line could be angled to support the required lake frontage; the
applicant requests approval to avoid the lot line encroaching in front of the likely view of the lake for Lot
2. The Planning Commission discussed the average lake setback, and suggested that it be prescribed in
advance of building to ensure all lots were afforded protected lake views, regardless of when they are
constructed. The proposed house on Lot 2 does not need to angle to the north.
Other issues the Planning Commission discussed included the average lake setback, the bluff and visual
impact for lot 1.
After the public hearing on April 17, 2017, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the
preliminary plat, subject to several conditions. The Planning Commission did not support the lot width
variance for Lot 1.
4. Public Comment. One person spoke at the public hearing and had comments and concerns with the
eventual dock configuration and its impact on sightlines and LMCD rules, house impact the bluff on Lot 1,
and the views from 790 North Arm to the side of the house on Lot 1. The PC minutes are attached as
Exhibit C.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1) Revise plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1.
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
AGENDAITEM
2) Work with Public Works Department to identify, stake and show on survey an appropriate
corridor through the property for sewer maintenance vehicle access.
3) House on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet 75' lake setback.
4) Average setback for each of the lots will be per the conceptual building pads shown on
preliminary plat. However, once those initial homes are constructed, any future rebuild on any of
those lots must meet the average setback established per the standard method based on then -
existing adjacent lakeshore homes.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve, by resolution, the Preliminary Plat for Franzel Addition, 800 North Arm Drive.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Final PC Minutes
D. PC Staff Report
References
A. PC Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Prelim. Plat Drawing (4/11/17) & Prelim. Road & Grading Plan (10/ 19/16)
Exhibit C Sketch Highlighting Sewer Easements & Average Setback
Exhibit D. Sewer As Built (Airphoto)
Exhibit E. Site Airphotos
Exhibit F Conservation Design Report
Exhibit G. Plat Map
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit I. Sketch Plan Minutes 4/18/16
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W
Council
Exhibit A
16-3883
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING
APPROVAL
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
800 NORTH ARM ROAD
FILE NO. 16-3883
WHEREAS, Kevin Anderson, an individual (hereinafter the "Developer") is the
agent for James Franzel, an individual, the owner of the property at 800 North Ann Drive
(hereinafter the "Owner") within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described
as follows:
Lot 9, Auditors Subdivision No. 362 and Outlot 1, Pirates Cove
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested Preliminary Plat Approval for
subdivision of the Property for construction into 3 single family lots; and
ViTHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 the Developer completed their application
originally filed on October 19, 2016 for preliminary plat approval for the proposed subdivision of
the Property; and
WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing for the application and reviewed it on April 17, 2017, at which
time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to
speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on April 17, 2017 recommended on a vote
of 6-0 that the Council approve the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions and
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in regard to
this application for Preliminary Plat approval:
Page I
FINDINGS
The Property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and
is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and water. Municipal sewer
will serve the property.
2. The property contains approximately 4.02 gross acres.
3. Conservation Design. Pursuant to the City's Conservation Design ordinances the
Developer has submitted a Conservation Development report prepared by ISG
dated January 3, 2017. Key elements of the report include a Natural Resources
Inventory of the non -developing portions of the site including review of the
MLCCS Land Cover Classification data, wetland delineations (approved by the
MCVV`D), site vegetation review, and outlining of a basic Conservation Design
Master Plan.
4. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted. The property contains a small wetland
generally along the shoreline, primarily in Lot 1. This wetland is not proposed to
be impacted. The reported MCWD base buffer width requirement is reported as 25
feet.
The City code requires a minimum structure setback of 10' from the wetland buffer.
The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands
being preserved.
5. Streets. All 3 lots will be served by a new private cul de sac to be platted as an
Outlot and be constructed by the developer to City standards. All 3 lots will have
driveways accessing the new road system.
6. Easements Required. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around
all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the
delineated wetlands will be required. A new easement is proposed to provide for
vehicular access to the existing lift station serving the Project.
7. Park and Trail Dedication. There are no identifiable public parkland needs at this
location. However, development of the proposed housing will generate additional
use of existing City park facilities in the area. The Council finds that no park lands
need to be dedicated and the park dedication should be in the form of a Cash
Page 2
Contribution in Lieu of Lands as allowed by the Municipal Code. Additionally, the
Council finds that although no public trails along the property boundaries are
planned. Park dedication will be $11,100.00
8. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees. The property will be subject
to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee. The Trunk Fee established
in the 2016 Fee Schedule for I -acre zoning districts is $5,250 per acre for each new
lot being created, with a fee cap of 1.0 acre per new lot. Per Section 14-284, if the
existing residence is intended to remain (on Lot 3), only Lots I and 2 would be
subject to the SW&DT Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will be $10,500, based on the
2017 fee schedule.
9. Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees. The property was
assessed for 2 sewer units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer
project. For the proposed subdivision, no additional footage charge would be
required, but a third sewer unit at the 2017 Connection Charge rate of $5,100
would be due upon final plat approval.
10. The applicant has provided a Certificate of Survey and Preliminary Plat attached to
this Resolution as Exhibit B. Council finds that the plans submitted are generally
sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the
project.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Orono hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for development of the property at 800 North Ann
Drive subject to the following declarations and conditions:
A. Project Specific Conditions
1) Revise the plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1.
2) Work with Public Works Department to identify, stake and show on survey an
appropriate corridor through the property for sewer maintenance vehicle access.
3) House on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet 75' lake setback.
Page 3
4) Average setback for each of the lots will be per the conceptual building pads shown
on preliminary plat. However, once those initial homes are constructed, any future
rebuild on any of those lots must meet the average setback established per the
standard method based on then -existing adjacent lakeshore homes.
B. General conditions imposed on preliminary plats shall apply, and are as follow:
1) Significant trees identified to remain shall be protected with snow fence at the drip line,
and no material storage may occur within the fenced area.
2) Applicant to confirm with SHPO that that there are no archaeological sites within the
property.
3) Appropriate traffic control signage within and pertinent to the site shall be installed by
the Developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval.
4) Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that all requirements
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as administrator of the WCA regulations
on Orono's behalf, are complied with.
5) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas" and to the approved SWPPP. All erosion controls as
required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing grading
and excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in
working order until the site is vegetated and stabilized.
6) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any
construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the
construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall
mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing,
signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed.
7) The applicable general engineering comments and or conditions provided by City
Engineer Robert Bean dated July 21, 2016 and August 11, 2016 attached hereto as
Exhibit C shall be suitably addressed by applicant in the development plan submittal.
8) This approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this
approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the
Page 4
review process continues.
9) This Approval shall be effective until June 26, 2018 per the provisions of Zoning Code
Section78-628. If General Development Plan and Final Plat Approval is not granted
by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The
City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period.
C. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions:
1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including
any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided
to the City for final review and approval with the Final Plan set. The Public Works
Department and any other pertinent reviewing agencies shall review and approve all
utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and
are subject to approval by the Public Works Department and City Engineer.
2) Final Street and Storm Sewer Plans.
3) Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP showing existing and
proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and
calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction.
General Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans.
4) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review
progresses.
D. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as
follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the City
Administrator 2 weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second
and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows:
1). Record plat drawings in the forin of two (3) mylar copies (one copy for the City's
records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to V
200'. Drawing to include:
A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Gronberg
and Associates dated May 15, 2017attached hereto as Exhibit B,
Page 5
except as modified herein.
B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along exterior
property lines and 5' along the interior property lines.
C. Dedication of areas shown as wetlands.
D. Dedication of "Drainage Easements" over all drainageways
E. Name of plat.
2). Legal documents required:
A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor
of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property
interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents
affected by such interest.
B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded
easements currently affecting the property.
C. Signed Conservation and Flowage Easement to be granted over all
delineated wetlands on the plat.
D. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction
of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to
be provided in the Letter of Credit.
E. Signed Trail Easement over the northerly 10 feet of the property.
3). Final plat approval fee to be paid: Total due: $ 700.00
E. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the
successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the
City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the
development.
F. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial
guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City
Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not
limited to private streets, curb & gutter, sidewalks, storm sewers, landscaping,
grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks,
retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant
shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs.
Page 6
G. Fees. The following fees are due at the time of Final Plat approval.
Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The property will be subject to the
Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, due at the time of final plat approval. The fee,
based on the 2017 fee schedule, is 10,500.00.
Park Dedication The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public
park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The City Council has determined
there is no need for dedication of land from the proposed development. Therefore
the park dedication due at the time of Final Plat is $11, 100.
Sewer Connection Charges. Based on 2017 fee schedule, the fees are $5, 100.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this _ day of 12017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Page 7
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
FRANZEL ADDITION
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOJ
JAMES F_1�-, L-VZEL
OF LOT 9, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 362, AND OUTLOT 1, PIRATES COVE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
�,9005'
4�
I A
I "AMM
MINNETONKA
Council
Exhibit B
16-3883
NORTH ARM
00
-930
�D, 4
55" 'WLL"
7
iap\
4-- �SURVEY LINE
51 \OVA -934
___936-
\51 I
1pf-9, DOC. 929.4 CONTOUR-. 938
100+ LINE (O.H.W.)
0 V.7,
_70 EXISTING
............. ................................. ::., ��v 1
S, 940---- BUILDING
_100�_�
��WETLAND STAKE
of \,N By OTH
ERS (TYP)
G
12" ASH
102'.07
2X8" ASH
ED
A
DELINEATED BY
8
A
1.031 AC. TOTAL
--- #ASH 20#ASH
ERAGE- RTIL—D—ING —SE T BA CK J_ASGE OF WETLAND
— — — — -- OTHERS
+1 2
4" ASH 22' S
EXISTING 1.00+- AC. DRY 2S -75..
6� ..........
WOOD
HOUSE .. ...
#790 R!4 �* I I
le '— .1-76 7t.... WALL
xv-
0
FROM AERIAL PHOTO
7& 13.3
--950 6EE_CKJ—
_8"' 0,A q q
---------------- 7 R/P
A�) X #OA1'1
.14'
10, BAI#�000, 18"VALNU 0 10.0 3.0 3� 0
BASSWOOD
K FPORCH 170 EXISTING R/P
\ -, ��\ , . \ / �_ I- POSSIBLE
5AA kQ HOUSE
10'\BASSwoob,," SEPARINDER---.�( '4
/ / /PROPO
PUMP SEVER
11 BorSWOOD A) HOUSE" 929.4 CONTOUR
SqWCE
DECK
R/P
#800 --LINE (O.H.W.)
At
A� '.j.
%
# *'
�SSW�
Ir\ BASSW OD
70 1.07' 4.7
PROPOSE�N2'0' \SEWE`R-"*"" --7— A C. TOT A
/ /� � " \� 1.051 A C 4) RY
ACCESS E SEMEW, NO ",\ /0 1�1\ 1_� A ------ --------
, \ / 70 / : -----
ALNUT 10 4%
04 CN -4
o,40
_/39" 0
4" A 28" W 140
�QSSIBLE VITY X
1P
1. (5611\ PROPOSED GK(A
\,�SEWER SERVIC� J� CONCRETE DRIVEWAY '25.2
H04JSE
1.53+ AC. TOTAL
- Q, ----------- __—WOOD
0� Nq,
1.51+- AC. DRY 7" 3
STEP
Ilk
AAK30 OA
X
6k
19
SEWER�ASEME�T, P .........
r Tt--
NJ-
ER
d0o-�� DOC* NO* 148999'6 \%
. ...... i"o 0
00 04
.0
13" BASSWOOD\
_N_ A"X
*6'
poSSIBLE\DRIVEWAY
ow�
14ROPOStp
0 . 5 1 --- "_<
"N OF A�
%
Y. \ \
0, .0000.., DtYIDII�G
.\VA
10 SHE[
19;72- LINES,-�-
,.0-' 2811 SIL A_
M E
APL
000,
IQ N
-0, "0,000 Uqffl N OW 7" OAK
_,J 11 1. : : -1- . :�., . : , I A�
: 1: : : SETB 0?
LIN _S
BUILDING 0.391 AC. 35
SETBACK Q)
LINi
Qi
ES
Q)
oQi
I I - - - - - - - - 55- Q)
'00P
.........
— �Vy
oy 'D)
0
IS BE F -VI
cr
C?
go
J4
J
BLACK�OP`,�
0-0—
ROADWAY
66
NORTH
ARM
DRIVE
16097REVISED3.SCJ
DATE
3-14-17 PROPOSED DIVIDING LINES REVISED
4-11-17 REVISED LOT LINES
5-15-17 ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN
16-097
.........................
ADDRESS 800 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN
Area 4.02' Ac.
3.98'- Ac. Dry
Zoning = LR— 1 B
REMARKS
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision,
and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755
A '%,�
EXISTING SHED%
-7
W00— MH
SJNTX0" C),
c3oo 0
EXISTING,q A A a.-/- i I I \N 111111 � I
% _.- *'-*-,--.-. .................. 00
�ol GARAGE
6-- N C3
tA
o>
40. ()o - 00
00
00�1
001,
EXISTING
HOUSE
#830
FROM AERIAL PHOTO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 362, and Outlot 1, PIRATES COVE
o : denotes iron marker
—917 — —: denotes contour line, per city maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey
intends to show the boundaries of
the above
described property, the
location of
six existing buildings, driveway, deck,
porches,
topography from city maps,
the location
of all visible "hardcover", and the
proposed
location of two proposed
dividing lines, two possible houses, and adjacent
houses from aerial photos thereon.
It does not
purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. SCALE
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 111=30'
DATE
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN 55356 10-18-16
952-473-4141 JOB NO.
1 16-097
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit C
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16-3883
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT,
6:33 P.M. — 7:22 P.M.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a preliminary plat application for a 4 -acre property proposed to be developed into
three single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road and would be served
with municipal sewer and individual wells. The property is located on North Arm Drive just east of the
east end of the Lakeview Golf Course.
The property has frontage on North Arm Bay. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east
with steep slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition and the property contains an existing residence at the east end and a
number of outbuildings served by a 750 -foot driveway. The property is zoned LR -113, One Family
Lakeshore Residential District, and is guided in the Orono Community Management Plan for residential
use.
The current proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from the sketch plan review that was
conducted by the Planning Commission in April of 2016. It includes shortening of the private road. The
initial proposal showed the road further to the east. The lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes
that provide more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography but results in
the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot 1. Each of the three lots appears to meet the one acre
dry buildable requirement.
Lots 2 and 3 each meet the width requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75 -foot setback.
Lot I only meets the 140 -foot standard in the 75 -foot setback. The reason for the lot width variance
request is based on the topography and the desired orientation for the house on Lot 2. If the variance is
not allowed, the house on Lot 2 would have its main views overlooking a triangular lakeshore portion of
Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot I completely conforming. If the Planning
Commission is comfortable granting the variance, it should be clearly established why it is appropriate to
grant that variance in order to avoid setting a precedent.
Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique relationships between homes. In this proposed
subdivision, Lots I and 2 each have a home site that meets the 75 -foot setback as well as the average
setback when it is defined by the house at 790 North Arm and the existing house.
The following scenarios could happen based on the City's current setback ordinance:
If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2, that changes the average
setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3 and would force such
replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on.
2. If the first home built is on Lot I and is placed farther west than shown, the average setback for
a home on Lot 2 would change.
Page 1 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3 and it is moved further
back in order to have a house, decks, etc. meet the 75 -foot setback, then the average setback for
Lot 2 would be affected and potentially also the average setback for Lot 1.
Gaffton stated the most logical solution is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as
part of the subdivision approvals. These would be in effect regardless of how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average setback
lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Ann Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane. Those homes
are set back far enough so as to likely not be impacted since proposed and existing homes on Lots I and 3
are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. The Planning Commission should consider whether the
proposed house site on Lot I will be nearer the lakeshore than the home at 790 North Arm and whether
that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be blocked by the house on Lot 1.
The proposed home site on Lot I is located more than 30 feet from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30 feet of the top of bluff and the top of bluff as depicted.
As it relates to Lot 2, the topography and location of the existing municipal sewer lines are complicating
factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from north to south. The sewer lines
consist of a gravity line flowing from south to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very
north end of the property at the shore.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20 feet wide and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75 -foot setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse, the
actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department is also located in this area. It is necessary on a
regular basis to bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance since there is no other way to access
the lift station. The City needs to preserve this non -easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
Lot 3 contains the existing house. Replacing the house will likely require it to move back from the lake
some distance, as the 75 -foot setback line appears to run through the east side of the structure. With or
without the proposed subdivision, an average lakeshore setback variance would be required for
replacement of this house.
The developer is proposing the road be private. Even though only a small number of homes will be
served, City code requires for 3-6 lots a 24 -foot paved road within a 50 -foot road corridor, ending in a
100 -foot diameter cul-de-sac with 80 feet paved width. At slightly less than 300 feet in length, the cul-de-
sac meets the City's I 000 -foot maximum length limitation.
In. addition, the proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835
Windjammer Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private
driveway at that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800 North Arm has
existed at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic air photos.
Moving the private road further north to provide some buffer might be feasible but would result in a less
usable street yard area for Lot 1.
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Arm Drive. No sidewalks exist in this area of
Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks or anticipated park needs relative to
development of this property. The total park fees would be $11,100.
Page 2 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems. Ponding
areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be credited as dry
buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier 1 of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject to a
maximum hardcover per lot of 25 percent.
The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will
be either $10,500 or $15,750 and is dependent on whether the existing house will remain.
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. This property was assessed for two sewer
units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. A third sewer unit at the 2017 connection
charge rate of $5, 100 would be due upon final plat approval.
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots I and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding sewer
stubs to serve Lots I and 2 is likely necessary but may be difficult since the existing gravity line is
approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections may be
necessary. Private wells will be required.
There is a narrow wetland located on the north side of the property delineated in 2011. The applicants
have not been able to find the paperwork on that delineation and are planning to have the wetland re -
delineated in the spring. No changes are anticipated. There will likely be buffer setbacks required from
the MCWD. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands.
Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal sewer maintenance, the City will require that buffer
widths and locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design report and recommendations. The property has been
reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an
inventory of the natural resources on the site, discussed how the proposed site design interplays with
existing features, and establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive
species control. It is likely some of the trees will need to be removed as a result of construction of the
road and driveways.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent of
when new homes get built on the site, with an eye toward not having negative impacts to the
average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot 1 and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
Discuss with the applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot, the
75 -foot setback, the average setback, and sewer easements.
Page 3 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties, and if so,
are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of the
subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width averaging.
6. A new sewer connection for Lots 1 and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for the
connection for Lot 3 over Lots 1 and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision process.
The Planning Commission should review the Staff report as well as the submitted documentation. The
Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and then make a recommendation for either
approval or denial. Staff will not present this application to the City Council for review until the updated
wetland delineation has been submitted.
In addition, the applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor
as soon as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
Lemke asked if there is any advantage to having the cul-de-sac go in so far.
Gaftron stated that results in shorter driveways but noted the cul-de-sac could be shortened up further. If
the area on the west side of Lot I has value as yard, changing the length of the cul-de-sac might change
the nature of the yard.
Landgraver asked if there is precedent for the city maintenance road.
Gaftron stated it is likely there are other places where the Public Works Department has to drive over
private property to maintain the sewer system since the City has approximately 40 lift stations. There is
an agreement currently for maintenance of this road up to a certain point and that agreement will have to
be revised.
Landgraver commented it is possible to envision friction between the homeowners and the maintenance
workers given that situation. Landgraver noted the existing sewer gravity line goes from Lot 3 downhill
and that it looks like there is a rain garden on top of that.
Gaftron stated the expectation would be that that sewer line would need to be moved.
Thiesse asked if the 40' x 80' house footprint standard.
Gaffron noted they are shown as a possible house and that the homes that are being built today have a
number of angles. Gaftron stated it is unlikely someone will construct a house that is rectangular in
shape.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, stated in regards to relocating the house on Lot 2. it gets pretty tight given all
the different angles and that they have reworked the lot lines significantly to try to provide as much
flexibility as possible.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.
Page 4 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Ray Wahlender, 1070 Tonkawa Road, stated he is one of the owners of 800 North Ann. Wahlender
stated while he is generally positive about the prospect for improvements on this property, in his view
splitting this parcel into three lots is quite a stretch and that there are a lot of contortions being done to try
to achieve three lakeshore lots.
Wahlender stated the developer will have some real problems with lake access for Lot I and that he
knows from personal experience that it is too shallow to catch pan fish in that area. Wahlender indicated
it is a wetland area that seeps into a marshy wetland area and that you cannot get a pontoon in there. If
you look at the contours with 790 North Arm, any dock that is installed will likely violate the provisions
of LMCD Section 201, Subdivision 213, which requires that any slip which opens towards a sight line be
20 feet back from that sight line. Wahlender stated in his view it will be problematic to try to get a dock
in there parallel to the sight line, and in order to get it out to any sort of depth, it would probably violate
the sight line for Lot 2. Wahlender stated calling it a lakeshore lot is problematic for them and that it
appears to be jammed in there.
With regards to Lot 2, Wahlender stated he also believe that has some shallow areas and it would be
difficult to get a boat in and out of there. Wahlender commented putting two lakeshore lots on the north
side of the peninsula sounds like a recipe for people fighting about dock placement.
Wahlender stated if one were to construct a house of any height right there on Lot 1, it would block the
light to the adjoining property's back yard. There will also likely be issues with runoff given the close
proximity of the house. Over time that blockage of light and possible drainage issues are going to create a
much damper back yard. If you go from what is immediately behind 790 North Arm, there is a steep
drop-off right before the lakeshore that goes down to a little grassy area just above the lakeshore, which is
where the pump station is. Wahlender stated he would want somebody to take a look at that, because if
there is too much moisture, the area could slide down. Wahlender stated it has ramifications to 800 North
Arm and the sewer system that is located down there, which is very concerning to them.
Wahlender stated on the very south end of 790 North Arm there is a very nice screened in porch that does
have some view of the lakeshore. Based on the placement of the house on Lot 1, it is very likely that they
will be looking at HVAC systems, generators, exhaust pipes and things of that nature. Wahlender stated
he would not like that either.
Wahlender stated it appears they are wedging three parcels where it would be better if there were only
two lots. Wahlender requested the City look into some of these issues prior to approving anything and
that he would also be happy to discuss this with the property owners.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would like to start with the average setback. Thiesse stated he would like to see that
average setback maintained until the first two homes are constructed, at which time it comes back to the
City for review. Thiesse asked if the City has any control over mandating that a new house be pulled
back behind the 75 -foot line if the existing house is reconstructed.
Gaffron stated to his belief the City can do that. Gaffron stated assuming there was no subdivision, the
existing house is way forward of the average setback. Once there is a subdivision, depending on how
many lots there are, he does not believe there is any way that the existing house will be behind the
Page 5 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
average setback line. Gaffron indicated it would have to be pushed back if it is rebuilt in order to meet
the setback to the lake unless some special arrangements are made now.
Thiesse stated he would like to see the same footprint on all the homes and that he would like the house to
be out of the 75 -foot setback. Thiesse stated because this is a peninsula, to his knowledge the City has
been a little more lenient on the average lakeshore setback, but that he would like it out of the 75 -foot
area.
Lemke noted if they rebuild in kind, it can be rebuilt in exactly the same location.
Gaffron stated it is very unlikely that someone will rebuild that house in kind to the extent in kind means
the same shape, the same rooflines, etc.
Thiesse stated if a house on any lot is built, that house could establish the setback and not the building pad
where the existing house is.
Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about the lot width variance.
Leskinen stated she does not see a compelling reason to create a nonconforming lot, especially since the
City historically has not done that.
Thiesse noted there is no practical difficulty.
Landgraver stated the house will be pretty far back on the bluff and that this is a way of securing visibility
for Lot 1. Landgraver concurred that there is not a strong argument for creating a nonconforming lot and
that Lot 2 also has a number of constraints.
Thiesse stated it is difficult to come up with a practical difficulty for the variance since there is adequate
space. Thiesse stated in his view they should be measuring from where the house is rather than at the
shoreline but that is not what the ordinance says.
Landgraver stated it appears the house on Lot 2 will be tight but that it may be possible to orient it to
maximize views.
Thiesse noted the building pad is proposed to consist of 3,200 square feet. Thiesse asked whether there
will be headlights shining into the proposed house on Lot 2.
Anderson indicated there will be.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on Item 4, which is significant impacts of the
road location to adjoining properties.
Leskinen stated having shortened the cul-de-sac makes a big difference.
Thiesse asked if the developer has looked at pulling it further back.
Anderson indicated he has not.
Page 6 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated in regards to Item 5, the City does need an easement to access the lift station.
Gaffron noted Staff has recommended that the applicant meet with the Public Works supervisor to discuss
that. Staff has suggested the applicant's surveyor stake the easement and depict the easement on the
survey since he is familiar with the property. Gaffron stated this issue has existed for a long time, and if
this was not a subdivision application, this discussion would not be happening.
Lemke asked if there would have to be any type of treatment to make it an accessible road.
Gaffron stated there would need to be a sufficient road base to drive a loaded truck over it. Gaffron
commented the topography is such that the trucks cannot traverse much of a side slope and that it is
critical to identify a route.
Leskinen commented she recalls a very lengthy discussion about this last year and that to her recollection
the consensus was that it needs to be where it is.
Thiesse noted Item 6 relates to new sewer connections for Lots 1 and 2. Thiesse asked if the developer
has a plan for how sewer will be provided.
Anderson indicated not at this point.
Thiesse stated that is a piece of information that will need to be provided and addressed.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on the issues expressed by Mr. Wahlender.
Thiesse stated this area is not a lot different from other areas on North Arm and that there are some areas
that are inaccessible.
Wahlender stated based on his experience, the dock would need to be extended way back and that they
would have to go out into the main part of the channel and then come back in. As you go southeast along
the shoreline, it is very shallow.
Thiesse noted that is outside of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and that the LMCD will need to
look at it.
Gaffron stated the applicant will need to speak with the LMCD and that the City would not be involved in
that.
Thiesse asked if the developer is requesting any variances for the house on Lot 1.
Gaffron noted there is a 30 -foot setback from top of bluff and that the proposed house meets the side
setbacks as well as street. Gaffron stated the depicted rectangle meets code standards, but the question is
whether someone would be doing a disserve to the neighborhood if they construct right up to the 10 -foot
setback.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern is that light and air come into play when asking for a variance. Thiesse
asked if those two things come into play when a variance is not being requested.
Page 7 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaftron stated he is not aware of a situation in the past where that was a factor when someone was
meeting the setback requirements as well as the height requirement. Across the bay there was a situation
where someone was building a house that did meet the City's height requirement and the neighbors had
an issue with someone building a house that would block their garden. Gaffron commented it is unusual
for the City to take that into account, especially when a variance is not being requested.
Wahlender stated if you add in the fact that a house is constructed directly to the north of the yard and the
drainage is altered along the ridge, he would have some questions about the structural integrity of the
drop-off. Wahlender stated if the house is tall enough, that will make it very soggy back there and there
will be very soggy ground that overlooks the sloped pitch which overlooks the lift station. Wahlender
stated in his view those are some important issues that the Planning Commission needs to look at.
Lemke asked if the house location is exactly 30 feet back from the bluff.
Gaffron illustrated the 30 -foot setback on the survey and noted that the house could be moved to be as
much as 20 or 30 feet away from the lot line.
Landgraver stated the solution seems to be to simply move the house on Lot 1, depending on its size, to
allow ample light to that area.
Thiesse asked if it is possible to move the house over.
Anderson indicated that would make the most sense and that the people that he has talked to about this lot
would like to construct a walkout rambler.
Landgraver stated the other item that would be favorably viewed is some landscaping that would help
screen the area.
Thiesse suggested some contours also be provided showing how the drainage will work.
Landgraver moved to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3883, Kevin Anderson, 800
North Arm Drive, granting of preliminary plat approval and denial of a lot width variance, with
the average lakeshore setback being established by the existing houses as constructed with the
original plat and subject to Staff recommendations.
Gaffron noted if the house on Lot 3 is torn down, it will need to meet the 75 -foot setback. Gaffron asked
whether that house should meet the average setback as defined by 830 North Ann.
Thiesse stated it probably cannot.
Landgraver asked if the objective is to make it conform.
Thiesse indicated it is to get it out of the 75 -foot zone.
Schwingler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Page 8 of 8
Date Application Received: 10/20/16
Date Application Considered as Complete: 3/23/17*
120 -Day Review Period Expires: 7/21/17*
*Pending Updated Wetland Delineation
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner
Date: April 17, 2017
Council
Exhibit D
16-3883
Subject: #16-3883 Kevin Anderson / James Franzel, 800 North Arm Drive —
- Preliminary Plat
- Public hearing
Application Summary: This is a preliminary plat for a 4 -acre property proposed to be
developed into 3 single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road
and would be served with municipal sewer and individual wells.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should review the staff report as well as the
submitted documentation. Hold the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend
approval with conditions or table for further information and/or revisions.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
ExhibitB. Prelim. Plat Drawing (4/11/17) &Prelim. Road& Grading Plan (10/19/16)
Exhibit C Sketch Highlighting Sewer Easements & Average Setback
Exhibit D. Sewer As Built (Airphoto)
Exhibit E. Site Airphotos
Exhibit F. Conservation Design Report
Exhibit G. Plat Map
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit I. Sketch Plan Minutes 4/18/16
Zoning District: LR- I B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre/ 140' width)
CMP Land Use Designation: Low -Medium Density Residential — 2-3 units/acre
Existing Property Area: 4.02 ac. (Wetland: 0.04 ac. Dry: 3.98 ac.)
Background
The property under review is on the cast side of North Ann Drive, near the southeast comer of the
Lakeview development. It has frontage on North Arm Bay. The property to the immediate north
at 790 North Arm is also a lake lot, while the properties to the immediate south include two off
lake lots and a lakeshore lot. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east, with steep
slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition. The property contains an existing residence and a number of
outbuildings, served by a 700' long driveway along the south lot line.
The property is zoned LR -113, One Family Lakeshore Residential, and is guided in the Orono
Community Management Plan (CMP) for residential use. The property is located within the
MUSA and is intended to be served with public sanitary sewer and private wells.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 2 of 7
This property was the subject of a sketch plan review in April 2016 (minutes attached). The current
proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from that review, including shortening of the
private road and cul-de-sac length. Lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes that provide
more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography. However, the
result is the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot I (discussed below).
Lot & Outlot Areas
Wetland (acres)
Total Dry (acres)
Total Wet + Dry (acres)
Lot 1
0.01
1.52
1.53
Lot 2
0.03
1.00
1.03
Lot 3
0.01
1.06
1.07
Total in Lots 1-3
0.05
3.58
3.63
Outlot A (Private Road)
0.00
0.39
0.39
Totals
0.05
3.97
4.02
Conformity with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan Update
The proposed subdivision would generally be in conformity with the 2030 CMP which guides the
property for low -medium density single family residential use.
Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements
The LR- I B District, allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 1.0 dry
buildable acres, and minimum lot width of 140' measured at the shoreline and at the 75' lakeshore
setback line. Each of the three lots appears to meet the 1.00 acre dry buildable requirement. Lots
2 and 3 each appear to meet the width requirement for lakeshore lots, while Lot I only meets the
140' standard at the 75' setback line.
Lot width measurement for lakeshore lots is defined in the zoning code as follows: "Lot width
means the horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at the following locations: (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 setbackfrom
the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines
with the structure setback line. "
Applicants are requesting a lot width variance for Lot 1, which is only 100' in width at the
shoreline. The reason for this request is based on the topography and desired orientation of the
house on Lot 2. While there is sufficient lakeshore such that each lot could meet the 140' width
at the shore, the probable orientation of the house on Lot 2 would have its primary views directly
to the north. If the variance is not allowed, the house on Lot 2 will have its main views overlooking
a triangular lakeshore portion of Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot I
completely conforming. Planning Commission should discuss whether this variance is justified.
If so, the reasons for an approval recommendation must clearly establish why this is appropriate
at this location for this subdivision while it would not generally be allowed. The intent would be
to not establish a precedent.
The setback lines depicted on the survey would appear to meet the minimum LR- I B requirements
of 35' street, 35' side street, 10' sides, and 75' lakeshore.
Avera.ze lakeshore setback. Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique
relationships between homes. In this proposed subdivision, Lots I and 2 each have a hornesite
depicted that meets the 75' setback, as well as the average setback as defined by a line between
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 3 of 7
the existing residence at 800 North Arm and the existing residence at 790 North Arm. However,
a number of scenarios could result in encroachments of an average setback line that is redefined
as development of each new home occurs:
If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2, that changes the
average setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3, and would force
such replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on;
If the first home built is on Lot I and is placed farther west than shown, the average setback
for a home on Lot 2 would change.
If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3, and it's moved
further back in order to have house, decks, etc. meet the 75' setback, then the average
setback for Lot 2 would be affected, and potentially also the average setback for Lot I
The most logical solution here is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as part
of the subdivision approvals, and these would be in effect regardless how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average
setback lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Arm Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane,
although those homes are setback far enough so as to likely not be impacted, since proposed &
existing homes on Lots I and 3 are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. One additional
item for consideration: the proposed house site on Lot I appears to be nearer the lakeshore than
the home at 790 North Arm. Whether that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be
blocked by the house on Lot I appears unlikely, but should be reviewed.
Relationship to Surrounding Development
The proposed single-family development is similar in character to surrounding development. To
the immediate south, the homes on Windjammer Lane are all on approximately I acre lots. To the
north, lakeshore lots generally range in size from just under V2acre to as much as 1.3 acres. The
newly platted lots in Lakeview are within the 2 -acre zone and typically 2-2.5 acres in area.
General Site Characteristics
The westerly 2/3 of the property is generally open, while the steeply sloped bluff area along the
lakeshore of proposed Lot I is heavily wooded. The area around the existing house contains a
number of mature trees. The shape of the existing property is somewhat of a point jutting into
North Arm Bay, and as such has shoreline running north south and shoreline running east -west.
The linear shape of the property forces the proposed lots to be long and narrow in order for each
lot to have at least 140' of width. There are a few small areas of wetland along the northerly
shoreline which were delineated in 2011 but that information is being updated this spring; no
changes to the wetland boundaries are anticipated.
Lot Layout and Lot Standards
The property consists of a single tax parcels totaling 3.98 dry buildable acres, proposed to be
subdivided to create 3 single family lots. The subdivision layout of the site is dictated primarily
by the long, narrow shape of the parcel and the desire to create 3 conforming 1 -acre lots each
having lake access, and each with a building site that overlooks the lake.
The proposed house site on Lot 1 is located more than 30' from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30' of the top of bluff, and the top of bluff as depicted.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 4 of 7
For Lot 2, topography and the location (and maintenance needs) of the existing municipal sewer
lines are complicating factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from
north to south. See Exhibits C & D. The sewer lines consist of a gravity line flowing from south
to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very north end of the property at the
shore, which in turn pumps into a parallel forcemain that runs back up the hill adjacent to the
gravity line, discharging to a manhole in Windjammer Lane.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20' wide, and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75' setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse,
the actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department follows the dashed line on Exhibit
C for maintenance of the lift station, due to the topography. It is necessary on a regular basis to
bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance, and there is no other way to access the lift
station. The City needs to preserve this non -easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
The 40'x8O' "possible house" site depicted on Lot 2 is virtually the only area of Lot 2 that is a
desirable house location under the proposed subdivision layout; but also consider that it is likely a
house at this will be expected to have decks, patios, and a walkout configuration. City code will
disallow any grading or filling within the 75' zone, and there is barely 5 feet of elevation change
from the 75' line to the sewer easement. All of these factors dictate the need for careful and
creative house design for Lot 2.
Lot 3 contains the existing house, built in 1956 according to tax records. Replacing the house will
likely require it to move back from the lake some distance, as the 75' setback line appears to run
through the east side of the structure. With or without the proposed subdivision, an average
lakeshore setback variance would be required for replacement of this house, again suggesting that
this should be addressed as part of the plat approval process.
Road Layout and Standards
An initial question for discussion was whether the road serving the proposed 3 -lot development
should be public or private. During the sketch plan review it was indicated by the developer that
a private road would be most appropriate, and that is what is proposed.
Although only a small number of homes will be served, the City code requires for 3-6 lots a road
of 24' paved width in a 50' road corridor, ending in a 100' diameter cul-de-sac with 80' paved
width.
The road access onto North Arm Drive is at the outside of a curve, and would not be expected to
have any sight -distance concerns. At slightly less than 300 feet in length the cul-de-sac meets the
City's I 000 -foot maximum length limitation.
It is unknown at this time whether curb and gutter would be required in order to manage stormwater
runoff. Preliminary street design and grading information will be reviewed by the City Engineer
prior to the preliminary plat review by the City Council.
The proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835 Windjammer
Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private driveway at
that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800 North Arm has existed
at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic airphotos.
Conversion of the driveway to a road may have negative impacts to those neighbors, who have not
commented on the project as of this writing. Moving the private road further north to provide some
buffer might be feasible but would result in less usable street yard area for Lot 1.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 5 of 7
Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed
Assuming the road will be private, the City will require a Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement
over it. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well
as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. An
additional easement for sewer system maintenance would be appropriate to obtain as a condition
of subdivision approval.
Parks, Trails, Sidewalks; Park Dedication
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Ann Drive. No sidewalks exist in this
area of Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks nor anticipated park
needs relative to development of this property.
The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent
value in cash. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of
the standard Park Dedication Fee for 2 new building lots would be appropriate; because these are
lakeshore lots each with a predevelopment value of greater than $69,375, the park fee would be
capped at the maximum of $5,550 per lot, for a total Park Fee of $11,100.
Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees
Creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems.
Ponding areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be
creditable as dry buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD
review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier I of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject
to a maximum hardcover per lot of 25%.
The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee. The Trunk
Fee established in the 2016 Fee Schedule for I -acre zoning districts is $5,250 per acre for each
new lot being created, with a fee cap of 1.0 acre per new lot. Per Section 14-284, if the existing
residence is intended to remain (on Lot 3), only Lots I and 2 would be subject to the SW&DT Fee;
if the home on Lot 3 is intended to be removed, it would also be subject to the Fee. Therefore, the
total SW&DT Fee will be either $10,500 or $15,750.
Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. The property was assessed for 2
sewer units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. For the proposed
subdivision, no additional footage charge would be required, but a third sewer unit at the 2017
Connection Charge rate of $5,100 would be due upon final plat approval. (Note: this is the
reduced rate based on the 2017 Fee Schedule which established a standard connection fee for sewer
and water project areas past their 15 -year assessment period, a savings of more than $6,000
compared to the fee in 2016).
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots I and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as -is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding
sewer stubs to serve Lots I and 2 is likely necessary, and may be difficult, as the existing gravity
line is approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections
may be necessary.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Municipal water is not available and not planned to be extended to this area of Orono. Private
wells will be required.
Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted
The property contains a narrow strip of delineated wetland (updated delineation pending) along
the northerly shoreline, which would presumably remain untouched. The MCWD-required
wetland buffers would likely be coincident with and protected by the City's 75' lakeshore setback
requirements and hardcover/land alteration limitations. The City will require a Conservation and
Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands. Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal
sewer maintenance (discussed elsewhere in this memo) the City will require that buffer widths and
locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
Tree and/or Woodland Impacts
The site is relatively open, with the only significant wooded area being the steep slope (bluff) area
directly downhill from the proposed building site on Lot 1. As this wooded area is primarily within
the 75' setback zone and is within a bluff impact zone, only minimal clearing would be allowed
per Shoreland Ordinance Sections 78-1285. The developer is encouraged to preserve existing
vegetation to the extent possible. It is likely that connection to the municipal sewer along the shore
will require some disruption to the wooded area. Please review the discussion in the Conservation
Design Report (pages 3-4) regarding tree preservation.
Conservation Design
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design Report and recommendations prepared by
Lucas Mueller of ISG, Inc. (Exhibit F). The property has been reviewed in terms of the Rural
Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an inventory of the natural
resources on the site, discusses how the proposed site design interplays with existing features, and
establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive species control.
The report supports the proposed site layout and does not suggest the need for any site plan
revisions.
Archaeological Site Proximity
Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm.
Summary of Issues for Consideration
Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission
should include the following topics:
I . Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent
of when new homes get built on the site; with an eye toward not having negative impacts
to the average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot I and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
3. Discuss with applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot,
75' setback, average setback, and sewer easements (existing and needed).
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 7 of 7
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties,
and if so, are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts
if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of
the subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width
averaging.
6. A new sewer connections for Lots I and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for
the connection for Lot 3 over Lots I and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision
process.
7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should review the staff report as well as the submitted documentation. Hold
the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend approval with conditions that address
any concerns noted, or table for further information and/or revisions. Staff will not present this
application to the City Council for review until the updated wetland delineation has been
submitted.
Applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor as soon
as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
Council
Exhibit A
16-3883
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING
APPROVAL
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
800 NORTH ARM ROAD
FILE NO. 16-3883
WHEREAS, Kevin Anderson, an individual (hereinafter the "Developer") is the
agent for James Franzel, an individual, the owner of the property at 800 North Ann Drive
(hereinafter the "Owner") within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described
as follows:
Lot 9, Auditors Subdivision No. 362 and Outlot 1, Pirates Cove
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested Preliminary Plat Approval for
subdivision of the Property for construction into 3 single family lots; and
ViTHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 the Developer completed their application
originally filed on October 19, 2016 for preliminary plat approval for the proposed subdivision of
the Property; and
WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing for the application and reviewed it on April 17, 2017, at which
time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to
speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on April 17, 2017 recommended on a vote
of 6-0 that the Council approve the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions and
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in regard to
this application for Preliminary Plat approval:
Page I
FINDINGS
The Property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and
is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and water. Municipal sewer
will serve the property.
2. The property contains approximately 4.02 gross acres.
3. Conservation Design. Pursuant to the City's Conservation Design ordinances the
Developer has submitted a Conservation Development report prepared by ISG
dated January 3, 2017. Key elements of the report include a Natural Resources
Inventory of the non -developing portions of the site including review of the
MLCCS Land Cover Classification data, wetland delineations (approved by the
MCVV`D), site vegetation review, and outlining of a basic Conservation Design
Master Plan.
4. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted. The property contains a small wetland
generally along the shoreline, primarily in Lot 1. This wetland is not proposed to
be impacted. The reported MCWD base buffer width requirement is reported as 25
feet.
The City code requires a minimum structure setback of 10' from the wetland buffer.
The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands
being preserved.
5. Streets. All 3 lots will be served by a new private cul de sac to be platted as an
Outlot and be constructed by the developer to City standards. All 3 lots will have
driveways accessing the new road system.
6. Easements Required. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around
all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the
delineated wetlands will be required. A new easement is proposed to provide for
vehicular access to the existing lift station serving the Project.
7. Park and Trail Dedication. There are no identifiable public parkland needs at this
location. However, development of the proposed housing will generate additional
use of existing City park facilities in the area. The Council finds that no park lands
need to be dedicated and the park dedication should be in the form of a Cash
Page 2
Contribution in Lieu of Lands as allowed by the Municipal Code. Additionally, the
Council finds that although no public trails along the property boundaries are
planned. Park dedication will be $11,100.00
8. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees. The property will be subject
to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee. The Trunk Fee established
in the 2016 Fee Schedule for I -acre zoning districts is $5,250 per acre for each new
lot being created, with a fee cap of 1.0 acre per new lot. Per Section 14-284, if the
existing residence is intended to remain (on Lot 3), only Lots I and 2 would be
subject to the SW&DT Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will be $10,500, based on the
2017 fee schedule.
9. Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees. The property was
assessed for 2 sewer units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer
project. For the proposed subdivision, no additional footage charge would be
required, but a third sewer unit at the 2017 Connection Charge rate of $5,100
would be due upon final plat approval.
10. The applicant has provided a Certificate of Survey and Preliminary Plat attached to
this Resolution as Exhibit B. Council finds that the plans submitted are generally
sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the
project.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Orono hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for development of the property at 800 North Ann
Drive subject to the following declarations and conditions:
A. Project Specific Conditions
1) Revise the plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1.
2) Work with Public Works Department to identify, stake and show on survey an
appropriate corridor through the property for sewer maintenance vehicle access.
3) House on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet 75' lake setback.
Page 3
4) Average setback for each of the lots will be per the conceptual building pads shown
on preliminary plat. However, once those initial homes are constructed, any future
rebuild on any of those lots must meet the average setback established per the
standard method based on then -existing adjacent lakeshore homes.
B. General conditions imposed on preliminary plats shall apply, and are as follow:
1) Significant trees identified to remain shall be protected with snow fence at the drip line,
and no material storage may occur within the fenced area.
2) Applicant to confirm with SHPO that that there are no archaeological sites within the
property.
3) Appropriate traffic control signage within and pertinent to the site shall be installed by
the Developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval.
4) Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that all requirements
of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as administrator of the WCA regulations
on Orono's behalf, are complied with.
5) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas" and to the approved SWPPP. All erosion controls as
required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing grading
and excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in
working order until the site is vegetated and stabilized.
6) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any
construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the
construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall
mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing,
signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed.
7) The applicable general engineering comments and or conditions provided by City
Engineer Robert Bean dated July 21, 2016 and August 11, 2016 attached hereto as
Exhibit C shall be suitably addressed by applicant in the development plan submittal.
8) This approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this
approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the
Page 4
review process continues.
9) This Approval shall be effective until June 26, 2018 per the provisions of Zoning Code
Section78-628. If General Development Plan and Final Plat Approval is not granted
by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The
City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period.
C. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions:
1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including
any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided
to the City for final review and approval with the Final Plan set. The Public Works
Department and any other pertinent reviewing agencies shall review and approve all
utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and
are subject to approval by the Public Works Department and City Engineer.
2) Final Street and Storm Sewer Plans.
3) Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP showing existing and
proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and
calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction.
General Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans.
4) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review
progresses.
D. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as
follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the City
Administrator 2 weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second
and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows:
1). Record plat drawings in the forin of two (3) mylar copies (one copy for the City's
records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to V
200'. Drawing to include:
A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Gronberg
and Associates dated May 15, 2017attached hereto as Exhibit B,
Page 5
except as modified herein.
B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along exterior
property lines and 5' along the interior property lines.
C. Dedication of areas shown as wetlands.
D. Dedication of "Drainage Easements" over all drainageways
E. Name of plat.
2). Legal documents required:
A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor
of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property
interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents
affected by such interest.
B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded
easements currently affecting the property.
C. Signed Conservation and Flowage Easement to be granted over all
delineated wetlands on the plat.
D. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction
of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to
be provided in the Letter of Credit.
E. Signed Trail Easement over the northerly 10 feet of the property.
3). Final plat approval fee to be paid: Total due: $ 700.00
E. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the
successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the
City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the
development.
F. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial
guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City
Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not
limited to private streets, curb & gutter, sidewalks, storm sewers, landscaping,
grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks,
retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant
shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs.
Page 6
G. Fees. The following fees are due at the time of Final Plat approval.
Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The property will be subject to the
Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, due at the time of final plat approval. The fee,
based on the 2017 fee schedule, is 10,500.00.
Park Dedication The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public
park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The City Council has determined
there is no need for dedication of land from the proposed development. Therefore
the park dedication due at the time of Final Plat is $11, 100.
Sewer Connection Charges. Based on 2017 fee schedule, the fees are $5, 100.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this _ day of 12017.
ATTEST:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
Page 7
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
FRANZEL ADDITION
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOJ
JAMES F_1�-, L-VZEL
OF LOT 9, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 362, AND OUTLOT 1, PIRATES COVE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
�,9005'
4�
I A
I "AMM
MINNETONKA
Council
Exhibit B
16-3883
NORTH ARM
00
-930
�D, 4
55" 'WLL"
7
iap\
4-- �SURVEY LINE
51 \OVA -934
___936-
\51 I
1pf-9, DOC. 929.4 CONTOUR-. 938
100+ LINE (O.H.W.)
0 V.7,
_70 EXISTING
............. ................................. ::., ��v 1
S, 940---- BUILDING
_100�_�
��WETLAND STAKE
of \,N By OTH
ERS (TYP)
G
12" ASH
102'.07
2X8" ASH
ED
A
DELINEATED BY
8
A
1.031 AC. TOTAL
--- #ASH 20#ASH
ERAGE- RTIL—D—ING —SE T BA CK J_ASGE OF WETLAND
— — — — -- OTHERS
+1 2
4" ASH 22' S
EXISTING 1.00+- AC. DRY 2S -75..
6� ..........
WOOD
HOUSE .. ...
#790 R!4 �* I I
le '— .1-76 7t.... WALL
xv-
0
FROM AERIAL PHOTO
7& 13.3
--950 6EE_CKJ—
_8"' 0,A q q
---------------- 7 R/P
A�) X #OA1'1
.14'
10, BAI#�000, 18"VALNU 0 10.0 3.0 3� 0
BASSWOOD
K FPORCH 170 EXISTING R/P
\ -, ��\ , . \ / �_ I- POSSIBLE
5AA kQ HOUSE
10'\BASSwoob,," SEPARINDER---.�( '4
/ / /PROPO
PUMP SEVER
11 BorSWOOD A) HOUSE" 929.4 CONTOUR
SqWCE
DECK
R/P
#800 --LINE (O.H.W.)
At
A� '.j.
%
# *'
�SSW�
Ir\ BASSW OD
70 1.07' 4.7
PROPOSE�N2'0' \SEWE`R-"*"" --7— A C. TOT A
/ /� � " \� 1.051 A C 4) RY
ACCESS E SEMEW, NO ",\ /0 1�1\ 1_� A ------ --------
, \ / 70 / : -----
ALNUT 10 4%
04 CN -4
o,40
_/39" 0
4" A 28" W 140
�QSSIBLE VITY X
1P
1. (5611\ PROPOSED GK(A
\,�SEWER SERVIC� J� CONCRETE DRIVEWAY '25.2
H04JSE
1.53+ AC. TOTAL
- Q, ----------- __—WOOD
0� Nq,
1.51+- AC. DRY 7" 3
STEP
Ilk
AAK30 OA
X
6k
19
SEWER�ASEME�T, P .........
r Tt--
NJ-
ER
d0o-�� DOC* NO* 148999'6 \%
. ...... i"o 0
00 04
.0
13" BASSWOOD\
_N_ A"X
*6'
poSSIBLE\DRIVEWAY
ow�
14ROPOStp
0 . 5 1 --- "_<
"N OF A�
%
Y. \ \
0, .0000.., DtYIDII�G
.\VA
10 SHE[
19;72- LINES,-�-
,.0-' 2811 SIL A_
M E
APL
000,
IQ N
-0, "0,000 Uqffl N OW 7" OAK
_,J 11 1. : : -1- . :�., . : , I A�
: 1: : : SETB 0?
LIN _S
BUILDING 0.391 AC. 35
SETBACK Q)
LINi
Qi
ES
Q)
oQi
I I - - - - - - - - 55- Q)
'00P
.........
— �Vy
oy 'D)
0
IS BE F -VI
cr
C?
go
J4
J
BLACK�OP`,�
0-0—
ROADWAY
66
NORTH
ARM
DRIVE
16097REVISED3.SCJ
DATE
3-14-17 PROPOSED DIVIDING LINES REVISED
4-11-17 REVISED LOT LINES
5-15-17 ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN
16-097
.........................
ADDRESS 800 North Arm Drive
Orono, MN
Area 4.02' Ac.
3.98'- Ac. Dry
Zoning = LR— 1 B
REMARKS
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision,
and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755
A '%,�
EXISTING SHED%
-7
W00— MH
SJNTX0" C),
c3oo 0
EXISTING,q A A a.-/- i I I \N 111111 � I
% _.- *'-*-,--.-. .................. 00
�ol GARAGE
6-- N C3
tA
o>
40. ()o - 00
00
00�1
001,
EXISTING
HOUSE
#830
FROM AERIAL PHOTO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 362, and Outlot 1, PIRATES COVE
o : denotes iron marker
—917 — —: denotes contour line, per city maps
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey
intends to show the boundaries of
the above
described property, the
location of
six existing buildings, driveway, deck,
porches,
topography from city maps,
the location
of all visible "hardcover", and the
proposed
location of two proposed
dividing lines, two possible houses, and adjacent
houses from aerial photos thereon.
It does not
purport to show any other improvements or
encroachments.
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. SCALE
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 111=30'
DATE
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN 55356 10-18-16
952-473-4141 JOB NO.
1 16-097
Council
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit C
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16-3883
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT,
6:33 P.M. — 7:22 P.M.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a preliminary plat application for a 4 -acre property proposed to be developed into
three single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road and would be served
with municipal sewer and individual wells. The property is located on North Arm Drive just east of the
east end of the Lakeview Golf Course.
The property has frontage on North Arm Bay. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east
with steep slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition and the property contains an existing residence at the east end and a
number of outbuildings served by a 750 -foot driveway. The property is zoned LR -113, One Family
Lakeshore Residential District, and is guided in the Orono Community Management Plan for residential
use.
The current proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from the sketch plan review that was
conducted by the Planning Commission in April of 2016. It includes shortening of the private road. The
initial proposal showed the road further to the east. The lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes
that provide more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography but results in
the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot 1. Each of the three lots appears to meet the one acre
dry buildable requirement.
Lots 2 and 3 each meet the width requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75 -foot setback.
Lot I only meets the 140 -foot standard in the 75 -foot setback. The reason for the lot width variance
request is based on the topography and the desired orientation for the house on Lot 2. If the variance is
not allowed, the house on Lot 2 would have its main views overlooking a triangular lakeshore portion of
Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot I completely conforming. If the Planning
Commission is comfortable granting the variance, it should be clearly established why it is appropriate to
grant that variance in order to avoid setting a precedent.
Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique relationships between homes. In this proposed
subdivision, Lots I and 2 each have a home site that meets the 75 -foot setback as well as the average
setback when it is defined by the house at 790 North Arm and the existing house.
The following scenarios could happen based on the City's current setback ordinance:
If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2, that changes the average
setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3 and would force such
replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on.
2. If the first home built is on Lot I and is placed farther west than shown, the average setback for
a home on Lot 2 would change.
Page 1 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3 and it is moved further
back in order to have a house, decks, etc. meet the 75 -foot setback, then the average setback for
Lot 2 would be affected and potentially also the average setback for Lot 1.
Gaffton stated the most logical solution is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as
part of the subdivision approvals. These would be in effect regardless of how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average setback
lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Ann Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane. Those homes
are set back far enough so as to likely not be impacted since proposed and existing homes on Lots I and 3
are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. The Planning Commission should consider whether the
proposed house site on Lot I will be nearer the lakeshore than the home at 790 North Arm and whether
that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be blocked by the house on Lot 1.
The proposed home site on Lot I is located more than 30 feet from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30 feet of the top of bluff and the top of bluff as depicted.
As it relates to Lot 2, the topography and location of the existing municipal sewer lines are complicating
factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from north to south. The sewer lines
consist of a gravity line flowing from south to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very
north end of the property at the shore.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20 feet wide and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75 -foot setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse, the
actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department is also located in this area. It is necessary on a
regular basis to bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance since there is no other way to access
the lift station. The City needs to preserve this non -easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
Lot 3 contains the existing house. Replacing the house will likely require it to move back from the lake
some distance, as the 75 -foot setback line appears to run through the east side of the structure. With or
without the proposed subdivision, an average lakeshore setback variance would be required for
replacement of this house.
The developer is proposing the road be private. Even though only a small number of homes will be
served, City code requires for 3-6 lots a 24 -foot paved road within a 50 -foot road corridor, ending in a
100 -foot diameter cul-de-sac with 80 feet paved width. At slightly less than 300 feet in length, the cul-de-
sac meets the City's I 000 -foot maximum length limitation.
In. addition, the proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835
Windjammer Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private
driveway at that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800 North Arm has
existed at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic air photos.
Moving the private road further north to provide some buffer might be feasible but would result in a less
usable street yard area for Lot 1.
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Arm Drive. No sidewalks exist in this area of
Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks or anticipated park needs relative to
development of this property. The total park fees would be $11,100.
Page 2 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems. Ponding
areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be credited as dry
buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier 1 of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject to a
maximum hardcover per lot of 25 percent.
The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will
be either $10,500 or $15,750 and is dependent on whether the existing house will remain.
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. This property was assessed for two sewer
units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. A third sewer unit at the 2017 connection
charge rate of $5, 100 would be due upon final plat approval.
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots I and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding sewer
stubs to serve Lots I and 2 is likely necessary but may be difficult since the existing gravity line is
approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections may be
necessary. Private wells will be required.
There is a narrow wetland located on the north side of the property delineated in 2011. The applicants
have not been able to find the paperwork on that delineation and are planning to have the wetland re -
delineated in the spring. No changes are anticipated. There will likely be buffer setbacks required from
the MCWD. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands.
Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal sewer maintenance, the City will require that buffer
widths and locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design report and recommendations. The property has been
reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an
inventory of the natural resources on the site, discussed how the proposed site design interplays with
existing features, and establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive
species control. It is likely some of the trees will need to be removed as a result of construction of the
road and driveways.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent of
when new homes get built on the site, with an eye toward not having negative impacts to the
average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot 1 and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
Discuss with the applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot, the
75 -foot setback, the average setback, and sewer easements.
Page 3 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties, and if so,
are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of the
subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width averaging.
6. A new sewer connection for Lots 1 and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for the
connection for Lot 3 over Lots 1 and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision process.
The Planning Commission should review the Staff report as well as the submitted documentation. The
Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and then make a recommendation for either
approval or denial. Staff will not present this application to the City Council for review until the updated
wetland delineation has been submitted.
In addition, the applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor
as soon as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
Lemke asked if there is any advantage to having the cul-de-sac go in so far.
Gaftron stated that results in shorter driveways but noted the cul-de-sac could be shortened up further. If
the area on the west side of Lot I has value as yard, changing the length of the cul-de-sac might change
the nature of the yard.
Landgraver asked if there is precedent for the city maintenance road.
Gaftron stated it is likely there are other places where the Public Works Department has to drive over
private property to maintain the sewer system since the City has approximately 40 lift stations. There is
an agreement currently for maintenance of this road up to a certain point and that agreement will have to
be revised.
Landgraver commented it is possible to envision friction between the homeowners and the maintenance
workers given that situation. Landgraver noted the existing sewer gravity line goes from Lot 3 downhill
and that it looks like there is a rain garden on top of that.
Gaftron stated the expectation would be that that sewer line would need to be moved.
Thiesse asked if the 40' x 80' house footprint standard.
Gaffron noted they are shown as a possible house and that the homes that are being built today have a
number of angles. Gaftron stated it is unlikely someone will construct a house that is rectangular in
shape.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, stated in regards to relocating the house on Lot 2. it gets pretty tight given all
the different angles and that they have reworked the lot lines significantly to try to provide as much
flexibility as possible.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.
Page 4 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Ray Wahlender, 1070 Tonkawa Road, stated he is one of the owners of 800 North Ann. Wahlender
stated while he is generally positive about the prospect for improvements on this property, in his view
splitting this parcel into three lots is quite a stretch and that there are a lot of contortions being done to try
to achieve three lakeshore lots.
Wahlender stated the developer will have some real problems with lake access for Lot I and that he
knows from personal experience that it is too shallow to catch pan fish in that area. Wahlender indicated
it is a wetland area that seeps into a marshy wetland area and that you cannot get a pontoon in there. If
you look at the contours with 790 North Arm, any dock that is installed will likely violate the provisions
of LMCD Section 201, Subdivision 213, which requires that any slip which opens towards a sight line be
20 feet back from that sight line. Wahlender stated in his view it will be problematic to try to get a dock
in there parallel to the sight line, and in order to get it out to any sort of depth, it would probably violate
the sight line for Lot 2. Wahlender stated calling it a lakeshore lot is problematic for them and that it
appears to be jammed in there.
With regards to Lot 2, Wahlender stated he also believe that has some shallow areas and it would be
difficult to get a boat in and out of there. Wahlender commented putting two lakeshore lots on the north
side of the peninsula sounds like a recipe for people fighting about dock placement.
Wahlender stated if one were to construct a house of any height right there on Lot 1, it would block the
light to the adjoining property's back yard. There will also likely be issues with runoff given the close
proximity of the house. Over time that blockage of light and possible drainage issues are going to create a
much damper back yard. If you go from what is immediately behind 790 North Arm, there is a steep
drop-off right before the lakeshore that goes down to a little grassy area just above the lakeshore, which is
where the pump station is. Wahlender stated he would want somebody to take a look at that, because if
there is too much moisture, the area could slide down. Wahlender stated it has ramifications to 800 North
Arm and the sewer system that is located down there, which is very concerning to them.
Wahlender stated on the very south end of 790 North Arm there is a very nice screened in porch that does
have some view of the lakeshore. Based on the placement of the house on Lot 1, it is very likely that they
will be looking at HVAC systems, generators, exhaust pipes and things of that nature. Wahlender stated
he would not like that either.
Wahlender stated it appears they are wedging three parcels where it would be better if there were only
two lots. Wahlender requested the City look into some of these issues prior to approving anything and
that he would also be happy to discuss this with the property owners.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would like to start with the average setback. Thiesse stated he would like to see that
average setback maintained until the first two homes are constructed, at which time it comes back to the
City for review. Thiesse asked if the City has any control over mandating that a new house be pulled
back behind the 75 -foot line if the existing house is reconstructed.
Gaffron stated to his belief the City can do that. Gaffron stated assuming there was no subdivision, the
existing house is way forward of the average setback. Once there is a subdivision, depending on how
many lots there are, he does not believe there is any way that the existing house will be behind the
Page 5 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
average setback line. Gaffron indicated it would have to be pushed back if it is rebuilt in order to meet
the setback to the lake unless some special arrangements are made now.
Thiesse stated he would like to see the same footprint on all the homes and that he would like the house to
be out of the 75 -foot setback. Thiesse stated because this is a peninsula, to his knowledge the City has
been a little more lenient on the average lakeshore setback, but that he would like it out of the 75 -foot
area.
Lemke noted if they rebuild in kind, it can be rebuilt in exactly the same location.
Gaffron stated it is very unlikely that someone will rebuild that house in kind to the extent in kind means
the same shape, the same rooflines, etc.
Thiesse stated if a house on any lot is built, that house could establish the setback and not the building pad
where the existing house is.
Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about the lot width variance.
Leskinen stated she does not see a compelling reason to create a nonconforming lot, especially since the
City historically has not done that.
Thiesse noted there is no practical difficulty.
Landgraver stated the house will be pretty far back on the bluff and that this is a way of securing visibility
for Lot 1. Landgraver concurred that there is not a strong argument for creating a nonconforming lot and
that Lot 2 also has a number of constraints.
Thiesse stated it is difficult to come up with a practical difficulty for the variance since there is adequate
space. Thiesse stated in his view they should be measuring from where the house is rather than at the
shoreline but that is not what the ordinance says.
Landgraver stated it appears the house on Lot 2 will be tight but that it may be possible to orient it to
maximize views.
Thiesse noted the building pad is proposed to consist of 3,200 square feet. Thiesse asked whether there
will be headlights shining into the proposed house on Lot 2.
Anderson indicated there will be.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on Item 4, which is significant impacts of the
road location to adjoining properties.
Leskinen stated having shortened the cul-de-sac makes a big difference.
Thiesse asked if the developer has looked at pulling it further back.
Anderson indicated he has not.
Page 6 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated in regards to Item 5, the City does need an easement to access the lift station.
Gaffron noted Staff has recommended that the applicant meet with the Public Works supervisor to discuss
that. Staff has suggested the applicant's surveyor stake the easement and depict the easement on the
survey since he is familiar with the property. Gaffron stated this issue has existed for a long time, and if
this was not a subdivision application, this discussion would not be happening.
Lemke asked if there would have to be any type of treatment to make it an accessible road.
Gaffron stated there would need to be a sufficient road base to drive a loaded truck over it. Gaffron
commented the topography is such that the trucks cannot traverse much of a side slope and that it is
critical to identify a route.
Leskinen commented she recalls a very lengthy discussion about this last year and that to her recollection
the consensus was that it needs to be where it is.
Thiesse noted Item 6 relates to new sewer connections for Lots 1 and 2. Thiesse asked if the developer
has a plan for how sewer will be provided.
Anderson indicated not at this point.
Thiesse stated that is a piece of information that will need to be provided and addressed.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on the issues expressed by Mr. Wahlender.
Thiesse stated this area is not a lot different from other areas on North Arm and that there are some areas
that are inaccessible.
Wahlender stated based on his experience, the dock would need to be extended way back and that they
would have to go out into the main part of the channel and then come back in. As you go southeast along
the shoreline, it is very shallow.
Thiesse noted that is outside of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and that the LMCD will need to
look at it.
Gaffron stated the applicant will need to speak with the LMCD and that the City would not be involved in
that.
Thiesse asked if the developer is requesting any variances for the house on Lot 1.
Gaffron noted there is a 30 -foot setback from top of bluff and that the proposed house meets the side
setbacks as well as street. Gaffron stated the depicted rectangle meets code standards, but the question is
whether someone would be doing a disserve to the neighborhood if they construct right up to the 10 -foot
setback.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern is that light and air come into play when asking for a variance. Thiesse
asked if those two things come into play when a variance is not being requested.
Page 7 of 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaftron stated he is not aware of a situation in the past where that was a factor when someone was
meeting the setback requirements as well as the height requirement. Across the bay there was a situation
where someone was building a house that did meet the City's height requirement and the neighbors had
an issue with someone building a house that would block their garden. Gaffron commented it is unusual
for the City to take that into account, especially when a variance is not being requested.
Wahlender stated if you add in the fact that a house is constructed directly to the north of the yard and the
drainage is altered along the ridge, he would have some questions about the structural integrity of the
drop-off. Wahlender stated if the house is tall enough, that will make it very soggy back there and there
will be very soggy ground that overlooks the sloped pitch which overlooks the lift station. Wahlender
stated in his view those are some important issues that the Planning Commission needs to look at.
Lemke asked if the house location is exactly 30 feet back from the bluff.
Gaffron illustrated the 30 -foot setback on the survey and noted that the house could be moved to be as
much as 20 or 30 feet away from the lot line.
Landgraver stated the solution seems to be to simply move the house on Lot 1, depending on its size, to
allow ample light to that area.
Thiesse asked if it is possible to move the house over.
Anderson indicated that would make the most sense and that the people that he has talked to about this lot
would like to construct a walkout rambler.
Landgraver stated the other item that would be favorably viewed is some landscaping that would help
screen the area.
Thiesse suggested some contours also be provided showing how the drainage will work.
Landgraver moved to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3883, Kevin Anderson, 800
North Arm Drive, granting of preliminary plat approval and denial of a lot width variance, with
the average lakeshore setback being established by the existing houses as constructed with the
original plat and subject to Staff recommendations.
Gaffron noted if the house on Lot 3 is torn down, it will need to meet the 75 -foot setback. Gaffron asked
whether that house should meet the average setback as defined by 830 North Ann.
Thiesse stated it probably cannot.
Landgraver asked if the objective is to make it conform.
Thiesse indicated it is to get it out of the 75 -foot zone.
Schwingler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Page 8 of 8
Date Application Received: 10/20/16
Date Application Considered as Complete: 3/23/17*
120 -Day Review Period Expires: 7/21/17*
*Pending Updated Wetland Delineation
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner
Date: April 17, 2017
Council
Exhibit D
16-3883
Subject: #16-3883 Kevin Anderson / James Franzel, 800 North Arm Drive —
- Preliminary Plat
- Public hearing
Application Summary: This is a preliminary plat for a 4 -acre property proposed to be
developed into 3 single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road
and would be served with municipal sewer and individual wells.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should review the staff report as well as the
submitted documentation. Hold the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend
approval with conditions or table for further information and/or revisions.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
ExhibitB. Prelim. Plat Drawing (4/11/17) &Prelim. Road& Grading Plan (10/19/16)
Exhibit C Sketch Highlighting Sewer Easements & Average Setback
Exhibit D. Sewer As Built (Airphoto)
Exhibit E. Site Airphotos
Exhibit F. Conservation Design Report
Exhibit G. Plat Map
Exhibit H. Property Owners List
Exhibit I. Sketch Plan Minutes 4/18/16
Zoning District: LR- I B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre/ 140' width)
CMP Land Use Designation: Low -Medium Density Residential — 2-3 units/acre
Existing Property Area: 4.02 ac. (Wetland: 0.04 ac. Dry: 3.98 ac.)
Background
The property under review is on the cast side of North Ann Drive, near the southeast comer of the
Lakeview development. It has frontage on North Arm Bay. The property to the immediate north
at 790 North Arm is also a lake lot, while the properties to the immediate south include two off
lake lots and a lakeshore lot. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east, with steep
slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition. The property contains an existing residence and a number of
outbuildings, served by a 700' long driveway along the south lot line.
The property is zoned LR -113, One Family Lakeshore Residential, and is guided in the Orono
Community Management Plan (CMP) for residential use. The property is located within the
MUSA and is intended to be served with public sanitary sewer and private wells.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 2 of 7
This property was the subject of a sketch plan review in April 2016 (minutes attached). The current
proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from that review, including shortening of the
private road and cul-de-sac length. Lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes that provide
more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography. However, the
result is the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot I (discussed below).
Lot & Outlot Areas
Wetland (acres)
Total Dry (acres)
Total Wet + Dry (acres)
Lot 1
0.01
1.52
1.53
Lot 2
0.03
1.00
1.03
Lot 3
0.01
1.06
1.07
Total in Lots 1-3
0.05
3.58
3.63
Outlot A (Private Road)
0.00
0.39
0.39
Totals
0.05
3.97
4.02
Conformity with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan Update
The proposed subdivision would generally be in conformity with the 2030 CMP which guides the
property for low -medium density single family residential use.
Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements
The LR- I B District, allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 1.0 dry
buildable acres, and minimum lot width of 140' measured at the shoreline and at the 75' lakeshore
setback line. Each of the three lots appears to meet the 1.00 acre dry buildable requirement. Lots
2 and 3 each appear to meet the width requirement for lakeshore lots, while Lot I only meets the
140' standard at the 75' setback line.
Lot width measurement for lakeshore lots is defined in the zoning code as follows: "Lot width
means the horizontal distance between side lot lines measured at the following locations: (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 setbackfrom
the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines
with the structure setback line. "
Applicants are requesting a lot width variance for Lot 1, which is only 100' in width at the
shoreline. The reason for this request is based on the topography and desired orientation of the
house on Lot 2. While there is sufficient lakeshore such that each lot could meet the 140' width
at the shore, the probable orientation of the house on Lot 2 would have its primary views directly
to the north. If the variance is not allowed, the house on Lot 2 will have its main views overlooking
a triangular lakeshore portion of Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot I
completely conforming. Planning Commission should discuss whether this variance is justified.
If so, the reasons for an approval recommendation must clearly establish why this is appropriate
at this location for this subdivision while it would not generally be allowed. The intent would be
to not establish a precedent.
The setback lines depicted on the survey would appear to meet the minimum LR- I B requirements
of 35' street, 35' side street, 10' sides, and 75' lakeshore.
Avera.ze lakeshore setback. Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique
relationships between homes. In this proposed subdivision, Lots I and 2 each have a hornesite
depicted that meets the 75' setback, as well as the average setback as defined by a line between
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 3 of 7
the existing residence at 800 North Arm and the existing residence at 790 North Arm. However,
a number of scenarios could result in encroachments of an average setback line that is redefined
as development of each new home occurs:
If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2, that changes the
average setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3, and would force
such replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on;
If the first home built is on Lot I and is placed farther west than shown, the average setback
for a home on Lot 2 would change.
If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3, and it's moved
further back in order to have house, decks, etc. meet the 75' setback, then the average
setback for Lot 2 would be affected, and potentially also the average setback for Lot I
The most logical solution here is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as part
of the subdivision approvals, and these would be in effect regardless how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average
setback lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Arm Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane,
although those homes are setback far enough so as to likely not be impacted, since proposed &
existing homes on Lots I and 3 are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. One additional
item for consideration: the proposed house site on Lot I appears to be nearer the lakeshore than
the home at 790 North Arm. Whether that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be
blocked by the house on Lot I appears unlikely, but should be reviewed.
Relationship to Surrounding Development
The proposed single-family development is similar in character to surrounding development. To
the immediate south, the homes on Windjammer Lane are all on approximately I acre lots. To the
north, lakeshore lots generally range in size from just under V2acre to as much as 1.3 acres. The
newly platted lots in Lakeview are within the 2 -acre zone and typically 2-2.5 acres in area.
General Site Characteristics
The westerly 2/3 of the property is generally open, while the steeply sloped bluff area along the
lakeshore of proposed Lot I is heavily wooded. The area around the existing house contains a
number of mature trees. The shape of the existing property is somewhat of a point jutting into
North Arm Bay, and as such has shoreline running north south and shoreline running east -west.
The linear shape of the property forces the proposed lots to be long and narrow in order for each
lot to have at least 140' of width. There are a few small areas of wetland along the northerly
shoreline which were delineated in 2011 but that information is being updated this spring; no
changes to the wetland boundaries are anticipated.
Lot Layout and Lot Standards
The property consists of a single tax parcels totaling 3.98 dry buildable acres, proposed to be
subdivided to create 3 single family lots. The subdivision layout of the site is dictated primarily
by the long, narrow shape of the parcel and the desire to create 3 conforming 1 -acre lots each
having lake access, and each with a building site that overlooks the lake.
The proposed house site on Lot 1 is located more than 30' from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30' of the top of bluff, and the top of bluff as depicted.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 4 of 7
For Lot 2, topography and the location (and maintenance needs) of the existing municipal sewer
lines are complicating factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from
north to south. See Exhibits C & D. The sewer lines consist of a gravity line flowing from south
to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very north end of the property at the
shore, which in turn pumps into a parallel forcemain that runs back up the hill adjacent to the
gravity line, discharging to a manhole in Windjammer Lane.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20' wide, and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75' setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse,
the actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department follows the dashed line on Exhibit
C for maintenance of the lift station, due to the topography. It is necessary on a regular basis to
bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance, and there is no other way to access the lift
station. The City needs to preserve this non -easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
The 40'x8O' "possible house" site depicted on Lot 2 is virtually the only area of Lot 2 that is a
desirable house location under the proposed subdivision layout; but also consider that it is likely a
house at this will be expected to have decks, patios, and a walkout configuration. City code will
disallow any grading or filling within the 75' zone, and there is barely 5 feet of elevation change
from the 75' line to the sewer easement. All of these factors dictate the need for careful and
creative house design for Lot 2.
Lot 3 contains the existing house, built in 1956 according to tax records. Replacing the house will
likely require it to move back from the lake some distance, as the 75' setback line appears to run
through the east side of the structure. With or without the proposed subdivision, an average
lakeshore setback variance would be required for replacement of this house, again suggesting that
this should be addressed as part of the plat approval process.
Road Layout and Standards
An initial question for discussion was whether the road serving the proposed 3 -lot development
should be public or private. During the sketch plan review it was indicated by the developer that
a private road would be most appropriate, and that is what is proposed.
Although only a small number of homes will be served, the City code requires for 3-6 lots a road
of 24' paved width in a 50' road corridor, ending in a 100' diameter cul-de-sac with 80' paved
width.
The road access onto North Arm Drive is at the outside of a curve, and would not be expected to
have any sight -distance concerns. At slightly less than 300 feet in length the cul-de-sac meets the
City's I 000 -foot maximum length limitation.
It is unknown at this time whether curb and gutter would be required in order to manage stormwater
runoff. Preliminary street design and grading information will be reviewed by the City Engineer
prior to the preliminary plat review by the City Council.
The proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835 Windjammer
Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private driveway at
that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800 North Arm has existed
at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic airphotos.
Conversion of the driveway to a road may have negative impacts to those neighbors, who have not
commented on the project as of this writing. Moving the private road further north to provide some
buffer might be feasible but would result in less usable street yard area for Lot 1.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 5 of 7
Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed
Assuming the road will be private, the City will require a Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement
over it. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well
as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. An
additional easement for sewer system maintenance would be appropriate to obtain as a condition
of subdivision approval.
Parks, Trails, Sidewalks; Park Dedication
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Ann Drive. No sidewalks exist in this
area of Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks nor anticipated park
needs relative to development of this property.
The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent
value in cash. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of
the standard Park Dedication Fee for 2 new building lots would be appropriate; because these are
lakeshore lots each with a predevelopment value of greater than $69,375, the park fee would be
capped at the maximum of $5,550 per lot, for a total Park Fee of $11,100.
Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees
Creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems.
Ponding areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be
creditable as dry buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD
review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier I of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject
to a maximum hardcover per lot of 25%.
The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee. The Trunk
Fee established in the 2016 Fee Schedule for I -acre zoning districts is $5,250 per acre for each
new lot being created, with a fee cap of 1.0 acre per new lot. Per Section 14-284, if the existing
residence is intended to remain (on Lot 3), only Lots I and 2 would be subject to the SW&DT Fee;
if the home on Lot 3 is intended to be removed, it would also be subject to the Fee. Therefore, the
total SW&DT Fee will be either $10,500 or $15,750.
Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. The property was assessed for 2
sewer units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. For the proposed
subdivision, no additional footage charge would be required, but a third sewer unit at the 2017
Connection Charge rate of $5,100 would be due upon final plat approval. (Note: this is the
reduced rate based on the 2017 Fee Schedule which established a standard connection fee for sewer
and water project areas past their 15 -year assessment period, a savings of more than $6,000
compared to the fee in 2016).
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots I and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as -is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding
sewer stubs to serve Lots I and 2 is likely necessary, and may be difficult, as the existing gravity
line is approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections
may be necessary.
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Municipal water is not available and not planned to be extended to this area of Orono. Private
wells will be required.
Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted
The property contains a narrow strip of delineated wetland (updated delineation pending) along
the northerly shoreline, which would presumably remain untouched. The MCWD-required
wetland buffers would likely be coincident with and protected by the City's 75' lakeshore setback
requirements and hardcover/land alteration limitations. The City will require a Conservation and
Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands. Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal
sewer maintenance (discussed elsewhere in this memo) the City will require that buffer widths and
locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
Tree and/or Woodland Impacts
The site is relatively open, with the only significant wooded area being the steep slope (bluff) area
directly downhill from the proposed building site on Lot 1. As this wooded area is primarily within
the 75' setback zone and is within a bluff impact zone, only minimal clearing would be allowed
per Shoreland Ordinance Sections 78-1285. The developer is encouraged to preserve existing
vegetation to the extent possible. It is likely that connection to the municipal sewer along the shore
will require some disruption to the wooded area. Please review the discussion in the Conservation
Design Report (pages 3-4) regarding tree preservation.
Conservation Design
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design Report and recommendations prepared by
Lucas Mueller of ISG, Inc. (Exhibit F). The property has been reviewed in terms of the Rural
Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an inventory of the natural
resources on the site, discusses how the proposed site design interplays with existing features, and
establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive species control.
The report supports the proposed site layout and does not suggest the need for any site plan
revisions.
Archaeological Site Proximity
Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm.
Summary of Issues for Consideration
Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission
should include the following topics:
I . Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent
of when new homes get built on the site; with an eye toward not having negative impacts
to the average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot I and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
3. Discuss with applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot,
75' setback, average setback, and sewer easements (existing and needed).
16-3883
April 17, 2017
Page 7 of 7
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties,
and if so, are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts
if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of
the subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width
averaging.
6. A new sewer connections for Lots I and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for
the connection for Lot 3 over Lots I and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision
process.
7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Planning Commission should review the staff report as well as the submitted documentation. Hold
the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend approval with conditions that address
any concerns noted, or table for further information and/or revisions. Staff will not present this
application to the City Council for review until the updated wetland delineation has been
submitted.
Applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor as soon
as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 17
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3940, Jason & Anelise Peterson, 4105 Highwood Road,
Variances — Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department
Planner Section: Report
1. Purpose. To consider a resolution approving variances to rebuild a new home on the property.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on April 19; it was
considered as complete on May 3 rd . Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on July 2, 2017.
3. Background. At the June 12'h meeting the Council reviewed the applicants' proposal to
construct a new home to be attached to the existing garage. The Council voted 5 to 0 to direct
staff to draft a resolution for approval of the variances consistent with the staff recommendation.
Because the applicant's request for additional deck lakeward of the 75 -foot setback was denied
they have provided a revised plan modifying the decks on the west side. The revised plan results
in a 15 foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, extending about 4 feet further
lakeward on the west side but conforming to the 75 -foot setback. The neighbors have provided
additional comment.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the revised plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution as drafted.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Revised Plans & Survey
C. Additional Public Comment
References
Council
Memo and Exhibits June 12, 2017
A.
Revised Plans & Hardcover Calcs
B.
Original Proposed Plans
C.
PC Staff Report
D.
Draft PC Minutes
E.
Additional public comment
Prepared By: VY)GG
PC Exhibits May 15, 2017:
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation
Form
C. Narrative & Additional Materials from
Applicant
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
G. Drainage Information
H. City Engineer Comment
1. Height Analysis
J. Plat Map
K. Property Owners List
L. Aerial Photos
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: Nz
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-1; 78-330; 78-1279; and 78-1700
FILE NO. 17-3940
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2017, Jason Peterson and Anellise Peterson, husband
and wife (hereinafter the "Applicants"), applied for variances from the City Code for the property
addressed 4105 Highwood Road and legally described as:
Lot 16, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter
the "Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1, Building Height and 78-330 to allow a
new home or addition to be connected to the existing detached garage resulting in a defined
height of 32 feet where 30 feet in defined height is the maximum permitted; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 for lot area, lot width, and side yard
setback of 5 feet where a 10 foot setback is required for the new home addition and three tiered
decks on the Property which is substandard in area and width; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to permit the new home addition and
three tiered decks to encroach as much as 15 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback
line, according to the survey dated June 21, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to permit 28% hardcover where 25%
is the maximum permitted, which is less than the existing 34% hardcover on the property; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 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 May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variances; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff and directed preparation of findings
for approval of the variance.; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested revised 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 #17-3940. 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 -1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 8,377 square feet or 0. 19 acres in area and has a defined lot width
of 51 feet at the ordinary high water level and 48' 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:
a. Defined Height Variance.
b. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances.
c. Side Setback Variances.
d. Average Lakeshore Setback Variances.
e. Hardcover Variances.
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.
ANALYSIS:
1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The proposed new home is residential in nature. Due to
the separation distance between the adjacent homes, there is adequate space for light,
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
air and open space between the addition and the neighboring homes. The lake setback
of the proposed home is an improvement over the existing. The variances are in
harmony with the Ordinance.
2. "Variances shall only be permitted ... when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The lot width, lot area, and setback variances allowing
construction of a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of the neighborhood. The variance to
permit 28% hardcover which is a reduction from the existing site conditions is consistent
with the comprehensive plan's lake protection philosophy.
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 a new home with a tiered deck, on a
substandard lot within the 10 foot side setback and average lakeshore 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. The height of the new portion of the home will be lower than
the existing garage to which it is being connected.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The height of the existing garage, the slope, the shape and size of the Property
were not the result of actions by the Applicants. The nearest structures on the
neighboring properties are offset and set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and
open space between each of the homes.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. "
The setbacks or defined height of the proposed new home will not alter the
character of the neighborhood. The setback of the proposed home and tiered
decks within the 10 -foot side setback is consistent with the small setback nature
of the neighborhood. The proposed open post construction of the tiered decks will
permit drainage to be maintained. Stormwater drainage in this neighborhood is
challenging.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
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 -11B 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 topography, lot area, lot width, and the
garage'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 toward the lake,
the lot width narrowing from the lake toward the road, as well as the nonconforming
location of the garage 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 a conforming connection to the
existing garage are severely limited on the Property. The defined height variance, lot
width, lot area, hardcover, and setback variances for the house are necessary to
preserve the rights 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 for the home 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, height, and size
of the existing garage to be connected to; as well as site topography, create practical
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
difficulties affecting the Property. The setback and defined height variances for the home
are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants the following:
• Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1, Building Height and 78-330 to
allow a new home or addition to be connected to the existing detached garage resulting
in a defined height of 32 feet where 30 feet in defined height is the maximum permitted;
• Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 for lot area, lot width, and side
yard setback of 5 feet where a 10 foot setback is required for the new home addition and
three tiered decks on the Property which is substandard in area and width;
• A variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to permit the new home
addition and three tiered decks to encroach as much as 15 feet lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback line, according to the survey dated June 21, 2017; and
• A variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to permit 28% hardcover
where 25% is the maximum permitted, which is less than the existing 34% hardcover on
the property to allow redevelopment of the Property; subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 06/21/17 by Travis Van Neste and
building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this
Resolution as Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be
completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on
that date (June 26, 2018).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 26 th day of June, 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 16, HIGHWOOD LAKE PREPARED FOR:
LEGEND:
MINNETONKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, JASON PETERSON
MINNESOTA
0 FOUND IRON PIPE
(AS NOTED)
j
0 S 1/2" REBAR
'o-
N1b
WE'
/CAP #44109
SET SURVEY NAIL
C3
W/WASHER
-30 WELL
POWER POLE
-\\C;
1/2- PI
COMMUNICATIONS
PEDESTAL
In Feet
SANITARY SEWER
0 20
MANHOLE
OSED
P OP NX
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
—962 EXISTING
CONCRETE SURFACE
GARAGE TO, 0
REMAIN 0
o'
OFE-964.3 Ot
95 8 (ODOOR) -,4
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
-3.2
EXISTING CONTOUR
_954— (TO REMAIN)
�AOUSE A. le
-8
EXISTING CONTOUR
0:?SE0
go -. ??" kiSE 6
�AO
(TO BE CHANGED)
PROPOSED CONTOUR
0 Lo
#4
AA�'
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
COF
15.
C-111"
%400D D
9D
so"
u,
'TED OFOY, %k
-co,
co
V0
(P
j4��
*01�' 'Zol
NOTES:
01"J,
1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE 95
BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. g�'
2) P.I.D.: 07-117-23-44-0014
3) PARCEL AREA: 8,377 SQUARE FEET (ABOVE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF LAKE MINNETONKA)
2* PIPE
OD
-932—
4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED.
0
5) DATE OF FIELDWORK: 4-18-2017 <1
6) ELEVATION DATUM: NAVD 88, BY GPS
OBSERVATION
7) DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED ALONG EAST AND
WEST SIDES OF FOUNDATION - OUTLET TO PROPOSED
RAIN GARDENS CERTIFICATION
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 437 SQ. FT. was prepared by me or under my direct
EXISTING GARAGE 618 SQ. FT. supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
PROPOSED HOUSE 1076 SQ. Fr. Surveyor under the
laws of the state of
WOOD DECK 169 SQ. Fr. * Minnesota.
BOARDWALK 167 SQ. Fr. * �A
PUMPHOUSE 20 SQ. FT.
SIGNED
*DECK AND BOARDWALK BOTH PROPOSED WITH
GAPPED BOARDS (PERVIOUS)
TOTAL: 2,487 SQ. FT.
—100 SQ. FT. (PERVIOUS)
TOTAL 2,387 OR 28.5%
iram w. van msie, mtnnesoxo rFOTessionoi �urveyor
Michigan Professional Surveyor #M9W
JOB # 2017022 ISSUED: 4-18-2017
DRAWN BY: TWVN REV: 6-21-2017
SCALE: 1" = 20 FEET
VAN NESTE SURVEYING
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES
85 WILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 VNS
PHONE (952) 686-3055 TOLL—FREE FAX (866) 473-0120
WWW.VANNESTESURVEYING.COM SHEET 1 OF 1
kFSH0
City of Orono
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address:
Prepared by:
Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 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 line and
calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width
Survey
Total
(Square Feet)
(Example) (Garage) (24' x 30')
(720 S.F.)
A
S. F.
B
S. F.
C
S. F.
D
S. F.
E
S. F.
F
S. F.
G
S. F.
H
S. F.
I
S. F.
i
S. F.
K
S. F.
L
S. F.
M
S. F.
N
S. F.
0
S.F.
P
S.F.
Q
S.. .
R
S.F.-
S
S.F.
T
S.F.
U
S.F.
V
S.. .
W
S.F.
X
S.F.
Y
S.F.
z
S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover =1
S.F.�
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684):
S.F.-
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F._j
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover
S. F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]
S. F.
(4) Total Lot Area
S. F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage (3) (4)
%
Variance Application - January 2017
Page 12
4#
k.N
m
4
z
(P
IM
I
4
T -
m
r -
m
4
------------------------- -
;mQ
m
ri
m
(P
IM
I
4
T -
m
r -
m
4
------------------------- -
22,-O"t
m (P
. 0
AN
ri
-
IT
1!jip
I
22,-O"t
m (P
. 0
AN
3
ZW
01
1 : ill = 3
ii Ea
RUSH
E=El
,E==3
c 3
z c
!w
I
E
0
zz
Ezz?
HIT I-
1 : ill = 3
ii Ea
RUSH
!w
!10
0
1 : ill = 3
ii Ea
RUSH
z
4#
k -W
-- ---------
I t
----------
JASON and ANELISE
3s,
6
----------
..........
..........
%
........
--
--------
ul
----------
.
-----------
o.. 06
------------
.........
M8-
-------------
-------------- -
------------------
-- -- - - ---------------
------------
-------------
----------------------- --------
---- ----------------
6
6R
IM
------- ---------
- -
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---
0 M
41
15
lu
4
6_
0
r
�z
JASON and ANELISE
3s,
From: George
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: Germundsen, Ga
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:45:11 AM
Hi Melanie,
Thank you for sending this as we (Joanne & I) have not seen any revisions of the plans. One
thing that jumps out is; where does that severe jog on the west side originate from? The
lakeshore doesn't have that severe jog so I don't understand how the 7 5' setback line does.
As my mom passed away on June 4th, I have not been as involved in this as I would normally
have been. Gary has shared with me that a deck is now considered structural coverage and as
such, if a deck is constructed on the main living level (which in this case, I don't even know
which level that is since I've never seen a full set of plans), that can be replicated on all levels
without triggering any additional requirements or restrictions. And also, those structures could
at some point be enclosed either with screening or even enclosed to provide for additional
living space.
That's where our concern arises. If in fact the new house is allowed to extend that far into the
average setback area and eventually someone encloses the "deck" areas to expand the living
space, we have now extended the forty-five or so foot vertical surface further and further into
our "open space", blocking even more sunlight from our property.
While this encroachment certainly affects Gary more than it does us as it does in fact cut into
his lake views, which is one of the reasons people fortunate enough to be able to live on this
beautiful lake do so, it significantly changes what Joanne and I have become used to living
here for the last thirty years. Somewhat like living in a low-rise brownstone and having
someone build a shiny new tower next door.
Thank you once again for providing us an opportunity to provide feedback.
Best regards,
George
George Rppleboum
Shorewood Plaza UO
Ilemad Management Company
4109
orono, mn
p. 952.472.1270
a. 6 1 2.86S.4059
1. 9S2.472.7S 18
e. gopeleb@mchii.com
Sent from my Wad
From: George
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: Joanne Aimlebaurn
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:55:30 AM
Hi again Melanie,
There is one additional concern that I have. We have a large ash tree that sits very close to the
property line, actually probably on the line. When demolition of the old house and
construction of the new house commence, I'm assuming that the commotion will eventually
kill the tree as there is no way to avoid driving over the tree's root system.
While I'm not opposed to having the tree gone, I want to make sure that the new owners accept
full responsibility for removing the tree.
Thanks again,
George
George Opplebaum
Shorewood Plaza UO
llemad Management Oompany
4-04 F11�JAiWUO%i iW%VU
orono. mn 55364
p. 9S2.472.1270
a. 6 1 2.86S.4OS9
1. 952.472.75 18
e. gappleb@mch.ti.com
Sent from my !Pad
From: George
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: Germundsen, Ga ; Joanne Applebaum
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:06:48 AM
Melanie,
Sorry, just noticed a couple of other things after opening the attached PDF. The egress well
and fireplace encroach further into the previously agreed to five foot setback variance. In fact,
it appears that the egress well extends to the property line; that is not acceptable to us in any
way ... five feet is five feet, not five feet unless they need to be closer to the line.
Regards,
George
George Rppleboum
Shorewood Plaza UO
Ilemad Management Company
4109 Ilighwood Road
orono. mn SS364
p. 952.472.1270
c. 612.86S.4059
0. 952.472.75 18
e. gappleb@mchii.com
Sent from my Wad
From: Melanie Curtis
To: "George Applebaum"
Cc: "Gary Germundsen"; "Joanne Applebaum"; Jeremy Barnha
Subject: RE: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:29:00 PM
Attachments:
See below in red.
Are you planning to attend Monday's Council meeting? The meeting begins at 7pm. Note, I will not be
present at the meeting. Jeremy Barnhart will be handling the variance application for me. I've copied him
on this response and have been keeping him in the loop. Should any questions arise at the meeting he
can address them.
Melanie Curtis
9952.249.4627 Erncurtis(a)ci.orono.mn.us
From: George Applebaum [mailto:gappleb@mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:28 AM
To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>
Cc: Gary Germundsen <Gary.Germundsen@colliers.com>; Joanne Applebaum
<jappleb@mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Melanie,
Thanks for your response.
I . So, if I understand things correctly, the decks could never be enclosed with permanent
walls, only screening and only on the two lowest levels; correct? Yes, technically a permit
would be needed to enclose the decks with permanent walls and if the deck above becomes
a "roof" then variances would be necessary as the decks would then be considered to be
structure and included in the structural coverage.
2. 1 now understand where the jog comes from; thanks!
3. The ash tree is situated within the 75' setback so a permit to remove would have to be
issued if I understand the ordinances regarding removal of trees. Since the tree is very healthy
at this time (I have been treating it against the Emerald Ash Borer since the insect arrived in
this area), but dies as a result of construction and has to be removed at a later date, It will be
exponentially more difficult to remove due to access. I would like to see the removal
mandated as a requirement. I'm not sure the city can require him to remove a tree on your
property. You can apply for a "permit" to remove the tree. There is no cost for the permit
and likely a replacement tree would be required. Perhaps you can work this out with the
property owner.
4. The egress well and fireplace enclosure seem to be addressed in the portion of the code
you linked but it seems to be in a gray area (at least to me) as the code references "required
yard". Does this mean that even though ten feet is normally required as a side yard setback,
that if a variance is granted, allowing the proposed structure to encroach to within five feet of
the neighboring property, that the egress well can encroach an additional five feet into the
normal setback area, thereby nullifying any setback requirement at all? Same question as to
the fireplace enclosure other than the fact that it is only allowed to encroach a maximum of
two feet. In other words, does the issuance of a variance alter the definition of "required yard"
(may be a question for the city attorney)? Yes, absent the variances and the related plan your
interpretation is correct. The variances and the plan proposed to the Council show the egress
well and chimney chase within the setback and they will be included in the approved plan, if
approved.
Please feel free to condense any of my concerns you see to be appropriate to the council.
Best regards,
George
George Opplebaum
.................................
Shorewood Plaza LLC
Hexad Management Company
4109 Highwood Road
Orono, NIN 55364
p. 952.472.1270
c. 612.865.4059
f. 952.472.7518
e. Sopoleb@mch.,i.com
Please Note:
The information in this E-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the intended recipient, be
aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws.
If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not
further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.
On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Melanie Curtis <MCurtis(&ci.orono.mn.us> wrote:
Thank you. I will include your comments with the staff report for Monday's meeting.
One point of clarification, the City Council recently amended the Code regarding structural
coverage. They increased the maximum allowed to 20% from 15% (2,000 sf for lots under
10,000 sf). They also changed the status of decks. An unroofed deck is not considered in
the structural coverage calculations. As proposed although there is a deck above a deck
without a roof it isn't structure. They can, without further review by the City, screen in each
level (except the top)
Regarding the 75 -foot setback line, the measurement is a line parallel to the ordinary high
water level. So you see in measuring perpendicular to the shoreline the jog actually comes
from the shoreline on Gary's property (see image below).
<imageOO1.png>
Just saw your other two messages.
1. The ash tree should be handled privately between you and Jason.
2. Egress well. The egress well is addressed as a nonencroachment to a setback. City
Code section 78-1405 dictates which and how much of a feature can
encroach.https://Iibrary.municode.com/mn/orono/codes/code of ordinances?
nodeld=TITVILAUS CH78ZORE ARTXSURERE DIV2YAOPSP S78-1405NO
Considering the additional emails, please advise how you wish for me to distribute your
comments. Would you like me to forward all 3 emails to the Council or would you like to
consolidate your comments into one email?
Thank you!
Melanie
Melanie Curtis
2952.249.4627 Emcurtis(oki.orono.mn.us
From:
Germundsen, Gary
To:
Melanie Curtis
Cc:
George (gappleb(a)mchsixorn)
Subject:
4105. Highwood road.
Date:
Friday, June 23, 2017 9:21:48 AM
Melanie, I notice that the plan has changed on the east side on the revised plan that was approved
and submitted 6-1-2017. The walk way that was approved was 3 feet . now the new plan 4 shows
feet and at the door area has gone to 5 ft. I total oppose that. It should go back as approved by city
council on the draw that was submitted and drawing on 6-01. It will have 3 entrances into the house
which will created all the traffic on the east side. Due to the site views and according to the city
building codes the owner of the house could put up screen walls and block the view of which it's
hard to see thru I would like the cite to put in the approve that a screen porch cannot be built. The
deck in front is squared off , I'd like it to be built on the same angle as the house angle on the
southeast corner of the house , see survey The second floor deck will have the most effect of
blocking views and sunlight. I also agree George Applebaum that the deck should not be allowed in
the average setback area and effect sunlight or another addition down the road . The owner is
proposing three decks attached to the house on the front of the house, where everybody in the
neighborhood have two at the most, its starting to offensive looking not like the area houses. The
size of the house and amount its taking on the lot is almost too big for the lot . On the new deck plan
its showing further encroachment of which I feel should not be allowed. I will be at the meeting and
will talk at the meeting. Regards, Gary
---I
0
N)
00
0
X
N)
00
�p
A
0
I --j
0
cl
c
u
41
00
C/)
u ic
rr 1
;ul
cl
M
C)
rr i 7-\
U >
CU Z
cl
Al co
(3 0
u >
u
rr I >
Al r-
<
cl
cl co
u
0
0
0
C/)
rri
T
cl
:0
rri
ca
Ul
N
;u
Cl C
-q
ca :a
C] rri
�v
f
C, (/) =., z
< 0— C rT,
> CY z
23
v
0
>
r-
u
g
-3
A
C-
C
I
I z
al
al
cl
c
< CD
(D CD -7
(A
C:
CY x >
21 cl
M >
C/) < <
o o
0)
m
M33
65'
=:3
--' C) V, Fl�
cl
0
rrl
0
CD
al
ul
c
m
0 MX <
CD q
-
0
CO
%--� +
<
:13
c
m
cl
(D c
M
m
M U)
Ul
m
0 K: 0
C. I
CD
q
T,
o
:0
) V, m
F
:3 cl
em
Cl
X M
cl ;u
0 3
c:
rrl
(n
c (A
KI -C6 Z :�j
0
CL
CD <
-1 cli
C)
c
0)
0) CP m
cn V,
w
v
cl
CO
O'T
0
n
C4
C�
0
-
-P.Z*
O)t
0)
C4
;u
CD
m
;o
(D
00
CD
0 :3
7
CD
c
cl
CO
(a
CD
0
(D
rri
U)
a:
rri
m
- 77
c
-0 co * -0 rri -0
C: 0 O;ul X X
K: > 00 Ff) 0
0 X 0 -0 —4 -0
mo 05;0
0 :* 0 C/) C) C/)
C > rrl M rri
r- (-) 0 C) 0
C/) ;r\
rri 71 >
M X 0
0 > ;u
C- w <
rri *
I
X * � C 0) cn -Pi
>m—w— — —
A Ln V.
� m
offl-;C- - -
0 L4 ca,:� z
M
z 0
m ---I
> — -E Im
* )I
�o
CAI
K: KI r-1
z z 0
z z
C/)
00.
> C)
m 0
z c
z u
m
Z
C) m
0
c
z
0
.lr
C-
C/)
0 M
z
m
m 0
-TI
C/)
o 0
z 70
-u
6� x
c
-0
A
C: C:
-1 73
C)
Cn
cl
c
< CD
(D CD -7
CD
73 (D
Cl
C/) < <
o o
CD
-Tl
c 0 FJ)
v
-a
0
rrl
0
CD
>
CLI 0
CD q
-
0
CD :3
-1 C, I
%--� +
z
:13
c
m
cl
(D
3
Ul
m
0 K: 0
C. I
CD
q
T,
o
F
cl
0 3
c:
rrl
cl
CL
CD <
-1 cli
C)
c
CD C:
w
v
cl
CO
3
0
-
C -
m c 0
cl cl c
c
X
;u
CD
m
;o
CA
CD
0 :3
7
CD
c
cl
CO
0
CD
C)
(D
rri
73
0
CLI
K: KI r-1
z z 0
z z
C/)
00.
> C)
m 0
z c
z u
m
Z
C) m
0
c
z
0
.lr
C-
C/)
0 M
z
m
m 0
-TI
C/)
o 0
z 70
-u
6� x
c
-0
A
�rrl �m
— ?! --I x
ca
=i
cl
c
C\
<
>
Cl
-u
c
c 0 FJ)
v
c
0
rrl
>
m c
0
—71
IV" c
V.
c
Fri o m z
cl
0 0
C, 1:3
:13
c
m
cl
�A
m
Ul
m
0 K: 0
C. I
0
q
T,
m
F
cl
>
m C) C)
z
c
w
rrl
cl
C)
c
> cl 0
00 z
w
v
cl
cl
m
0
-
C -
m c 0
cl cl c
c
X
;u
m
;o
CA
m
z
c
cl
—;u ;u
C)
C)
rri
m
K: KI r-1
z z 0
z z
C/)
00.
> C)
m 0
z c
z u
m
Z
C) m
0
c
z
0
.lr
C-
C/)
0 M
z
m
m 0
-TI
C/)
o 0
z 70
0
m
33
mn
0
m
0
mn
(j)
c
33
m
0
r -
m
0
m
c
Ul
q
—71
IV" c
Z
:*
m > (n
cn
M
C)
> -
-0--,
cl
0 0
C, 1:3
M <
cl
�4�
(3 C
m
rri
>
-u
F
-u
m
0
m
33
mn
0
m
0
mn
(j)
c
33
m
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 17
Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3940, Jason & Anelise Peterson, 4105 Highwood Road,
Variances — Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department
Planner Section: Report
1. Purpose. To consider a resolution approving variances to rebuild a new home on the property.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on April 19; it was
considered as complete on May 3 rd . Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on July 2, 2017.
3. Background. At the June 12'h meeting the Council reviewed the applicants' proposal to
construct a new home to be attached to the existing garage. The Council voted 5 to 0 to direct
staff to draft a resolution for approval of the variances consistent with the staff recommendation.
Because the applicant's request for additional deck lakeward of the 75 -foot setback was denied
they have provided a revised plan modifying the decks on the west side. The revised plan results
in a 15 foot encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, extending about 4 feet further
lakeward on the west side but conforming to the 75 -foot setback. The neighbors have provided
additional comment.
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the revised plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution as drafted.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Revised Plans & Survey
C. Additional Public Comment
References
Council
Memo and Exhibits June 12, 2017
A.
Revised Plans & Hardcover Calcs
B.
Original Proposed Plans
C.
PC Staff Report
D.
Draft PC Minutes
E.
Additional public comment
Prepared By: VY)GG
PC Exhibits May 15, 2017:
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation
Form
C. Narrative & Additional Materials from
Applicant
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Proposed Survey/Site Plan
F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
G. Drainage Information
H. City Engineer Comment
1. Height Analysis
J. Plat Map
K. Property Owners List
L. Aerial Photos
Reviewed By: J. Bamhart
Approved By: Nz
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-1; 78-330; 78-1279; and 78-1700
FILE NO. 17-3940
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2017, Jason Peterson and Anellise Peterson, husband
and wife (hereinafter the "Applicants"), applied for variances from the City Code for the property
addressed 4105 Highwood Road and legally described as:
Lot 16, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter
the "Property");
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1, Building Height and 78-330 to allow a
new home or addition to be connected to the existing detached garage resulting in a defined
height of 32 feet where 30 feet in defined height is the maximum permitted; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 for lot area, lot width, and side yard
setback of 5 feet where a 10 foot setback is required for the new home addition and three tiered
decks on the Property which is substandard in area and width; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to permit the new home addition and
three tiered decks to encroach as much as 15 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback
line, according to the survey dated June 21, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to permit 28% hardcover where 25%
is the maximum permitted, which is less than the existing 34% hardcover on the property; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 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 May 15, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variances; and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff and directed preparation of findings
for approval of the variance.; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested revised 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 #17-3940. 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 -1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 8,377 square feet or 0. 19 acres in area and has a defined lot width
of 51 feet at the ordinary high water level and 48' 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:
a. Defined Height Variance.
b. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances.
c. Side Setback Variances.
d. Average Lakeshore Setback Variances.
e. Hardcover Variances.
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.
ANALYSIS:
1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . ." The proposed new home is residential in nature. Due to
the separation distance between the adjacent homes, there is adequate space for light,
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
air and open space between the addition and the neighboring homes. The lake setback
of the proposed home is an improvement over the existing. The variances are in
harmony with the Ordinance.
2. "Variances shall only be permitted ... when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan." The lot width, lot area, and setback variances allowing
construction of a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of the neighborhood. The variance to
permit 28% hardcover which is a reduction from the existing site conditions is consistent
with the comprehensive plan's lake protection philosophy.
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 a new home with a tiered deck, on a
substandard lot within the 10 foot side setback and average lakeshore 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. The height of the new portion of the home will be lower than
the existing garage to which it is being connected.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The height of the existing garage, the slope, the shape and size of the Property
were not the result of actions by the Applicants. The nearest structures on the
neighboring properties are offset and set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and
open space between each of the homes.
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. "
The setbacks or defined height of the proposed new home will not alter the
character of the neighborhood. The setback of the proposed home and tiered
decks within the 10 -foot side setback is consistent with the small setback nature
of the neighborhood. The proposed open post construction of the tiered decks will
permit drainage to be maintained. Stormwater drainage in this neighborhood is
challenging.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
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 -11B 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 topography, lot area, lot width, and the
garage'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 toward the lake,
the lot width narrowing from the lake toward the road, as well as the nonconforming
location of the garage 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 a conforming connection to the
existing garage are severely limited on the Property. The defined height variance, lot
width, lot area, hardcover, and setback variances for the house are necessary to
preserve the rights 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 for the home 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, height, and size
of the existing garage to be connected to; as well as site topography, create practical
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
difficulties affecting the Property. The setback and defined height variances for the home
are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants the following:
• Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1, Building Height and 78-330 to
allow a new home or addition to be connected to the existing detached garage resulting
in a defined height of 32 feet where 30 feet in defined height is the maximum permitted;
• Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 for lot area, lot width, and side
yard setback of 5 feet where a 10 foot setback is required for the new home addition and
three tiered decks on the Property which is substandard in area and width;
• A variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to permit the new home
addition and three tiered decks to encroach as much as 15 feet lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback line, according to the survey dated June 21, 2017; and
• A variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to permit 28% hardcover
where 25% is the maximum permitted, which is less than the existing 34% hardcover on
the property to allow redevelopment of the Property; subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 06/21/17 by Travis Van Neste and
building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this
Resolution as Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be
completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on
that date (June 26, 2018).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 26 th day of June, 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORONO:
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 16, HIGHWOOD LAKE PREPARED FOR:
LEGEND:
MINNETONKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, JASON PETERSON
MINNESOTA
0 FOUND IRON PIPE
(AS NOTED)
j
0 S 1/2" REBAR
'o-
N1b
WE'
/CAP #44109
SET SURVEY NAIL
C3
W/WASHER
-30 WELL
POWER POLE
-\\C;
1/2- PI
COMMUNICATIONS
PEDESTAL
In Feet
SANITARY SEWER
0 20
MANHOLE
OSED
P OP NX
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
—962 EXISTING
CONCRETE SURFACE
GARAGE TO, 0
REMAIN 0
o'
OFE-964.3 Ot
95 8 (ODOOR) -,4
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
-3.2
EXISTING CONTOUR
_954— (TO REMAIN)
�AOUSE A. le
-8
EXISTING CONTOUR
0:?SE0
go -. ??" kiSE 6
�AO
(TO BE CHANGED)
PROPOSED CONTOUR
0 Lo
#4
AA�'
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
COF
15.
C-111"
%400D D
9D
so"
u,
'TED OFOY, %k
-co,
co
V0
(P
j4��
*01�' 'Zol
NOTES:
01"J,
1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE 95
BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. g�'
2) P.I.D.: 07-117-23-44-0014
3) PARCEL AREA: 8,377 SQUARE FEET (ABOVE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF LAKE MINNETONKA)
2* PIPE
OD
-932—
4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED.
0
5) DATE OF FIELDWORK: 4-18-2017 <1
6) ELEVATION DATUM: NAVD 88, BY GPS
OBSERVATION
7) DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED ALONG EAST AND
WEST SIDES OF FOUNDATION - OUTLET TO PROPOSED
RAIN GARDENS CERTIFICATION
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 437 SQ. FT. was prepared by me or under my direct
EXISTING GARAGE 618 SQ. FT. supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
PROPOSED HOUSE 1076 SQ. Fr. Surveyor under the
laws of the state of
WOOD DECK 169 SQ. Fr. * Minnesota.
BOARDWALK 167 SQ. Fr. * �A
PUMPHOUSE 20 SQ. FT.
SIGNED
*DECK AND BOARDWALK BOTH PROPOSED WITH
GAPPED BOARDS (PERVIOUS)
TOTAL: 2,487 SQ. FT.
—100 SQ. FT. (PERVIOUS)
TOTAL 2,387 OR 28.5%
iram w. van msie, mtnnesoxo rFOTessionoi �urveyor
Michigan Professional Surveyor #M9W
JOB # 2017022 ISSUED: 4-18-2017
DRAWN BY: TWVN REV: 6-21-2017
SCALE: 1" = 20 FEET
VAN NESTE SURVEYING
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES
85 WILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 VNS
PHONE (952) 686-3055 TOLL—FREE FAX (866) 473-0120
WWW.VANNESTESURVEYING.COM SHEET 1 OF 1
kFSH0
City of Orono
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address:
Prepared by:
Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 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 line and
calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width
Survey
Total
(Square Feet)
(Example) (Garage) (24' x 30')
(720 S.F.)
A
S. F.
B
S. F.
C
S. F.
D
S. F.
E
S. F.
F
S. F.
G
S. F.
H
S. F.
I
S. F.
i
S. F.
K
S. F.
L
S. F.
M
S. F.
N
S. F.
0
S.F.
P
S.F.
Q
S.. .
R
S.F.-
S
S.F.
T
S.F.
U
S.F.
V
S.. .
W
S.F.
X
S.F.
Y
S.F.
z
S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover =1
S.F.�
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684):
S.F.-
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F._j
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover
S. F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]
S. F.
(4) Total Lot Area
S. F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage (3) (4)
%
Variance Application - January 2017
Page 12
4#
k.N
m
4
z
(P
IM
I
4
T -
m
r -
m
4
------------------------- -
;mQ
m
ri
m
(P
IM
I
4
T -
m
r -
m
4
------------------------- -
22,-O"t
m (P
. 0
AN
ri
-
IT
1!jip
I
22,-O"t
m (P
. 0
AN
3
ZW
01
1 : ill = 3
ii Ea
RUSH
E=El
,E==3
c 3
z c
!w
I
E
0
zz
Ezz?
HIT I-
1 : ill = 3
ii Ea
RUSH
!w
!10
0
1 : ill = 3
ii Ea
RUSH
z
4#
k -W
-- ---------
I t
----------
JASON and ANELISE
3s,
6
----------
..........
..........
%
........
--
--------
ul
----------
.
-----------
o.. 06
------------
.........
M8-
-------------
-------------- -
------------------
-- -- - - ---------------
------------
-------------
----------------------- --------
---- ----------------
6
6R
IM
------- ---------
- -
-----------------------------------------------
---------------------------
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---
0 M
41
15
lu
4
6_
0
r
�z
JASON and ANELISE
3s,
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 16, HIGHWOOD LAKE LEGEND:
PREPARED FOR.
MINNETONKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, FOUND IRON PIPE
MINNESOTA JASON PETERSON 0 (AS NOTED)
0 SET 1/2" REBAR
W/CAP #44109
tk SET SURVEY NAIL
W/WASHER
POWER POLE
WELL
18.0
'Ile C../ COMMUNICATIONS
1/2- PIPE
PEDESTAL
Scale, In Feet
SANITARY SEWER
MANHOLE
0 20
OSED
N�( 'P/ 1 0 OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
A8.0
22.0
3p,
EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE
0
-960-/ GARAGE TO, 'F -
REMAIN 0
GFE=964.3 0
958 (ODOOR) BITUMINOUS SURFACE
95
EXISTING CONTOUR
USE �41()9 (TO REMAIN)
"0 EXISTING CONTOUR
(TO BE CHANGED)
u� co .3.5
0 . 00 PROPOSED CONTOUR
0 �00
C'
013
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
948.5
0
)v F\_00 okil)
-To? *&A
(P'T C,
5.
OD
* I 'VOOD 0
4 (0) 0 0
q0
'.0
-9!6—
_9
C�-
CIO
/_ 5
95
0
NOTES: SOO' o
sgk\ IV -
1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT.
2) P.I.D.: 07-117-23-44-0014
3) PARCEL AREA: 8,377 SQUARE FEET (ABOVE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE OF LAKE MINNETONKA) 2" PIPE
OD
4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED.
5) DATE OF FIELDWORK: 4-18-2017 50
6) ELEVATION DATUM: NAVID 88, BY GPS
OBSERVATION \A-
7) DRAINTILE TO BE INSTALLED ALONG EAST AND
WEST SIDES OF FOUNDATION — OUTLET TO PROPOSED
RAIN GARDENS CERTIFICATION
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS:
vocoo� I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 437 SQ. FT. was prepared by me or under my direct
EXISTING GARAGE 618 SQ. FT. supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
PROPOSED HOUSE 1076 SQ. FT. Surveyor under the laws of the state of
WOOD DECK 169 SQ. FT. Minnesota.
BOARDWALK 167 SQ. FT.
PUMPHOUSE 20 SQ. FT.
Z'//
SIGNED :
*DECK AND BOARDWALK BOTH PROPOSED WITH Travis W. Van Neste, Minnesota Professional Surveyor #44109
GAPPED BOARDS (PERVIOUS) Michigan Professional Surveyor #46695
JOB # 2017022 ISSUED: 4-18-2017
TOTAL: 2,487 SQ. FT.
—100 SQ. FT. (PERVIOUS) DRAWN BY: TWVN REV: 6-21-2017
SCALE: 1 20 FEET
TOTAL 2,387 OR 28.5% 1
VAN NESTE SURVEYING
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES
85 WILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 VNS
PHONE (952) 686-3055 TOLL—FREE FAX (866) 473-0120
WWW.VANNESTESURVEYING.COM SHEET 1 OF 1
22'-0 -1'-0
1 4 0,,
22'-0
ILI
I
7_ F
2'-
w 6
Q
06
W6
EXISTING X
2 - 2x10 P.T. FLUSH BEAM WITH METAL---� C"I
P05T CAP ON (ox& F.T. POST ON
ISUIB-GARAGE METAL F05T BASE ON 12" DIA. x 48"
CONC, PIER W1 16" DIA, BOTTOM
EXISTING a" CONC. PLANKS
WITH 4" TOPPING E--
7
+1 NOTE: -:+I
GRADE BETWEEN
A EXISTING DOORS AS NEEDED
d) I ---------------------
V :::1TO MAINTAIN AGGE66
00 :::ITO EXISTING
w6
OVERHEAD DOOR
X :::iAND NEW ENTRY
lu
0) DOOR,
V I I NOTE:
---- ------------- - lu
GRAD BETWEEN DOORS
0 MECHANICAL/ AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN
B-3
-STORAGE/ EXISTING ACCESS TO EXISTING
X
STAIRS UP "I
OVER14EAD DOOR AND
LAUNDRY RM. EXISTING FOUNDATION AND
NEW ENTRY DOOR,
FOOTING - VERIFY IN FIELD
NEW MECH. OPENING -------
ZZ :J=—. - - — - — - — - L d) I I F
NEW WO x 18 STEEL BEAM LINTEL V 06
06 w
LU 0 0
0" THICK x ro'-O" CONIC. FOUND. ON
Q 0
D
24"xIO" CONC. FOOTING WITH
CIA - ENTRY X 2 - 05 CONTINUOUS RE-5AR
C-4 MD
01 rD IBEC>fRoom 5
0" THICK x ll' -3" CONC. FOUND, ON
M 20" FLOOR TRUSSEe
24"xIO" CONC. FOOTING WITH
2 - 05 CONTINUOUS RE -BAR
C11 0)
\D
EGRESSWEL[__ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------
AND WINDOW r
2xro BEARING WAI. 7' GIRDER FLOOR -TRUSS 01
X X ..... ------
-7 ------
pFg e--e7)r7);=
7
X
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ij C4 -------------
... RISERS 6
0
LL ----------
0 -------------------------
C14
C14
DOWN 4 C14
RISERS
Ql) -----------------------
1_1011 20" FLOOR TRUSSES
3
21-4 11 6 F� �- Iro' O.c.
CRAWL SPACE
11 11 11 1111 11 14 1 > I
--- __1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E\� - - - - - - - - - - 4-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
GIRDE;R FLOOR TRUSS C14 —5" THICK x W-21/8" CONC, FOUND, ON
B �
CIA 24"xIO" CONC. FOOTING WITH
F
0) 5EDFROOM 4 2 - #5 CONTINUOUS RE -BAR
0
01 1
&I' THICK x &'-0" CONC, FOUND. ON
21-011 20" FLOOR TRU55ES
24"xIO" CONC. FOOTING WITH
lcj,2" O,C. (P t-
2 - #5 CONTINUOUS RE-5AR
10,-e" 4'-1 11
4_
_5" THICK x 3'-ro" CONC. FOUND. ON
24"xIO" CONC. FOOTING WITH
2 - #5 CONTINUOUS IRE-5AR
(STEP DOWN WITH GRADE, VERIFY
IN FIELD)
GAS 0
FIREPLACE
RANGE
REF,
FAMILY ROOM ---
L - J.
>
WET 5AR
C,k
20" FLOOR TRUSSES 0 20" FLOOR TIRL45SES
SINK O'C'
Ira" O'C' A
C14
CNI
01
F
X
6" THICK x &'-0" CONC. FOUND. ON
24"xIO" CONC. FOOTING WITH
2 - 05 CONTINUOUS RE -BAR
-sIRADE IN FIELD)
(VERIFY C
E.
3 1 3/4" x 11 -1/6" LVL 3 - 1 3/4" x 11 1/a` LVL
--------------------------------------------
CUSTOM CSFD 14000
IT 11 K A
IL------ - ----- --------- I'l r Jdl)
P 1) 5
------ 2XI& �E EW 15 �T H
TO CONCRETE FOUNDATION WITH 6
1/2" DIA. KWIKSET BOLTS AT 15" O.C. 20"x2O"x12":::
IL
W d) STAGGERED
T11% ell
w 6
-0,
-0 &1
21"x2l"xif
�5 --------
- -:; - -_ S
0)
Ip
V
V
X F
L
u
16), 2 -f -O"
4tt) FINISHED SQUARE FEET:
AA
FLUSH BEAM AS NOTED WITH METAL
BASEMENT - loroci SQ,FT, q- "',
F05T CAP ON toxro P.T. PO T ON
METAL POST BASE ON CONIC. FTG,
AS NOTED
1�t ,,I Q 'I'l V,�
X =\ 00�)
C7�
-9
� /ON
A/777�-
. .........
FOUNDATION PLAN
5ASE IT FLOOR FLA'IIIIIIIIII
114" = V -O" 221-011 SCALE 1/4
24"DIA,_7
IC>
rCO DESIGN
drafting and home clealen
'C:O DESIGN
drafting and home design
9330 Thomas Avenue North
5rookl�n Park, MN 55444
Office 163-424-361(o
Cell 952-994-821(o
dedication to excellence
Prepared b�:
Todd Ofsthun
Office 163-424-3616
Cell �52-994-8216
toddistcodesign,net
IC>
rC.0 DESIGN
drafting and home design
'CO DESIGN
drafting and home design
�330 Thomas Avenue North
5rookl�n Park, MN 55444
Office 163-424-3616
Cell 952-994-821(o
dedication to excellence
Prepared b�:
Todd Ofethun
Office 163-424-3616
Cell S52 -S94-8216
toddetcoclesign,net
rro - 2 0 - III D
tu
Uj
ICU
Z
IC>
TCO DESIGN
drafting and home desigr
tco 201140
�A.3 oF (a
kFSH0
City of Orono
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address:
Prepared by:
Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 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 line and
calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width
Survey
Total
(Square Feet)
(Example) (Garage) (24' x 30')
(720 S.F.)
A
S. F.
B
S. F.
C
S. F.
D
S. F.
E
S. F.
F
S. F.
G
S. F.
H
S. F.
I
S. F.
i
S. F.
K
S. F.
L
S. F.
M
S. F.
N
S. F.
0
S.F.
P
S.F.
Q
S.. .
R
S.F.-
S
S.F.
T
S.F.
U
S.F.
V
S.. .
W
S.F.
X
S.F.
Y
S.F.
z
S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover =1
S.F.�
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684):
S.F.-
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F._j
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover
S. F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]
S. F.
(4) Total Lot Area
S. F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage (3) (4)
%
Variance Application - January 2017
Page 12
From: George
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: Germundsen, Ga
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:45:11 AM
Hi Melanie,
Thank you for sending this as we (Joanne & I) have not seen any revisions of the plans. One
thing that jumps out is; where does that severe jog on the west side originate from? The
lakeshore doesn't have that severe jog so I don't understand how the 7 5' setback line does.
As my mom passed away on June 4th, I have not been as involved in this as I would normally
have been. Gary has shared with me that a deck is now considered structural coverage and as
such, if a deck is constructed on the main living level (which in this case, I don't even know
which level that is since I've never seen a full set of plans), that can be replicated on all levels
without triggering any additional requirements or restrictions. And also, those structures could
at some point be enclosed either with screening or even enclosed to provide for additional
living space.
That's where our concern arises. If in fact the new house is allowed to extend that far into the
average setback area and eventually someone encloses the "deck" areas to expand the living
space, we have now extended the forty-five or so foot vertical surface further and further into
our "open space", blocking even more sunlight from our property.
While this encroachment certainly affects Gary more than it does us as it does in fact cut into
his lake views, which is one of the reasons people fortunate enough to be able to live on this
beautiful lake do so, it significantly changes what Joanne and I have become used to living
here for the last thirty years. Somewhat like living in a low-rise brownstone and having
someone build a shiny new tower next door.
Thank you once again for providing us an opportunity to provide feedback.
Best regards,
George
George Rppleboum
Shorewood Plaza UO
Ilemad Management Company
4109
orono, mn
p. 952.472.1270
a. 6 1 2.86S.4059
1. 9S2.472.7S 18
e. gopeleb@mchii.com
Sent from my Wad
From: George
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: Joanne Aimlebaurn
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:55:30 AM
Hi again Melanie,
There is one additional concern that I have. We have a large ash tree that sits very close to the
property line, actually probably on the line. When demolition of the old house and
construction of the new house commence, I'm assuming that the commotion will eventually
kill the tree as there is no way to avoid driving over the tree's root system.
While I'm not opposed to having the tree gone, I want to make sure that the new owners accept
full responsibility for removing the tree.
Thanks again,
George
George Opplebaum
Shorewood Plaza UO
llemad Management Oompany
4-04 F11�JAiWUO%i iW%VU
orono. mn 55364
p. 9S2.472.1270
a. 6 1 2.86S.4OS9
1. 952.472.75 18
e. gappleb@mch.ti.com
Sent from my !Pad
From: George
To: Melanie Curtis
Cc: Germundsen, Ga ; Joanne Applebaum
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 9:06:48 AM
Melanie,
Sorry, just noticed a couple of other things after opening the attached PDF. The egress well
and fireplace encroach further into the previously agreed to five foot setback variance. In fact,
it appears that the egress well extends to the property line; that is not acceptable to us in any
way ... five feet is five feet, not five feet unless they need to be closer to the line.
Regards,
George
George Rppleboum
Shorewood Plaza UO
Ilemad Management Company
4109 Ilighwood Road
orono. mn SS364
p. 952.472.1270
c. 612.86S.4059
0. 952.472.75 18
e. gappleb@mchii.com
Sent from my Wad
From: Melanie Curtis
To: "George Applebaum"
Cc: "Gary Germundsen"; "Joanne Applebaum"; Jeremy Barnha
Subject: RE: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 1:29:00 PM
Attachments:
See below in red.
Are you planning to attend Monday's Council meeting? The meeting begins at 7pm. Note, I will not be
present at the meeting. Jeremy Barnhart will be handling the variance application for me. I've copied him
on this response and have been keeping him in the loop. Should any questions arise at the meeting he
can address them.
Melanie Curtis
9952.249.4627 Erncurtis(a)ci.orono.mn.us
From: George Applebaum [mailto:gappleb@mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:28 AM
To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>
Cc: Gary Germundsen <Gary.Germundsen@colliers.com>; Joanne Applebaum
<jappleb@mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Revised Plans for 4105 Highwood #17-3940
Melanie,
Thanks for your response.
I . So, if I understand things correctly, the decks could never be enclosed with permanent
walls, only screening and only on the two lowest levels; correct? Yes, technically a permit
would be needed to enclose the decks with permanent walls and if the deck above becomes
a "roof" then variances would be necessary as the decks would then be considered to be
structure and included in the structural coverage.
2. 1 now understand where the jog comes from; thanks!
3. The ash tree is situated within the 75' setback so a permit to remove would have to be
issued if I understand the ordinances regarding removal of trees. Since the tree is very healthy
at this time (I have been treating it against the Emerald Ash Borer since the insect arrived in
this area), but dies as a result of construction and has to be removed at a later date, It will be
exponentially more difficult to remove due to access. I would like to see the removal
mandated as a requirement. I'm not sure the city can require him to remove a tree on your
property. You can apply for a "permit" to remove the tree. There is no cost for the permit
and likely a replacement tree would be required. Perhaps you can work this out with the
property owner.
4. The egress well and fireplace enclosure seem to be addressed in the portion of the code
you linked but it seems to be in a gray area (at least to me) as the code references "required
yard". Does this mean that even though ten feet is normally required as a side yard setback,
that if a variance is granted, allowing the proposed structure to encroach to within five feet of
the neighboring property, that the egress well can encroach an additional five feet into the
normal setback area, thereby nullifying any setback requirement at all? Same question as to
the fireplace enclosure other than the fact that it is only allowed to encroach a maximum of
two feet. In other words, does the issuance of a variance alter the definition of "required yard"
(may be a question for the city attorney)? Yes, absent the variances and the related plan your
interpretation is correct. The variances and the plan proposed to the Council show the egress
well and chimney chase within the setback and they will be included in the approved plan, if
approved.
Please feel free to condense any of my concerns you see to be appropriate to the council.
Best regards,
George
George Opplebaum
.................................
Shorewood Plaza LLC
Hexad Management Company
4109 Highwood Road
Orono, NIN 55364
p. 952.472.1270
c. 612.865.4059
f. 952.472.7518
e. Sopoleb@mch.,i.com
Please Note:
The information in this E-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the intended recipient, be
aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws.
If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not
further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify the sender and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.
On Jun 22, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Melanie Curtis <MCurtis(&ci.orono.mn.us> wrote:
Thank you. I will include your comments with the staff report for Monday's meeting.
One point of clarification, the City Council recently amended the Code regarding structural
coverage. They increased the maximum allowed to 20% from 15% (2,000 sf for lots under
10,000 sf). They also changed the status of decks. An unroofed deck is not considered in
the structural coverage calculations. As proposed although there is a deck above a deck
without a roof it isn't structure. They can, without further review by the City, screen in each
level (except the top)
Regarding the 75 -foot setback line, the measurement is a line parallel to the ordinary high
water level. So you see in measuring perpendicular to the shoreline the jog actually comes
from the shoreline on Gary's property (see image below).
<imageOO1.png>
Just saw your other two messages.
1. The ash tree should be handled privately between you and Jason.
2. Egress well. The egress well is addressed as a nonencroachment to a setback. City
Code section 78-1405 dictates which and how much of a feature can
encroach.https://Iibrary.municode.com/mn/orono/codes/code of ordinances?
nodeld=TITVILAUS CH78ZORE ARTXSURERE DIV2YAOPSP S78-1405NO
Considering the additional emails, please advise how you wish for me to distribute your
comments. Would you like me to forward all 3 emails to the Council or would you like to
consolidate your comments into one email?
Thank you!
Melanie
Melanie Curtis
2952.249.4627 Emcurtis(oki.orono.mn.us
From:
Germundsen, Gary
To:
Melanie Curtis
Cc:
George (gappleb(a)mchsixorn)
Subject:
4105. Highwood road.
Date:
Friday, June 23, 2017 9:21:48 AM
Melanie, I notice that the plan has changed on the east side on the revised plan that was approved
and submitted 6-1-2017. The walk way that was approved was 3 feet . now the new plan 4 shows
feet and at the door area has gone to 5 ft. I total oppose that. It should go back as approved by city
council on the draw that was submitted and drawing on 6-01. It will have 3 entrances into the house
which will created all the traffic on the east side. Due to the site views and according to the city
building codes the owner of the house could put up screen walls and block the view of which it's
hard to see thru I would like the cite to put in the approve that a screen porch cannot be built. The
deck in front is squared off , I'd like it to be built on the same angle as the house angle on the
southeast corner of the house , see survey The second floor deck will have the most effect of
blocking views and sunlight. I also agree George Applebaum that the deck should not be allowed in
the average setback area and effect sunlight or another addition down the road . The owner is
proposing three decks attached to the house on the front of the house, where everybody in the
neighborhood have two at the most, its starting to offensive looking not like the area houses. The
size of the house and amount its taking on the lot is almost too big for the lot . On the new deck plan
its showing further encroachment of which I feel should not be allowed. I will be at the meeting and
will talk at the meeting. Regards, Gary
---I
0
N)
00
0
X
N)
00
�p
A
0
I --j
0
cl
c
u
41
00
C/)
u ic
rr 1
;ul
cl
M
C)
rr i 7-\
U >
CU Z
cl
Al co
(3 0
u >
u
rr I >
Al r-
<
cl
cl co
u
0
0
0
C/)
rri
T
cl
:0
rri
ca
Ul
N
;u
Cl C
-q
ca :a
C] rri
�v
f
C, (/) =., z
< 0— C rT,
> CY z
23
v
0
>
r-
u
g
-3
A
C-
C
I
I z
al
al
cl
c
< CD
(D CD -7
(A
C:
CY x >
21 cl
M >
C/) < <
o o
0)
m
M33
65'
=:3
--' C) V, Fl�
cl
0
rrl
0
CD
al
ul
c
m
0 MX <
CD q
-
0
CO
%--� +
<
:13
c
m
cl
(D c
M
m
M U)
Ul
m
0 K: 0
C. I
CD
q
T,
o
:0
) V, m
F
:3 cl
em
Cl
X M
cl ;u
0 3
c:
rrl
(n
c (A
KI -C6 Z :�j
0
CL
CD <
-1 cli
C)
c
0)
0) CP m
cn V,
w
v
cl
CO
O'T
0
n
C4
C�
0
-
-P.Z*
O)t
0)
C4
;u
CD
m
;o
(D
00
CD
0 :3
7
CD
c
cl
CO
(a
CD
0
(D
rri
U)
a:
rri
m
- 77
c
-0 co * -0 rri -0
C: 0 O;ul X X
K: > 00 Ff) 0
0 X 0 -0 —4 -0
mo 05;0
0 :* 0 C/) C) C/)
C > rrl M rri
r- (-) 0 C) 0
C/) ;r\
rri 71 >
M X 0
0 > ;u
C- w <
rri *
I
X * � C 0) cn -Pi
>m—w— — —
A Ln V.
� m
offl-;C- - -
0 L4 ca,:� z
M
z 0
m ---I
> — -E Im
* )I
�o
CAI
K: KI r-1
z z 0
z z
C/)
00.
> C)
m 0
z c
z u
m
Z
C) m
0
c
z
0
.lr
C-
C/)
0 M
z
m
m 0
-TI
C/)
o 0
z 70
-u
6� x
c
-0
A
C: C:
-1 73
C)
Cn
cl
c
< CD
(D CD -7
CD
73 (D
Cl
C/) < <
o o
CD
-Tl
c 0 FJ)
v
-a
0
rrl
0
CD
>
CLI 0
CD q
-
0
CD :3
-1 C, I
%--� +
z
:13
c
m
cl
(D
3
Ul
m
0 K: 0
C. I
CD
q
T,
o
F
cl
0 3
c:
rrl
cl
CL
CD <
-1 cli
C)
c
CD C:
w
v
cl
CO
3
0
-
C -
m c 0
cl cl c
c
X
;u
CD
m
;o
CA
CD
0 :3
7
CD
c
cl
CO
0
CD
C)
(D
rri
73
0
CLI
K: KI r-1
z z 0
z z
C/)
00.
> C)
m 0
z c
z u
m
Z
C) m
0
c
z
0
.lr
C-
C/)
0 M
z
m
m 0
-TI
C/)
o 0
z 70
-u
6� x
c
-0
A
�rrl �m
— ?! --I x
ca
=i
cl
c
C\
<
>
Cl
-u
c
c 0 FJ)
v
c
0
rrl
>
m c
0
—71
IV" c
V.
c
Fri o m z
cl
0 0
C, 1:3
:13
c
m
cl
�A
m
Ul
m
0 K: 0
C. I
0
q
T,
m
F
cl
>
m C) C)
z
c
w
rrl
cl
C)
c
> cl 0
00 z
w
v
cl
cl
m
0
-
C -
m c 0
cl cl c
c
X
;u
m
;o
CA
m
z
c
cl
—;u ;u
C)
C)
rri
m
K: KI r-1
z z 0
z z
C/)
00.
> C)
m 0
z c
z u
m
Z
C) m
0
c
z
0
.lr
C-
C/)
0 M
z
m
m 0
-TI
C/)
o 0
z 70
0
m
33
mn
0
m
0
mn
(j)
c
33
m
0
r -
m
0
m
c
Ul
q
—71
IV" c
Z
:*
m > (n
cn
M
C)
> -
-0--,
cl
0 0
C, 1:3
M <
cl
�4�
(3 C
m
rri
>
-u
F
-u
m
0
m
33
mn
0
m
0
mn
(j)
c
33
m
Jeremy Barnhart
M
From: Jason Peterson <jasgooday@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 10:17 AM
To: George
Cc: Joanne Applebaum; Gary Germundsen; Melanie Curtis; Jeremy Barnhart
Subject: Re: Comments to city
Attachments: Overhead Image of Line.jpg; open view.pdf, Tree.docx
Hi George,
Most important I un very sorry to hear of your mother and Anelise and I send my condolences. There is a lot of
information being missed since you were out and it is hard to recap it all. In the end I have always done by best
to be accommodating to the many requests and changing needs of many people and the city while making an
significant improvement to the neighborhood.
The main home footprint only changed once and that was when we originally had the home wider going into
Gary's side set back. After many conversations we redesigned the home to not have the side set back although
in order to fit the interior plans it did move the front of the house out and that was agreed upon. it is hard to
articulate the many interior design items this effected and therefore having to yes make the most of the
footprint. We also updated the design of the ' lake side cut outs on both sides to help the view on Garys side we
have a 5 foot cut out which adds incremental design and material costs although my goal with this was to make
a nice home for the neighborhood and be accommodating as we can. We also re -designed the dock to have it at
angle and took the recommendation from the council and Gary on this. The architect has designed the deck
with a point to have the ability to reduce an extra post and reduce the visible beam for the neighbors ... We have
done all this with adding more visibility in mind as I have stressed to "design with neighbors in mind on the
entire project" I am not sure that everyone on this project would do that.
The big part that you are missing is the planning commission meeting that recommended we square the deck
and that placed it over the 75 foot line. they recommended this due to everything that is being removed from the
property within the 75 foot set back 1,500 sqft and they recommended a normal square functional deck. This
was not something we proposed although did lots of work to then update as we did not know it was problem
only to then change everything back to what the council requested and we even still did not add any deck on the
south east comer of the home to help ensure a better view for Gary even though it would be behind the set 75
set back. To your point of not getting "everything we want" this certainly is well taken. In addition for the
height and getting what we want we ofcourse would have wanted 9 foot ceiling in the second level and have 8
and have a pitch of the roof that looked more like garage to make it feel as one home a bit more.
The attached visuals might help to show what is getting removed and neighborhood set back view and how the
view is increasing due to this project and would hope that we see the efforts we are taking to be considerate of
all parties and focus on what is getting improved on the property.
Tom Betz the builder has a plan to significantly improve the water drainage on both sides of property and has a
plan to incorporate the egress window into the new poured foundation of the home. I see how the water from
your property and driveway runs onto my property which due to the slope of the hill on highwood it seems
some of this is inevitable. My hope is that we can work together and I can share the engineers"and Toms ides to
ensure the system is fully draining as it should.
As for the tree I was not aware it was on your side of the property although still happy to work together on the
solution as we discussed. I also attached a letter stating this. If you can please apply for the permit (Since I am
not able to is my understanding) and then we can coordinate from there.
As always I appreciate the support and please feel free to give me a call anytime this weekend we can discuss
further sometimes easier on the phone as Anelise and I are excited to live in the neighborhood and work
together on many future neighborly endeavors:).
BTW: We were out walking our dog this week and discovered I have an old co-worker friends who also live in
the neighborhood so that is nice.
Jason
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:38 AM, George <&aT2leb@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jason,
I have been out of the loop on your project as well as other things due to my Mom's recent health issues
resulting in her passing a couple of weeks ago so I may be missing key information. If that's the case, accept
my apologies.
I think the point is that at some point in the future, the deck areas could be screened in. I reluctantly agreed to
support your five foot setback variance to try to work with you but with each subsequent drawing that Gary
shared with me, your proposed house kept getting bigger and bigger. While I appreciate your efforts to reduce
the height of the proposed house it will still be a rather imposing structure that will effectively block any
sunlight from the eastern side of our property since it will be built within five feet of our property.
The egress well, while not technically an encroachment, is a gray area in my mind since I think the ordinance
could also be interpreted to say that the well must not extend to within five feet of an adjacent property line. As
an aside, how do plan on routing drainage around the well if it is in fact built to the property line?
The multiple revisions you reference seem to be caused more by your desire to push the envelope as far as
possible to the point that you are now getting push -back from your -neighbors. Have you ever considered that
you may be trying to shoehorn too much house onto that lot? You could eliminate any conflict with us by
moving your proposed house back to the ten foot setback and keeping your house within the average lakeshore
setback area. That last statement is just to illustrate the point that you may have to give up some of what you
want, just as all of us who have been through the process have done. As a very wise man once said; "You cawt
always get what you want".
Regarding the tree, do you intend to remove the tree or leave it. If you in fact are not going to remove it, I am
going to need something in writing referencing your responsibility to remove the tree at any point in the future.
I have a pretty full day today but will look forward to your response.
Regards,
George
G"rg* R"leboom
Shorewood Plaza LLC
Hexad Management Company
4109 Higbwood Road
Orono, MN 55364
p. 952.472.1270
c. 612.865AO59
f. 952A72.7518
e. eappleWmehoLoom,
sent 110M my Iftd
On Jun 22, 2017, at 10: 54 PM, Jason Peterson <jasgoodgy6Urnail.com> wrote:
Hi George,
Can we have a conversation about the connnents you sent to the city?
I wish we would have had time to discuss although I was so focused on reducing the height and
I recalled you said "'build as far to the lak ward as I wanted" I know u were just making a point.
and was taking the recommendations for the deck from Gary and The planning commission. So
a lot of revisions and work has been put it to this.
It has been a whirl win of issues from the planning commission advising one way and trying to
work with many requests and still have a home that will work for the narrow lots.
In short we designed the triangle deck to help the view for Gary and stay behind the 75 set back
line which was to conform. with city recommendation. We would never screen in the deck as
we love the open air and as you see would require further permits. We have a high visibility
wire railing as well to help reduce as well.
Currently the old house is blocking 48 feet of Gary view and new plan will open up that view
by 43 feet and we also cut out 5 foot section of house to also help accommodate. Keep in mind
we originally were in Gary set back 3 feet and then per request redesigned so we had to go out
ftu-ther
Also the egress and fireplace are non infiinging on a set back.
As for the tree I mentioned we can work that out no problem.
Just so u know we reduced the pitch on the roof to 7/12 1 believe as I advised Todd to do all he
could to reduce height and aligning the two floors to garage.
Look forward to discussing and appreciate the support.
Jason
00
M*
vo
From: Jason Peterson
To: Georoe
Cc: Joanne Apr)lebaum; Gary Germundsen; Melanie Curti ; Jeremy Barnha
Subject: Re: Comments to city
Date: Friday, June 23, 2017 10:17:44 AM
Attachments: ooen view.Dd
Tree.docx
Hi George,
Most important I am very sorry to hear of your mother and Anelise and I send my
condolences. There is a lot of information being missed since you were out and it is hard to
recap it all. In the end I have always done by best to be accommodating to the many requests
and changing needs of many people and the city while making an significant improvement to
the neighborhood.
The main home footprint only changed once and that was when we originally had the home
wider going into Gary's side set back. After many conversations we redesigned the home to
not have the side set back although in order to fit the interior plans it did move the front of the
house out and that was agreed upon. it is hard to articulate the many interior design items this
effected and therefore having to yes make the most of the footprint. We also updated the
design of the lake side cut outs on both sides to help the view on Gary's side we have a 5 foot
cut out which adds incremental design and material costs although my goal with this was to
make a nice home for the neighborhood and be accommodating as we can. We also re-
designed the deck to have it at angle and took the recommendation from the council and Gary
on this. The architect has designed the deck with a point to have the ability to reduce an extra
post and reduce the visible beam for the neighbors ... We have done all this with adding more
visibility in mind as I have stressed to "design with neighbors in mind on the entire project" I
am not sure that everyone on this project would do that.
The big part that you are missing is the planning commission meeting that recommended we
square the deck and that placed it over the 75 foot line. they recommended this due to
everything that is being removed from the property within the 75 foot set back 1,500 sqft and
they recommended a normal square functional deck. This was not something we proposed
although did lots of work to then update as we did not know it was problem only to then
change everything back to what the council requested and we even still did not add any deck
on the south east comer of the home to help ensure a better view for Gary even though it
would be behind the set 75 set back. To your point of not getting "everything we want" this
certainly is well taken. In addition for the height and getting what we want we ofcourse would
have wanted 9 foot ceiling in the second level and have 8 and have a pitch of the roof that
looked more like garage to make it feel as one home a bit more.
The attached visuals might help to show what is getting removed and neighborhood set back
view and how the view is increasing due to this project and would hope that we see the efforts
we are taking to be considerate of all parties and focus on what is getting improved on the
property.
Tom Betz the builder has a plan to significantly improve the water drainage on both sides of
property and has a plan to incorporate the egress window into the new poured foundation of
the home. I see how the water from your property and driveway runs onto my property which
due to the slope of the hill on highwood it seems some of this is inevitable. My hope is that we
can work together and I can share the engineers and Toms ides to ensure the system is fully
draining as it should.
As for the tree I was not aware it was on your side of the property although still happy to work
together on the solution as we discussed. I also attached a letter stating this. If you can please
apply for the permit (Since I am not able to is my understanding) and then we can coordinate
from there.
As always I appreciate the support and please feel free to give me a call anytime this weekend
we can discuss further sometimes easier on the phone as Anelise and I are excited to live in the
neighborhood and work together on many future neighborly endeavors:).
BTW: We were out walking our dog this week and discovered I have an old co-worker friends
who also live in the neighborhood so that is nice.
Jason
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:38 AM, George <ga12121eb(&,mchsJ.com> wrote:
Jason,
I have been out of the loop on your project as well as other things due to my Mom's recent
health issues resulting in her passing a couple of weeks ago so I may be missing key
information. If that's the case, accept my apologies.
I think the point is that at some point in the future, the deck areas could be screened in. I
reluctantly agreed to support your five foot setback variance to try to work with you but with
each subsequent drawing that Gary shared with me, your proposed house kept getting bigger
and bigger. While I appreciate your efforts to reduce the height of the proposed house it will
still be a rather imposing structure that will effectively block any sunlight from the eastern
side of our property since it will be built within five feet of our property.
The egress well, while not technically an encroachment, is a gray area in my mind since I
think the ordinance could also be interpreted to say that the well must not extend to within
five feet of an adjacent property line. As an aside, how do plan on routing drainage around
the well if it is in fact built to the property line?
The multiple revisions you reference seem to be caused more by your desire to push the
envelope as far as possible to the point that you are now getting push -back from your
neighbors. Have you ever considered that you may be trying to shoehorn too much house
onto that lot? You could eliminate any conflict with us by moving your proposed house back
to the ten foot setback and keeping your house within the average lakeshore setback area.
That last statement is just to illustrate the point that you may have to give up some of what
you want, just as all of us who have been through the process have done. As a very wise
man once said; "You can't always get what you want".
Regarding the tree, do you intend to remove the tree or leave it. If you in fact are not going
to remove it, I am going to need something in writing referencing your responsibility to
remove the tree at any point in the future.
I have a pretty full day today but will look forward to your response.
Regards,
George
George Rppleboum
.................................
Shorewood Plaza 11.0
llexad Management Oompany
-L I u'i avu,.
Orono. MR SS364
p. 9S2.472.1270
c. 6 1 2.86S.4OS9
1. 9S2.472.7S 18
e. goopleb@mchii.com
Sent $#am my Wad
On Jun 22, 2017, at 10:54 PM, Jason Peterson <jasgoodayJ& mail.com> wrote:
Hi George,
Can we have a conversation about the comments you sent to the city?
I wish we would have had time to discuss although I was so focused on
reducing the height and I recalled you said "build as far to the lak ward as I
wanted" I know u were just making a point. and was taking the
recommendations for the deck from Gary and The planning commission. So a
lot of revisions and work has been put it to this.
It has been a whirl win of issues from the planning commission advising one
way and trying to work with many requests and still have a home that will work
for the narrow lots.
In short we designed the triangle deck to help the view for Gary and stay behind
the 75 set back line which was to conform with city recommendation. We
would never screen in the deck as we love the open air and as you see would
require further permits. We have a high visibility wire railing as well to help
reduce as well.
Currently the old house is blocking 48 feet of Gary view and new plan will open
up that view by 43 feet and we also cut out 5 foot section of house to also help
accommodate. Keep in mind we originally were in Gary set back 3 feet and then
per request redesigned so we had to go out further
Also the egress and fireplace are non infringing on a set back.
As for the tree I mentioned we can work that out no problem.
Just so u know we reduced the pitch on the roof to 7/12 1 believe as I advised
Todd to do all he could to reduce height and aligning the two floors to garage.
Look forward to discussing and appreciate the support.
Jason
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 18 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3954 LLFD/ City of Orono Site Plan Emergency Dock
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain site plan approval to place a dock off of city
owned property near Molly's Comer (the 700 block of Shoreline Drive) for exclusive use of the Long
Lake Fire Department for their boat.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. This is not applicable.
3. Background/ Summary. The Fire Department wishes to store their boat in the water, in order to
facilitate rapid response to calls for service, particularly in the area of Big Island.
Use. The City owns a small, 1,751 square foot parcel on the east side of County Rd 15, south of a semi
improved shoulder parking area used by anglers. This parcel is included among the Lake Minnetonka
access points listed in the Comprehensive Plan, in the Parks, Trails, Open Spaces discussion and provides
vehicular lake access in the winter. The city currently provides docks at other locations, including Park
Lane, Loma Linda Avenue, Bayside Road, etc. It is not unprecedented to place a dock on otherwise
unimproved city property. The city currently provides docks at other locations, including Park Lane,
Loma Linda Avenue, Bayside Road, etc.
Proposal. The LLFD propose to place a 40-50 foot long dock. The lack depth in this location is
adequate for their boat. LMCD rules require a 20 foot setback for docks less than 50 feet long. Due to
the lot configuration, this setback cannot be achieved for a dock longer than 20 feet, a variance from the
LMCD is required. Further, the LMCD regulates docks, LMCD approval is required.
The city does not own land for parking; the fire department and other emergency responders will need to
stage in the parking lot, or in the Right of Way, both of which are operated by Hennepin County. This
may cause problems as the parking lot often fills up during periods of heavy lake use. The Fire
Department will need to respond and stage appropriately to avoid impacts on the County Road 15,
parking lot, and adjacent properties.
Hennepin County installed a dock for a similar purpose in 2016, staff suggests the same conditions as
required for that improvement, including fencing and no canopy. A canopy may negatively impact views
of the lake. Clearing of vegetation along the shore may be necessary to facilitate the dock and access.
The Council should discuss whether the proposed conditions are appropriate, or of other concems should
be addressed.
Prepared By: J. Barnhart
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: W
AGENDAITEM
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the dock, subject to the following
conditions:
a. LMCD approval of the dock variance
b. LMCD approval of the dock
c. No canopy installed
d. Secured with a fence and gate and appropriately signed to prohibit non -emergency use.
e. Dock may not be stored on the property during the off-season.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the site plan for LLFD placement of a dock and overnight boat storage with the
conditions as recommended by staff.
Exhibits
A. Proposed plans
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Bamhart Approved By: W
1,7
r
L: Al
X7
r4 i . . N ,
Its,
0� .. Nz
ir
jL
V4
40',0
was
9 ign
ir
4L
its
td
5AN
lop
-ADA
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 18 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: #17-3954 LLFD/ City of Orono Site Plan Emergency Dock
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department
Development Director Section: Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain site plan approval to place a dock off of city
owned property near Molly's Comer (the 700 block of Shoreline Drive) for exclusive use of the Long
Lake Fire Department for their boat.
2. Minnesota Statutes 15.99 Deadline. This is not applicable.
3. Background/ Summary. The Fire Department wishes to store their boat in the water, in order to
facilitate rapid response to calls for service, particularly in the area of Big Island.
Use. The City owns a small, 1,751 square foot parcel on the east side of County Rd 15, south of a semi
improved shoulder parking area used by anglers. This parcel is included among the Lake Minnetonka
access points listed in the Comprehensive Plan, in the Parks, Trails, Open Spaces discussion and provides
vehicular lake access in the winter. The city currently provides docks at other locations, including Park
Lane, Loma Linda Avenue, Bayside Road, etc. It is not unprecedented to place a dock on otherwise
unimproved city property. The city currently provides docks at other locations, including Park Lane,
Loma Linda Avenue, Bayside Road, etc.
Proposal. The LLFD propose to place a 40-50 foot long dock. The lack depth in this location is
adequate for their boat. LMCD rules require a 20 foot setback for docks less than 50 feet long. Due to
the lot configuration, this setback cannot be achieved for a dock longer than 20 feet, a variance from the
LMCD is required. Further, the LMCD regulates docks, LMCD approval is required.
The city does not own land for parking; the fire department and other emergency responders will need to
stage in the parking lot, or in the Right of Way, both of which are operated by Hennepin County. This
may cause problems as the parking lot often fills up during periods of heavy lake use. The Fire
Department will need to respond and stage appropriately to avoid impacts on the County Road 15,
parking lot, and adjacent properties.
Hennepin County installed a dock for a similar purpose in 2016, staff suggests the same conditions as
required for that improvement, including fencing and no canopy. A canopy may negatively impact views
of the lake. Clearing of vegetation along the shore may be necessary to facilitate the dock and access.
The Council should discuss whether the proposed conditions are appropriate, or of other concems should
be addressed.
Prepared By: J. Barnhart
Reviewed By: J. Barnhart
Approved By: W
AGENDAITEM
4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the dock, subject to the following
conditions:
a. LMCD approval of the dock variance
b. LMCD approval of the dock
c. No canopy installed
d. Secured with a fence and gate and appropriately signed to prohibit non -emergency use.
e. Dock may not be stored on the property during the off-season.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the site plan for LLFD placement of a dock and overnight boat storage with the
conditions as recommended by staff.
Exhibits
A. Proposed plans
Prepared By: J. Bamhart Reviewed By: J. Bamhart Approved By: W
1,7
r
L: Al
X7
r4 i . . N ,
Its,
0� .. Nz
ir
jL
V4
40',0
was
9 ign
ir
4L
its
td
5AN
lop
-ADA
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 20 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Orono Woods Contract
Presenter: Doug Reeder Agenda Section:
Interim City Administrator City Administrator's Report
1. Purpose. Request to approve a Declaration of Restrictive covenants for Orono Woods to replace the
existing lease.
2. Background. The City of Orono approved a TIF project in 2001 to help finance the construction of a
Senior Apartment which includes some below market units. At this time the owners of the building have
proposed to sell the building to a new owner. The new owner is an operator of many senior buildings and
has stated that their intent is to purchase the property to continue to operate it as a senior building and to
make improvements to the property.
When TIF project was approved there were the following requirements of the developer:
a. The city would have ownership of the property and the developer would lease it from the city for
$1 per year for 99 years and would keep the building a senior building with the below market
units.
b. The City would defer the SAC and WAC and Park Dedication payment and if the building would
continue to be operated as a senior building until 2024, these fees ($200,000) would be forgiven.
c. Orono residents and relatives would be given priority for occupancy if there is a waiting list
which there apparently is.
At this time the purchaser of the property is requesting the following; some of which may be negotiable:
a. Fee title to the property with a restrictive covenant document to replace the lease requirements of
keeping the building a senior building, giving Orono residents priority and maintaining below
market units.
b. No repayment of the park dedication and SAC and WAC.
c. Extension of the TIF until 2028.
d. The requirement that the building remain a senior building, allow Orono residents to have priority
and maintain the below market rents will end in 2044 rather than 2 100.
3. Cost. There is no cost to the city. If the city denies the request the TIF will remain in effect until 2024
when the taxes will then go back to the taxing j uri sdictions including the City of Orono. The park dedication
and SAC and WAC will be forgiven. If the TIF were extended for 4 years, as requested, the City loss in
tax revenue would be approximately $59,000 assuming no increase or decrease in tax rate or market value.
Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the City Council discuss the proposal and determine if the
terms of eliminating the lease are acceptable to the City.
Prepared By: MR Reviewed By: D51Z
Approved By: M
AGENDAITEM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to deny the requests of the purchaser to end the ground lease and replace it with the Restrictive
Covenants and the amendment to the Developers Agreement.
[$0
Motion to approve the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants as proposed or modified and the Amendment
to the Developers Agreement.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
B. Proposed Amendment to Developers Agreement
Prepared By: MR Reviewed By: M Approved By: M
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Declaration") is made and executed as of
2017 (the "Effective Date"), by
� LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
("Declarant"), to and in favor of the Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a politic
subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "HRA").
BACKGROUND
The HRA was previously the owner of fee title to certain real property located in the City
of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as legally described on Exhibit A (the "Property").
The HRA, and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"),
entered into a Development Agreement dated November 30, 2001 (as amended to date, the
"Development Agreement"), with Orono Senior Housing, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (the "Original Developer"). The HRA and the Original Developer also entered into a
99 -year Ground Lease of the Property dated November 30, 200 1, filed December 4, 200 1, as
Document No. 3466808, as amended by First Amendment to Ground Lease dated December 1
2006, filed December 29, 2006, as Document No. 4342059, (collectively, the "Ground Lease").
The transactions contemplated under the Development Agreement and the Ground Lease
involve the construction by the Original Developer of a 62 -unit senior rental apartment
development, parking facilities and related improvements on the Property (collectively, the
"Project"). The Project was financed, in part, pursuant to the proceeds of the bonds issued by the
City as its Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Orono Woods Apartment Project) Series 2001A, its
Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Orono Woods Apartment Project) Taxable Series 2001B, and
its Senior Housing Revenue Note (Orono Woods Apartment Project) Subordinate Series 2001C
(together the "Housing Bonds").
The Project is subject to certain tax increment financing as more particularly set forth in
the Development Agreement.
Pursuant to the terms of the Ground Lease, the Original Developer closed on the
mortgage financing made available through the proceeds of the Housing Bonds, constructed the
Project, leased the rental housing units to senior residents, and has managed and operated the
f00354123 I
Project up until the date hereof, all in compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement
and the Ground Lease.
With the approval of the City and the HRA, the Original Developer has, effective as of
the date of this document, sold and transferred its interest in the Project and under the Ground
Lease to the Declarant named above. In connection with the closing of the sale transaction, the
mortgage financing encumbering the Property and the Project securing the Housing Bonds has
been paid and satisfied in fall, and of record. In addition, as part of the sale transaction, pursuant
to separate instruments, the HRA has simultaneously conveyed fee title to the Project and the
Property to Declarant, subject to the Development Agreement, and pursuant to separate
instruments, the parties have terminated and released the Ground Lease of record. Pursuant to a
separate instrument, the parties have amended the Development Agreement to delete any
reference to the Ground Lease, but the Development Agreement otherwise remains in full force
and effect, and as an encumbrance against the Property and the Project.
Even though the Ground Lease has been terminated, the parties intend that certain of the
covenants and restrictions previously contained in the Ground Lease will continue to encumber
the Property and the Project. Accordingly, the parties have entered into this Declaration for such
purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
that the following restrictions and covenants will be deemed to be imposed on the Project and the
Property:
1. Recitals. The above "Background" recitals are expressly incorporated in this
Declaration by reference as if ftilly stated as additional terms and conditions of this Declaration.
2. Submission of Property to Declaration. This Declaration will be recorded
against the Property. The Property is hereby subjected to the provisions of this instrument, and
the Property will be owned, occupied, leased, sold, conveyed, mortgaged or otherwise
transferred subject to covenants of this instrument.
3. Covenants. The Declarant covenants that during the "Tenn" (as defined below):
a. The rental housing units in the Project will be rented only to persons fifty-
five (55) years of age or older (the "Senior Housing Restriction"). The Senior Housing
Restriction will be deemed satisfied if a married couple rents a rental housing unit in the
Project and one of the spouses is 55 years of age or older, even though the other spouse is
younger than 55 years of age. Moreover, if a housing unit is leased to a married couple,
one of whom is 55 years of age or older, and one of whom is less than 55 years of age,
and if the older spouse dies, or due to health reasons must relocate to a nursing home or
similar facility, then the younger spouse remaining in the housing unit will continue to be
deemed to meet and satisfy the Senior Housing Restriction, even if he/she is less than 55
years of age.
100354123
2
b. To the extent permitted by law, Declarant will give preference in the rental
of rental housing units in the Project which become vacant in the following order of
priority (the "Orono Preference Requirement"):
To persons who are residents or former residents of the City;
ii. To persons who have a child who is a resident of the City;
iii. Persons who have at any time been full time employees of the City
or an agency or department of the City; and
iv. Persons who are residents or former residence of the City of Long
Lake.
The Orono Preference Requirement will apply only if there is a waiting list for
available housing units.
Except for the Senior Housing Restriction and the Orono Preference Requirement
Declarant will not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national
origin or sex, affectional preference, disability, marital status or status with regard to public
assistance, in the lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Project. Any use of the Project
not authorized by this Section will be subject to the prior written approval of the HRA, which it
may deny in its absolute discretion.
4. Term. The restrictions and covenants of this Declaration will remain in effect
beginning on the Effective Date, and ending on the earlier of (i) December 31, 2042; or (ii) one
(1) year after the date of the substantial loss or destruction of the Property caused by fire,
windstorm, tornado, flood or other casualty, if the Project is not rebuilt within such year (the
"Term"). At the expiration of the Term, this Declaration will be null, void and of no further
force or affect without any further action, instrument or acknowledgment by the parties.
5. Covenants Runnini! With the Land. Declarant hereby agrees that it is the
express intent that each of the affirmative and negative covenants and restrictions set forth above
shall be construed to be, deemed, and is hereby declared to be a covenant running with the
Property and that the benefit and burden of such covenants and restrictions shall pass to, and be
binding upon Declarant's successors and assigns and shall be perpetual during the Tenn. Each
and every contract, lease, conveyance, agreement or other instrument hereafter executed
covering or conveying the Property or any part or portion thereof shall conclusively be held to
have acquired such interest in the Property or any portion thereof subject to the encumbrance of
this instrument, regardless of whether or not such instrument is set forth or referred to, or
specifically agreed to be perfortned by any such transferee, in any such contract, lease,
conveyance, agreement or other such instrument.
6. Remedies, Enforceabilit . In the event of a violation, or attempted violation of
any of the covenants or restrictions above, the HRA may institute and prosecute any proceeding
at law or in equity to abate, prevent or enjoin any such violation or to specifically enforce the
100354123
3
covenants therein set forth. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, enforcement of these
covenants and restrictions shall not result in any claim against the Project, or against the rents or
other income from the property. Until terminated or deleted as hereinafter provided, the
provisions hereof are imposed upon and made applicable to the Property and the Project and
shall be enforceable against the Declarant, each purchaser, grantee, owner or lessee of the Project
and the respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of each. No delay in
enforcing the provisions of said covenants and restrictions as to any breach or violation shall
impair, damage or waive the right to enforce the same or to obtain relief against or recover for
the continuation or repetition of such breach or violation or any similar breach or violation
thereof at any later time or times.
7. Attorneys' Fees to Prevailing Party. hi the event of any litigation between the
parties under any of the provisions of this instrument, the non -prevailing party to such
litigation agrees to pay to the prevailing party all costs and expenses (including, without
limitation, expert fees, costs of investigation, deposition costs, travel costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees) incurred by the prevailing party in such litigation. The determination of
whether a party is a "prevailing party," and the reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and other
costs recoverable, will all be reserved to and decided by the Judge presiding over such litigation.
The parties agree that the amount of attorneys' fees and other costs which may be awarded must
bear a reasonable relationship to, and must be limited by the Judge to a reasonable amount in
view of, the amount recovered or the relief obtained by the prevailing party.
8. Estoppel Certiflcate. Within fifteen (15) days after written request by any party
to this instrument, the other party will provide an executed and acknowledged certificate in
recordable form confinning (to the extent accurate) that this instrument remains in full force and
effect at such time, that there are no defaults or claimed defaults by any party under this
instrument, and providing such further factual assurances as may be reasonably requested.
9. Notices. Any notice or election herein required or permitted to be given or
serviced by any party hereto upon the other will be in writing and delivered in person, by email,
by electronic pdf, or recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express, UPS, etc.),
addressed as follows:
If to Declarant: � LLC
c/o Lang -Nelson Associates, Inc.
4601 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 650
Minneapolis, NIN 55416
Email: caitlinglanel.com
With a Copy to: David E. Kirkman
Ravich Meyer Kirkman McGrath Nauman
& Tansey, A Professional Association
150 South Fifth Street, #3450
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Email: dekirkmangravichmeyer.com
100354123
4
If to HRA: Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Attn:
With a Copy to:
Email:
Email:
Any such communication, if mailed as provided herein, will be deemed to have been received on
the expiration of four (4) business days after mailing. Any such communication, if sent by
recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express, UPS, etc.) will be deemed to have
been received on the first business day after the communication is sent by such means. Any
communication personally delivered or sent by email or electronic pdf will be deemed to have
been given upon delivery thereof in the manner above provided on the date delivered. If the last
day of a period within which either party is required or allowed to provide a notice, demand,
offer, election, acceptance or other communication hereunder should fall upon a Saturday,
Sunday or legal holiday then, the next full business day will be included in such period and such
notice, offer, demand, request or communication may be made and given on such next full
business day.
10. Governin2 Law. This Declaration will be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
[SEPARATE SIGNATURE PAGE ATTACHED]
100354123
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument as of the day
and year first indicated above.
9LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company
M
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Francis W. Lang
Its:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2017, by Francis W. Lang, the of
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on
behalf of said company.
Notary Public
100354123
6
ORONO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a politic subdivision under the
laws of the State of Minnesota
WE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Its:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2017, by the
of the Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a politic
subdivision under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Ravich Meyer Kirkman McGrath Nauman
& Tansey, A Professional Association
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3450
Minneapolis, MN 55402
100354123
7
EXHIBIT A
TO
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Parcel 1:
Lot 2, Block 1, Orono Ambar, according to the recorded plat.
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Torrens Property
Parcel 2:
Together with an easement for ponding purposes over part of the land depicted as Parcel 242A
on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-56, filed August 23, 1994,
as Document No. 2544283, and taken by the State of Minnesota in Amended Final Certificate
dated December 17, 1998, filed January 7, 1999, as Document No. 3106315, as created and
described in Easement Agreement dated March 16, 1998, filed May 22, 1998, as Document No.
3017952.
f00354123 I
AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Development Agreement is made and entered into effective as of
5 2017, between and among the City of Orono, a municipal corporation (the
"City"), and the Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a body corporate and politic, and
a political subdivision (collectively, the "HRA"), and
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer").
BACKGROUND
The City, the HRA and Orono Senior Housing, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
(the "Original Developer") are parties to that certain Development Agreement relating to Orono
Woods Apartments (including Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1) dated November 30,
2001 (collectively, the "Development Agreement"). All capitalized terms which are defined in the
Development Agreement will have the same meaning(s) when used in this Amendment.
Developer named above has succeeded to the interests of the Original Developer under the
Development Agreement, and with respect to the Development Property and the Project.
Developer named above will for all purposes be deemed to be the "Developer" under the
Development Agreement.
Effective as of the date of this Amendment, the Ground Lease referenced in the
Development Agreement has been terminated, and the City/HRA has conveyed fee title to the
Project and the Development Property to the Developer, subject to the terms of the Development
Agreement, as amended hereby. The Housing Bonds referenced in the Development Agreement
have been paid and satisfied of record and in full.
The parties wish to amend and modify certain provisions of the Development Agreement,
and have entered into this instrument to memorialize such changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
I . Term. The date of "February 1, 2024" appearing in Section 1.1(w) of the
Development Agreement is hereby amended to read: "
2. Signatures in Counterparts and/or by Electronic Transmission. The undersigned
agree that this instrument may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which will
constitute an original, and that an electronic pdf transmission of any signature, of any party, will
be deemed as enforceable and effective as an original signature. All such counterparts together
will constitute one and the same instrument.
f00354631 1
3. Development Agreement Unaffected. Except as modified or amended by this
instrument, the Development Agreement is and will remain in fall force and effect pursuant to its
terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument effective as of the
date first indicated above.
CITY OF ORONO,
a municipal corporation under the laws
of the State of Minnesota
M
Its:
ORONO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a political subdivision under the
laws of the State of Minnesota
wo
Its:
DEVELOPER:
� LLC'
a Minnesota limited liability company
By:
Francis W. Lang
Its:
0�
AGENDAITEM
Item No.: 21 Date: June 26, 2017
Item Description: Report on 2016 Audit
Presenter: Doug Reeder Agenda City Administrator's
Section: Report
1. Purpose.
2. Background.
3. Staff Recommendation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
No action is needed.
Exhibit
A. Governance Communication Delay of Issuance
Prepared By: AMC
Reviewed By: AMC
Approved By: W